Meghan R Flanagan1, Emily C Zabor2, Michelle Stempel1, Debra A Mangino1, Monica Morrow1, Melissa L Pilewskie3. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. pilewskm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of chemoprevention for breast cancer risk reduction has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials; however, use remains low. We sought to determine whether uptake differed by risk factors, and to identify reasons for refusal and termination. METHODS: Women seen in a high-risk clinic from October 2014 to June 2017 considered eligible for chemoprevention (history of lobular carcinoma in situ, atypia, family history of breast/ovarian cancer, genetic mutation, or history of chest wall radiation) were retrospectively identified. Breast cancer risk factors were compared among those with and without chemoprevention use, and compliance was noted. RESULTS: Overall, 1506 women were identified, 24% with prior/current chemoprevention use. Women ≥ 50 years of age were more likely to use chemoprevention than women < 50 years of age (28% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Chemoprevention use by risk factor ranged from 7 to 40%. Having multiple risk factors did not increase use. Significant variation by risk factor was present among women ≥ 50 years of age (p < 0.001), but not among women < 50 years of age (p = 0.1). Among women with a documented discussion regarding chemoprevention (575/1141), fear of adverse effects was the most common refusal reason (57/156; 36%). The majority of women (61%) who initiated chemoprevention completed 5 years. CONCLUSION: Chemoprevention use among women at increased risk for breast cancer remains low, with more frequent use among women ≥ 50 years of age. These data highlight the need for ongoing educational efforts and counseling, as the majority who begin therapy complete 5 years of use. Given the fear of adverse effects as well as low uptake, particularly among women < 50 years of age, alternative risk-reducing strategies are needed.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of chemoprevention for breast cancer risk reduction has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials; however, use remains low. We sought to determine whether uptake differed by risk factors, and to identify reasons for refusal and termination. METHODS:Women seen in a high-risk clinic from October 2014 to June 2017 considered eligible for chemoprevention (history of lobular carcinoma in situ, atypia, family history of breast/ovarian cancer, genetic mutation, or history of chest wall radiation) were retrospectively identified. Breast cancer risk factors were compared among those with and without chemoprevention use, and compliance was noted. RESULTS: Overall, 1506 women were identified, 24% with prior/current chemoprevention use. Women ≥ 50 years of age were more likely to use chemoprevention than women < 50 years of age (28% vs. 11%, p < 0.001). Chemoprevention use by risk factor ranged from 7 to 40%. Having multiple risk factors did not increase use. Significant variation by risk factor was present among women ≥ 50 years of age (p < 0.001), but not among women < 50 years of age (p = 0.1). Among women with a documented discussion regarding chemoprevention (575/1141), fear of adverse effects was the most common refusal reason (57/156; 36%). The majority of women (61%) who initiated chemoprevention completed 5 years. CONCLUSION: Chemoprevention use among women at increased risk for breast cancer remains low, with more frequent use among women ≥ 50 years of age. These data highlight the need for ongoing educational efforts and counseling, as the majority who begin therapy complete 5 years of use. Given the fear of adverse effects as well as low uptake, particularly among women < 50 years of age, alternative risk-reducing strategies are needed.
Authors: M C King; S Wieand; K Hale; M Lee; T Walsh; K Owens; J Tait; L Ford; B K Dunn; J Costantino; L Wickerham; N Wolmark; B Fisher Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-11-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S A Narod; J S Brunet; P Ghadirian; M Robson; K Heimdal; S L Neuhausen; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; C Lerman; B Pasini; P de los Rios; B Weber; H Lynch Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-12-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: S R Cummings; S Eckert; K A Krueger; D Grady; T J Powles; J A Cauley; L Norton; T Nickelsen; N H Bjarnason; M Morrow; M E Lippman; D Black; J E Glusman; A Costa; V C Jordan Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-06-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Silvana Martino; Jane A Cauley; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Trevor J Powles; John Mershon; Damon Disch; Roberta J Secrest; Steven R Cummings Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Melissa Anne Mallory; Karissa Whiting; Anna Park; Mithat Gönen; Elizabeth Gilbert; Tari A King; Melissa L Pilewskie Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Zexian Zeng; Andy Vo; Xiaoyu Li; Ali Shidfar; Paulette Saldana; Luis Blanco; Xiaoling Xuei; Yuan Luo; Seema A Khan; Susan E Clare Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-06-12
Authors: Brittany Bychkovsky; Alison Laws; Fisher Katlin; Marybeth Hans; Mary Knust Graichen; Lydia E Pace; Rochelle Scheib; Judy E Garber; Tari A King Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-04-04 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Patricia A Thompson; Chuan Huang; Jie Yang; Betsy C Wertheim; Denise Roe; Xiaoyue Zhang; Jie Ding; Pavani Chalasani; Christina Preece; Jessica Martinez; H-H Sherry Chow; Alison T Stopeck Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yash S Huilgol; Holly Keane; Yiwey Shieh; Robert A Hiatt; Jeffrey A Tice; Lisa Madlensky; Leah Sabacan; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Elad Ziv; Irene Acerbi; Mandy Che; Hoda Anton-Culver; Alexander D Borowsky; Sharon Hunt; Arash Naeim; Barbara A Parker; Laura J van 't Veer; Laura J Esserman Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-08-03