Anthony Howell

Bio: Anthony Howell is an academic researcher from University of Manchester. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Tamoxifen. The author has an hindex of 120, co-authored 714 publications receiving 55075 citations. Previous affiliations of Anthony Howell include University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center & University of Nottingham.

Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial.

Abstract: Summary Background The Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of anastrozole (1 mg) with tamoxifen (20 mg), both given orally every day for 5 years, as adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. In this analysis, we assess the long-term outcomes after a median follow-up of 120 months. Methods We used a proportional hazards model to assess the primary endpoint of disease-free survival, and the secondary endpoints of time to recurrence, time to distant recurrence, incidence of new contralateral breast cancer, overall survival, and death with or without recurrence in all randomised patients (anastrozole n=3125, tamoxifen n=3116) and hormone-receptor-positive patients (anastrozole n=2618, tamoxifen n=2598). After treatment completion, we continued to collect data on fractures and serious adverse events in a masked fashion (safety population: anastrozole n=3092, tamoxifen n=3094). This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN18233230. Findings Patients were followed up for a median of 120 months (range 0–145); there were 24 522 woman-years of follow-up in the anastrozole group and 23 950 woman-years in the tamoxifen group. In the full study population, there were significant improvements in the anastrozole group compared with the tamoxifen group for disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·83–0·99; p=0·04), time to recurrence (0·84, 0·75–0·93; p=0·001), and time to distant recurrence (0·87, 0·77–0·99; p=0·03). For hormone-receptor-positive patients, the results were also significantly in favour of the anastrozole group for disease-free survival (HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·78–0·95; p=0·003), time to recurrence (0·79, 0·70–0·89; p=0·0002), and time to distant recurrence (0·85, 0·73–0·98; p=0·02). In hormone-receptor-positive patients, absolute differences in time to recurrence between anastrozole and tamoxifen increased over time (2·7% at 5 years and 4·3% at 10 years) and recurrence rates remained significantly lower on anastrozole than tamoxifen after treatment completion (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·67–0·98; p=0·03), although the carryover benefit was smaller after 8 years. There was weak evidence of fewer deaths after recurrence with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen treatment in the hormone-receptor-positive subgroup (HR 0·87, 95% CI 0·74–1·02; p=0·09), but there was little difference in overall mortality (0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·06; p=0·4). Fractures were more frequent during active treatment in patients receiving anastrozole than those receiving tamoxifen (451 vs 351; OR 1·33, 95% CI 1·15–1·55; p vs 112; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·74–1·30; p=0·9). Treatment-related serious adverse events were less common in the anastrozole group than the tamoxifen group (223 anastrozole vs 369 tamoxifen; OR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48–0·69; p vs 78; OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·60–1·19; p=0·3). No differences in non-breast cancer causes of death were apparent and the incidence of other cancers was similar between groups (425 vs 431) and continue to be higher with anastrozole for colorectal (66 vs 44) and lung cancer (51 vs 34), and lower for endometrial cancer (six vs 24), melanoma (eight vs 19), and ovarian cancer (17 vs 28). No new safety concerns were reported. Interpretation These data confirm the long-term superior efficacy and safety of anastrozole over tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer. Funding AstraZeneca.

Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: a phase III, double-blind, comparative trial.

Abstract: PURPOSE Zoledronic acid, a new and more potent bisphosphonate, was compared with pamidronate, the current standard treatment for patients with osteolytic or mixed bone metastases/lesions. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1,648 patients with either Durie-Salmon stage III multiple myeloma or advanced breast cancer and at least one bone lesion were randomly assigned to treatment with either 4 or 8 mg of zoledronic acid via 15-minute intravenous infusion or 90 mg of pamidronate via 2-hour intravenous infusion every 3 to 4 weeks for 12 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing at least one skeletal-related event over 13 months. RESULTS The proportion of patients with at least one skeletal-related event was similar in all treatment groups. Median time to the first skeletal-related eventwas approximately 1 year in each treatment group. The skeletal morbidity rate was slightly lower in patients treated with zoledronic acid than in those treated with pamidronate, and zoledronic acid (4 mg) significantly decreased the incidence and event rate for radiation therapy to bone, both overall and in breast cancer patients receiving hormonal therapy. Pain scores decreased in all treatment groups in the presence of stable or decreased analgesic use. Zoledronic acid (4 mg) and pamidronate were equally well tolerated; the most common adverse events were bone pain, nausea, fatigue, and fever and < 5% of serious adverse events were related to the study drug. The incidence of renal impairment among patients treated with 4 mg of zoledronic acid via 15-minute infusion was similar to that among patients treated with pamidronate. CONCLUSIONS Zoledronic acid (4 mg) via 15-minute intravenous infusion was as effective and well tolerated as 90 mg of pamidronate in the treatment of osteolytic and mixed bone metastases/lesions in patients with advanced breast cancer or multiple myeloma. (Can-

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer

Abstract: Breast cancer patients with the same stage of disease can have markedly different treatment responses and overall outcome. The strongest predictors for metastases (for example, lymph node status and histological grade) fail to classify accurately breast tumours according to their clinical behaviour. Chemotherapy or hormonal therapy reduces the risk of distant metastases by approximately one-third; however, 70-80% of patients receiving this treatment would have survived without it. None of the signatures of breast cancer gene expression reported to date allow for patient-tailored therapy strategies. Here we used DNA microarray analysis on primary breast tumours of 117 young patients, and applied supervised classification to identify a gene expression signature strongly predictive of a short interval to distant metastases ('poor prognosis' signature) in patients without tumour cells in local lymph nodes at diagnosis (lymph node negative). In addition, we established a signature that identifies tumours of BRCA1 carriers. The poor prognosis signature consists of genes regulating cell cycle, invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis. This gene expression profile will outperform all currently used clinical parameters in predicting disease outcome. Our findings provide a strategy to select patients who would benefit from adjuvant therapy.

A Gene-Expression Signature as a Predictor of Survival in Breast Cancer

Abstract: Background A more accurate means of prognostication in breast cancer will improve the selection of patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. Methods Using microarray analysis to evaluate our previously established 70-gene prognosis profile, we classified a series of 295 consecutive patients with primary breast carcinomas as having a gene-expression signature associated with either a poor prognosis or a good prognosis. All patients had stage I or II breast cancer and were younger than 53 years old; 151 had lymph-node–negative disease, and 144 had lymph-node–positive disease. We evaluated the predictive power of the prognosis profile using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses. Results Among the 295 patients, 180 had a poor-prognosis signature and 115 had a good-prognosis signature, and the mean (±SE) overall 10-year survival rates were 54.6±4.4 percent and 94.5±2.6 percent, respectively. At 10 years, the probability of remaining free of distant metastases was 50.6±4.5 percent in the group with a...

Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer.

Abstract: Background In 1976, we initiated a randomized trial to determine whether lumpectomy with or without radiation therapy was as effective as total mastectomy for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. Methods A total of 1851 women for whom follow-up data were available and nodal status was known underwent randomly assigned treatment consisting of total mastectomy, lumpectomy alone, or lumpectomy and breast irradiation. Kaplan–Meier and cumulative-incidence estimates of the outcome were obtained. Results The cumulative incidence of recurrent tumor in the ipsilateral breast was 14.3 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy and breast irradiation, as compared with 39.2 percent in the women who underwent lumpectomy without irradiation (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed among the three groups of women with respect to disease-free survival, distant-disease–free survival, or overall survival. The hazard ratio for death among the women who underwent lumpectomy alone, as compared with those wh...