Affiliations of authors: M. H. Gail (Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics), R. Croyle (Division of Cancer Control and Population Science), National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; J. P. Costantino, J. Bryant, University of Pittsburgh, PA; L. Freedman, Bar Illan University, Ramat Gan, Israel; K. Helzlsouer, The Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, MD; V. Vogel, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute/Magee Women's Hospital.
Correspondence to: Mitchell H. Gail, M.D., Ph.D., National Cancer Institute, EPS-8032, Rockville, MD 20892 (gailm{at}exchange.nih.gov).
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() |
I. INTRODUCTION |
---|
Unfortunately, some women in the BCPT also experienced life-threatening adverse effects from tamoxifen, including excesses of endometrial cancer, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and deep vein thrombosis. Some excess incidence of cataracts was also noted.
The variety of effects from tamoxifen complicates the decision to use it in prevention. A good decision will depend on the particular risk profile of the woman and on her preferences. The balance of benefits and adverse effects from tamoxifen depends on age and on other factors, such as the woman's underlying risk of breast cancer and whether she has had a hysterectomy. The NCI held a workshop on July 7 and 8, 1998, to develop information to assist women and their health care providers in deciding whether or not to initiate preventive use of tamoxifen (see "Appendix: Workshop Program and List of Participants" section appearing before "References"). While this information would be based on the results of the BCPT whenever possible, workshop participants were also asked to consider the potential benefits and risks for high-risk women who were not eligible for the BCPT, such as women with DCIS.
This special article is based in part on the presentations and discussions at this workshop as well as on additional statistical analyses of risk/benefit indices and additional review of the literature.
Shortly after the workshop, reports from two smaller controlled studies (2,3) appeared that did not demonstrate a reduction in breast cancer incidence from tamoxifen use. Although the risk/benefit tables that we present are based solely on BCPT estimates of tamoxifen's effects, we discuss the impact of including data from other studies.
![]() |
II. PROJECTING RISKS IN THE ABSENCE OF TAMOXIFEN TREATMENT |
---|
A. Breast Cancer
1) Invasive Breast Cancer (IBC) The primary end point of the BCPT was IBC. To be eligible for the BCPT, a woman had to be 60 years old or to be 35-59 years old with a projected 5-year risk of IBC of at least 1.66%, which is the rate for an average 60-year-old white woman in the United States. We, therefore, emphasize estimates of 5-year risks of IBC in organizing our risk/benefit tables.
We recommend the method used in the BCPT for calculating the projected 5-year risk of IBC for a woman with particular risk factors but with no history or current evidence of invasive cancer, DCIS, or LCIS. The method is based on the earlier work of Gail et al. (4), who analyzed data from the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project (BCDDP) and developed a model for projecting total breast cancer incidence, including both invasive and in situ lesions. The model of Gail et al. (4) uses the age of the counselee and the following additional risk factors: number of affected first-degree relatives, age at menarche, age at first live birth, number of previous breast biopsies, and the presence of atypical hyperplasia in a biopsy specimen. Benichou (5) wrote a computer program, RISK, that allows one to estimate the absolute risk of developing breast cancer for a woman of any age from 20 to 80 years and with any pattern of these risk factors over any desired time interval. This model was intended for women in a program of annual screening with mammography. Although the model overpredicts risk in young unscreened women (4,6-8), it accurately predicted total breast cancer incidence for women under age 60 years in the placebo arm of the BCPT and underestimated total breast cancer incidence somewhat for women over age 59 years (9). The BCPT protocol specified annual mammography and semiannual breast examinations for all women in the trial.
NSABP statisticians, including Stewart J. Anderson and Carol K. Redmond, modified the model of Gail et al. to project only IBC (10). While retaining the relative risk features of the model by Gail et al., they employed composite age-specific rates of IBC for white women from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program1 of the NCI, instead of the composite rates from the BCDDP used by Gail et al., and they modified the factors needed to convert composite rates to baseline rates accordingly. In addition, NSABP statisticians adapted the model to project risks for black women by using age-specific composite SEER rates for black women and by modifying the factors used to convert composite rates to baseline rates. Apart from black women, the same projections were made for all other U.S. women as for whites.
The ratio of age-adjusted rates of IBC comparing Hispanic women with non-Hispanic white women in the United States is 0.60 (11). Because we did not have data on the prevalence of breast cancer risk factors among Hispanic women, we could not modify the IBC risk model for Hispanic women. It is likely, however, that the rates of IBC predicted for white women by the IBC risk model overestimate the correct rates for Hispanic women.
The placebo arm of the BCPT, exclusive of women with LCIS at baseline, affords an
excellent opportunity to test the projections of the modified risk model for invasive cancer for
women in regular screening. The agreement of observed and expected incident invasive cancers is
excellent for all ages (Table 1). Because only 1.7% of the BCPT
participants were black, however, no independent validation was possible for black women. In
fact, 1.7 cases were predicted among black women, and two cases were observed. Even though
the model predicted well for all ages, there is some evidence that the model underpredicts risk
slightly for those in the lowest quintile of projected risk (observed-to-expected ratio =
0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-1.11) and overpredicts risk
slightly for those in the highest quintile (observed-to-expected ratio = 1.21; 95% CI
= 0.92-1.64). Costantino et al. (9) provide additional information
on the validity of these projections.
|
|
3) Other Strong Risk Factors and Protective Factors The model of Gail et al. (4) and its modification for the BCPT were based on women in the BCDDP with no history of breast cancer or evidence of IBC or DCIS on their initial screening evaluation. Women who have had a previous breast cancer have a risk of developing contralateral disease five times higher than that of the general population (12). Women with LCIS in the placebo arm of the BCPT had a 5-year risk of IBC of 6.47%, which is 3.9 times the risk of an average 60-year-old woman and about twice the risk of other participants on the placebo arm of the BCPT. Risks for women with DCIS are even higher (see section V, part A). Thus, women with a previous breast cancer and women with LCIS or DCIS are at high risk, even compared with the population of high-risk women who entered the BCPT. Women known to carry cancer-causing mutations of the genes BRCA1 or BRCA2 are thought to have a cumulative breast cancer risk to age 70 years in the range 37%-85% (13-15). Such women constitute only about 0.7% of the general U.S. population, however (16,17), although perhaps 2% of Ashkenazi Jewish women are carriers (13). Other rare inherited disorders, such as Cowden's syndrome (18) and the Li-Fraumeni syndrome (19), also carry high risks of breast cancer. A woman from rural Japan or China has only one fifth of the risk of a woman of the same age from the United States (20). Available risk models do not explicitly take these strong risk factors or protective factors into account. Thus, when using available models, a counselor should look for these factors and modify risk estimates accordingly.
4) Alternative Modeling Approaches and Areas of Research Claus et al. (21) used data from the Cancer and Steroid Hormone (CASH) Study to develop a risk projection model for IBC and in situ breast cancer based solely on the counselee's age and on detailed family history, including the ages at onset in affected relatives. The theory underlying this model is that all familial risk is conferred by a single autosomal dominant gene. This model nicely explains why the proportion of mutation carriers is higher in women with breast cancer incident at younger ages than at older ages. Claus et al. (22) have shown, however, that the full extent of familial aggregation cannot be explained by current autosomal dominant models.
There are several opportunities for improving projections of breast cancer risk. One approach is to find and use additional strong risk factors. A promising candidate is the percentage of dense tissue observed in a baseline mammogram. Indeed, studies based on data in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (23) and in the BCDDP (24) indicate that this factor is an even stronger predictor than family history. It might be possible to make more efficient use of family history information by using it to estimate the probability that a woman is a carrier of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (25). Direct measurements of cancer-causing gene mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 would have an important bearing on risk projections, but such abnormalities are rare, even among women with breast cancer (26).
B. Endometrial Cancer
We base predictions of endometrial cancer incidence rates on age-
and race-specific SEER incidence rates from 1991 through 1995 (Table
3). To predict risk for women with a uterus, the SEER
rates were divided by the estimated age-specific prevalence of having a
uterus, obtained from Fig. 1
in Merrill and Feuer
(27). These prevalences were 0.88, 0.80, 0.72, 0.65, 0.64,
0.63, 0.62, 0.66, and 0.65, respectively, for the 5-year age intervals
35-39, . . . , 75-79. The same prevalence factors were used for
white and black women, since we could find no data specific for black women.
|
|
|
For white women and other nonblack women, the age-specific incidence
rates (Table 3) for stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein
thrombosis are from studies of the predominantly white population of
Rochester, MN. The data for strokes were taken from the period
1975-1984 in Fig. 2 of Broderick et al. (32). Data for
pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis are from the period 1986
through 1990 in Table 1 of Silverstein et al. (33). The
age-adjusted stroke [International Classification of Diseases (ICD)
code Nos. 430-438.9 (34)] mortality rate per 100 000
white women aged 35-84 years in Olmstead County, MN, was 69.8,
compared with a U.S. rate of 92.2. Thus, stroke incidence rates for
white women in Table 3 may underestimate U.S. incidence rates. These
mortality data from 1979 through 1996 were obtained from
http://wonder.cdc.gov and were adjusted to the 1990 U.S. white female
population distribution. Similarly, the age-adjusted mortality rates
for pulmonary embolism (ICD code Nos. 415-417.9) for white women aged
35-84 years were 8.1 for Minnesota, 10.2 for Olmstead County (where
counts were too small to be reliable), and 8.1 for the United States.
Because few studies provide direct information on the incidence rates of stroke, pulmonary embolism, or deep vein thrombosis in black women, we estimated the incidence rates for black women by multiplying rates for white women by a black/white risk ratio. We estimated these ratios for strokes from stroke (ICD code Nos. 430-438.9) mortality ratios computed from Tables 1-27 in Vital Statistics of the United States, 1992 (35). These ratios were 3.4, 2.8, 2.9, 2.3, and 1.2, respectively, for age groups less than 40 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, and 70 years or older. Rates were age-adjusted within age groups to the 1990 U.S. populations for whites and blacks before these ratios were computed. The mortality ratios for pulmonary circulatory failure (ICD code Nos. 415-417.9), which is caused mainly by pulmonary emboli, were used for pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. These ratios were 2.9, 3.1, 3.0, 2.3, and 1.6 for the previous age groups, respectively.
Several studies confirm higher stroke incidence rates in black women than in white women.
Rosamond et al. (36) presented data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in
Communities (ARIC) cohort of 15 792 individuals aged 45-64 years from Jackson (MS),
Forsyth County (NC), Washington County (MD), and Minneapolis (MN). The black/white stroke
incidence ratios were 2.8 (95% CI = 1.4-5.5) for men and women under age 55
years and 2.2 (95% CI = 1.7-3.0) for older men and women. The overall stroke
incidence ratios were the same in men and women, 2.66. Unpublished combined data from ARIC
and from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), which included 5873 men and women over age
64 years from Allegheny County (PA), Forsyth County (NC), Sacramento County (CA), and
Washington County (MD) (37,38), yielded a black/white incidence ratio
for women aged 65-74 years of 2.4 (95% CI = 1.5-3.9). A study of stroke incidence
in upper Manhattan (NY) (39) yielded black/white ratios of 3.0 for
women of ages 40-59 years and 2.4 for women of ages 60-79 years. All of these data support the
use of the stroke mortality ratios used in Table 3.
It is not surprising that black women in the general population have higher stroke rates than white women because they have a higher prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension (38). Black/white stroke incidence ratios may be smaller in healthier populations, such as women who volunteer for prevention trials like the BCPT or the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) (40). It is noteworthy, however, that, even after adjustment for age, gender, hypertension, diabetes, location, education, smoking, and coronary heart disease (36), the black/white incidence ratio in ARIC was 1.4 (95% CI = 1.0-1.8).
The rates for stroke and pulmonary embolism in Table 3 overestimate
the rates found in the placebo arm of the BCPT, possibly because healthy women tended to
volunteer. Calculating the expected numbers of events from rates in Table 3
, we found observed-to-expected ratios of 24/46.1 = 0.52, 6/14.3 =
0.42, and 22/18.5 = 1.19 for stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis,
respectively. Combining stroke and pulmonary embolism, we found an observed-to-expected ratio
of 30/60.2 = 0.50. In supplemental analyses to evaluate the sensitivity of our methods and
to advise women who might volunteer for prevention trials, we multiplied the stroke and
pulmonary embolism rates for white women in Table 3 by 0.50.
Table 4 lists factors other than age and race that increase the risk of
stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis. See references (41-43) for details.
Pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis can be considered together as venous
thromboembolism because they frequently occur simultaneously and have the same risk factors (43,44). These references provide details on the risk factors shown in
Table 4.
D. Fractures
Estimated rates of fractures for white women (Table 3) of the
proximal femur (hip), vertebra (spine), and distal forearm were
obtained from studies in Rochester (MN) [see Table 1 in
reference (45)]. Rates for Colles' fracture (Table 3
) were
obtained by multiplying rates for distal forearm fractures by 0.23,
which was the fraction of distal forearm fractures classified as
Colles' fractures in the BCPT. Silverman and Madison (46)
calculated hip fracture incidence rates for non-Hispanic white women,
Hispanic women, black women, and Asian women from hospital discharge
data in California. The black/white ratios of incidence rates were
0.855, 0.539, and 0.381 for age groups less than 50 years, 50-59
years, and 60 years or more, respectively. We obtained rates for black
women in Table 3
by multiplying rates for white women by these ratios.
Compared with white women, Hispanic and Asian women had ratios 0.419,
0.240, and 0.334 and 0.435, 0.266, and 0.546, respectively, for these
age groups (46). Jacobsen et al. (47) reported
rates
of hip fractures in black and white women over age 64 years not very
different from those in Table 3
. Baron et al. (48)
also
reported similar rates of hip fractures to those in Table 3
in a 5%
sample of the U.S. Medicare population aged 65-89 years, both for
white and for black women.
In addition to age and race, other factors influence the risk of fractures in women. Women who have lost 20% of their weight since age 25 years have a 67% increase in hip fracture risk, adjusted for age and other factors [Table 2 in Cummings et al. (49)]. A number of other factors contribute to increased risk, including a history of maternal hip fracture, previous hyperthyroidism, current consumption of long-acting benzodiazapines, anticonvulsants or caffeine, lack of exercise (walking), inability to rise from a chair, previous fracture, and decreased bone density. Cummings et al. show how risk increases with decreasing bone density and with the number of other such risk factors.
E. Cataracts
Baseline estimates of cataract incidence (Table 3) were calculated
from data in the placebo arm of the BCPT because this cohort of women
reflects current ophthalmologic practice and is the largest cohort with
reports on cataracts in women. Cataract incidence was based on
self-reports of cataract diagnoses. Unfortunately, the BCPT yielded
little data on cataracts for black women, and we are unaware of other
data on cataract incidence in black women. Data on race as a risk
factor for lens opacity are inconsistent (50). Therefore, we
used the same rates for black as for white women in Table 3
. The rates
in Table 3
are intermediate between the higher rates in studies in
which cataracts are diagnosed solely on the basis of changes detected
by slit-lamp examinations, without any requirement for a decrease in
visual acuity (51-53) and the lower rates in studies that
require, in addition to evidence of lens opacity, a decrease in visual
acuity below 20/30 (54,55).
Certain medical conditions and medications, such as diabetes, oral steroids, and medicines for gout, are associated with a modestly increased risk of lens opacities, as are current smoking and low educational attainment (50,56). Current users of vitamin supplements have a reduced risk of lens opacities (56). Hodge et al. (57) reviewed studies of these and other risk factors.
![]() |
III. EFFECTS OF TAMOXIFEN |
---|
|
There is substantial uncertainty about the magnitude of the effects of tamoxifen for some of
the outcomes, indicated by the 95% CIs in Table 5. The relative
risks in Table 5
are based only on BCPT data. These relative risks are
quite consistent, however, with the relative risks associated with adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in
several analyses of the risk of contralateral breast cancer among women with resected breast
cancer (58) and with the summary relative risk, obtained by a
meta-analysis, of 0.53 for recurrent cancer or contralateral primary cancer among women on
adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for 5 years (59). European studies with 41
women who developed breast cancers (3) and with 70 women who
developed breast cancers (2) did not demonstrate a beneficial preventive
effect of tamoxifen. These trials may be sufficiently different from the BCPT in design and
execution that it is not reasonable to combine their data with those of the BCPT (1). Nonetheless, we can obtain a combined estimate of relative risk by taking the ratio
of the number of breast cancers in the tamoxifen arms of the three studies to the number of breast
cancers in the placebo groups. That ratio is (89 + 35 + 19 + 34)/(175 + 69 + 22 + 36) =
0.59 (95% CI = 0.49-0.71). Methods of combining results that account for possible
differences in follow-up time cannot be used with the data presented in the European studies.
Other methods that allow for heterogeneity of treatment effects across the three studies would
place greater weight on the smaller studies (60). In section VIII, we
discuss the impact of using the relative risk estimate 0.59 instead of the relative risks in Table 5
.
These effects of tamoxifen were found even though many women discontinued its use during the course of these studies. In the BCPT, 23.7% discontinued treatment with tamoxifen for reasons not specified in the protocol, compared with 19.7% in the placebo group (1), and 40% of women in the study by Powles et al. (2) stopped taking tamoxifen prematurely. It is not known whether the preventive effects of tamoxifen would have been greater had compliance been better.
![]() |
IV. RISK/BENEFIT COMPARISONS FOR WOMEN ELIGIBLE FOR BCPT |
---|
Relative risks, such as those in Table 5, do not convey the actual
chance ("absolute risk") that tamoxifen will prevent or cause a
woman to develop an adverse health outcome. We have, therefore,
developed several additional tables to assist in weighing the risks and
benefits from prophylactic tamoxifen use.
One approach is to describe fully the expected numbers of various adverse outcomes in a
population of 10 000 untreated women followed for 5 years (Tables 6 and 7)
and the corresponding numbers of events expected to
be prevented (or caused) by tamoxifen (Tables 6
and 8
). This full description allows a woman who is mainly concerned about particular
outcomes, such as breast cancer or endometrial cancer, to focus on those absolute risks and the
effects of tamoxifen on them.
|
|
|
To compute the expected number of non-breast cancer events Nx,p of
type x (x = 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 as defined in Table 5) in untreated women (Table 7
), we assumed that the
cause-specific hazard rates, Ix, and the mortality rates, Mx, from causes other than cause x are constant over the 5-year period. It follows that
![]() | (1) |
We used 1990 U.S. mortality rates derived from reference (61). For
non-breast cancer conditions, the rates Ix are obtained by dividing entries in
Table 3 by 1000.
Expected events for a treated population, Nx,t , are obtained in the same
way, except RxIx replaces Ix in equation 1,
where Rx is the relative risk in Table 5. To obtain Ix for this calculation for IBC or in situ lesions, we solved equation
1 with known values of Mx and with Nx,p obtained as
described above from the risk program. The entries in Tables 6
and 8
representing the numbers of events prevented by (positive number) or
caused by (negative number) tamoxifen are simply the differences Nx = Nx,p - Nx,t rounded to the nearest
integer.
To summarize the risks and benefits of tamoxifen in a single number, however, it is necessary
to define indices that assign weights to the various events. A summary index based on the severity
categories in Table 5 can be calculated from
![]() | (2) |
where weights W1, W2, and W3 are chosen to put varying emphasis on life-threatening, severe, and other events, respectively. We rounded indices to the nearest integer. We rely principally on the index I(1, 0.5, 0) that puts twice as much weight on life-threatening events as on severe events and that ignores other events altogether. We also investigated the robustness of our conclusions to the use of other indices, i.e., I(1, 1, 1), I(1, 1, 0), and I(1, 0.5, 0.25).
In addition to tabulating I(1, 0.5, 0) for various types of women, we analyzed the
random variability of the data to estimate the probability that the index is positive. To compute
these probabilities, we assumed that the only random elements in Nx,p, Nx,t, and equation 2 are the relative risks in Table 5 that
affect the calculation of Nx,t from equation 1 with RxIx in place of Ix. Let U and V be the observed
numbers of a particular adverse event, x, in the tamoxifen and placebo arms,
respectively, of the BCPT. We assume U and V are independent Poisson
variates with means
U and
V and that
U and
V have independent noninformative
exponential prior distributions with means tending to infinity. Then the posterior distributions of
2
U and 2
V are independent chi-squared
distributions with 2(U + 1) and 2(V + 1) degrees of freedom, respectively. It
follows that Rx is distributed as {(U + 1)/(V +
1)}{PV /PU}F2(U + 1),2(V + 1), where PU and PV
are the respective person-years of exposure in the tamoxifen and placebo groups. Thus, to obtain
an estimate of the probability that I(1, 0.5, 0) exceeds zero, we resampled Rx independently for each x and recalculated I(1, 0.5, 0). We repeated
this process 1 000 000 times and estimated the desired probability (with
precision ±0.001) as the proportion of samples in which I(1, 0.5, 0) exceeded
zero. Using a parametric bootstrap with resampled Poisson counts instead of the Bayesian
approach above, we obtained similar results.
B. Expected Events in the Absence of Tamoxifen and Numbers of Events Prevented or Caused by Tamoxifen among 10 000 Women Over a 5-Year Period
The numbers of IBCs (N1,p) and in
situ breast cancers (N6,p) expected to
develop in a population of 10 000 untreated women over a 5-year
period depends directly on the projected 5-year risk of IBC (Table 6).
For a given projected 5-year risk of IBC, the expectations for in
situ breast cancer are 0.53/0.31 = 1.7 times higher in women under
50 years of age compared with those 50 years old or older (see
section II).
The numbers of expected non-breast cancer events increase with age and vary by race (Table
7). The variations of the frequency of events reflect the variation in the
expected rates by age and race. Cataracts are by far the most common event. Hip and spine
fractures are rare, and the occurrence of a stroke is infrequent among women under age 50 years,
but these conditions are relatively frequent among those 70 years old or older. Several differences
between white and black women are important to note. In those over 50 years of age, fractures
are about two to three times more common among white women. Depending on age, the
frequency of endometrial cancer is 1.5-2.5 times higher among white women. Stroke, pulmonary
embolism, and deep vein thrombosis are two to three times higher among black women in all age
groups.
The numbers of cases of IBCs (N1) and in situ breast cancers (N6) expected to be prevented by tamoxifen among 10 000 women
over a 5-year period are shown in Table 6. Because tamoxifen reduces the
incidence of breast cancer by about one half, the numbers of breast cancers expected to be
prevented are nearly proportional to the projected 5-year risk of IBC.
