Author
Reena S. Cecchini
Other affiliations: University of British Columbia
Bio: Reena S. Cecchini is an academic researcher from University of Pittsburgh. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Tamoxifen. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 43 publications receiving 5004 citations. Previous affiliations of Reena S. Cecchini include University of British Columbia.
Topics: Breast cancer, Tamoxifen, Lumpectomy, Raloxifene, Internal medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Raloxifene is as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer and has a lower risk of thromboembolic events and cataracts but a nonstatistically significant higher risk of noninvasive breast cancer.
Abstract: ContextTamoxifen is approved for the reduction of breast cancer risk, and raloxifene has demonstrated a reduced risk of breast cancer in trials of older women with osteoporosis.ObjectiveTo compare the relative effects and safety of raloxifene and tamoxifen on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes.Design, Setting, and PatientsThe National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial, a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial conducted beginning July 1, 1999, in nearly 200 clinical centers throughout North America, with final analysis initiated after at least 327 incident invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Patients were 19 747 postmenopausal women of mean age 58.5 years with increased 5-year breast cancer risk (mean risk, 4.03% [SD, 2.17%]). Data reported are based on a cutoff date of December 31, 2005.InterventionOral tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) over 5 years.Main Outcome MeasuresIncidence of invasive breast cancer, uterine cancer, noninvasive breast cancer, bone fractures, thromboembolic events.ResultsThere were 163 cases of invasive breast cancer in women assigned to tamoxifen and 168 in those assigned to raloxifene (incidence, 4.30 per 1000 vs 4.41 per 1000; risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.28). There were fewer cases of noninvasive breast cancer in the tamoxifen group (57 cases) than in the raloxifene group (80 cases) (incidence, 1.51 vs 2.11 per 1000; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98-2.00). There were 36 cases of uterine cancer with tamoxifen and 23 with raloxifene (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35-1.08). No differences were found for other invasive cancer sites, for ischemic heart disease events, or for stroke. Thromboembolic events occurred less often in the raloxifene group (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.91). The number of osteoporotic fractures in the groups was similar. There were fewer cataracts (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) and cataract surgeries (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99) in the women taking raloxifene. There was no difference in the total number of deaths (101 vs 96 for tamoxifen vs raloxifene) or in causes of death.ConclusionsRaloxifene is as effective as tamoxifen in reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer and has a lower risk of thromboembolic events and cataracts but a nonstatistically significant higher risk of noninvasive breast cancer. The risk of other cancers, fractures, ischemic heart disease, and stroke is similar for both drugs.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003906Published online June 5, 2006 (doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074).
1,513 citations
••
TL;DR: Despite the potential bias caused by the unblinding of the P-1 trial, the magnitudes of all beneficial and undesirable treatment effects of tamoxifen were similar to those initially reported, with notable reductions in breast cancer and increased risks of thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer.
Abstract: Background: Initial fi ndings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (P-1) demonstrated that tamoxifen reduced the risk of estrogen receptor – positive tumors and osteoporotic fractures in women at increased risk for breast cancer. Side effects of varying clinical signifi cance were observed. The trial was unblinded because of the positive results, and follow-up continued. This report updates our initial fi ndings. Methods: Women (n = 13 388) were randomly assigned to receive placebo or tamoxifen for 5 years. Rates of breast cancer and other events were compared by the use of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confi dence intervals (CIs). Estimates of the net benefi t from 5 years of tamoxifen therapy were compared by age, race, and categories of predicted breast cancer risk. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After 7 years of follow-up, the cumulative rate of invasive breast cancer was reduced from 42.5 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 24.8 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.70) and the cumulative rate of noninvasive breast cancer was reduced from 15.8 per 1000 women in the placebo group to 10.2 per 1000 women in the tamoxifen group (RR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45 to 0.89). These reductions were similar to those seen in the initial report. Tamoxifen led to a 32% reduction in osteoporotic fractures (RR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.92). Relative risks of stroke, deep-vein thrombosis, and cataracts (which increased with tamoxifen) and of ischemic heart disease and death (which were not changed with tamoxifen) were also similar to those initially reported. Risks of pulmonary embolism were approximately 11% lower than in the original report, and risks of endometrial cancer were about 29% higher, but these differences were not statistically signifi cant. The net benefi t achieved with tamoxifen varied according to age, race, and level of breast cancer risk. Conclusions: Despite the potential bias caused by the unblinding of the P-1 trial, the magnitudes of all benefi cial and undesirable treatment effects of tamoxifen were similar to those initially reported, with notable reductions in breast cancer and increased risks of thromboem bolic events and endometrial cancer. Readily identifi able sub sets of individuals comprising 2.5 million women could derive a net benefi t from the drug. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1652 – 62]
1,230 citations
••
TL;DR: Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxfene in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity.
