American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibition.

OBJECTIVE: To update an evidence-based technology assessment of chemoprevention strategies for breast cancer risk reduction. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Tamoxifen, raloxifene, aromatase inhibition, and fenretinide. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. VALUES: More weight was given to published randomized trials. BENEFITS/HARMS: A woman's decision regarding breast cancer risk reduction strategies is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer- and noncancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a defined 5-year projected breast cancer risk of > or= 1.66%, tamoxifen (at 20 mg/d for 5 years) may be offered to reduce their risk. Risk/benefit models suggest that greatest clinical benefit with least side effects is derived from use of tamoxifen in younger (premenopausal) women (who are less likely to have thromboembolic sequelae and uterine cancer), women without a uterus, and women at higher breast cancer risk. Data do not as yet suggest that tamoxifen provides an overall health benefit or increases survival. In all circumstances, tamoxifen use should be discussed as part of an informed decision-making process with careful consideration of individually calculated risks and benefits. Use of tamoxifen combined with hormone replacement therapy or use of raloxifene, any aromatase inhibitor or inactivator, or fenretinide to lower the risk of developing breast cancer is not recommended outside of a clinical trial setting. This technology assessment represents an ongoing process and recommendations will be updated in a timely matter. VALIDATION: The conclusions were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonates Expert Panel.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical practice guidelines for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone metastases in breast cancer and their role relative to other therapies for this condition. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary panel reviewed pertinent information from the published literature and meeting abstracts through May 1999. Additional data collected as part of randomized trials and submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration were also reviewed, and investigators were contacted for more recent information. Values for levels of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned by expert reviewers and approved by the panel. Expert consensus was used if there were insufficient published data. The panel addressed which patients to treat and when in their course of disease, specific drug delivery issues, duration of therapy, management of bony metastases with other therapies, and the public policy implications. The guideline underwent external review by selected physicians, members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee, and the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: Bisphosphonates have not had an impact on the most reliable cancer end point: overall survival. The benefits have been reductions in skeletal complications, ie, pathologic fractures, surgery for fracture or impending fracture, radiation, spinal cord compression, and hypercalcemia. Intravenous (IV) pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 1 to 2 hours every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have imaging evidence of lytic destruction of bone and who are concurrently receiving systemic therapy with hormonal therapy or chemotherapy. For women with only an abnormal bone scan but without bony destruction by imaging studies or localized pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest starting bisphosphonates. Starting bisphosphonates in patients without evidence of bony metastasis, even in the presence of other extraskeletal metastases, is not recommended. Studies of bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting have yielded inconsistent results. Starting bisphosphonates in patients at any stage of their nonosseous disease, outside of clinical trials, despite a high risk for future bone metastasis, is currently not recommended. Oral bisphosphonates are one of several options which can be used for preservation of bone density in premenopausal patients with treatment-induced menopause. The panel suggests that, once initiated, IV bisphosphonates be continued until evidence of substantial decline in a patient's general performance status. The panel stresses that clinical judgment must guide what is a substantial decline. There is no evidence addressing the consequences of stopping bisphosphonates after one or more adverse skeletal events. Symptoms in the spine, pelvis, or femur require careful evaluation for spinal cord compression and pathologic fracture before bisphosphonate use and if symptoms recur, persist, or worsen during therapy. The panel recommends that current standards of care for cancer pain, analgesics and local radiation therapy, not be displaced by bisphosphonates. IV pamidronate is recommended in women with pain caused by osteolytic metastasis to relieve pain when used concurrently with systemic chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy, since it was associated with a modest pain control benefit in controlled trials. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a meaningful supportive but not life-prolonging benefit to many patients with bone metastases from cancer. Further research is warranted to identify clinical predictors of when to start and stop therapy, to integrate their use with other treatments for bone metastases, to identify their role in the adjuvant setting in preventing bone metastases, and to better determine their cost-benefit consequences.     