Table 8 displays the expected numbers of non-breast cancer outcomes
prevented (positive number) or caused (negative number) by tamoxifen in such a population. The
patterns in Table 8
reflect variations in background rates (Table 7
) and the relative risks associated with tamoxifen therapy (Table 5
). Among women 50 years old or older, tamoxifen reduces the expected
numbers of fractures substantially. This benefit is counterbalanced by substantial increases in the
risks of stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis in women 60 years old or older,
especially among black women. The risk of tamoxifen-induced endometrial cancer is also
appreciable in women 50 years old or older with a uterus and is about twofold higher in white
women than in black women. Tamoxifen causes very few adverse events among black or white
women under age 50 years and has the potential to prevent IBCs and in situ breast
cancers among high-risk women in this age range.
C. Examples of Assessing Risks and Benefits From Tables 6-9
We illustrate how black and white women in the age groups 40-49
years or 50-59 years and with projected 5-year risks of IBC of 2.0%,
4.0%, or 6.0% can assess the net benefit or risk from tamoxifen
(Table 9). Table 9
was constructed by abstracting
appropriate elements from Tables 6
and 8
.
|
A 55-year-old black woman with a projected 5-year risk of IBC of 4% would expect a net adverse effect from tamoxifen among 10 000 such women of -81 life-threatening events in 5 years (0.81% increase in absolute risk), primarily from increased risk of stroke and pulmonary embolism. The index I(1, 0.5, 0) = -74 if she has a uterus and -22 otherwise. The data therefore suggest that such a woman is unlikely to benefit from using tamoxifen. It should be remembered, however, that the data on baseline rates and effects of tamoxifen are much less well established for black women than for white women (see sections II and III); therefore these conclusions are subject to greater uncertainty.
Some generalizations can be made based on I(1, 0.5, 0) in Table 9. First, the net index increases with increasing projected 5-year risk of IBC. Second,
within any particular level of projected 5-year risk of IBC, the net index decreases with increasing
age as the result of increases in the risk of adverse effects of tamoxifen treatment. Third, the
elimination of the risk of endometrial cancer among women 50 years old or older (as in those who
have had a hysterectomy) substantially improves the net index. This is particularly notable among
white women with a low risk of breast cancer, for whom the elimination of endometrial cancer
risk improves the index from a negative value to a positive value. Fourth, because the risks of
events, such as stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis, are two to three times
higher in black women, the net indices for black women are lower than those for white women.
D. Some General Recommendations Based on the Index I(1, 0.5, 0) in Tables 10 and 11
These points can be studied further by examining the patterns of
values of I(1, 0.5, 0) for women with (Table
10) and without (Table 11)
a
uterus. In addition to the value of I(1, 0.5, 0), both tables
display an asterisk when the probability that I(1, 0.5, 0)
exceeds zero, taking random variation into account (seesection IV, part A), is 0.60-0.89 and two asterisks when the
probability equals or exceeds 0.90. Thus, two asterisks indicate
"strong evidence" that tamoxifen is beneficial based on weights
W1 = 1, W2 = 0.5, and
W3 = 0, and one asterisk indicates "moderate
evidence" of a net benefit.
|
|
Nonetheless, we can summarize the information in Tables 10 and 11
that identifies women for whom there is strong evidence (two asterisks)
or moderate evidence (one asterisk) that I(1, 0.5, 0) exceeds zero (Fig. 1
). Among white women with a projected 5-year risk of IBC between 1.5% and
7.0%, there is strong evidence of a net tamoxifen benefit for all those under age 50 years.
For those with a uterus, strong evidence of benefit is also found for women aged 50-59 years with
a projected 5-year risk of IBC greater than or equal to 6.0%, and moderate evidence of net
benefit is found for those with a projected 5-year risk of IBC in the range of
4.0%-5.9%. For white women without a uterus, strong evidence of benefit is also
found in some high-risk women aged 60-69 years (see Fig. 1
).
For black women, strong evidence of a net tamoxifen benefit is confined to younger age
groups, where the risks from stroke, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis are smaller
(Fig. 1).
Unreported data reveal very similar patterns to those in Tables 10 and
11
and Fig. 1
for I(1, 1, 1), I(1,
0, 0), and I(1, 0.5, 0.25). Thus, these conclusions are fairly insensitive to the precise
weights used, provided the weights emphasize life-threatening and severe events.
E. Volunteers for Prevention Trials
Women in the placebo arm of the BCPT had lower mortality rates (71
deaths observed compared with 188 expected from the mortality rates in
Table 3) and lower rates of stroke and pulmonary embolism than the
general population (see section II, part C). Women who
participate in prevention trials such as the BCPT and the WHI tend to
be "healthy volunteers." To assess the sensitivity of the results
in Tables 10
and 11
to lower rates of stroke and
pulmonary embolism and
to offer information to women who are considering participating in
prevention trials and to other comparably healthy women, we multiplied
the rates of stroke and pulmonary embolism in Table 3
for white women
by the observed-to-expected ratio for stroke and pulmonary embolism in
the placebo arm of the BCPT, 0.50 (see section II, part C).
These reduced rates of stroke and pulmonary embolism were used to
calculate the index I(1, 0.5, 0) in Table 12
for white women
with and without a uterus. It is seen that, compared with indices in
Tables 10
and 11
, the indices in Table 12
are larger, especially for
older ages. For example, a 65-year-old white woman with a uterus and
with a projected 5-year risk of IBC of 3% has an index equal to -175
in Table 10
and an index equal to -88 in Table 12
.
Thus, the
risk/benefit trade-off is improved in "healthy volunteers."
|
F. Lobular Carcinoma In Situ
Women with LCIS had a projected 5-year risk of IBC of 6.47% in the
BCPT. We therefore recommend using the projected 5-year risk of IBC of
6.5% as the entry in Tables 6, 8
, 10
, and 11
and Fig. 1
for
such women.
![]() |
V. APPLICABILITY OF TRIAL RESULTS TO HIGH-RISK WOMEN NOT INCLUDED IN THE BCPT |
---|
A. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
Women with a history of DCIS may be candidates for primary
prevention with tamoxifen because they are at high risk for invasive
breast cancer. Women treated with lumpectomy alone in NSABP protocol
B-17, which compared lumpectomy with lumpectomy plus radiation
(62), had a 5-year risk of IBC of 14.7%. IBC includes
contralateral breast cancer. The risk of contralateral invasive breast
cancer alone was 1.89%. The 5-year cumulative risk of IBC for women
treated with lumpectomy and radiation was 6.9% in NSABP protocol B-17
(62) and 7.2% in protocol B-24, which studied lumpectomy and
radiation with or without tamoxifen (63). The corresponding
5-year cumulative risks of contralateral invasive cancer were 2.1% and
2.3%, respectively. Thus, the risk of contralateral disease alone in
these studies is comparable to the 5-year risk of all IBCs, 3.3%, seen
in the placebo arm of the BCPT, and the 5-year risk for all IBCs for
women with DCIS is quite high compared with that for BCPT participants.
Based on these high 5-year risks, even in women treated with lumpectomy
and radiation, the data in Tables 8-12
and Fig. 1
suggest a potential benefit for some women with DCIS. Such women were
excluded from BCPT because they were eligible for a competing protocol
and not because it was thought that tamoxifen would be ineffective.
B. Recent Small, Invasive Breast Cancers
Women with a history of IBC have a risk of about 0.6% per year of developing a second, contralateral, primary breast tumor (59). This corresponds to 5-year risks of about 3%, which is near the risk of IBC of 3.3% for members of the BCPT placebo arm. Consensus opinion suggests that adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen is not indicated for women with invasive breast tumors less than 1 cm in size who have negative axillary lymph nodes (59). However, the consensus opinion was based on studies of tamoxifen as a treatment for primary cancer rather than as a preventive agent against a second new breast cancer. Because the risk of a contralateral, second invasive breast malignancy approaches 20% during the remaining years of life of a woman diagnosed with a first breast cancer at the age of 40 years and is similar to the risk for women in the BCPT, the use of tamoxifen for risk reduction may be a reasonable option, particularly for younger women. There are no data available from studies designed to examine this question, but a review of data from NSABP treatment trials and other trials showed that tamoxifen reduces the incidence of contralateral second primary breast cancers by roughly the same proportion as observed for primary breast malignancies in the BCPT (58). Thus, preventive use of tamoxifen for women with small, lymph node-negative invasive breast cancers may be justified in some cases where there is doubt about its use as adjuvant therapy.
