Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Low-Dose Tamoxifen to Prevent Local and Contralateral Recurrence in Breast Intraepithelial Neoplasia

Andrea DeCensi, Matteo Puntoni, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Silvia Caviglia, Franca Avino, Laura Cortesi, Cristiana Taverniti, Maria Grazia Pacquola, Fabio Falcini, Marcella Gulisano, Maria Digennaro, Anna Cariello, Katia Cagossi, Graziella Pinotti, Matteo Lazzeroni, Davide Serrano, Daniela Branchi, Sara Campora, Marilena Petrera, Tania Buttiron Webber, Luca Boni, Bernardo Bonanni, Andrea DeCensi, Matteo Puntoni, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Silvia Caviglia, Franca Avino, Laura Cortesi, Cristiana Taverniti, Maria Grazia Pacquola, Fabio Falcini, Marcella Gulisano, Maria Digennaro, Anna Cariello, Katia Cagossi, Graziella Pinotti, Matteo Lazzeroni, Davide Serrano, Daniela Branchi, Sara Campora, Marilena Petrera, Tania Buttiron Webber, Luca Boni, Bernardo Bonanni

Abstract

Purpose: Tamoxifen administered for 5 years at 20 mg/d is effective in breast cancer treatment and prevention, but toxicity has limited its broad use. Biomarker trials showed that 5 mg/d is not inferior to 20 mg/d in decreasing breast cancer proliferation. We hypothesized that a lower dose given for a shorter period could be as effective in preventing recurrence from breast intraepithelial neoplasia but have a lower toxicity than the standard dose.

Patients and methods: We conducted a multicenter randomized trial of tamoxifen, 5 mg/d or placebo administered for 3 years after surgery in women with hormone-sensitive or unknown breast intraepithelial neoplasia, including atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular or ductal carcinoma in situ. The primary end point was the incidence of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

Results: Five hundred women 75 years of age or younger were included. After a median follow-up of 5.1 years (interquartile range, 3.9-6.3 years), there were 14 neoplastic events with tamoxifen and 28 with placebo (11.6 v 23.9 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.92; P = .02), which resulted in a 5-year number needed to treat of 22 (95% CI, 20 to 27). Tamoxifen decreased contralateral breast events by 75% (three v 12 events; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88; P = .02). Patient-reported outcomes were not different between arms except for a slight increase in frequency of daily hot flashes with tamoxifen (P = .02). There were 12 serious adverse events with tamoxifen and 16 with placebo, including one deep vein thrombosis and one stage I endometrial cancer with tamoxifen and one pulmonary embolism with placebo.

Conclusion: Tamoxifen at 5 mg/d for 3 years can halve the recurrence of breast intraepithelial neoplasia with a limited toxicity, which provides a new treatment option in these disorders.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01357772.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Participant flow diagram. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who underwent random assignment (n = 253 in the tamoxifen arm; n = 247 in the placebo arm). The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of trial agent (n = 249 in the tamoxifen arm; n = 246 in the placebo arm). Completion of the study is defined as having completed the 36-month double-blind treatment phase. ADH, atypical ductal hyperplasia; AE, adverse event; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; ER, estrogen receptor; IEN, intraepithelial neoplasia; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Kaplan-Meier estimates of (A) cumulative incidence of breast cancer events (invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ and of (B) contralateral breast cancer events in the overall intention-to-treat population (ITT) by allocated arm. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of events that occurred within each time interval by treatment arm. The log-rank test was used to draw inferences. The estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) was based on a univariable Cox proportional hazards regression model (ie, with only the treatment arm variable). In the overall ITT population, there were 42 breast cancer events (14 in the tamoxifen arm and 28 in the placebo arm) of which there were 15 contralateral breast cancer events (three in the tamoxifen arm and 12 in the placebo arm). The 3-year cumulative incidence rate of breast cancer events was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.7% to 6.6%) in the tamoxifen arm and 7.6% (95% CI, 4.8% to 11.8%) in the placebo arm, and the 5-year cumulative incidence rate was 6.4% (95% CI, 3.7% to 10.9%) and 11.0% (95% CI, 7.4% to 16.0%), respectively. The 3-year cumulative incidence rate of contralateral breast cancer was 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1% to 3.1%) in the tamoxifen arm and 2.5% (95% CI, 5.5% to 1.1%) in the placebo arm, and the 5-year cumulative incidence rate was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.3% to 4.5%) and 4.2% (95% CI, 2.2% to 8.0%), respectively.
FIG 3.
FIG 3.
Marginal predicted means of daily (A) hot flash frequency and (B) score (frequency × intensity), (C) vaginal dryness or pain with intercourse, and (D) musculoskeletal pain or arthralgia during the double-blind treatment phase. Values at baseline (month 0) are observed mean. Daily frequency but not daily score of hot flashes in the tamoxifen arm increased significantly relative to the placebo arm (P for treatment effect = .02 and .16, respectively). There was no difference between arms on vaginal dryness or pain with intercourse and musculoskeletal pain or arthralgia (P for treatment effect = .40 and .41, respectively).
FIG A1.
FIG A1.
Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative breast cancer incidence by histologic type (atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH], lobular carcinoma in situ [LCIS], ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) regardless of treatment with tamoxifen. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of events that occurred within each time interval by treatment arm. The log-rank test was used to draw inferences. The hazard ratios (HRs) for LCIS versus ADH and DCIS versus ADH were estimated from a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for treatment arm; the HR of the treatment effect (data not shown), adjusted for the histologic type, was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.91). In the overall intention-to-treat population, there were 42 breast cancer events (three in the ADH group, 31 in the DCIS group, and eight in the LCIS group). The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of breast cancer was 3.2% (95% CI, 1.0% to 9.5%) in the ADH group, 9.0% (95% CI, 6.1% to 13.0%) in the DCIS group, and 18.0% (95% CI, 9.2% to 33.4%) in the LCIS group. The HRs compared with ADH are adjusted for treatment arm.
FIG A2.
FIG A2.
Estimated marginal means of endometrial thickness (in millimeters) change in postmenopausal women during the double-blind treatment phase by allocated arm. Endometrial thickness in the tamoxifen arm was significantly increased compared with the placebo arm.
FIG A3.
FIG A3.
Kaplan-Meier curve for time to first nonadherent study visit according to treatment arm. Numbers in parentheses represent the number of events that occurred within each time interval by treatment arm. The log-rank test was used to draw inferences. Overall, 62.8% of women were adherent for at least 2.5 years. The mean time on treatment was 2.3 years (standard deviation, 1.1). Kaplan-Meier estimate for adherence was not significantly different in women who took tamoxifen (64.8%) compared with those who took placebo (60.7%). Overall, dropout rates were highest within the first 6 months since randomization (10.3% in the tamoxifen arm; 12.2% in the placebo arm) and decreased thereafter. HR, hazard ratio.

References

    1. Lazzeroni M, Dunn BK, Pruneri G, et al. Adjuvant therapy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: The Pandora’s box. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;55:1–9.
    1. Merrill AL, Esserman L, Morrow M. Ductal carcinoma in situ. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:390–392.
    1. Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: Patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–784.
    1. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–1388.
    1. Noonan S, Pasa A, Fontana V, et al. A survey among breast cancer specialists on the low uptake of therapeutic prevention with tamoxifen or raloxifene. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2018;11:38–43.
    1. Land SR, Walcott FL, Liu Q, et al. Symptoms and QOL as predictors of chemoprevention adherence in NRG Oncology/NSABP Trial P-1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;108:djv365.
    1. Smith SG, Sestak I, Howell A, et al. Participant-reported symptoms and their effect on long-term adherence in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I (IBIS I) J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2666–2673.
    1. Lazzeroni M, DeCensi A. Alternate dosing schedules for cancer chemopreventive agents. Semin Oncol. 2016;43:116–122.
    1. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Redmond CK, et al. Endometrial cancer in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients: Findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-14. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:527–537.
    1. Decensi A, Robertson C, Viale G, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose tamoxifen on breast cancer proliferation and blood estrogenic biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:779–790.
    1. Decensi A, Gandini S, Serrano D, et al. Randomized dose-ranging trial of tamoxifen at low doses in hormone replacement therapy users. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4201–4209.
    1. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Sestak I, Lazzeroni M, et al. Benefit of low-dose tamoxifen in a large observational cohort of high risk ER positive breast DCIS. Int J Cancer. 2016;139:2127–2134.
    1. Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Novotny PJ, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4280–4290.
    1. Stanton AL, Bernaards CA, Ganz PA. The BCPT symptom scales: A measure of physical symptoms for women diagnosed with or at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:448–456.
    1. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1993–2000.
    1. Hudis CA, Barlow WE, Costantino JP, et al. Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: The STEEP system. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2127–2132.
    1. Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:343–346.
    1. Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67:407–411.
    1. Narod SA, Iqbal J, Giannakeas V, et al. Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:888–896.
    1. Benson JR, Jatoi I, Toi M. Treatment of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: Is nothing better than something? Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e442–e451.
    1. Allred DC, Anderson SJ, Paik S, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen reduces subsequent breast cancer in women with estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ: A study based on NSABP protocol B-24. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1268–1273.
    1. DeCensi A, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Gandini S, et al. Prognostic significance of Ki-67 labeling index after short-term presurgical tamoxifen in women with ER-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:582–587.
    1. Dowsett M, Smith IE, Ebbs SR, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 expression after short-term presurgical endocrine therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:167–170.
    1. Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Luo J, et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1380–1388.
    1. Visvanathan K, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2942–2962.
    1. Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2327–2333.
    1. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Bonanni B, et al. Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: An updated meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2013;381:1827–1834.
    1. Decensi A, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Effect of tamoxifen on venous thromboembolic events in a breast cancer prevention trial. Circulation. 2005;111:650–656.
    1. Chalas E, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al: Benign gynecologic conditions among participants in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1230-1237, 2005; discussion 1237-1239.
    1. Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: Late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:727–737.
    1. Thurston RC, Johnson BD, Shufelt CL, et al. Menopausal symptoms and cardiovascular disease mortality in the Women’s Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) Menopause. 2017;24:126–132.
    1. Day R, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, et al. Health-related quality of life and tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention: A report from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2659–2669.
    1. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Baglietto L, Johansson H, et al. Correlation between tamoxifen elimination and biomarker recovery in a primary prevention trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:967–970.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir