| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
ORIGINAL ARTICLES |
From the Breast Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Elisa Rush Port, MD, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, MRI-1026, New York, NY 10021; Fax: 212-794-5812.
Background: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1 trial demonstrated that tamoxifen reduces the incidence of new breast cancers by 49% in women at increased risk for breast cancer development. Tamoxifen does have side effects, however, including marginally increased risks of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. In this study, women at increased risk for breast cancer development were offered tamoxifen. Their knowledge of tamoxifen as a chemopreventive agent was assessed, and factors influencing their acceptance of tamoxifen and willingness to take it were determined.
Methods: Forty-three patients were identified who qualified to take tamoxifen for primary prevention. Patients qualified by having at least a 1.7% 5-year risk of developing breast cancer, the criteria for entry into the NSABP P-1 trial. Patients initially completed questionnaires designed to assess their knowledge of tamoxifen and its associated risks and benefits. Patients were then provided neutral educational sessions and literature delineating the actual risks and benefits of tamoxifen. Subsequently, patients decisions regarding taking tamoxifen were reassessed.
Results: Mean patient age was 52.8 years, with a range of 39 to 74 years. Ten patients (23.2%) qualified based on the presence of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), seven patients (16.3%) qualified based on increased risk secondary to age >60 years, and 26 patients (60.5%) age range 35 to 59 qualified based on risk profiles demonstrating significantly increased risk. Of the total 43 patients, two (4.7%) elected to start taking tamoxifen. Fifteen patients (34.8%) declined immediately, and 26 patients (60.5%) were undecided initially but ultimately declined. Educational sessions did not influence patients decisions. Fear of side effects, including endometrial cancer, thromboembolic events, and menopausal symptoms, was the most commonly cited reason for declining to take tamoxifen.
Conclusions: In this study, the vast majority of patients at increased risk for breast cancer perceived that the risks of taking tamoxifen outweighed the benefits and declined to take it.
Key Words: Tamoxifen Breast cancer Chemoprevention Patient reluctance
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. Rondanina, M. Puntoni, G. Severi, C. Varricchio, A. Zunino, I. Feroce, B. Bonanni, and A. Decensi Psychological and Clinical Factors Implicated in Decision Making About a Trial of Low-Dose Tamoxifen in Hormone Replacement Therapy Users J. Clin. Oncol., March 20, 2008; 26(9): 1537 - 1543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Fabian Tamoxifen or Raloxifene in Postmenopausal Women for Prevention of Breast Cancer: A Tale of Two Choices Counterpoint Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2007; 16(11): 2210 - 2212. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Kennedy, A. K. Stewart, K. Y. Bilimoria, L. Patel-Parekh, S. F. Sener, and D. P. Winchester Treatment Trends and Factors Associated with Survival in T1aN0 and T1bN0 Breast Cancer Patients Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2007; 14(10): 2918 - 2927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. J Santen, N. F Boyd, R. T Chlebowski, S. Cummings, J. Cuzick, M. Dowsett, D. Easton, J. F Forbes, T. Key, S. E Hankinson, et al. Critical assessment of new risk factors for breast cancer: considerations for development of an improved risk prediction model Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2007; 14(2): 169 - 187. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. K. Goldenberg, V. L. Seewaldt, V. Scott, G. R. Bean, G. Broadwater, C. Fabian, B. Kimler, C. Zalles, and I. M. Lipkus Atypia in Random Periareolar Fine-Needle Aspiration Affects the Decision of Women at High Risk to Take Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2007; 16(5): 1032 - 1034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. R. Port, A. Park, P. I. Borgen, E. Morris, and L. L. Montgomery Results of MRI Screening for Breast Cancer in High-Risk Patients with LCIS and Atypical Hyperplasia Ann. Surg. Oncol., March 1, 2007; 14(3): 1051 - 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Armstrong, D. A. Quistberg, E. Micco, S. Domchek, and C. Guerra Prescription of tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention by primary care physicians. Arch Intern Med, November 13, 2006; 166(20): 2260 - 2265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Fisher, J. P. Costantino, D. L. Wickerham, R. S. Cecchini, W. M. Cronin, A. Robidoux, T. B. Bevers, M. T. Kavanah, J. N. Atkins, R. G. Margolese, et al. Tamoxifen for the Prevention of Breast Cancer: Current Status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study J Natl Cancer Inst, November 16, 2005; 97(22): 1652 - 1662. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C J Fabian, B F Kimler, M S Mayo, and S A Khan Breast-tissue sampling for risk assessment and prevention Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2005; 12(2): 185 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Taylor and K. Taguchi Tamoxifen For Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: Low Uptake by High-Risk Women After Evaluation of a Breast Lump Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2005; 3(3): 242 - 247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. J. Fabian and B. F. Kimler Selective Estrogen-Receptor Modulators for Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1644 - 1655. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. N. Ingle Endocrine Therapy Trials of Aromatase Inhibitors for Breast Cancer in the Adjuvant and Prevention Settings Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2005; 11(2): 900s - 905s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. K. Dunn, D. L. Wickerham, and L. G. Ford Prevention of Hormone-Related Cancers: Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2005; 23(2): 357 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. L. Bober, L. A. Hoke, R. B. Duda, M. M. Regan, and N. M. Tung Decision-Making About Tamoxifen in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer: Clinical and Psychological Factors J. Clin. Oncol., December 15, 2004; 22(24): 4951 - 4957. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Ozanne and L. J. Esserman Evaluation of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Techniques: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2043 - 2052. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. C. Gotay Assessing Cancer-Related Quality of Life Across a Spectrum of Applications J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2004; 2004(33): 126 - 133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. N. Peshkin, C. Isaacs, C. Finch, S. Kent, and M. D. Schwartz Tamoxifen As Chemoprevention in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Breast Cancer: A Pilot Survey of Physicians J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2003; 21(23): 4322 - 4328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. G. Vogel, J. P. Costantino, D. L. Wickerham, and W. M. Cronin Re: Tamoxifen for Prevention of Breast Cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study J Natl Cancer Inst, October 2, 2002; 94(19): 1504 - 1504. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Wooltorton Tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: safety warning Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 1, 2002; 167(4): 378 - 379. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. T. Chlebowski, N. Col, E. P. Winer, D. E. Collyar, S. R. Cummings, V. G. Vogel III, H. J. Burstein, A. Eisen, I. Lipkus, and D. G. Pfister American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment of Pharmacologic Interventions for Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Including Tamoxifen, Raloxifene, and Aromatase Inhibition J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2002; 20(15): 3328 - 3343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. C. Jordan and M. Morrow Chemoprevention of Breast Cancer: A Model for Change J. Clin. Oncol., January 1, 2002; 20(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |