Tamoxifen Dose De-Escalation: An Effective Strategy for Reducing Adverse Effects?

Tamoxifen, a cornerstone in the adjuvant treatment of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, significantly reduces breast cancer recurrence and breast cancer mortality; however, its standard adjuvant dose of 20 mg daily presents challenges due to a broad spectrum of adverse effects, contributing to high discontinuation rates. Dose reductions of tamoxifen might be an option to reduce treatment-related toxicity, but large randomized controlled trials investigating the tolerability and, more importantly, efficacy of low-dose tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting are lacking. We conducted an extensive literature search to explore evidence on the tolerability and clinical efficacy of reduced doses of tamoxifen. In this review, we discuss two important topics regarding low-dose tamoxifen: (1) the incidence of adverse effects and quality of life among women using low-dose tamoxifen; and (2) the clinical efficacy of low-dose tamoxifen examined in the preventive setting and evaluated through the measurement of several efficacy derivatives. Moreover, practical tools for tamoxifen dose reductions in the adjuvant setting are provided and further research to establish optimal dosing strategies for individual patients are discussed.

Radiotherapy versus low-dose tamoxifen following breast-conserving surgery for low-risk and estrogen receptor-positive breast ductal carcinoma in situ: an international open-label randomized non-inferiority trial (TBCC-ARO DCIS Trial)

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy (RT) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is mainly used to decrease the rate of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) in women with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recent studies have demonstrated that low-dose tamoxifen significantly reduces IBTR in breast DCIS. Here, we aim to determine whether the administration of low-dose tamoxifen is non-inferior to RT in preventing IBTR in patients with low-risk characteristics of breast DCIS.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a prospective, international, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial. Patients with low-risk clinicopathologic features (> 40 years old, low risk of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) 1 and BRCA2 mutations, mammographically detected unicentric and non-mass lesions, low- or intermediate-grade without comedo or necrosis, measuring < 2.5 cm with margins ≥ 3 mm, and estrogen receptor-positive status) of DCIS who underwent BCS will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio to either receive tamoxifen (5 mg/day) for 5 years or undergo RT with conventional fractions (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or hypofractionations (40.05 Gy in 15 fractions). Randomization will be stratified by the Taiwan Breast Cancer Consortium. As approximately 5% of patients cannot tolerate the side effects of low-dose tamoxifen and will receive RT, we estimate that 405 patients will be randomized to a low-dose tamoxifen arm and 405 patients to the RT arm, according to a non-inferiority margin within 5% of IBTR difference and 90% β-power noticing non-inferiority. The primary endpoints are breast tumor recurrence, including ipsilateral, regional, contralateral, and distant recurrence of breast DCIS or invasive cancer. The secondary endpoints are overall survival and adverse effects of RT and tamoxifen. Translational studies will also be conducted for this trial.

DISCUSSION

This is the first non-inferiority trial on breast DCIS. This study will provide an important recommendation for clinical physicians on whether to use low-dose adjuvant tamoxifen for patients with low-risk breast DCIS who do not want to receive adjuvant RT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT04046159, Registered on April 30, 2019.

Targeting nuclear hormone receptors for the prevention of breast cancer

Advancements in research have led to the steady decline of breast cancer mortality over the past thirty years. However, breast cancer incidence has continued to rise, resulting in an undue burden on healthcare costs and highlighting a great need for more effective breast cancer prevention strategies, including targeted chemo preventative agents. Efforts to understand the etiology of breast cancer have uncovered important roles for nuclear receptors in the development and progression of breast cancer. Targeted therapies to inhibit estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) signaling (selective ER modulators, aromatase inhibitors and selective PR modulators) have shown great promise for the treatment and prevention of hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer. However, these drugs do not prevent HR-negative disease. Therefore, recent efforts have focused on novel targeted therapies with the potential to prevent both HR-positive and HR-negative breast cancer. Among these include drugs that target other nuclear receptors, such as retinoic acid receptor (RAR), retinoid X receptor (RXR) and vitamin D receptor (VDR). In this review we provide an overview of recent preclinical and clinical trials targeting members of the nuclear receptor superfamily for the prevention of breast cancer.

