scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Therese B. Bevers

Other affiliations: University of Texas at Austin
Bio: Therese B. Bevers is an academic researcher from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Cancer. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 98 publications receiving 6331 citations. Previous affiliations of Therese B. Bevers include University of Texas at Austin.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
21 Jun 2006-JAMA
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This manuscript discusses the diagnostic evaluation of individuals with suspected breast cancer due to either abnormal imaging and/or physical findings.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis have been developed to facilitate clinical decision making. This manuscript discusses the diagnostic evaluation of individuals with suspected breast cancer due to either abnormal imaging and/or physical findings. For breast cancer screening recommendations, please see the full guidelines on NCCN.org.

383 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors treated with either radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection or radiotherapy.
Abstract: Purpose To compare quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors treated with either radical hysterectomy and lymph node dissection or radiotherapy. Methods Women were interviewed at least 5 years after initial treatment for cervical cancer. Eligible women had squamous cell tumors smaller than 6 cm at diagnosis, were currently disease-free, and had either undergone surgery or radiotherapy, but not both. The two treatment groups were then compared using univariate analysis and multivariate linear regression with a control group of age- and race-matched women with no history of cancer. Results One hundred fourteen patients (37 surgery, 37 radiotherapy, 40 controls) were included for analysis. When compared with surgery patients and controls using univariate analysis, radiation patients had significantly poorer scores on standardized questionnaires measuring health-related quality of life (physical and mental health), psychosocial distress and sexual functioning. The disparity in sexual...

357 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jun 2008-Chest
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns are summarized and the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center is introduced, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.
Abstract: Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

3,203 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Feb 2012-Chest
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