Second non-breast primary cancer following adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer: a report from the International Breast Cancer Study Group

Imaging Radiation Doses and Associated Risks and Benefits in Subjects Participating in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Medical imaging is commonly required in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials to assess the efficacy and/or safety of study interventions. Despite the lack of definitive epidemiological data linking imaging radiation with cancer development in adults, concerns exist about the risks of imaging radiation-induced malignancies (IRIMs) in subjects exposed to repetitive imaging. We estimated the imaging radiation dose and IRIM risk in subjects participating in BC trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The imaging protocol requirements in 10 phase III trials in the adjuvant and advanced settings were assessed to estimate the effective radiation dose received by a typical and fully compliant subject in each trial. For each study, the excess lifetime attributable cancer risk (LAR) was calculated using the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Risk Assessment Tool, version 3.7.1. Dose and risk calculations were performed for both imaging intensive and nonintensive approaches to reflect the variability in imaging performed within the studies.

RESULTS

The total effective imaging radiation dose was 0.4-262.2 mSv in adjuvant trials and 26-241.3 mSv in metastatic studies. The dose variability resulted from differing protocol requirements and imaging intensity approaches, with computed tomography, multigated acquisition scans, and bone scans as the major contributors. The mean LAR was 1.87-2,410/100,000 in adjuvant trials (IRIM: 0.0002%-2.41% of randomized subjects) and 6.9-67.3/100,000 in metastatic studies (IRIM: 0.007%-0.067% of subjects).

CONCLUSION

IRIMs are infrequent events. In adjuvant trials, aligning the protocol requirements with the clinical guidelines' surveillance recommendations and substituting radiating procedures with equivalent nonradiating ones would reduce IRIM risk. No significant risk has been observed in metastatic trials, and potential concerns on IRIMs are not justified.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Medical imaging is key in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. Most of these procedures expose patients to ionizing radiation, and the risk of second cancer development after imaging has prompted recent concerns and controversy. Using accepted calculation models, the number of malignancies were estimated that were potentially attributable to the imaging procedures performed during a patient's participation in BC clinical trials. The results show that for patients participating in metastatic trials, the risk of imaging radiation-induced malignancies is negligible. In adjuvant trials, some second cancers due to imaging could be expected, and measures can be taken to reduce their risk.

Toremifene versus tamoxifen for advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Toremifene (TOR) and tamoxifen (TAM) can both be used as treatments for advanced breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of TOR with TAM in patients with advanced breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register was searched (1 July 2011) using the codes for "toremifene", "fareston", "tamoxifen, "nolvadex, and "breast cancer". We also searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (from inception to 1 July 2011), EMBASE (via Ovid) (from inception to 1 July 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (1 July 2011). In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials or reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety, or both of TOR with TAM in women with advanced breast cancer. Trials that provided sufficient data on one of the following items: objective response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and adverse events, were considered eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality. Two review authors independently extracted the following details: first author, publication year, country, years of follow-up, treatment arms, intention-to-treat (ITT) population size, menopausal status of patients, hormone receptor status, response criteria, efficacy and safety outcomes of TOR and TAM arms. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and response and adverse events were analysed as dichotomous variables. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 2061 patients from seven RCTs were included for final analysis, with 1226 patients in the TOR group and 835 patients in the TAM group. The ORR for the TOR group was 25.8% (316/1226) whereas, the ORR for the TAM group was 26.9% (225/835). The pooled risk ratio (RR) suggested that the ORRs were not statistically different between the two groups (RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.18, P = 0.83). The median TTP was 6.1 months for the TOR group and 5.8 months for the TAM group. The median OS was 27.8 months for the TOR group and 27.6 months for the TAM group. There were no significant differences in TTP and OS between the two therapeutic groups (for TTP: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; for OS: HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.20). The frequencies of most adverse events were also similar in the two groups, while headache seemed to occur less in the TOR group than in the TAM group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.74, P = 0.02). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies in most of the above meta-analyses. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

TOR and TAM are equally effective and the safety profile of the former is at least not worse than the latter in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Thus, TOR may serve as a reasonable alternative to TAM when anti-oestrogens are applicable but TAM is not the preferred choice for some reason.

Cancer survivors in the United States: a review of the literature and a call to action

BACKGROUND

The number of cancer survivors in the U.S. has increased from 3 million in 1971, when the National Cancer Act was enacted, to over 12 million today. Over 70% of children affected by cancer survive more than 10 years, and most are cured. Most cancer survivors are adults, with two-thirds of them 65 years of age or older and two-thirds alive at five years. The most common cancer diagnoses among survivors include breast, prostate and colorectal cancers. This review was conducted to better appreciate the challenges associated with cancer survivors and the opportunities healthcare providers have in making a difference for these patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of literature based on PubMed searches on topics related to cancer survivorship, and associated physical, cognitive, socio-economic, sexual/behavioral and legal issues.

RESULTS

At least 50% of cancer survivors suffer from late treatment-related side effects, often including physical, psychosocial, cognitive and sexual abnormalities, as well as concerns regarding recurrence and/or the development of new malignancies. Many are chronic in nature and some are severe and even life-threatening. Survivors also face issues involving lack of appropriate health maintenance counseling, increased unemployment rate and workplace discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer will lead to more survivors and better quality of life. However, tools to recognize potentially serious long-lasting side effects of cancer therapy earlier in order to treat and/or prevent them must be developed. It is incumbent upon our health care delivery systems to make meeting these patients' needs a priority.

Endometrial mullerian adenosarcoma after toremifene treatment in breast cancer patients: a case report

Toremifene is an anti-estrogen which has been shown to be effective in the treatment of breast cancer, and is thought to be a less uterotrophic agent than tamoxifen. The risk assessment concerning endometrial cancer has been inconclusive because of its rare use up to the mid-1990s. We report a case of an adenosarcoma, which is a very rare type of uterine malignancy, after toremifene treatment for 5 years in a breast cancer patient. After 1 year of toremifene use, the patient had a benign Mullerian adenofibroma. After an additional 4 years of toremifene treatment, the endometrial polypoid lesion was transformed into a Mullerian adenosarcoma. Although toremifene is a promising anti-estrogenic agent in the treatment of breast cancer patients, clinicians should not neglect the possibility of a uterine malignancy.