Reassessing the Benefits and Harms of Risk-Reducing Medication Considering the Persistent Risk of Breast Cancer Mortality in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Recent studies, including a meta-analysis of 88 trials, have shown higher than expected rates of recurrence and death in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. These new findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the use of risk-reducing medication to avoid invasive breast cancer and breast cancer death in high-risk women.

METHODS

We adapted an established Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network model to evaluate the lifetime benefits and harms of risk-reducing medication in women with a ≥ 3% 5-year risk of developing breast cancer according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk calculator. Model input parameters were derived from meta-analyses, clinical trials, and large observational data. We evaluated the effects of 5 years of risk-reducing medication (tamoxifen/aromatase inhibitors) with annual screening mammography ± magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with no screening, MRI, or risk-reducing medication. The modeled outcomes included invasive breast cancer, breast cancer death, side effects, false positives, and overdiagnosis. We conducted subgroup analyses for individual risk factors such as age, family history, and prior biopsy.

RESULTS

Risk-reducing tamoxifen with annual screening (± MRI) decreased the risk of invasive breast cancer by 40% and breast cancer death by 57%, compared with no tamoxifen or screening. This is equivalent to an absolute reduction of 95 invasive breast cancers, and 42 breast cancer deaths per 1,000 high-risk women. However, these drugs are associated with side effects. For example, tamoxifen could increase the number of endometrial cancers up to 11 per 1,000 high-risk women. Benefits and harms varied by individual characteristics.

CONCLUSION

The addition of risk-reducing medication to screening could further decrease the risk of breast cancer death. Clinical guidelines for high-risk women should consider integrating shared decision making for risk-reducing medication and screening on the basis of individual risk factors.

Alternative dosing of exemestane in postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. Design and methods of a randomized presurgical trial

Introduction:

Aromatase inhibitors are effective in lowering breast cancer incidence among postmenopausal women, but adverse events represent a barrier to their acceptability and adherence as a preventive treatment. This study aims to assess whether lowering exemestane schedule may retain biological activity while improving tolerability in breast cancer patients.

Methods/design:

We are conducting a, pre-surgical, non-inferiority phase IIb study in postmenopausal women with newly diagnosed estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Participants are randomized to receive either exemestane 25 mg/day or 25 mg/three times-week or once a week for 4 to 6 weeks prior to surgery.

The primary endpoint is the percentage change of serum estradiol concentration between baseline and surgery comparing the three arms. Sample size of 180 women was calculated assuming a 6% non-inferiority of the percent change of estradiol in the lower dose arms compared with the 80% decrease predicted in the full dose arm, with 80% power and using a one-sided 5% significance level and a two-sample t-test.

Main secondary outcomes are: safety; change in Ki-67 in cancer and adjacent pre-cancer tissue, circulating sex hormones, adipokines, lipid profile, insulin and glucose changes, in correlation with drug and metabolites concentrations.

Results and discussion:

The present paper is focused on methodology and operational aspects of the study. A total of 180 participants have ben enrolled. The trial is still blinded, and the analyses are ongoing.

Despite the short term duration, results may have relevant implications for clinical management of women at increased risk of developing a ER positive breast cancer.

Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

FINDINGS

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

Risk-reducing medications for primary breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.Using a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.For the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.For the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.For the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.An indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).

Clinical Trials for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is a non-obligatory precursor to invasive breast carcinoma, with a variable natural history and biological potential for progression to invasive disease. Over the past 30 years, clinical trials have applied the therapeutic principles used for invasive carcinoma to treat DCIS (surgery, with or without breast radiotherapy, and post-operative endocrine therapy), with excellent survival outcomes, and in-breast recurrence rates that range from 0.5 to 1% annually. However, half of such recurrences are again in-situ lesions, and intensive therapy is likely not necessary for all patients. Current clinical research is focused on a better characterization of the potential of individual lesions to progress to invasive disease, and to identify women who would do well with lesser treatment. Three ongoing trials in the United States and Europe randomize women to active surveillance (with or without endocrine therapy) versus usual treatment with surgery and radiotherapy. The use of pre-operative endocrine therapy has been evaluated in a recently completed trial of letrozole use in postmenopausal women with DCIS; and in on-going trials of tamoxifen, used either orally, or as a 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel formulation for application to the breast skin. This review summaries the major past and current clinical trials of DCIS, and the likely trajectories of DCIS management in the near future.

Quality of Life in a Randomized Breast Cancer Prevention Trial of Low-Dose Tamoxifen and Fenretinide in Premenopausal Women

Menopausal symptoms are the main reason for withdrawal in tamoxifen prevention trials. Here, we present Menopause Quality of Life (MenQoL) assessment within a randomized 2 × 2 phase II clinical trial of low-dose tamoxifen and the synthetic retinoid fenretinide. A total of 235 premenopausal women at higher risk for breast cancer were randomized to either tamoxifen 5 mg daily, fenretinide 200 mg daily, their combination, or placebo. Climacteric symptoms were investigated using the MenQoL questionnaire which was self-administered at each visit for 2 years of treatment and for 1 year of follow-up. CYP2D6 was genotyped in subjects taking tamoxifen to study the association with menopausal symptoms. The MenQoL effect size analysis showed no statistically significant difference among the four treatment arms for all four domains (vasomotor, physical, psychosocial, and sexual). Vasomotor symptoms only slightly increased under tamoxifen, with a score at year two of 1.45, 1.21, 0.58, and 1.17 in the combined, tamoxifen, fenretinide, and placebo arms, respectively. Compared with the slow metabolizers, a higher percentage of subjects with CYP2D6 extensive metabolizer genotype complained of a ≥3 score in the vasomotor, psychosocial, and sexual domain in the tamoxifen arms (P value = 0.01, 0.007, and 0.007, respectively). QoL in premenopausal or perimenopausal women was not significantly worsened by low-dose tamoxifen or fenretinide. Our findings suggest that a low dose of tamoxifen may increase its acceptability for breast cancer prevention.

Worry and risk perception of breast cancer in a prevention trial of low dose tamoxifen in midlife postmenopausal hormone users

OBJECTIVE

There is increasing interest in combining postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) and SERMs in midlife women. We previously showed that refusal to participate in a prevention trial of low dose tamoxifen in HT users was associated with higher worry about breast cancer. Given this counterintuitive finding, we studied which factors influenced worry and risk perception of breast cancer.

METHODS

We assessed the relationships of breast cancer worry and risk perception with age, age at menopause, Gail risk, education, adherence to mammographic screening, BMI, smoking, physical activity, alcohol use, anxiety and depression in 457 midlife HT users who were eligible to participate in the trial.

RESULTS

Women with menopause <48 years were more worried about breast cancer than women with menopause >52 years (OR = 5.0, 95% CI, 1.2-21.1). Worry was also associated with high absolute risk perception and former smoking. Factors associated with higher risk perception were age>60 years, at-risk life style, worry about breast cancer and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

The inverse association between early menopause and worry about breast cancer is in contrast with the known protective effect of early menopause on breast cancer risk and seems to reflect a feeling of aging and disease vulnerability. Our findings indicate that worry about cancer has an affective construct which is independent of breast cancer biology but is engaged in health decision making. Increasing breast cancer risk awareness in subjects high in worry without a plan of emotional coping may therefore be counterproductive because of avoidant attitudes.

Short-term and long-term effects of tibolone in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Tibolone is a synthetic steroid used for the treatment of menopausal symptoms, on the basis of short-term data suggesting its efficacy. We considered the balance between the benefits and risks of tibolone.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tibolone for treatment of postmenopausal and perimenopausal women.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2015, we searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and clinicaltrials.gov. We checked the reference lists in articles retrieved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tibolone versus placebo, oestrogens and/or combined hormone therapy (HT) in postmenopausal and perimenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes were vasomotor symptoms, unscheduled vaginal bleeding and long-term adverse events. We evaluated safety outcomes and bleeding in studies including women either with or without menopausal symptoms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 46 RCTs (19,976 women). Most RCTs evaluated tibolone for treating menopausal vasomotor symptoms. Some had other objectives, such as assessment of bleeding patterns, endometrial safety, bone health, sexuality and safety in women with a history of breast cancer. Two included women with uterine leiomyoma or lupus erythematosus. Tibolone versus placebo Vasomotor symptomsTibolone was more effective than placebo (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.89; seven RCTs; 1657 women; moderate-quality evidence), but removing trials at high risk of attrition bias attenuated this effect (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.49; odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 85% CI 0.27 to 0.41). This suggests that if 67% of women taking placebo experience vasomotor symptoms, between 35% and 45% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleedingTibolone was associated with greater likelihood of bleeding (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.70; nine RCTs; 7814 women; I2 = 43%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 18% of women taking placebo experience unscheduled bleeding, between 31% and 44% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse eventsMost of the studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Breast cancerWe found no evidence of differences between groups among women with no history of breast cancer (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.25; four RCTs; 5500 women; I2= 17%; very low-quality evidence). Among women with a history of breast cancer, tibolone was associated with increased risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; two RCTs; 3165 women; moderate-quality evidence). Cerebrovascular eventsWe found no conclusive evidence of differences between groups in cerebrovascular events (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.04; four RCTs; 7930 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). We obtained most data from a single RCT (n = 4506) of osteoporotic women aged 60 to 85 years, which was stopped prematurely for increased risk of stroke. Other outcomesEvidence on other outcomes was of low or very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows:• Endometrial cancer: OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.24; nine RCTs; 8504 women; I2 = 0%.• Cardiovascular events: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.27; four RCTs; 8401 women; I2 = 0%.• Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.97; 9176 women; I2 = 0%.• Mortality from any cause: OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; four RCTs; 8242 women; I2 = 0%. Tibolone versus combined HT Vasomotor symptomsCombined HT was more effective than tibolone (SMD 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.28; OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66; nine studies; 1336 women; moderate-quality evidence). This result was robust to a sensitivity analysis that excluded trials with high risk of attrition bias, suggesting a slightly greater disadvantage of tibolone (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.10). This suggests that if 7% of women taking combined HT experience vasomotor symptoms, between 8% and 14% of women taking tibolone will do so. Unscheduled bleedingTibolone was associated with a lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.41; 16 RCTs; 6438 women; I2 = 72%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 47% of women taking combined HT experience unscheduled bleeding, between 18% and 27% of women taking tibolone will do so. Long-term adverse eventsMost studies reporting these outcomes provided follow-up of two to three years (range three months to three years). Evidence was of very low quality, with no clear evidence of any differences between the groups. Effect estimates were as follows:• Endometrial cancer: OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 9.33; five RCTs; 3689 women; I2 = 0%.• Breast cancer: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.67; five RCTs; 4835 women; I2 = 0%.• Venous thromboembolic events: OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.14; four RCTs; 4529 women; I2 = 0%.• Cardiovascular events: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.66; two RCTs; 3794 women; I2 = 0%.• Cerebrovascular events: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.66; four RCTs; 4562 women; I2 = 0%.• Mortality from any cause: only one event reported (two RCTs; 970 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that tibolone is more effective than placebo but less effective than HT in reducing menopausal vasomotor symptoms, and that tibolone is associated with a higher rate of unscheduled bleeding than placebo but with a lower rate than HT.Compared with placebo, tibolone increases recurrent breast cancer rates in women with a history of breast cancer, and may increase stroke rates in women over 60 years of age. No evidence indicates that tibolone increases the risk of other long-term adverse events, or that it differs from HT with respect to long-term safety.Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality. Limitations included high risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies were financed by drug manufacturers or failed to disclose their funding source.

A pooled analysis of CYP2D6 genotype in breast cancer prevention trials of low-dose tamoxifen

Decreased CYP2D6 activity is associated with lower levels of active tamoxifen metabolites. We examined the impact of CYP2D6 genotype on tamoxifen pharmacokinetics, biomarker activity, and efficacy in a pooled analysis of low-dose tamoxifen. Four randomized breast cancer prevention trials of very-low-dose (1 mg/day, n = 52 or 10 mg/week, n = 152) or low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg/day, n = 171) were pooled. DNA from 367 subjects was genotyped for CYP2D6 alleles associated with absent (PM allele: *3, *4, *5, *6, *7, *8, *12, and *14), reduced (IM allele: *9, *10, *17, *29, *41), normal (EM allele), or increased (UM: *XN) enzyme activity. Associations of tamoxifen, metabolites, activity biomarkers, and event-free survival with rapid (UM/EM, UM/IM, EM/EM, EM/IM, or EM/PM alleles) versus slow metabolizers (PM/IM or PM/PM) were investigated through random effects models, with 'study' as the random factor, and Cox regression models, adjusting for confounders. Rapid metabolizers had higher endoxifen levels than slow metabolizers: 15.3 versus 12.2 ng/mL (P = 0.018) with 5 mg/day, and 3.8 versus 2.8 ng/mL (P = 0.004) with 1 mg/day or 10 mg/week tamoxifen. The IGF-I decrease correlated with endoxifen (P = 0.002) and 4-hydroxytamoxifen levels, demonstrating steeper decreases at higher metabolite levels (P = 0.001). After a median follow-up of 12 years, rapid metabolizers with prior history of breast neoplasms allocated to tamoxifen 5 mg/day had a 60 % reduction of risk of recurrences (HR = 0.40, 95 % CI: 0.16-0.99) compared to slow metabolizers. CYP2D6 genotype may have an impact on tamoxifen efficacy at low doses. Trials investigating tamoxifen dose adjustments based on the woman's hormonal context and CYP2D6 genotype are warranted.

Positive association of female overactive bladder symptoms and estrogen deprivation: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

Estrogen is considered to be a unique hormone in females that has an impact on voiding function. Animal models and clinical epidemiologic studies showed high correlation between estrogen deficiency and female overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms. We designed a population-based cohort study from a national health database to assess the association of estrogen deprivation therapy and female OAB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examined the records of 16,128 patients ranging in age from 18 to 40 that were included in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in the years between 2001 and 2010. Of these, 1008 had breast cancer with hormone therapy only and the other 15,120 controls did not have breast cancer or hormone therapy. All patients with neurologic diseases and those with pre-existing OAB identified by information in the NHIRD database were excluded. OAB was defined by medications prescribed for at least 1 month. Risk of new onset OAB in the breast cancer and nonbreast cancer groups was estimated. Fourteen patients (1.4%) experienced OAB in the breast cancer group. Overall, breast cancer with estrogen deprivation therapy increased the risk of OAB by 14.37-fold (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval 7.06-29.27). Subgroup analysis showed that in the older age breast cancer group (36-40), a lower Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score and antidepressant medication use for at least 30 days had an impact on the increase of OAB risk. After adjustment of variables, the higher CCI and the use of antipsychotic drugs increased risk of OAB 3.45-fold and 7.45-fold, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analysis of OAB-free survival in the breast cancer group showed a significant time-dependent increase in incidence of OAB.

CONCLUSION

Estrogen deprivation in young patients with breast cancer increased the risk of OAB. The OAB development rate was steady and fast in the beginning 3 years after estrogen deprivation. This result indicates a role of estrogen in the modulation of female voiding function.

Cancer Prevention and Interception: A New Era for Chemopreventive Approaches

At several recent, internationally attended scientific meetings, including the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)'s "Shaping the Future of Cancer Prevention: A Roadmap for Integrative Cancer Science and Public Health" summit in Leesburg (VA) and the AACR Annual Meeting in New Orleans, the focus on cancer prevention to reduce cancer-related deaths was extensively discussed with renewed attention and emphasis. Cancer prevention should be actively proposed even to healthy individuals, and not just to individuals with high cancer risk. We discuss evaluation of a high cancer risk versus the relatively low risk for side effects of chemopreventive agents. The concept of cancer interception, which is halting transformed cells from becoming malignant cancers, should be adopted for cancer prevention. Potential prevention/interception actions include adopting healthy life style and avoiding carcinogens, repressing inflammation and pathologic angiogenesis, controlling metabolism, correcting insulin resistance and other metabolic alterations. Current drugs with limited toxicity can be repurposed to reduce cancer incidence. Aspirin is now being recommended for the prevention of colorectal cancer and it prevents other neoplasms as well. Metformin and β-blockers could be valuable for reducing pancreatic and breast cancer onset. On the basis of the evaluation of cancer risk, we here call for personalized approaches for cancer prevention and preventive interception and we envisage a list of measures and potential guidelines for preventive and interceptive strategies to reduce cancer burden. Investment into translational research to bring these approaches into public health policies and in the clinic is urgently needed. Clin Cancer Res; 22(17); 4322-7. ©2016 AACR.

Barriers to preventive therapy for breast and other major cancers and strategies to improve uptake

The global cancer burden continues to rise and the war on cancer can only be won if improvements in treatment go hand in hand with therapeutic cancer prevention. Despite the availability of several efficacious agents, utilisation of preventive therapy has been poor due to various barriers, such as the lack of physician and patient awareness, fear of side effects, and licensing and indemnity issues. In this review, we discuss these barriers in detail and propose strategies to overcome them. These strategies include improving physician awareness and countering prejudices by highlighting the important differences between preventive therapy and cancer treatment. The importance of the agent-biomarker-cohort (ABC) paradigm to improve effectiveness of preventive therapy cannot be overemphasised. Future research to improve therapeutic cancer prevention needs to include improvements in the prediction of benefits and harms, and improvements in the safety profile of existing agents by experimentation with dose. We also highlight the role of drug repurposing for providing new agents as well as to address the current imbalance between therapeutic and preventive research. In order to move the field of therapeutic cancer prevention forwards, engagement with policymakers to correct research imbalance as well as to remove practical obstacles to implementation is also urgently needed.

Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Several agents have been advocated for breast cancer primary prevention. However, few of them appear effective, the associated severe adverse effects limiting their uptake.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the ability of chemoprevention agents (CPAs) to reduce the incidence of primary breast carcinoma. Using network meta-analysis, we ranked CPAs based simultaneously on efficacy and acceptability (an inverse measure of toxicity). All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

We found 48 eligible RCTs, enrolling 271 161 women randomly assigned to receive either placebo or one of 21 CPAs. Aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and exemestane, considered a single CPA class because of the lack of between-study heterogeneity; relative risk [RR] = 0.468, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.346 to 0.634), arzoxifene (RR = 0.415, 95% CI = 0.253 to 0.682), lasofoxifene (RR = 0.208, 95% CI = 0.079 to 0.544), raloxifene (RR = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.372 to 0.881), tamoxifen (RR = 0.708, 95% CI = 0.595 to 0.842), and tibolone (RR = 0.317, 95% CI = 0.127 to 0.792) were statistically significantly associated with a therapeutic effect, which was restricted to estrogen receptor-positive tumors of postmenopausal women (except for tamoxifen, which is active also during premenopause). Network meta-analysis ranking showed that the new selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, and raloxifene have the best benefit-risk ratio. Aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen ranked second and third, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide physicians and health care regulatory agencies with RCT-based evidence on efficacy and acceptability of currently available breast cancer CPAs; at the same time, we pinpoint how much work still remains to be done before pharmacological primary prevention becomes a routine option to reduce the burden of this disease.

Breast cancer prevention with anti-estrogens: review of the current evidence and future directions

There is a potential for reducing the incidence of breast cancer by modifying or changing the reversible risk factors like dietary modifications, modifications in the sedentary life habits, etc. One of such methods which has gained popularity now is chemoprevention. Many agents have been evaluated in the chemoprevention setting in females with increased risk of breast cancers. Metformin, NSAIDS, Bisphosphonates, and statins were evaluated by various investigators with variable results. One of the agents that have been proven to be beneficial in this setting is the anti-estrogens. A major disadvantage of chemoprevention is that unlike prophylactic mastectomy it can never reduce the risk to near zero although it reduces the risk significantly. Another issue is the compliance as chemoprevention with anti-estrogens will need to be continued for 5 years while surgery is a one-time procedure. Another disadvantage is the possible side effects peculiar to each drug used which may not be a significant concern in prophylactic mastectomy group. All these factors must also be kept in mind and properly explained to the patient before starting chemoprevention using anti-estrogens. Here in this review we intend to look into the large randomized controlled trials to quantify the present status of chemoprevention with anti-estrogens.

Alternate dosing schedules for cancer chemopreventive agents

Pharmacologic interventions for cancer risk reduction involve the chronic administration of synthetic or natural agents to reduce or delay the occurrence of malignancy. Despite the strong evidence for a favorable risk-benefit ratio for a number of agents in several common malignancies such as breast and prostate cancer, the public's attitude toward cancer chemoprevention remains ambivalent, with the issue of toxicity associated with drugs being perceived as the main barrier to widespread use of preventive therapy by high-risk subjects. Among the strategies to overcome such obstacles to preventive therapies, two novel and potentially safer modes of administering agents are discussed in this paper. The first strategy is to lower the dose of drugs that are in common use in the adjuvant setting based on the notion that prevention of cancer cells from developing should require a lower dose than eradicating established tumor cells. A second approach is to adopt an intermittent administration similar to what is used in the chemotherapy setting in an attempt to minimize risks while retaining benefits. This article provides a detailed discussion of the principles and future development of these two approaches in the direction of a precision preventive medicine.

Cancer chemoprevention: Much has been done, but there is still much to do. State of the art and possible new approaches

Over the past three decades great efforts have been made in search of cancer chemoprevention strategies. The increase in knowledge of the long process from normal to cancer cell has enabled interventions in terms of lifestyle modifications, natural compounds or drugs to block or reverse the process. Great successes have been achieved, especially for breast and colorectal cancer. However, these strategies have yet to find clinical application on a large scale. In this article we identify the achievements, the pitfalls and the next steps to be taken to improve the efficacy and applicability of chemoprevention strategies. Among the crucial key points to be implemented are educational activities for physicians to appropriately disseminate the aim and indeed the culture of chemoprevention. It is essential to improve the risk-benefit balance, seeking the minimal active doses, intermittent schedules, a better characterization of the risk categories via a more personalized intervention based on individual characteristics, and ensure the containment of costs of public and private health prevention programs.

Breast cancer prevention

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women with 232,670 new cases estimated in the USA for 2014. Approaches for reducing breast cancer risk include lifestyle modification, chemoprevention, and prophylactic surgery. Lifestyle modification has a variety of health benefits with few associated risks and is appropriate for all women regardless of breast cancer risk. Chemoprevention options have expanded rapidly, but most are directed at estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and uptake is low. Prophylactic surgery introduces significant additional risks of its own and is generally reserved for the highest risk women.