Annals of Oncology 5:337-342, 1994
© 1994 European Society for Medical Oncology
research-article |
Ovarian ablation versus goserelin with or without tamoxifen in pre-perimenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: Results of a multicentric Italian study
1Dept of Medical Oncology II and Clinical Trials Unit, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro Genova
2Dept. of Endocrinology, Istituto Tumori Fondazione Pascale, Napoli
3Dept. of Gynecologic Oncology Ospedale S. Anna, Torino
4Dept. of Clinical Oncology Ospedale S. Maria della Scala, Siena
5Dept. of Oncology Ospedale Spallanzani, Reggio Emilia
6Radiotherapy Unit Ospedale Careggi, Firenze
7Dept. of Medical Oncology, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Italy
Correspondence to: Francesco Boccardo, M.D., Dept. of Medical Oncology II, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Viale Benedetto XV, 10, I - 16132 Genova, Italy
BACKGROUND:: Oophorectomy is one of the treatments of choice for premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. However, in recent years LH-RH analogs have replaced surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation) on the basis of the comparable therapeutic activity shown by these drugs in phase II studies. Moreover, the combination of tamoxifen and LH-RH analogs has gained popularity among clinicians attempting to obtain a ‘total estrogen blockade’ according to the same rationale previously proposed for advanced prostatic cancer. However, it has thus far not been proven that medical castration is as effective as oophorectomy or ovarian irradiation, nor is there enough evidence that tamoxifen could improve the efficacy of ovarian ablation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS:: Eighty-five perimenopausal patients with estrogen receptor or unknown positive metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive one of the following treatments: surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation); goserelin; surgical castration (or ovarian irradiation) plus tamoxifen; goserelin plus tamoxifen. The study was performed according to a 2 x 2 factorial randomised design.
RESULTS:: While overall there was no significant difference in the response rates observed after two by two grouping, a trend did favour oophorectomy (or ovarian ablation) with respect to treatment activity. In fact, the best response rate was observed in patients allocated to this treatment (46.6% OR - 95% CL: 21.2–72.9) while the lowest rate was ob- served in patients treated with oophorectomy plus tamoxifen (11.1% OR: CL: –3.4–25.6). Response to goserelin and goserelin plus tamoxifen was 27.2% (± 18.6) and 45% (± 21.8), respectively. Logistical regression analysis suggested that there might be a different interaction between tamoxifen and goserelin or oophorectomy (ovarian irradiation), respectively. Nevertheless, patient survivals were comparable, irrespective of allocated treatment. This indicates that two by two grouping has some value with respect to treatment efficacy a shows that oophorectomy (or ovarian irradiation) and goserelin have comparable efficacies. Tamoxifen did not improve the efficacy of gonadal ablation, although it did enhance the activity of goserelin treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:: The results of the present study confirm prospectively that the efficacy of chemical castration is comparable to that of oophorectomy (or ovarian irradiation). The concurrent use of tamoxifen can probably enhance the activity of goserelin, but it also induces more side effects. However, it doesn't appear that ‘total estrogen blockade’ is more effective than gonadal ablation alone. Indeed, the question of whether chemical and surgical castration have the same effect in breast cancer is still open as is the one concerning the interaction between tamoxifen and gonadal ablation. Both questions should be addressed by prospective studies.
advanced breast cancer, LH-RH analogs, oophorectomy, tamoxifen
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Colozza, E. de Azambuja, N. Personeni, F. Lebrun, M. J. Piccart, and F. Cardoso Achievements in Systemic Therapies in the Pregenomic Era in Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, March 1, 2007; 12(3): 253 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Beslija, J Bonneterre, H Burstein, V Cocquyt, M Gnant, P Goodwin, V Heinemann, J Jassem, W. Kostler, M Krainer, et al. Second consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2007; 18(2): 215 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. H. Boekhout, J. H. Beijnen, and J. H.M. Schellens Symptoms and treatment in cancer therapy-induced early menopause. Oncologist, June 1, 2006; 11(6): 641 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Dellapasqua, M. Colleoni, R. D. Gelber, and A. Goldhirsch Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1736 - 1750. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. M. Prowell and N. E. Davidson What Is the Role of Ovarian Ablation in the Management of Primary and Metastatic Breast Cancer Today? Oncologist, September 1, 2004; 9(5): 507 - 517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. P Hinton, C. Coventry, and B. Borrowclough Making decisions about hormone replacement therapy: Preparations containing oestrogen should not be given during treatment for breast cancer BMJ, June 19, 2003; 326(7403): 1398 - 1398. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Nystedt, G. Berglund, C. Bolund, T. Fornander, and L. E. Rutqvist Side Effects of Adjuvant Endocrine Treatment in Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2003; 21(9): 1836 - 1844. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. I. Pritchard Endocrine Therapy of Advanced Disease: Analysis and Implications of the Existing Data Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2003; 9(1): 460S - 467S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Emens and N. E. Davidson Adjuvant Hormonal Therapy for Premenopausal Women with Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2003; 9(1): 486S - 494S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Jonat, M. Kaufmann, W. Sauerbrei, R. Blamey, J. Cuzick, M. Namer, I. Fogelman, J. C. de Haes, A. de Matteis, A. Stewart, et al. Goserelin Versus Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil as Adjuvant Therapy in Premenopausal Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer: The Zoladex Early Breast Cancer Research Association Study J. Clin. Oncol., December 15, 2002; 20(24): 4628 - 4635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Boehnke Michaud, K. L. Jones, and A. U. Buzdar Combination Endocrine Therapy in the Management of Breast Cancer Oncologist, December 1, 2001; 6(6): 538 - 546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G.M. Klijn, R.W. Blamey, F. Boccardo, T. Tominaga, L. Duchateau, and R. Sylvester Combined Tamoxifen and Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Agonist Versus LHRH Agonist Alone in Premenopausal Advanced Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Four Randomized Trials J. Clin. Oncol., January 15, 2001; 19(2): 343 - 353. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Boccardo, A. Rubagotti, D. Amoroso, M. Mesiti, D. Romeo, P. Sismondi, M. Giai, F. Genta, P. Pacini, V. Distante, et al. Cyclophosphamide, Methotrexate, and Fluorouracil Versus Tamoxifen Plus Ovarian Suppression as Adjuvant Treatment of Estrogen Receptor-Positive Pre-/Perimenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: Results of the Italian Breast Cancer Adjuvant Study Group 02 Randomized Trial J. Clin. Oncol., July 14, 2000; 18(14): 2718 - 2727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. M. Klijn, L. V. A. M. Beex, L. Mauriac, J. A. van Zijl, C. Veyret, J. Wildiers, J. Jassem, M. Piccart, J. Burghouts, D. Becquart, et al. Combined Treatment With Buserelin and Tamoxifen in Premenopausal Metastatic Breast Cancer: a Randomized Study J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2000; 92(11): 903 - 911. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|