Abstract: The selective estrogen-receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen became the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved agent for reducing breast cancer risk but did not gain wide acceptance for prevention, largely because it increased endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. The FDA approved the SERM raloxifene for breast cancer risk reduction following its demonstrated effectiveness in preventing invasive breast cancer in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR). Raloxifene caused less toxicity (versus tamoxifen), including reduced thromboembolic events and endometrial cancer. In this report, we present an updated analysis with an 81-month median follow-up. STAR women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/d) or raloxifene (60 mg/d) for 5 years. The risk ratio (RR; raloxifene:tamoxifen) for invasive breast cancer was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.47) and for noninvasive disease, 1.22 (95% CI, 0.95-1.59). Compared with initial results, the RRs widened for invasive and narrowed for noninvasive breast cancer. Toxicity RRs (raloxifene:tamoxifen) were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.36-0.83; P = 0.003) for endometrial cancer (this difference was not significant in the initial results), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.12-0.29) for uterine hyperplasia, and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60-0.93) for thromboembolic events. There were no significant mortality differences. Long-term raloxifene retained 76% of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in preventing invasive disease and grew closer over time to tamoxifen in preventing noninvasive disease, with far less toxicity (e.g., highly significantly less endometrial cancer). These results have important public health implications and clarify that both raloxifene and tamoxifen are good preventive choices for postmenopausal women with elevated risk for breast cancer.
575 citations
••
Mercy Medical Center (Baltimore, Maryland)1, University of Pittsburgh2, Ohio State University3, Virginia Commonwealth University4, Allegheny Health Network5, University of Colorado Boulder6, University of California, Los Angeles7, Carnegie Mellon University8, American College of Radiology9, Yonsei University10, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center11, Mayo Clinic12, University of Michigan13, Orlando Health14, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center15, Laval University16, Beaumont Hospital17, St. Agnes Hospital18, Thomas Jefferson University19, Emory University20
TL;DR: This trial investigated whether APBI provides equivalent local tumour control after lumpectomy compared with whole-breast irradiation in patients with early-stage breast cancer.
279 citations
••
TL;DR: There was no difference in total deaths, and causes of death were similarly distributed in the 2 groups, and no group differences were documented for invasive cancer at other sites, ischemic heart disease events, or strokes.
Abstract: The selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) tamoxifen has long been used to treat both early and advanced breast cancer. Raloxifene is a second-generation SERM that, in addition to combatting osteoporosis, may also lessen the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women; The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) is a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial conducted at nearly 200 clinical centers throughout North America. Participating were 19,747 postmenopausal women whose mean age was 58.5 years and whose 5-year breast cancer risk was increased at 4.03%. The minimal 5-year risk for entering the trial was 1.66%. The women received either 20 mg tamoxifen or 60 mg raloxifene daily for 5 years. During a mean follow up of 3.9 years, there were 163 cases of invasive breast cancer in women assigned to receive tamoxifen and 268 in those assigned to raloxifene, for respective incidence rates of 4.3 and 4.4 per 1000 and a risk ratio (RR) of 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.28). Noninvasive breast cancers were less numerous in the tamoxifen group (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98-2.00), but uterine cancers were more frequent in this group (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35-1.08). No group differences were documented for invasive cancer at other sites, ischemic heart disease events, or strokes. Thromboembolic events were less frequent in raloxifene-treated women. Women in the 2 treatment groups had similar numbers of osteoporotic fractures. Those taking raloxifene had fewer cataracts and underwent fewer cataract surgeries. There was no difference in total deaths, and causes of death were similarly distributed in the 2 groups.
279 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: It is suggested that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units, outpatients, and referrals to social services, but for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services.
Abstract: admission. This proportion could already be greater in some parts of the country and may increase if referrals of cases of self-poisoning increase faster than the facilities for their assessment and management. The provision of social work and psychiatric expertise in casualty departments may be one means of preventing unnecessary medical admissions without risk to the patients. Dr Blake's and Dr Bramble's figures do not demonstrate, however, that any advantage would attach to medical teams taking over assessment from psychiatrists except that, by implication, assessments would be completed sooner by staff working on the ward full time. What the figures actually suggest is that if assessment of overdoses were left to house doctors there would be an increase in admissions to psychiatric units (by 19°U), outpatients (by 5O°'), and referrals to social services (by 140o). So for house doctors to assess overdoses would provide no economy for the psychiatric or social services. The study does not tell us what the consequences would have been for the six patients who the psychiatrists would have admitted but to whom the house doctors would have offered outpatient appointments. E J SALTER
4,497 citations
••
TL;DR: This article discusses the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and is part of the Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition).
3,944 citations
••
University of Utah1, University of Michigan2, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust3, Ohio State University4, Indiana University5, St. Jude Medical Center6, University of Queensland7, Beaumont Hospital8, BC Cancer Agency9, University of Rochester10, Harvard University11, American Society of Clinical Oncology12, National Institutes of Health13, Baylor College of Medicine14, Sungkyunkwan University15, University of the West of England16, Tohoku University17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, University of Toronto19, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System20, Mayo Clinic21, University of Washington22, Memorial Hospital of South Bend23, University of Texas at Austin24, Johns Hopkins University25
TL;DR: An international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance recommended that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences.
Abstract: Purpose To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance. Results Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria. Recommendations The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.
3,902 citations
••
TL;DR: The Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis was developed by an expert committee of the National Osteiporosis Foundation in collaboration with a multispecialty council of medical experts in the field of bone health convened by NOF.
Abstract: The Clinician’s Guide to Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis was developed by an expert committee of the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) in collaboration with a multispecialty council of medical experts in the field of bone health convened by NOF. Readers are urged to consult current prescribing information on any drug, device, or procedure discussed in this publication.
2,926 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on optimal prophylaxis to reduce postoperative pulmonary embolism and DVT following major orthopedic surgery, and suggest the use of low-molecular-weight heparin in preference to the other agents we have recommended as alternatives.
2,516 citations