It is not known whether some breast cancers arise without expressing estrogen receptors (ERs) at any point in their genesis or whether all invasive breast cancers pass through a developmental phase in which they produce ER protein. The data from the BCPT indicate that the breast cancers arising among women taking placebo were more likely to express ERs than were those arising in women taking tamoxifen. This suggests that tamoxifen suppressed those developing lesions that expressed ERs but had little or no effect on tumors that did not express ERs. An alternative explanation is that there are breast tumors that arise without expressing ERs at any time in their natural history. If the latter hypothesis is true and if subsequent breast cancers in women whose first cancer did not express ERs are also ER negative, tamoxifen would offer them little benefit. Alternatively, if all breast tumors pass through a phase of ER expression, then tamoxifen may offer benefit even to those women whose first primary breast cancer was ER negative. Although more basic and clinical research is necessary to resolve this question, a meta-analysis of the effects of tamoxifen (59) revealed that "the proportional reduction in contralateral breast cancer appeared to be about the same size in women with ER-poor tumours (29% [SD 15]) as in other women (30% [SD 6])."
C. Remote Diagnosis of Breast Cancer
Another group of women for whom there is no definitive answer about the use of tamoxifen for prevention are cancer-free women who were diagnosed with breast cancer 5 or more years previously ("remote diagnosis") and who were not treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. We abstracted data from several NSABP protocols (64-67) to estimate the subsequent risk of IBC in women who had survived disease free for 5 years following an initial IBC diagnosis and who had not received adjuvant tamoxifen. The subsequent 5-year cumulative risk of contralateral invasive breast cancer was 3.4%, which is close to the risk of 3.3% for IBC in the placebo arm of the BCPT, and the cumulative risk of all IBCs in such women was 14.4%. The decision to use tamoxifen for risk reduction in these patients must be informed by an assessment of the duration and quality of life remaining, the risks as well as potential benefits of tamoxifen, and the presence of competing morbidities that may weigh against the use of tamoxifen. For example, tamoxifen might be appropriate in a 50-year-old woman who is otherwise healthy, but it might be less suitable in a 68-year-old woman with a history of cataracts and deep vein thrombosis.
D. BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers
Both prospective and retrospective genetic epidemiologic studies (13-15) have demonstrated that women who carry mutations in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes are at very high risk of developing both breast and ovarian cancers. These women would appear to be ideal candidates for the use of tamoxifen in the primary prevention of breast cancer, but no data are yet available that relate directly to such women. While the mechanisms by which tamoxifen might prevent breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are not fully understood, there is no reason to suppose a priori that tamoxifen would necessarily be less effective in mutation carriers, other than the observation that BRCA1 mutation carriers are more likely to develop ER-negative tumors (68-72). Additional laboratory modeling of the effects of tamoxifen in vitro is necessary to address this question, as are prospective data from primary prevention trials that use tamoxifen in mutation carriers. Until these studies are completed, the use of tamoxifen in such women should be accompanied by disclosure beforehand that tamoxifen may not be effective.
![]() |
VI. CLINICAL MONITORING OF WOMEN ON TAMOXIFEN |
---|
Routine screening with hematologic or chemical blood tests is not indicated because no hematologic or hepatic toxic effects attributable to tamoxifen were demonstrated in the BCPT or in clinical trials using tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy.
Because of the modest increase in the risk of cataracts (relative risk = 1.14) and cataract surgery among women on tamoxifen compared with women taking placebo, women taking tamoxifen should be questioned about symptoms of cataracts during follow-up and should discuss with their health care provider the value of periodic eye examinations.
![]() |
VII. COUNSELING |
---|
Any discussion of tamoxifen should occur within the context of a broader discussion of health promotion and breast cancer risk. The encounter should include a qualitative assessment of the patient's risk and, ideally, a quantitative assessment. The woman's perception of her own risk should be elicited so that it can be compared with an objective risk estimate. This discussion might include an evaluation of the psychologic factors that may affect a woman's perception of her risk, including her personal experience of breast cancer in family members, and her beliefs and fears concerning cancer etiology and treatment. Research indicates that, although the perceived risk of breast cancer can be highly inaccurate, it is associated with health behaviors, such as the use of mammography (76). Therefore, counselors should strive to ensure that a woman understands her objective risk and its implications for making a decision about the use of tamoxifen.
At a minimum, a risk assessment encounter should include a clear description of the benefits
and risks of taking tamoxifen for the individual woman, including a description of the side effects
experienced by some of the BCPT study participants. Based on the counselee's age, race,
and projected 5-year risk of IBC, one could refer to Fig. 1 to determine
whether there is strong evidence for a net benefit of tamoxifen and to Table 10
or 11
to assess the magnitude of the benefit, expressed in
terms of the index I(1, 0.5, 0). The counselor should also take into account particular
risk factors (see section II and Table 4
) to see if the woman is
subject to increased risk of tamoxifen-induced stroke or endometrial cancer, for example. Such
factors would require a more detailed calculation of likely risks associated with tamoxifen by
modifying Tables 6
and 8
.
The woman should be shown a summary of the separate risks and benefits of tamoxifen, as
illustrated in Table 13, to allow her to weigh various outcomes
individually. Some women may reject tamoxifen because they fear a stroke or a pulmonary
embolism, even though the net benefit index is positive. The summary data in Table 13
are based on age, race, presence or absence of a uterus, and projected 5-year risk of
IBC. Table 13
exhibits for a 40-year-old white woman with a uterus and
with a projected 5-year risk of IBC of 2% the numbers of severe and life-threatening events
expected in a population of 10 000 women like the counselee in 5 years in the absence of
tamoxifen, the number of such events expected to be prevented or caused by tamoxifen, a
description of tamoxifen's effects on events that are not severe or life-threatening, and an
estimate of I(1, 0.5, 0). From data in a table such as Table 13
and from data in Tables 6
and 8
, the woman and
her counselor would have the information needed to calculate any summary index that they chose,
based on the woman's particular health concerns and her preferred weights, and to compare
the effects of tamoxifen with rates in the absence of tamoxifen. Some women with a negative I(1, 0.5, 0) index may choose to take tamoxifen to reduce their breast cancer risk, and the
counselor should be prepared to support such a decision if it represents an informed choice.
Experience in the BCPT indicates that tools to communicate the risks and benefits of tamoxifen
must be simple and short, and Fig. 1
and summaries such as Table 13
may therefore prove useful. The need for simplicity in communicating
information on risks and benefits has been stressed elsewhere (77).
|
Likewise, the risk of endometrial cancer associated with tamoxifen treatment is comparable to
that associated with ERT. The link between endometrial cancer and the use of unopposed
estrogen was postulated in 1976, when a sharp rise in incidence rates of endometrial cancer was
observed in the 1970s (80). In a recent study, the relative risk of
endometrial cancer per additional 5 years of unopposed ERT was 2.17 (95% CI =
1.91-2.47) (81), and higher relative risks were found for 10 or more years
of unopposed estrogen use [(28-31); Table 4)]. When estrogen was given in combination with at least 10 days of progestin
therapy or with continuous progestins (81), there was virtually no
increased risk of endometrial cancer (relative risk = 1.07). Thus, the risk of endometrial
cancer associated with tamoxifen treatment over a 5-year period is similar to that associated with
the use of unopposed ERT.
The counselor should convey what is not known about the use of tamoxifen (see section VIII) as well as what is known. For example, the BCPT does not provide data on the effects of tamoxifen beyond 5 years, and it was not designed to study the impact of tamoxifen on total mortality, for which the relative risk was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.56-1.16). There is ongoing research to find drugs that have efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk and that are associated with fewer risks than tamoxifen, and decisions regarding the use of tamoxifen may be influenced by the potential of such research to increase management options in the future. For example, the counselor should make women aware of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR), which began in 1999.
The counselor should warn women of the need to avoid pregnancy and to rely on barrier methods of contraception while taking tamoxifen. The counselor should be aware that tamoxifen can potentiate the effects of coumarin-like anticoagulants (82).
An important counseling issue concerns barriers to the use of tamoxifen. The counselor and woman should discuss the costs of taking tamoxifen, including annual mammograms, annual gynecologic examinations, and the possible need for additional studies, such as pelvic ultrasound examinations or endometrial aspiration biopsies. Concerns about out-of-pocket expenses increased the chance of refusing to participate in the BCPT (83) and may affect the decisions of women who are not participating in clinical studies even more. Concerns about the need to discontinue ERT (see section VIII) may also inhibit the use of tamoxifen (83). Some women may refuse to take tamoxifen because of its unpleasant side effects, including hot flashes, irregular menses, and vaginal discharge. Another barrier is the need for long-term treatment and follow-up. The counselor and woman should recognize the challenges in their particular clinical setting to achieving long-term benefits from tamoxifen.
Finally, the counselor should assess whether the woman understands the information provided both immediately and at follow-up (84) and should attempt to rectify misperceptions.
![]() |
VIII. DISCUSSION |
---|
Our methods are subject to various uncertainties. Background rates (Table 3) were difficult to estimate for some types of events, such as stroke, pulmonary
embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or fractures, especially in minority women. A weakness of our
methodolgy is that projections for events such as stroke and pulmonary embolism depend only on
age and race; it would be desirable to have validated models that included medical factors such as
those in Table 4
. Such models might explain much of the apparent effect
of race (36). In the absence of such models, it can be difficult to know
whether to apply rates for stroke and pulmonary embolism from the general population, as in
Tables 3
10
, and 11
, or to
apply the lower stroke and pulmonary embolism rates that are more appropriate for
"healthy volunteers" in prevention trials (Table 12
). The
risk/benefit trade-off is more favorable to tamoxifen in the latter case. Our projections of breast
cancer risk are less certain in black and Hispanic women than in white women (see
section II, part A), which increases the difficulty of assessing risks and benefits in minority
women.
The effects of tamoxifen were estimated mainly from white women (96.5% of the
sample) in the BCPT, and our estimates of benefits for black, Hispanic, and Asian women depend
on the untested assumption that the effects of tamoxifen are the same in these groups. Our
conclusion that the net benefits of tamoxifen are restricted to younger black than white women
(Fig. 1; Tables 10
and 11
)
rests on the assumption that the adverse relative risks of tamoxifen for stroke, pulmonary
embolism, and deep vein thrombosis found in white women in the BCPT hold for black women,
who have higher background rates of these events (Table 3
). The results
in Tables 10
and 11
for black women are,
therefore, subject to greater uncertainty than for white women.
We have used the overall relative risk of endometrial cancer from tamoxifen in the BCPT,
2.53, to estimate the risk for women under age 50 years (Table 5). We
believe that this risk estimate is more reliable than an estimate based on only the 17 endometrial
cancers in the subset of women under age 50 years, for whom the relative risk was 1.21
(95% CI = 0.41-3.60). Mamounas et al. (85) analyzed data
on the effects of tamoxifen in nine NSABP protocols for women with breast cancer. For women
under age 50 years, the incidence rate of endometrial cancer per 1000 woman-years was 0.88 for
women taking tamoxifen and 0.33 for women not taking tamoxifen; the corresponding relative
risk was 2.65 (95% CI = 0.97-7.0). Although these combined analyses do not
represent randomized comparisons and although it is possible that women taking tamoxifen were
under more intense surveillance for endometrial cancer than were the other women, these data
support our estimate of relative risk of 2.53 from the BCPT data. In any case, our choice of the
estimate 2.53 has little effect on net benefit/risk indices because endometrial cancer is uncommon
in women under age 50 years. A meta-analysis (59) of studies of women
of all ages taking tamoxifen for about 5 years following treatment for breast cancer yielded a
relative risk of 4.2 for endometrial cancer, in line with our estimate of 4.0 for women aged 50
years or more.
There is considerable debate on how best to present data on risks and benefits. Several
workshop participants objected to the use of an index such as I(1, 0.5,0) on the grounds
that each woman has her own preferences and concerns and that no standard index would be
particularly appropriate. We found, however, that broad conclusions about the net benefit of
tamoxifen, such as in Fig. 1 and Tables 10
and 11
, were insensitive to the particular weights used, provided they
emphasized life-threatening and severe events. Moreover, we have also presented the information
in considerable detail (Tables 6
-8
) so that women
and their counselors can weigh risks and benefits using whatever weights they prefer (see
Table 13
).
There are important gaps in our knowledge that are relevant to counseling on the use of
tamoxifen. The BCPT does not provide data on the long-term effects of tamoxifen because the
average follow-up was 4.06 years. This lack of information and the possibility that alternative
preventive agents may become available (see section VII) complicate the decision of
when to initiate tamoxifen use. There are insufficient data on the effects of tamoxifen on overall
mortality, although the results in the BCPT were encouraging in this regard (relative risk =
0.81; 95% CI = 0.56-1.16 ). It is unclear why two much smaller studies in Europe (2,3) failed to demonstrate a reduction in breast cancer risk associated with
tamoxifen. It may be that differences in study populations or adherence to treatment explain these
various results, and they should not be combined. If one combines the studies, however, as in
section III, to obtain an overall relative risk of breast cancer of 0.59, instead of 0.50-0.51 as in the
BCPT, the numbers of breast cancers expected to be prevented by tamoxifen (Table 6) are reduced by about 18%. It follows, for example, that a 45-year-old white
woman with a uterus and with a projected 5-year risk of IBC of 4% would have a summary
index, I(1, 0.5, 0), of about 142 instead of the value of 196 in Table 10
. There are also considerable uncertainties relating to the use of tamoxifen for breast
cancer prevention in classes of women not included in the BCPT, such as women with DCIS,
women with small, invasive tumors, and women who have survived disease free for several years
following treatment without tamoxifen for breast cancer (see section V).
Another issue concerns the concurrent use of hormone replacement therapy and tamoxifen. Women in the BCPT were eligible only if they took no estrogen or progesterone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive, or androgens. Forty-one percent of the women in the study reported by Powles et al. (2) received hormone replacement therapy, as did 14% of those in the study reported by Veronesi et al. (3). Although there was no evidence from these studies that tamoxifen was less effective for women taking hormone replacement therapy than for other women, the power to detect such an interaction was small, and it remains at least a theoretical possibility that hormone replacement therapy reduces the effect of tamoxifen on breast cancer risk. Indeed, Fisher et al. (1) mentioned hormone replacement therapy as an important possible reason for the discrepancies in the results between the European studies (2,3) and the BCPT. To mimic the conditions of the BCPT as closely as possible, it is recommended that women who plan to take tamoxifen discontinue and/or refrain from taking hormone replacement therapy. In some cases, this may exacerbate hot flashes, and women may be unwilling to continue taking tamoxifen.
