Dataset Information

A randomized phase II presurgical trial of transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel versus oral tamoxifen in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Local transdermal therapy to the breast may achieve effective target-organ drug delivery, while diminishing systemic effects. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel (4-OHT) to oral tamoxifen (oral-T) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS:Twenty-seven pre- and postmenopausal women were randomized to 4-OHT (4 mg/day) or oral-T (20 mg/day) for 6 to 10 weeks before surgery. Plasma, nipple aspirate fluid, and breast adipose tissue concentrations of tamoxifen and its major metabolites were determined by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. The primary endpoint was Ki67 labeling in DCIS lesions, measured by immunohistochemistry. In plasma, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGFI), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and coagulation protein concentrations were determined. RESULTS:Posttherapy Ki67 decreased by 3.4% in the 4-OHT and 5.1% in the oral-T group (P ? 0.03 in both, between-group P = 0. 99). Mean plasma 4-OHT was 0.2 and 1.1 ng/mL in 4-OHT and oral groups, respectively (P = 0.0003), whereas mean breast adipose tissue concentrations of 4-OHT were 5.8 ng/g in the 4-OHT group and 5.4 ng/g in the oral group (P = 0.88). There were significant increases in plasma SHBG, factor VIII, and von Willebrand factor and a significant decrease in plasma IGFI with oral-T, but not with 4-OHT. The incidence of hot flashes was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:The antiproliferative effect of 4-OHT gel applied to breast skin was similar to that of oral-T, but effects on endocrine and coagulation parameters were reduced. These findings support the further evaluation of local transdermal therapy for DCIS and breast cancer prevention.

SUBMITTER: Lee O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4101910 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized phase II presurgical trial of transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel versus oral tamoxifen in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Lee Oukseub O Page Katherine K Ivancic David D Helenowski Irene I Parini Vamsi V Sullivan Megan E ME Margenthaler Julie A JA Chatterton Robert T RT Jovanovic Borko B Dunn Barbara K BK Heckman-Stoddard Brandy M BM Foster Kathleen K Muzzio Miguel M Shklovskaya Julia J Skripkauskas Silvia S Kulesza Piotr P Green David D Hansen Nora M NM Bethke Kevin P KP Jeruss Jacqueline S JS Bergan Raymond R Khan Seema A SA

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 20140701 14

<h4>Purpose</h4>Local transdermal therapy to the breast may achieve effective target-organ drug delivery, while diminishing systemic effects. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel (4-OHT) to oral tamoxifen (oral-T) in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).<h4>Methods</h4>Twenty-seven pre- and postmenopausal women were randomized to 4-OHT (4 mg/day) or oral-T (20 mg/day) for 6 to 10 weeks before surgery. Plasma ...[more]

PMID: 25028506

Similar Datasets

Project description:Endocrine therapy initiation after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is highly variable and largely unexplained. National guidelines recommend considering tamoxifen for women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) DCIS or who undergo excision alone. We evaluated endocrine therapy use after DCIS over a 15-year period in an integrated health care setting to identify factors related to initiation.Female Group Health Cooperative enrollees ages 18-89 years with a DCIS diagnosis during 1996-2011 were eligible for inclusion. Endocrine therapy was identified through pharmacy records. Tumor and treatment information were from tumor registry reports; demographics and other risk factors were from questionnaires and electronic medical records. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for endocrine therapy initiation were calculated using multivariable generalized linear models.We identified 727 women with a DCIS diagnosis, including 163 (22%) who initiated endocrine therapy (149 tamoxifen, 14 aromatase inhibitor). Younger women were more likely to initiate endocrine therapy (RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.16-2.46 for ages 45-54 vs. 65-74 years). Compared with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiation, women who had BCS alone (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25-0.84) or mastectomy (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.39-0.75) were less likely to use endocrine therapy. ER testing increased from 4% of DCIS cases in 2001 to 71% in 2011; however, endocrine therapy initiation decreased from 58% of ER+ DCIS in 2001-2005 to 37% in 2009-2011.Increasing ER testing since 2001 has not corresponded to parallel increases in endocrine therapy initiation. Age, surgery, and radiation were the primary factors associated with initiation.National guidelines recommend considering tamoxifen for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who are estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) or who undergo excision alone. In this study, the rapid increase in ER testing caused by tamoxifen's approval in 2000 did not lead to increases in endocrine therapy initiation, despite recognition of an increasing number of DCIS tumors as ER+ each year. Contrary to the suggested guidelines, women who had breast-conserving surgery without radiation were less likely to use tamoxifen than those who had radiation. Future Food and Drug Administration approval of new endocrine agents for DCIS (such as aromatase inhibitors) may provide an opportunity to reemphasize benefits by ER and surgery status.

Project description:Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy.The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ?60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete.Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group.Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ.US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Project description:BackgroundThird-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS.MethodsIn a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358.ResultsBetween March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6-8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64-1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58-1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen.ConclusionsNo clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences.FundingCancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Fund, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis.

Project description:BackgroundInitial results of the UK/ANZ DCIS (UK, Australia, and New Zealand ductal carcinoma in situ) trial suggested that radiotherapy reduced new breast events of ipsilateral invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with no radiotherapy, but no significant effects were noted with tamoxifen. Here, we report long-term results of this trial.MethodsWomen with completely locally excised DCIS were recruited into a randomised 2×2 factorial trial of radiotherapy, tamoxifen, or both. Randomisation was independently done for each of the two treatments (radiotherapy and tamoxifen), stratified by screening assessment centre, and blocked in groups of four. The recommended dose for radiation was 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (2 Gy per day on weekdays), and tamoxifen was prescribed at a dose of 20 mg daily for 5 years. Elective decision to withhold or provide one of the treatments was permitted. The endpoints of primary interest were invasive ipsilateral new breast events for the radiotherapy comparison and any new breast event, including contralateral disease and DCIS, for tamoxifen. Analysis of each of the two treatment comparisons was restricted to patients who were randomly assigned to that treatment. Analyses were by intention to treat. All trial drugs have been completed and this study is in long-term follow-up. This study is registered, number ISRCTN99513870.FindingsBetween May, 1990, and August, 1998, 1701 women were randomly assigned to radiotherapy and tamoxifen, radiotherapy alone, tamoxifen alone, or to no adjuvant treatment. Seven patients had protocol violations and thus 1694 patients were available for analysis. After a median follow-up of 12·7 years (IQR 10·9-14·7), 376 (163 invasive [122 ipsilateral vs 39 contralateral], 197 DCIS [174 ipsilateral vs 17 contralateral], and 16 of unknown invasiveness or laterality) breast cancers were diagnosed. Radiotherapy reduced the incidence of all new breast events (hazard ratio [HR] 0·41, 95% CI 0·30-0·56; p<0·0001), reducing the incidence of ipsilateral invasive disease (0·32, 0·19-0·56; p<0·0001) as well as ipsilateral DCIS (0·38, 0·22-0·63; p<0·0001), but having no effect on contralateral breast cancer (0·84, 0·45-1·58; p=0·6). Tamoxifen reduced the incidence of all new breast events (HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·58-0·88; p=0·002), reducing recurrent ipsilateral DCIS (0·70, 0·51-0·86; p=0·03) and contralateral tumours (0·44, 0·25-0·77; p=0·005), but having no effect on ipsilateral invasive disease (0·95, 0·66-1·38; p=0·8). No data on adverse events except cause of death were collected for this trial.InterpretationThis updated analysis confirms the long-term beneficial effect of radiotherapy and reports a benefit for tamoxifen in reducing local and contralateral new breast events for women with DCIS treated by complete local excision.FundingCancer Research UK and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a component of the clinical spectrum of breast cancer even in those with BRCA1/2 mutation. The aim of this study was to report the feature of DCIS raised in Japanese women with BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS:A total of 325 Japanese women with breast cancer (BC) (with or without invasive cancer) were referred for genetic counseling and underwent genetic testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in Showa University Hospital between December 2011 and August 2016. And 49 of them who were pathologically diagnosed as DCIS were included in this study. Logistic regression models were fit to determine the associations between potential predictive factors and BRCA status. A Cox proportional hazards model is used to predictive value of parameters for Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) and contralateral breast tumor recurrence (CBTR). RESULTS:(a) Of 325 patients (with or without invasive cancer), 19.1% (62/325) tested positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations. And 18.4% (9/49) was positive for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations in DCIS, compared with 19.2% (53/276) in IDC (p = 1.000). Among BRCA mutations, 14.5% (9/62) had DCIS compared with nonmutations (15.2%, 40/263). Incidence of DCIS was 3.0% (1/33) of BRCA1 mutations and 27.5% (8/29) of BRCA2 mutation (p = 0.009). (b) Median age of diagnosis in BRCA mutation carriers was 39 years, compared with 46 years in noncarriers. Age, Family history (FH) of BC, FH of first or second BC and total number of relatives with BC diagnosis (DX) has significant difference between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers in univariate analysis. In a multivariate logistic model, total relatives with BC DX ? 2 (odds ratio [OR], 5.128; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.266-20.763; p = 0.022), age at diagnosis ?35 years (OR 0.149, 95% CI 0.023-0.954, p = 0.045) and ER+/HER2+ status (OR 5.034, 95% CI 1.092-23.210, p = 0.038) remained as independent significant predictors for BRCA mutation. Ki67 index (cut off by 14% or 30%) did not differ between BRCA mutation carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.459 and p = 0.651). (c) There was a significant difference in ER-positive tumors among BRCA2 carriers and noncarriers (p = 0.042). Subgroup analysis showed BRCA2 carriers tend to be of higher grade (Grade 2 and 3), more frequently ER+/PR+ (p = 0.041) and lower proliferation (Ki67 index) than noncarriers, whereas differences in nuclear grade and ki67 index were not found significantly in our study. (d) BRCA mutation was not associated with an increased risk of IBTR and CBTR. CONCLUSION:DCIS is equally as prevalent in patients who were BRCA mutation carriers as in high familial-risk women who were noncarriers, but occurs at earlier age. BRCA2 carriers have higher incidence in DCIS than that of BRCA1 carriers, and tend to be higher grade and more frequently ER positive and lower proliferation. Total relatives with BC DX ?2, age at diagnosis ?35 years and ER+/HER2+ might be independent predictors for BRCA mutation in Japanese women with DCIS and patients of these risk factors should be recommended to receive genetic counseling and BRCA testing.

Project description:BackgroundNegative margins are associated with reduced risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR) for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS). However, there is no consensus about the best minimum margin width.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for studies of DCIS published in English between January 1970 and July 2010 and examined the relationship between IBTR and margin status after BCS for DCIS. Women with DCIS were stratified into two groups, BCS with or without radiotherapy. We used frequentist and Bayesian approaches to estimate the odds ratios (OR) of IBTR for groups with negative margins and positive margins. We further examined specific margin thresholds using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression techniques. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsWe identified 21 studies published in 24 articles. A total of 1066 IBTR events occurred in 7564 patients, including BCS alone (565 IBTR events in 3098 patients) and BCS with radiotherapy (501 IBTR events in 4466 patients). Compared with positive margins, negative margins were associated with reduced risk of IBTR in patients with radiotherapy (OR = 0.46, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.35 to 0.59), and in patients without radiotherapy (OR = 0.34, 95% CrI = 0.24 to 0.47). Compared with patients with positive margins, the risk of IBTR for patients with negative margins was smaller (negative margin >0 mm, OR = 0.45, 95% CrI = 0.38 to 0.53; >2 mm, OR = 0.38, 95% CrI = 0.28 to 0.51; >5 mm, OR = 0.55, 95% CrI = 0.15 to 1.30; and >10 mm, OR = 0.17, 95% CrI = 0.12 to 0.24). Compared with a negative margin greater than 2 mm, a negative margin of at least 10 mm was associated with a lower risk of IBTR (OR = 0.46, 95% CrI = 0.29 to 0.69). We found a probability of .96 that a negative margin threshold greater than 10 mm is the best option compared with other margin thresholds.ConclusionsNegative surgical margins should be obtained for DCIS patients after BCS regardless of radiotherapy. Within cosmetic constraint, surgeons should attempt to achieve negative margins as wide as possible in their first attempt. More studies are needed to understand whether margin thresholds greater than 10 mm are warranted.

Dataset Information

A randomized phase II presurgical trial of transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel versus oral tamoxifen in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Publications

A randomized phase II presurgical trial of transdermal 4-hydroxytamoxifen gel versus oral tamoxifen in women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets