-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20% to 30% of women, but tends to recur in 60% of women. Non-cyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but tends to resolve spontaneously in half of women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for breast pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 24 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, bromocriptine, combined oral contraceptive pill, danazol, diuretics, evening primrose oil, gestrinone, gonadorelin analogues, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), lisuride, low-fat diet, progestogens, pyridoxine, tamoxifen, tibolone, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), toremifene, and vitamin E.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Breast Diseases; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mastodynia; Pain; Pain Measurement; Toremifene; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21477394
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2007Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Breast pain may be cyclical (worse before a period) or non-cyclical, originating from the breast or the chest wall, and occurs at some time in 70% of women. Cyclical breast pain resolves spontaneously in 20-30% of women, but tends to recur in 60% of women. Non-cyclical pain responds poorly to treatment but tends to resolve spontaneously in half of women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for breast pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to January 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: a low-fat diet, antibiotics, bromocriptine, danazol, diuretics, evening primrose oil, gestrinone, gonadorelin analogues, hormone replacement therapy, lisuride, progestogens, pyridoxine, tamoxifen, tibolone, topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, toremifene, and vitamin E.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Breast; Breast Diseases; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mastodynia; Pain; Pain Measurement; Toremifene
PubMed: 19454068
DOI: No ID Found -
IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of... 1996
Review
Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Carcinogenicity Tests; Carcinogens; Estrogen Antagonists; Humans; Toremifene
PubMed: 9097128
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2012Toremifene (TOR) and tamoxifen (TAM) can both be used as treatments for advanced breast cancer. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Toremifene (TOR) and tamoxifen (TAM) can both be used as treatments for advanced breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of TOR with TAM in patients with advanced breast cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register was searched (1 July 2011) using the codes for "toremifene", "fareston", "tamoxifen, "nolvadex, and "breast cancer". We also searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (from inception to 1 July 2011), EMBASE (via Ovid) (from inception to 1 July 2011), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (1 July 2011). In addition, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials or reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety, or both of TOR with TAM in women with advanced breast cancer. Trials that provided sufficient data on one of the following items: objective response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and adverse events, were considered eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Studies were assessed for eligibility and quality. Two review authors independently extracted the following details: first author, publication year, country, years of follow-up, treatment arms, intention-to-treat (ITT) population size, menopausal status of patients, hormone receptor status, response criteria, efficacy and safety outcomes of TOR and TAM arms. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and response and adverse events were analysed as dichotomous variables. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis unless there was significant between-study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 2061 patients from seven RCTs were included for final analysis, with 1226 patients in the TOR group and 835 patients in the TAM group. The ORR for the TOR group was 25.8% (316/1226) whereas, the ORR for the TAM group was 26.9% (225/835). The pooled risk ratio (RR) suggested that the ORRs were not statistically different between the two groups (RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.18, P = 0.83). The median TTP was 6.1 months for the TOR group and 5.8 months for the TAM group. The median OS was 27.8 months for the TOR group and 27.6 months for the TAM group. There were no significant differences in TTP and OS between the two therapeutic groups (for TTP: HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.24; for OS: HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.20). The frequencies of most adverse events were also similar in the two groups, while headache seemed to occur less in the TOR group than in the TAM group (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.74, P = 0.02). There was no significant heterogeneity between studies in most of the above meta-analyses. Sensitivity analysis did not alter the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
TOR and TAM are equally effective and the safety profile of the former is at least not worse than the latter in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer. Thus, TOR may serve as a reasonable alternative to TAM when anti-oestrogens are applicable but TAM is not the preferred choice for some reason.
Topics: Aged; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tamoxifen; Toremifene
PubMed: 22786516
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008926.pub2 -
World Journal of Clinical Oncology Aug 2014Although more widespread screening and routine adjuvant therapy has improved the outcome for breast cancer patients in recent years, there remains considerable scope for... (Review)
Review
Although more widespread screening and routine adjuvant therapy has improved the outcome for breast cancer patients in recent years, there remains considerable scope for improving the efficacy, safety and tolerability of adjuvant therapy in the early stage disease and the treatment of advanced disease. Toremifene is a selective estrogen receptor modifier (SERM) that has been widely used for decades in hormone receptor positive breast cancer both in early and late stage disease. Its efficacy has been well established in nine prospective randomized phase III trials compared to tamoxifen involving more than 5500 patients, as well as in several large uncontrolled and non-randomized studies. Although most studies show therapeutic equivalence between the two SERMs, some show an advantage for toremifene. Several meta-analyses have also confirmed that the efficacy of toremifene is at least as good as that of tamoxifen. In terms of safety and tolerability toremifene is broadly similar to tamoxifen although there is some evidence that toremifene is less likely to cause uterine neoplasms, serious vascular events and it has a more positive effect on serum lipids than does tamoxifen. Toremifene is therefore effective and safe in the treatment of breast cancer. It provides not only a useful therapeutic alternative to tamoxifen, but may bring specific benefits.
PubMed: 25114854
DOI: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.393 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Mar 2010Bone metastases are a substantial burden to men with advanced prostate cancer as they often cause pain and can cause fractures and spinal cord compression. Osteoblasts... (Review)
Review
Bone metastases are a substantial burden to men with advanced prostate cancer as they often cause pain and can cause fractures and spinal cord compression. Osteoblasts and osteoclasts are both pathologically activated in the setting of prostate cancer bone metastases. As osteoclast activation is associated with disease progression, skeletal complications and death, osteoclast-targeted therapies are a rational approach to disease management. Zoledronic acid is standard of care for castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases as it reduces the risk for skeletal-related events. Additional trials are needed to better define the ideal dose, frequency and duration of zoledronic acid therapy. No bisphosphonate has yet been shown to prevent bone metastases or to benefit men with androgen-sensitive disease. Denosumab is an experimental osteoclast-targeted monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand. Two ongoing phase III trials are expected to define its efficacy in preventing bone metastases and disease-related skeletal events in men with prostate cancer. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer is associated with osteoporosis and fragility fractures. Several bisphosphonates have been shown to improve bone mineral density in men receiving ADT. Two recent phase III trials have shown that denosumab and toremifene reduce the incidence of fragility fractures in these men. The World Health Organization has developed a fracture risk assessment model (FRAX) for the general population to guide the selection of patients who may benefit from pharmacotherapy. In the absence of a prostate cancer-specific algorithm, we advocate the use of FRAX for men receiving ADT.
Topics: Androgen Antagonists; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bone Density; Bone Neoplasms; Clinical Trials as Topic; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Imidazoles; Male; Osteoclasts; Prostatic Neoplasms; RANK Ligand; Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor-kappa B; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 19901958
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2009.50