Much is unknown about how best to elicit a woman's concerns about specific possible adverse health outcomes and preferences regarding the use of tamoxifen. Research is also needed to define women's knowledge about their risk of breast cancer and other adverse events, about the BCPT and the effects of tamoxifen, and about the risk of breast cancer while taking tamoxifen. Studies are also needed to define effective counseling strategies and tools for conveying information on risks and benefits.
There is considerable scope for research to reduce these uncertainties and areas of ignorance.
There is a need for feedback from counselors regarding the usefulness of tools such as Table 13 proposed in this article to assist in the counseling process. If such tools
were thought to be useful, a computer program could be developed that would facilitate the
presentation of individualized risk and benefit data such as those in Table 13 and would allow a
woman to define a summary index that reflected her particular concerns regarding adverse events.
![]() |
APPENDIX: WORKSHOP PROGRAM AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS |
---|
List of Workshop Participants
![]() |
NOTES |
---|
V. Vogel is a member of the Speakers' Bureau for Discovery International Inc., Deerfield, IL, that has received substantial funding from Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE, the manufacturer of tamoxifen.
We thank the workshop participants for their presentations and for written and verbal communications, some of which were incorporated in this special article. The authors, however, are responsible for the opinions stated. We thank the investigators in the Cardiovascular Health Study and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study for providing data to validate our estimates for the risks of stroke. We thank investigators in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project for the use of data abstracted from protocols P-1, B-13, B-15, B-17, B-18, B-19, and B-24. We thank Jacques Benichou, Ted Colton, Leslie Ford, Judy Garber, Trisha Hartge, Barnett S. Kramer, Carol K. Redmond, Barbara Rimer, Lonnie Williams, and Helene Wilson for suggestions and constructive criticisms.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
1
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah
M, Cronin WM, 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;90:1371-88.
2 Powles T, Eeles R, Ashley S, Easton D, Chang J, Dowsett M, et al. Interim analysis of the incidence of breast cancer in the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial. Lancet 1998;352:98-101.[Medline]
3 Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Costa A, Sacchini V, Maltoni C, Robertson C, et al. Prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial among hysterectomised women. Italian Tamoxifen Prevention Study. Lancet 1998;352:93-7.[Medline]
4 Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879-86.[Abstract]
5 Benichou J. A computer program for estimating individualized probabilities of breast cancer [published erratum appears in Comput Biomed Res 1994;27:81]. Comput Biomed Res 1993;26:373-82.[Medline]
6 Gail MH, Benichou J. Assessing the risk of breast cancer in individuals. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer prevention. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott; 1992. p. 1-15.
7 Bondy ML, Lustbader ED, Halabi S, Ross E, Vogel VG. Validation of a breast cancer risk assessment model in women with a positive family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:620-5.[Abstract]
8 Spiegelman D, Colditz GA, Hunter D, Hertzmark E. Validation of the Gail et al. model for predicting individualized breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:600-7.[Abstract]
9
Costantino JP, Gail MH, Pee D, Anderson S, Redmond CK,
Benichou J, et al. Validation studies for models projecting the risk of invasive and total breast
cancer incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1541-8.
10 Anderson SJ, Ahnn S, Duff K. NSABP breast cancer prevention trial risk assessment program, Version 2. Pittsburgh (PA): Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh; August 14, 1992.
11 Miller BA, Kolonel LN, Bernstein L, Young JL Jr, Swanson GM, West D, et al, editors. Racial/ethnic patterns of cancer in the United States, 1988-1992. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 1996 Report No.: DHHS Publ No. (NIH)96-4104.
12 Harris JR, Lippman ME, Veronesi U, Willett W. Breast cancer (1). N Engl J Med 1992;327:319-28.[Medline]
13 Struewing JP, Hartge P, Wacholder S, Baker SM, Berlin M, McAdams M, et al. The risk of cancer associated with specific mutations of BRCA1 and BRCA2 among Ashkenazi Jews. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1401-8.
14 Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1995;56:265-71.[Medline]
15 Thorlacius S, Struewing JP, Hartge P, Olafsdottir GH, Sigvaldason H, Tryggvadottir L, et al. Population-based study of risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA2 mutation. Lancet 1998;352:1337-9.[Medline]
16 Claus EB, Risch NJ, Thompson WD. Genetic analysis of breast cancer in the cancer and steroid hormone study. Am J Hum Genet 1991;48:232-42.[Medline]
17 Whittemore AS, Gong G, Itnyre J. Prevalence and contribution of BRCA1 mutations in breast cancer and ovarian cancer: results from three U.S. population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 1997;60:496-504.[Medline]
18 Hanssen AM, Fryns JP. Cowden syndrome. J Med Genet 1995;32:117-9.[Abstract]
19 Li F. Familial aggregation. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF Jr, editors. Cancer epidemiology and prevention. 2nd ed. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1996. p. 546-58.
20 Kelsey JL. A review of the epidemiology of human breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 1979;1:74-109.[Medline]
21 Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994;73:643-51.[Medline]
22
Claus EB, Schildkraut J, Iverson ES Jr, Berry D, Parmigiani G.
Effect of BRCA1 and BRCA2 on the association between breast cancer risk and family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1824-9.
23 Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-5.[Abstract]
24 Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Pasekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-9.[Abstract]
25
Berry DA, Parmigiani G, Sanchez J, Schildkraut J, Winer E.
Probability of carrying a mutation of breast-ovarian cancer gene BRCA1 based on family history. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:227-38.
26
Newman B, Mu H, Butler LM, Millikan RC, Moorman PG, King
MC. Frequency of breast cancer attributable to BRCA1 in a population-based series of American
women. JAMA 1998;279:915-21.
27 Merrill RM, Feuer EJ. Risk-adjusted cancer-incidence rates (United States). Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:544-52.[Medline]
28 Voight LF, Weiss NS. Epidemiology of endometrial cancer. In: Surwit E, Alberts D, editors. Endometrial cancer. Boston (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1989. p. 1-21.
29 Parazzini F, La Vecchia C, Bocciolone L, Franceschi J. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1991:41:1-16.[Medline]
30
Rose PG. Endometrial carcinoma [published erratum
appears in N Engl J Med 1997;336:1335]. N Engl J Med 1996;335:640-9.
31 Brinton LA, Hoover RN. Epidemiology of gynecologic cancers. In: Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC, editors. Principles and practice of gynecologic oncology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott; 1997. p. 3-29.
32 Broderick JP, Phillips SJ, Whisnant JP, O'Fallon WM, Bergstralh EJ. Incidence rates of stroke in the eighties: the end of the decline in stroke? Stroke 1989;20:577-82.[Abstract]
33
Silverstein MD, Heit JA, Mohr DN, Petterson TM,
O'Fallon WM, Melton JM 3rd. Trends in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and
pulmonary embolism: a 25-year population-based study. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:585-93.
34 World Health Organization. Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death. Volume 1. Ninth revision. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 1977.
35 National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United States, 1992, volume II, mortality, part A. Washington (DC): Public Health Service; DHHS Publ No. (PHS)96-1101, Table 1-27; 1996.
36
Rosamond WD, Folsom AR, Chambless LE, Wang CH,
McGovern PG, Howard G, et al. Stroke incidence and survival among middle-aged adults: 9-year
follow-up of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort. Stroke 1999;30:736-43.
37 Fried LP, Borhani NO, Enright P, Furberg CD, Gardin JM, Kronmal KA, et al. The Cardiovascular Health Study: design and rationale. Ann Epidemiol 1991;1:263-76.[Medline]
38
Kuller L, Fisher L, McClelland R, Fried L, Cushman M, Jackson
S, et al. Differences in prevalence of and risk factors for subclinical vascular disease among black
and white participants in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998;18:283-93.