The study of tamoxifen and raloxifene: preliminary enrollment data from a randomized breast cancer risk reduction trial

Tamoxifen reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer by 49% among women at increased risk for breast cancer in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial P-1, and raloxifene reduced breast cancer incidence by more than 70% in the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation osteoporosis trial. These findings led the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project to design and launch the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene. Risk-eligible women are = 35 years of age and postmenopausal; they have either lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or a 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer of at least 1.67% as determined by the Gail model. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen 20 mg or raloxifene 60 mg daily. The trial opened for accrual on July 1, 1999. After 32 months of recruitment at 194 clinical centers in North America, risk assessments have been performed in 107,855 women (83.8% white, 9.4% black, 3.8% Hispanic, 3.1% other race/ethnic groups). Of the eligible patients, 12,637 have been randomized (20.9% of risk-eligible women); the median age is 58 years (mean, 58 years), and the median 5-year risk of breast cancer is 3.3% (mean, 4.0%). LCIS was reported in 8.4% of women prior to randomization. Gail model risk was = 3.0% in 5 years for 59.3% of white women, 45.0% of black women, and 44.5% of Hispanic women. The trial will recruit a total of 22,000 postmenopausal women and is powered to demonstrate superior efficacy of either agent or their equivalence in reducing the incidence of primary breast     

American Society of Clinical Oncology 1998 update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an effective, evidence-based, postoperative surveillance strategy for the detection and treatment of recurrent breast cancer. Tests are recommended only if they have an impact on the outcomes specified by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for clinical practice guidelines. POTENTIAL INTERVENTION: All tests described in the literature for postoperative monitoring were considered. In addition, the data were critically evaluated to determine the optimal frequency of monitoring. OUTCOME: Outcomes of interest include overall and disease-free survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction, and secondarily cost-effectiveness. EVIDENCE: A search was performed to determine all relevant articles published over the past 20 years on the efficacy of surveillance testing for breast cancer recurrence. These publications comprised both retrospective and prospective studies. VALUES: Levels of evidence and guideline grades were rated by a standard process. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The possible consequences of false-positive and -negative tests were considered in evaluating a preference for one of two tests providing similar information. Cost alone was not a determining factor. RECOMMENDATIONS: The attached guidelines and text summarize the updated recommendations of the ASCO breast cancer expert panel. Data are sufficient to recommend monthly breast self-examination, annual mammography of the preserved and contralateral breast, and a careful history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for 3 years, then every 6 to 12 months for 2 years, then annually. Data are not sufficient to recommend routine bone scans, chest radiographs, hematologic blood counts, tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen [CA] 15-5, and CA 27.29), liver ultrasonograms, or computed tomography scans. VALIDATION: The recommendations of the breast cancer expert panel were evaluated and supported by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee reviewers and the ASCO Board of Directors.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2002.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether the routine use of anastrozole or any of the aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant breast cancer setting is appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. OUTCOMES: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit. EVIDENCE: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics and is detailed in the text. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. BENEFITS/HARMS: The ASCO panel recognizes that a woman and her physician's decision regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks and benefits. CONCLUSION: The panel was influenced by the compelling, extensive, and long-term data available on tamoxifen. Overall, the panel considers the results of the Arimidex (anastrozole) or Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial and the extensive supporting data to be very promising but insufficient to change the standard practice at this time (May 2002). A 5-year course of adjuvant tamoxifen remains the standard therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The panel recommends that physicians discuss the available information with patients, and, in making a decision, acknowledge that treatment approaches can change over time. Individual health care providers and their patients will need to come to their own conclusions, with careful consideration of all of the available data. (Specific questions addressed by the panel are summarized in Appendix 3.) VALIDATION: The conclusions of the panel were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2004.

PURPOSE: To update the 2003 American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on adjuvant use of aromatase inhibitors. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on results from multiple large randomized trials, adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer should include an aromatase inhibitor in order to lower the risk of tumor recurrence. Neither the optimal timing nor duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy is established. Aromatase inhibitors are appropriate as initial treatment for women with contraindications to tamoxifen. For all other postmenopausal women, treatment options include 5 years of aromatase inhibitors treatment or sequential therapy consisting of tamoxifen (for either 2 to 3 years or 5 years) followed by aromatase inhibitors for 2 to 3, or 5 years. Patients intolerant of aromatase inhibitors should receive tamoxifen. There are no data on the use of tamoxifen after an aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting. Women with hormone receptor-negative tumors should not receive adjuvant endocrine therapy. The role of other biomarkers such as progesterone receptor and HER2 status in selecting optimal endocrine therapy remains controversial. Aromatase inhibitors are contraindicated in premenopausal women; there are limited data concerning their role in women with treatment-related amenorrhea. The side effect profiles of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors differ. The late consequences of aromatase inhibitor therapy, including osteoporosis, are not well characterized. CONCLUSION: The Panel believes that optimal adjuvant hormonal therapy for a postmenopausal woman with receptor-positive breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy or after treatment with tamoxifen. Women with breast cancer and their physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of all therapeutic options.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop a guideline for the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in early stage breast cancer. METHODS: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Expert Panel conducted a systematic review of the literature available through February 2004 on the use of SNB in early-stage breast cancer. The panel developed a guideline for clinicians and patients regarding the appropriate use of a sentinel lymph node identification and sampling procedure from hereon referred to as SNB. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts in the field and the ASCO Health Services Committee and was approved by the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS: The literature review identified one published prospective randomized controlled trial in which SNB was compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), four limited meta-analyses, and 69 published single-institution and multicenter trials in which the test performance of SNB was evaluated with respect to the results of ALND (completion axillary dissection). There are currently no data on the effect of SLN biopsy on long-term survival of patients with breast cancer. However, a review of the available evidence demonstrates that, when performed by experienced clinicians, SNB appears to be a safe and acceptably accurate method for identifying early-stage breast cancer without involvement of the axillary lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: SNB is an appropriate initial alternative to routine staging ALND for patients with early-stage breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Completion ALND remains standard treatment for patients with axillary metastases identified on SNB. Appropriately identified patients with negative results of SNB, when done under the direction of an experienced surgeon, need not have completion ALND. Isolated cancer cells detected by pathologic examination of the SLN with use of specialized techniques are currently of unknown clinical significance. Although such specialized techniques are often used, they are not a required part of SLN evaluation for breast cancer at this time. Data suggest that SNB is associated with less morbidity than ALND, but the comparative effects of these two approaches on tumor recurrence or patient survival are unknown.     

Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010

Two selective estrogen receptor modulators, tamoxifen and raloxifene, have been shown in randomized clinical trials to reduce the risk of developing primary invasive breast cancer in high-risk women. In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) used these studies as a basis for approving tamoxifen for primary breast chemoprevention in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women at high risk. In 2007, the FDA approved raloxifene for primary breast cancer chemoprevention for postmenopausal women. Data from the year 2010 National Health Interview Survey were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of tamoxifen and raloxifene use for chemoprevention of primary breast cancers among U.S. women. Prevalence of use of chemopreventive agents for primary tumors was 20,598 (95 % CI, 518-114,864) for U.S. women aged 35-79 for tamoxifen. Prevalence was 96,890 (95 % CI, 41,277-192,391) for U.S. women aged 50-79 for raloxifene. Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for prevention of primary breast cancers continues to be low. In 2010, women reporting medication use for breast cancer chemoprevention were primarily using the more recently FDA approved drug raloxifene. Multiple possible explanations for the low use exist, including lack of awareness and/or concern about side effects among primary care physicians and patients.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2002

Brain tumor surgery is one of the key factors in prolonging survival in patients with low- and high-grade gliomas. However, resections of these infiltrative lesions have historically been limited by the inability to accurately detect tumor margins. New methods in microscopy and dye injection have enabled more complete resections, but continue to lack biochemical specificity or high-resolution image acquisition. Stimulated Raman scattering microscopy represents an improvement over past techniques in the ability to differentiate intraparenchymal tissues on the basis of biochemical attributes, and is available for use in real-time, a feature that facilitates its translation to the surgical setting.     

Should menopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer use tamoxifen,raloxifene, or hormone therapy?: A framework for personalized risk assessment and counseling

Background. Menopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have several treamment options, including tamoxifen, raloxifene, and hormone therapy. This complex decision should be based on each woman’s risk to develop breast cancer, menopausal symptoms, preferences, and risks for other conditions. Current models in use do not include pedigree analysis, personalized risk assessment, or genetic testing in this process.Methods. We created a personalized risk assessment and genetic counseling intervention for healthy women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Participants were given a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, and uterine cancer based on family history and personal health data.Counseling Model. The effectiveness of this novel genetic counseling intervention was demonstrated in a randomized trial and these results are published elsewhere. The framework for this counseling model, with case examples from the clinical trial, is outlined in this article.Conclusions. As more menopausal therapies are developed, each with its own risks and benefits, it will become even more critical to have a personalized counseling model for use in this process. Clinicians and educators can utilize the framework presented here for counseling women with a family history of breast cancer.     

Opportunities and strategies for breast cancer prevention through risk reduction

Due to the high incidence of breast cancer among US females, risk-reduction strategies are essential. Before considering approaches to breast cancer risk reduction, it is important for clinicians to complete individualized qualitative and quantitative assessments of risk for their patients in order to inform physicians' clinical decision making and management and to engage patients collaboratively in a thorough discussion of risks and benefits. This review will summarize information on potential pharmacologic, nutritional, surgical, and behavioral approaches to reducing breast cancer risk. While there is no clear evidence that specific dietary components can effectively reduce breast cancer risk, weight gain and obesity in adulthood are risk factors for the development of postmenopausal breast cancer. Alcohol consumption, even at moderate levels, increases breast cancer risk, although some of the detrimental effects may be reduced by sufficient folate intake. Women at increased risk of breast cancer can opt to reduce their breast cancer risk through the use of tamoxifen or raloxifene; other chemopreventive agents remain under investigation. Surgical approaches to risk reductions are restricted to those patients with a substantially increased risk of developing breast cancer. Patients should be encouraged to maintain a healthy lifestyle for their overall well-being and to remain up to date with recommendations for screening and surveillance.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer.

PURPOSE: To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. METHODS: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. RESULTS: A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. CONCLUSION: Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.     

Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on colorectal cancer surveillance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on results from three independently reported meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that compared low-intensity and high-intensity programs of colorectal cancer surveillance, and on recent analyses of data from major clinical trials in colon and rectal cancer, the Panel recommends annual computed tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen for 3 years after primary therapy for patients who are at higher risk of recurrence and who could be candidates for curative-intent surgery; pelvic CT scan for rectal cancer surveillance, especially for patients with several poor prognostic factors, including those who have not been treated with radiation; colonoscopy at 3 years after operative treatment, and, if results are normal, every 5 years thereafter; flexible proctosigmoidoscopy [corrected] every 6 months for 5 years for rectal cancer patients who have not been treated with pelvic radiation; history and physical examination every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 months during years 4 and 5, and subsequently at the discretion of the physician; and carcinoembryonic antigen every 3 months postoperatively for at least 3 years after diagnosis, if the patient is a candidate for surgery or systemic therapy. Chest x-rays, CBCs, and liver function tests are not recommended, and molecular or cellular markers should not influence the surveillance strategy based on available evidence.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To update the 2000 ASCO guidelines on the role of bisphosphonates in women with breast cancer and address the subject of bone health in these women. RESULTS: For patients with plain radiographic evidence of bone destruction, intravenous pamidronate 90 mg delivered over 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg over 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. There is insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of one bisphosphonate over the other. Starting bisphosphonates in women who demonstrate bone destruction through imaging but who have normal plain radiographs is considered reasonable treatment. Starting bisphosphonates in women with only an abnormal bone scan but without evidence of bone destruction is not recommended. The presence or absence of bone pain should not be a factor in initiating bisphosphonates. In patients with a serum creatinine less than 3.0 mg/dL (265 mumol/L), no change in dosage, infusion time, or interval is required. Infusion times less than 2 hours with pamidronate or less than 15 minutes with zoledronic acid should be avoided. Creatinine should be monitored before each dose of either agent in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling. Oncology professionals, especially medical oncologists, need to take an expanded role in the routine and regular assessment of the osteoporosis risk in women with breast cancer. The panel recommends an algorithm for patient management to maintain bone health. CONCLUSION: Bisphosphonates provide a supportive, albeit expensive and non-life-prolonging, benefit to many patients with bone metastases. Current research is focusing on bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy. Although new data addressing when to stop therapy, alternative doses or schedules for administration, and how to best coordinate bisphosphonates with other palliative therapies are needed, they are not currently being investigated.     

2018年美国临床肿瘤学会年会：乳腺癌研究最新进展

2018年的ASCO年会从化疗、内分泌治疗以及免疫治疗这些角度,向临床医师呈现了诸多乳腺癌治疗领域的最新进展。在化疗研究领域,学者们仍然在试图挑选人群豁免化疗,或者试图实现部分减负;在新型的化合物及化疗联合靶向治疗方面,学者们正在寻求更精准的治疗方法,试图做到有的放矢;在内分泌治疗领域,内分泌治疗联合靶向药物仍然是研究的热点;在免疫治疗方面,晚期乳腺癌的治疗已取得初步疗效,并且,学者们也试图在早期乳腺癌的治疗中寻找其应用价值。     

Prevention of breast cancer (Part II): risk reduction strategies

Until recently, the best protection against breast cancer mortality was early diagnosis through mammographic screening. However, the possibility that breast cancer in some cases can be prevented has come to light over the past 30 years. Various risk reduction strategies of breast cancer have been explored including lifestyle modification, prophylactic surgeries, and the use of chemopreventive agents. This article is the second portion of a two-part series on breast cancer prevention, and will focus its discussion on the available risk reduction interventions that have been shown to prevent breast cancer in women considered high risk for the disease. (See Part I in Cancer Investigation, 28:743–750, 2010)