39 Sacco RL, Hauser WA, Mohr JP. Hospitalized stroke in blacks and Hispanics in northern Manhattan. Stroke 1991;22:1491-6.[Abstract]
40 The Women's Health Initiative Study Group. Design of the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial and observational study. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:61-109.[Medline]
41
Manolio TA, Kronmal RA, Burke GL, O'Leary DH, Price
TR. Short-term predictors of incident stroke in older adults. The Cardiovascular Health
Study. Stroke 1996;27:1479-86.
42 Whisnant JP, Wiebers DO, O'Fallon WM, Sicks JD, Frye RL. A population-based model of risk factors for ischemic stroke: Rochester, Minnesota. Neurology 1996;47:1420-8.[Abstract]
43
Mosca L, Manson JE, Sutherland SE, Langer RD, Manolio T,
Barrett-Connor E. Cardiovascular disease in women: a statement for healthcare professionals
from the American Heart Association. Writing Group. Circulation 1997;96:2468-82.
44
Goldhaber SZ. Pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med 1998;339:93-104.
45 Melton LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cooper C, Lane AW, Riggs L. How many women have osteoporosis? J Bone Mineral Res 1992;7:1005-10.[Medline]
46 Silverman SL, Madison RE. Decreased incidence of hip fracture in Hispanics, Asians, and blacks: California Hospital Discharge Data. Am J Public Health 1988;78:1482-3.[Abstract]
47 Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP, Brody JA, Stiers W, Rimm AA. Hip fracture incidence among the old and very old: a population-based study of 745,435 cases. Am J Public Health 1990;80:871-3.[Abstract]
48 Baron JA, Karagas M, Barrett J, Kniffin W, Malenka D, Mayor M, et al. Basic epidemiology of fractures of the upper and lower limb among Americans over 65 years of age. Epidemiology 1996;7:612-8.[Medline]
49
Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM,
Ensrud KE, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. Study of Osteoporotic
Fractures Research Group. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767-73.
50 Leske MC, Chylack LT Jr, He Q, Wu SY, Schoenfeld E, Friend J, et al. Risk factors for nuclear opalescence in a longitudinal study. LSC Group. Longitudinal Study of Cataract. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:36-41.[Abstract]
51 Leske MC, Chylack LT Jr, Wu SY, The Lens Opacities Case-Control Study. Risk factors for cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:244-51.[Abstract]
52 The Italian-American Cataract Study Group. Incidence and progression of cortical, nuclear, and posterior subcapsular cataracts. Am J Ophthalmol 1994;118:623-31.[Medline]
53
Klein BE, Klein R, Lee KE. Incidence of age-related cataract:
the Beaver Dam Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:219-25.
54 Podgor MJ, Leske MC, Ederer F. Incidence estimates for lens changes, macular changes, open-angle glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Epidemiol 1998;118:206-12.[Abstract]
55 Seddon JM, Christen WG, Manson JE, Buring JE, Sperduto RD, Hennekens CH. Low-dose aspirin and risks of cataract in a randomized trial of US physicians. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:252-5.[Abstract]
56 Leske MC, Chylack LT Jr, Wu SY. The Lens Opacities Case-Control Study. Risk factors for cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:244-51.[Abstract]
57 Hodge WG, Whitcher JP, Satariano W. Risk factors for age-related cataracts. Epidemiol Rev 1995;17:336-46.[Medline]
58 Fisher B, Redmond C. New perspective on cancer of the contralateral breast: a marker for assessing tamoxifen as a preventive agent [editorial].J Natl Cancer Inst 1991;83:1278-80.[Medline]
59 Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 1998;351:1451-67.[Medline]
60 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88.[Medline]
61 National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United States, 1990, volume II, mortality, part A. Washington (DC): Public Health Service. DHHS Publ No. (PHS)95-1101, Table 1-27; 1994.
62 Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Mamounas E, Costantino J, Poller W, et al. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-17. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:441-52.[Abstract]
63 Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Mamounas E, 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.[Medline]
64 Fisher B, Redmond C, Dimitrov NV, Bowman D, Legault-Poisson S, Wickerham DL, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors. N Engl J Med 1989;320:473-8.[Abstract]
65 Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, Poisson R, Redmond C, Margolese RG, et al. Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and flourouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol 1990;8:1483-96.[Abstract]
66 Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2483-93.[Abstract]
67 Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP, Costantino J, Wickerham DL, Redmond C, et al. Sequential methotrexate and flourouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1982-92.[Abstract]
68 Johannsson OT, Idvall I, Anderson C, Borg A, Barkardottir RB, Egilsson V, et al. Tumour biological features of BRCA1-induced breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:362-71.[Medline]
69 Karp SE, Tonin PN, Begin LR, Martinez JJ, Zhang JC, Pollak MN, et al. Influence of BRCA1 mutations on nuclear grade and estrogen receptor status of breast carcinoma in Ashkenazi Jewish women. Cancer 1997;80:435-41.[Medline]
70 Loman N, Johannsson O, Bendahl PO, Borg A, Ferno M, Olsson H. Steroid receptors in hereditary breast carcinomas associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or unknown susceptibility genes. Cancer 1998;83:310-9.[Medline]
71 Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, van den Bosch LM, Dahmen G, van Geel AN, et al. Survival and tumour characteristics of breast-cancer patients with germline mutations of BRCA1. Lancet 1998;351:316-21.[Medline]
72 Wagner TM, Moslinger RA, Muhr D, Langbauer G, Hirtenlehner K, Concin H, et al. BRCA1-related breast cancer in Austrian breast and ovarian cancer families: specific BRCA1 mutations and pathological characteristics. Int J Cancer 1998;77:354-60.[Medline]
73 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Alexandria (VA): International Medical Publishing; 1996.
74 ACOG Committee opinion. Tamoxifen and endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1996;53:197-9.[Medline]
75 O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingsworth G, et al. Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone therapy. Med Decis Making 1998;18:295-303.[Medline]
76 McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE. What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychol 1996;15:423-9.[Medline]
77 Comprehensive Working Group on Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials for the National Cancer Institute. Recommendations for the development of informed consent documents for cancer clinical trials. Rockville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office for Protection from Research Risks; 1998.
78 Douketis JD, Ginsberg JS, Holbrook A, Crowther M, Duku EK, Burrows RF. A reevaluation of the risk for venous thromboembolism with the use of oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1522-30.[Abstract]
79 Grodstein F, Stampfer MJ, Goldhaber SZ, Manson JE, Colditz GA, Speizer FE, et al. Prospective study of exogenous hormones and risk of pulmonary embolism in women. Lancet 1996;348:983-7.[Medline]
80 Weiss NS, Szekely DR, Austin DF. Increasing incidence of endometrial cancer in the United States. N Engl J Med 1976;294:1259-62.[Abstract]
81
Pike MC, Peters RK, Cozen W, Probst-Hensch NM, Felix JC,
Wan PC, et al. Estrogen-progestin replacement therapy and endometrial cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1997;89:1110-6.
82 Fritsch M, Wolf DM. Symptomatic side effects of tamoxifen therapy. In: Jordan VC, editor. Long-term tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press; 1994. p. 23555.
83 Yeomans Kinney A, Vernon SW, Shui W, Weber DV, Schell M, Vogel VG. Validation of a model predicting enrollment status in a chemoprevention trial for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998;7:591-5.[Abstract]
84 Black WC, Nease RF Jr, Tosteson AN. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:720-31.[Abstract]
85 Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Fisher B, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N. Primary breast cancer (PBC) as a risk factor for subsequent contralateral breast cancer (CBC): NSABP experience from nine randomized adjuvant trials [abstract]. 21st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;50:230.
Manuscript received March 19, 1999; revised August 19, 1999; accepted September 8, 1999.
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |