Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A comparison of survival outcomes and side effects of toremifene or tamoxifen therapy in premenopausal estrogen and progesterone receptor positive breast cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study

  • Ran Gu1,
  • Weijuan Jia1,
  • Yunjie Zeng2,
  • Nanyan Rao1,
  • Yue Hu1,
  • Shunrong Li1,
  • Jiannan Wu1,
  • Liang Jin1,
  • Lijuan Chen3,
  • Meijun Long1,
  • Kai Chen1,
  • Lili Chen1,
  • Qiaozhen Xiao1,
  • Mei Wu1,
  • Erwei Song1Email author and
  • Fengxi Su1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Cancer201212:161

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-161

Received: 5 May 2011

Accepted: 3 March 2012

Published: 1 May 2012

Abstract

Background

In premenopausal women, endocrine adjuvant therapy for breast cancer primarily consists of tamoxifen alone or with ovarian suppressive strategies. Toremifene is a chlorinated derivative of tamoxifen, but with a superior risk-benefit profile. In this retrospective study, we sought to establish the role of toremifene as an endocrine therapy for premenopausal patients with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive breast cancer besides tamoxifen.

Methods

Patients with early invasive breast cancer were selected from the breast tumor registries at the Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital (China). Premenopausal patients with endocrine responsive breast cancer who underwent standard therapy and adjuvant therapy with toremifene or tamoxifen were considered eligible. Patients with breast sarcoma, carcinosarcoma, concurrent contralateral primary breast cancer, or with distant metastases at diagnosis, or those who had not undergone surgery and endocrine therapy were ineligible. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival were the primary outcomes measured. Toxicity data was also collected and compared between the two groups.

Results

Of the 810 patients reviewed, 452 patients were analyzed in the study: 240 received tamoxifen and 212 received toremifene. The median and mean follow up times were 50.8 and 57.3 months, respectively. Toremifene and tamoxifen yielded similar overall survival values, with 5-year overall survival rates of 100% and 98.4%, respectively (p = 0.087). However, recurrence-free survival was significantly better in the toremifene group than in the tamoxifen group (p = 0.022). Multivariate analysis showed that recurrence-free survival improved independently with toremifene (HR = 0.385, 95% CI = 0.154-0.961; p = 0.041). Toxicity was similar in the two treatment groups with no women experiencing severe complications, other than hot flashes, which was more frequent in the toremifene patients (p = 0.049). No patients developed endometrial cancer.

Conclusion

Toremifene may be a valid and safe alternative to tamoxifen in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer.

Keywords

Tamoxifen Toremifene Breast cancer Adjuvant endocrine therapy Premenopausal

Background

The optimal adjuvant therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer still remains unclear despite the many clinical trials over the past 60 years that have attempted to address this issue. Historically, tamoxifen has been overlooked for the treatment of breast cancer in premenopausal women, due to the false belief that it is ineffective in this patient group. Indeed, it was not until 1995 that the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group review unequivocally rejected this misconception by demonstrating its efficacy in lowering the rate of recurrence and mortality in premenopausal women with HR-positive breast cancer [1]. In recent years, the impact of endocrine therapies – primarily consisting of tamoxifen and ovarian suppression strategies – as an adjuvant treatment for premenopausal patients with early breast cancer is well established. Moreover, the expert panel of the 2009 St Gallen Conference accepted tamoxifen (or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression) as the gold standard in endocrine therapy for this group [2].

Although there is mounting evidence to show that tamoxifen has the potential to serve as adjuvant endocrine therapy for women of all ages with breast cancer, questions on the long-term safety of tamoxifen have been raised, due to the adverse event associated with this therapy, including the increased risk of secondary endometrial cancers, the formation of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke [37]. More rarely, hepatotoxicity, ocular problems and an increased risk of colorectal cancer have also been reported [816].

Recently, several alternative hormonal adjuvant therapies for the treatment of breast cancer have become available. Of these, toremifene is a synthetic analogue of tamoxifen and, like tamoxifen, acts on the estrogen receptor. Although, the clinical efficacy of toremifene and tamoxifen are comparable, both as palliative and postmenopausal adjuvant therapies [1723], toremifene and tamoxifen are metabolized differently, due to a single side chain chloride ion, leading to a more favorable toxicity profile [2427]. Data on secondary endometrial cancer showed that the incidence of this cancer was lower with toremifene than tamoxifen, prompting speculation that toremifene may unmask existing endometrial tumors rather than induce new events. Further, the risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism, and cataract may be lower with toremifene than with tamoxifen. Other evidence suggests that the beneficial estrogen agonist effects of toremifene, including changes in bone mineral density and lipid profiles, were equivalent to those of tamoxifen [28].

A prospective study using MRI demonstrated that uterine changes associated with adjuvant drugs for breast cancer occur exclusively in postmenopausal patients receiving selective estrogen receptor modulators [29]; however, those studies mostly focused on postmenopausal patients. For premenopausal women receiving tamoxifen, menopausal symptoms seemed to be a significant concern, although the side effects of tamoxifen alone were milder, with the exception of vaginal discharge [30]. Thus, the gynecological side-effects of endocrine therapy differ according to menstrual status. This may be related to the action of tamoxifen on the human endometrium in postmenopausal women, where it has simple estrogenic effects including hyperplasia, whereas in premenopausal women it is linked with endometrial cystic atrophy. Moreover, postmenopausal patients treated with tamoxifen may develop endometriosis, adenomyosis and leiomyomata. Tamoxifen also disrupts the menstrual cycle and increases the incidence of ovarian cysts in premenopausal breast cancer patients while in postmenopausal patients it induces ovarian cystic tumors and endometriomas [31, 32]. In addition, tamoxifen causes a decrease in bone mineral density in premenopausal women [33, 34]. However, in postmenopausal women, only a mild bone-sparing effect during breast cancer therapy has been reported, suggesting that in these women, anti-estrogens may act as estrogen agonists in the bone [35, 36]. Taken together, such findings prompt the question: as an adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer patients, is toremifene superior to tamoxifen?

The use of toremifene as an adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal patients with breast cancer is rarely reported. Although one can point to a study on 632 patients aged under 50 receiving toremifene as an adjuvant therapy, this report was aimed at tamoxifen therapy in very young breast cancer patients, and it did not compare the different effects of toremifene and tamoxifen, and did not evaluate the duration of treatment [37]. In view of these limitations, the purpose of this study was to compare these SERMs in premenopausal estrogen or progesterone receptor positive women and planned to perform a safety analysis, using a retrospective and cohort clinical study.

Methods

Patients

Patients with early invasive breast cancer who were treated between January 1998 and June 2009, were selected by searching breast tumor registries at the Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital. Premenopausal patients with endocrine responsive breast cancer who underwent standard therapy and adjuvant TAM/TOR for 5 years were eligible for inclusion in our study. Their premenopausal status was confirmed by measuring E2 and FSH levels before surgery (in accordance with the menopausal criterion of the 2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network). Patients were excluded if they had breast sarcoma, carcinosarcoma, or concurrent contralateral primary breast cancer, had distant metastasis at diagnosis, or had not undergone surgery in combination with endocrine therapy.

Procedures

In our study, all patients had unifocal, stage I–III invasive breast cancer and had received local control in the form of modified radical mastectomy (plus radiotherapy if more than 3 lymph nodes were involved) and breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. Chemotherapy and antiestrogen therapy were administered in accordance with 2005 St Gallen treatment guidelines (Table 1 and Table 2). Patients at an intermediate or high risk of recurrence received six to eight cycles of chemotherapy at 21-day intervals using one of the following regimens: cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2, methotrexate 50 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2 (CMF), epirubicin 90 mg/m2, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (ET); 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 90 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (FEC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (TC). In our department, antiestrogen therapy was offered following chemotherapy for all patients with endocrine responsive tumors regardless of their risk category, whereby endocrine responsiveness was defined as the presence of a ER and/or PR positive status regardless expression level [38]. Past research has shown that daily toremifene (60 mg) is as effective as daily tamoxifen (20 mg) in the treatment of postmenopausal hormone-dependent breast cancer, hence in our study, 20 mg of tamoxifen and 60 mg of toremifene were given daily, orally, for 5 years [39]. Besides those listed above, no other concomitant therapy was used, except for medication for conditions unrelated to the breast cancer. One doctor prescribed patients tamoxifen routinely, and another doctor toremifene.
Table 1

Definition of risk categories for breast cancer patients who had undergone surgery, according to the 2005 St. Gallen guidelines

Risk Category

Patient Features

Low risk

Node negative AND all of the following features:

pT ≤2 cm,

Grade 1,

Absence of peritumoral vascular invasion,

HER2/neu gene neither overexpressed nor amplified,

Age ≥35 years

Intermediate risk

Node negative AND at least one of the following features:

pT >2 cm,

Grade 2–3,

Presence of peritumoral vascular invasion,

HER2/neu gene overexpressed or amplified,

Age >35 years

Node positive (1–3 involved nodes) AND

HER2/neu gene neither overexpressed nor amplified

High risk

Node positive (1–3 involved nodes) AND

HER2/neu gene overexpressed or amplified

Node positive (4 or more involved nodes)

Table 2

Differences between treatment modalities as per the 2005 St. Gallen guidelines

Risk Category

Endocrine responsive

Endocrine response uncertain

Endocrine nonresponsive

Low risk

ET or Nil

ET or Nil

Not applicable

Intermediate risk

ET alone, or

CT → ET

CT

CT → ET

(CT + ET)

(CT + ET)

 

High risk

CT → ET

CT → ET

CT

 

(CT + ET)

(CT + ET)

 

Abbreviations: ET, endocrine therapy; Nil, no adjuvant systemic therapy; CT, chemotherapy.

The primary outcome measured was overall survival, defined as the time from surgery to death from any cause. The secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival, which was defined as the time from surgery to first evidence of recurrent disease (consisting of local recurrence and distant metastasis) or death from breast cancer. Patients known to be alive without recurrent disease or lost to follow-up at the time of analysis were screened at the time of their last follow-up.

The study was also designed to collect data on the toxicity of the endocrine therapy. In this context, the patients were interviewed over the telephone or asked to fill out a questionnaire. At each visit, data was collected on the following: nausea, presence of hot flashes, sweating, vaginal bleeding, vaginal dryness, leukorrhea, diarrhea, changes in mood or depression, the presence of skin rashes or itching, and whether the patient had experienced any symptoms or history of arterial or venous thromboses. The results of other tests including ultrasound/CT and blood test results were also collected by searching the patients’ medical records. Follow-up was performed until Feb 2011 and included: breast–abdomen ultrasound, chest X-ray every 3 months within the first 2 years after surgery, breast–abdomen–transvaginal ultrasound, and chest X-ray every 6 months within 3–5 years. Yearly mammograms, breast MR (if necessary), bone scans, chest-abdomen CT and brain MR were also performed, as was the evaluation of a number of biochemical and histological markers.

Ethics

The study was conducted in accordance with the current revision of the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Assembly, and in conformity with regulations concerning clinical trials issued by medical authority at the Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital (No. 2,2010). The study protocol and all relevant amendments were reviewed and approved by Ethics Committees of the Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital.

Statistical methods

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 13.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL,USA). Correlation was assessed using a χ² test and survival rates were estimated using a Kaplan–Meier test. A log-rank test was used to compare survival curves and cox regression analysis was used to balance the risk factors for prognosis between groups. The prognostic factors included in the multivariate analysis model were: patient age, tumor size, lymph node status, histological grade, Her-2 status, chemotherapy, type of adjuvant endocrine therapy drug, and local control. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results

Patients in our study all presented with self-detected breast cancer. Figure 1 shows the number of patients assessed at every stage in the study. A total of 810 patients with breast cancer were reviewed, of whom 452 were eligible for inclusion in the study. The median follow up time was 50.8 months, the mean follow up time was 57.3 months (range: 17.3 - 209 months, SD 29.5 months). The clinical and pathological characteristics of eligible patients are shown in Table 3. The median age of the group was 43 years (IQR 38.0 - 46.8), and mean age was 41.8 ± 5.9 years. No significant difference in the distribution of these variables was noted, except for the type of local control. Similarly, no significant difference was observed between the two treatment groups of patients who died of breast cancer (p = 0.138).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-12-161/MediaObjects/12885_2011_Article_3405_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Schematic illustrating the overall study design. Survival outcomes, recurrence-free outcomes and the presence of side effects in tamoxifen or toremifene treated premenopausal breast cancer patients were evaluated.

Table 3

Patient characteristics characterized according to whether the patients received tamoxifen (TAM) or toremifene (TOR) treatment

 

TAM (n = 240)

TOR (n = 212)

P value

Age

  

0.552

18-34

34

26

 

>35

206

186

 

T

  

0.744

 1

147

137

 

 2

84

67

 

 3

9

8

 

N

  

0.536

 0

142

136

 

 1-3

61

52

 

 4-9

27

19

 

 ≥10

10

5

 

AJCC Stage

  

0.616

 I

98

97

 

 IIA

70

64

 

 IIB

32

25

 

 IIIA

30

21

 

 IIIB

0

0

 

 IIIC

10

5

 

HER-2 status

  

0.359

 Positive

37

23

 

 Negative

148

137

 

 Unknown

55

52

 

Grade

  

0.328

 I

51

37

 

 II

141

120

 

 III

47

52

0.530

 Unknown

1

3

 

Risk of recurrence

  

0.313

 Low

11

15

 

 Intermediate or

229

197

 

 high

  

0.024

Local control

117

130

 

 BCS + RT

90

57

 

 Modified

33

25

 

 Modified + RT

  

0.513

Chemotherapy

15

10

 

 CMF

96

92

 

 ET

62

42

 

 FEC

43

45

 

 TC

24

23

 

 No chemotherapy

   

Differences between the two groups were evaluated using a χ2 test.

Cox regression analysis for all patients included in the study showed that recurrence-free survival in the toremifene group was significantly longer than in the tamoxifen group (HR = 0.385, 95% CI = 0.154-0.961; p = 0.041; Table 4). However, multivariate analysis confirmed that no factor was independently related to overall survival (Table 5). We did further Kaplan–Meier analysis of survival with patients in the two treatment groups (Figure 2, Table 6). For overall survival (OS), the 3-year, 5-year and 8-year OS was better in the toremifene patients, who were all alive at the time of last follow up. However, stratified log-rank tests for unadjusted analyses, did not reveal a significant difference. For recurrence-free survival, survival outcomes were improved following toremifene treatment compared with tamoxifen (p = 0.022).
Table 4

Multivariate analysis of recurrence-free survival between patients treated with tamoxifen (TAM) and toremifene (TOR)

 

HR (95%CI)

P value

Age

0.960(0.903-1.020)

0.191

T

1.602(0.844-3.041)

0.150

Grade

0.817(0.547-1.220)

0.323

N

1.543(0.998-2.385)

0.051

Her-2

0.950(0.856-1.055)

0.336

Local control

0.933(0.521-1.672)

0.816

Chemotherapy

1.249(0.898-1.739)

0.187

TAM-TOR

0.385(0.154-0.961)

0.041

Table 5

Multivariate analysis of overall survival between tamoxifen (TAM) and toremifene (TOR) treated patients

 

HR(95%CI)

P value

Age

1.012(0.859-1.192)

0.887

T

0.873(0.156-4.873)

0.877

Grade

1.025(0.376-2.793)

0.962

N

1.656(0.586-4.678)

0.341

Her-2

1.096(0.891-1.347)

0.387

Local control

0.630(0.150-2.643)

0.528

Chemotherapy

0.993(0.441-2.234)

0.987

TAM-TOR

0.000(0.000-6E + 174)

0.955

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2407-12-161/MediaObjects/12885_2011_Article_3405_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

A. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate overall survival in tamoxifen (TAM) or toremifene (TOR) treated premenopausal breast cancer patients ( p= 0.087). B. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate recurrence-free survival in tamoxifen (TAM) or toremifene (TOR) treated premenopausal breast cancer patients (p = 0.022).

Table 6

Comparison of recurrence and death rates in premenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with tamoxifen (TAM) and toremifene (TOR)

 

TAM (n = 240)

TOR (n = 212)

P value

Overall survival(%)

97.9

100

0.087

3 years

99.5

100

 

5 years

98.4

100

 

8 years

95.5

100

 

Recurrence-free survival(%)

90.4

97.2

0.022

3 years

94.8

98.8

 

5 years

90.7

95.6

 

8 years

88.9

89.3

 

Differences between the groups were evaluated using log-rank tests for unadjusted analyses.

Of the patients enrolled in this study, 29 (6.4%) experienced breast cancer recurrence during the mean follow-up period of 50.2 months. Of these patients, 23 (9.6%) of those taking tamoxifen and 6 (2.8%) of those taking toremifene had a local, regional, distant, or multi-site recurrence (Table 7). In the tamoxifen group, there were 12 patients who had multi-site recurrence, of which 7 had more than one site of distant metastases, 5 who had concurrent locoregional and one or more sites of distant recurrence. In the toremifene group, there was 1 patient who had concomitant bone and liver metastases. We noted a higher number of local recurrences as well as distant recurrences in women taking tamoxifen; however, the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Five (1.1%) of the women died during the study period, all of whom had been offered tamoxifen (2.1%; Table 7). Of those 5 women, all of the deaths were attributed to breast cancer.
Table 7

Site of recurrence and the cause of death in premenopausal breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen or toremifene

 

Tamoxifen (n = 240)

Toremifene (n = 212)

Recurrences

23(9.6%)

6(2.8%) 2

 Logoregional

14

 

  Distant

15

4

  Lymph nodes or  other soft tissues

3

2

  Bone

8

2

 Liver

4

1

  Contralateral  breast cancer

1

0

 Brain

2

0

  Lung

4

0

Deaths

5(2.1%)

0(0%)

  Breast cancer

4

0

  Other reasons

1

0

In the tamoxifen group, there were 12 patients with multiple site of recurrence, of which 7 had more than one site where distant metastases were detected, 5 had concurrent locoregional and one or more sites of distant recurrence. In the toremifene group, there was 1 patient who had concomitant bone and liver metastases.

Our study shows a trend toward similar rates of subjective and objective events in the women treated with tamoxifen or toremifene (Table 8). No women experienced severe adverse events such as thromboembolic or cerebrovascular complications. Hot flashes were the only side effect, which when compared between the two groups was statistically significant. There were 90 patients in tamoxifen group and 76 patients in toremifene group who underwent menopause during endocrine therapy (p = 0.716), and some of them turned to aromatase inhibitors (AIs; Table 9, p = 0.242). Table 9 also lists the common reasons for discontinuing the drug regimen besides death or recurrence, and shows that patient compliance was similar in the two groups.
Table 8

Side effects and adverse events in premenopausal breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen or toremifene

 

Tamoxifen

Toremifene

p value

Subjective

   

 Sweating

59

63

0.220

 Hot flash

56

67

0.049

 Vaginal discharge

12

7

0.369

 Leucorrhea increasing

22

31

0.072

 Vaginal dryness

18

13

0.566

 Vaginal bleeding

3

4

0.869

 Skin pruritus

19

18

0.824

 Depression

17

22

0.213

 Skinrash

15

13

0.959

 Nausea or vomit

3

8

0.082

 Diarrhea

3

3

1.000

 Asomnia

22

25

0.361

 Weightgain

50

45

0.918

 Fracture

2

1

1.000

 Ostalgia

49

49

0.488

 Hyper-menorrhea

2

7

0.124

 Blurred vision

5

3

0.857

Objectives

   

 Ovarian cysts

12

18

0.137

 Teratoma

1

1

1.000

 Uterine fibroids

25

35

0.057

 Hysterectomy

9

17

0.052

 Uterine polyps

2

3

0.889

 Cervical cyst

2

0

0.501

 Endometrial hyperplasia

15

22

0.110

 Osteoporosis

4

2

0.796

 Fatty liver

25

20

0.728

 Hemangiomas

4

3

1.000

 Hepatic cyst

8

5

0.536

 Cholecystic polips

3

4

0.869

 Transaminase step-up

2

7

0.426

 Splenic hemangioma

0

1

0.469

 Cataracts

0

1

0.469

Table 9

Adherence to therapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen or toremifene

 

Tamoxifen (n = 240)

Toremifene (n = 212)

p value

 Total

45

31

0.242

 Transfer to AIs after menopause

24

15

0.269

 Discontinuance or other therapy

21

16

0.542

 Cervical cyst

1

0

 

 Uterine fibroids

1

0

 

 Ostalgia

1

0

 

 Skinrash

2

0

 

 Endometrial hyperplasia

5

0

 

 In order to be pregnancy

1

1

 

 Diarrhea

1

0

 

 To fear adverse effect

1

4

 

 Economic reason

1

0

 

 Transaminase step-up

1

2

 

 Chinese traditional medicine

2

0

 

 Discontinuance for unknow reasons

4

6

 

 Hyper-menorrhea

0

2

 

 Vaginal bleeding

0

1

 

Discussion

Results of this retrospective analysis suggest that toremifene and tamoxifen have similar efficacies in premenopausal breast cancer patients, and have comparable side effects. Although the standard therapy for premenopausal women with breast cancer is tamoxifen, some patients are offered treatment with ovarian suppression in conjunction with AI therapy, either because tamoxifen is contraindicated or they have an intolerance to tamoxifen, or because their physicians believe that the AIs are superior based on data from postmenopausal women. Although AIs are increasingly being used in breast cancer patients, the importance of classic drugs for premenopausal patients should not be ignored. Chemotherapy in young breast cancer patients frequently causes abrupt menopause, although many menstruate again following chemotherapy, especially very young patients. Further, some postmenopausal patients recommence menstruation after treatment with AIs. As is widely known, AIs are harmful for premenopausal patients. However, with respect to toremifene clinical trials have shown that toremifene does not increase the incidence of adverse events for moderate to severe mastalgia patients [40]. Other reports have shown that toremifene (60 mg daily) has no substantial negative effects on bone mineral density in pre- or postmenopausal women and may actually have a minor favorable influence [41]. In this situation, when considering safety tamoxifen or toremifene should be considered. However, few studies have investigated the therapeutic role of toremifene as adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer patients. Since there are more young breast cancer patients in Asian countries, than in other regions, researchers from Asia are increasingly becoming interested in this issue. In a Korean study, toremifene was suggested to young patients, but this study failed to compare the impact and side effect of tamoxifen and toremifene, and the treatment duration was not followed up [37]. Another study, from the Seoul National University College of Medicine, evaluated the use of toremifene as an adjuvant hormonal therapy for estrogen receptor positive early breast cancer patients in terms of its therapeutic efficacy and effect on the endometrium, as compared with tamoxifen, but the study did not consider how treatment affected these patients’ menstrual cycles. In our study, therapy duration was investigated, in addition to the effect of treatment on the menstrual cycle, by evaluating estradiol and follicle stimulating hormone levels.

Multivariate analysis showed that toremifene was associated with improved recurrence-free survival and that no factor was independently related to overall survival. Future studies may need to increase samples sizes in order to establish the optimal therapy. Moreover, our study was also limited by a lack of investigation as the expression of the estrogen and progesterone receptor and changes in HER-2 status.

All objective adverse events were obtained by searching the internal hospital database and medical records during the period when the patients were undergoing endocrine therapy. With respect to the gynecological side-effect such as ovarian cysts and uterine fibroids, these always occurred a few months after taking the drugs, and were mostly so mild and stable that we did not need to disrupt the endocrine therapy. As for other side effects, such as skin rash and nausea, the patients were frequently unable to recall when these events had occurred, the seriousness, or the possible causes.

In our study, most patients were treated concurrently, and following an almost identical protocol of surgical intervention plus chemotherapy, but with differing adjuvant endocrine therapies. There was no difference in age, tumor size, tumor grade, degree of lymph node involvement, or risk of recurrence between the two cohorts. Wherever possible we attempted breast-conserving surgery unless there were positive margin, in which case radical mastectomy was performed. As the women who received breast-conserving surgery always had a significantly lower tumor load, other factors should also considered, such as the tumor-breast ratio and tumor location. Similarly, as BCS is the marriage of breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy, the side effects of radiotherapy should not be ignored. In China, breast-conserving surgery costs are more expensive than modified radical mastectomy because of the surgery costs, concomitant radiotherapy, and the additional pathology required. These factors were explained to each of the patients, and the type of surgery was then based on input from both patients’ and doctors’. In spite of the issues around cost and side effects and in light of the traditional bias towards breast-conserving surgery, some patients elected for radical mastectomy.

Inclusion of only one center in our study may be related to the clustering of surgeries between the two cohorts, which may explain why there was a nearly 13% difference in local treatment modality between the two groups and possibly reflects the fact that doctors influenced patients during the talk before surgery. Among young women, those who received BCS are more likely to experience local recurrence, while long-term survival was similar for those who received BCS compared to those who underwent modified radical mastectomy [42]. In our study, BCS was higher in the toremifene group but the risk of recurrence was significantly lower. The study also benefited from a large patient population, with few lost to follow-up, and a long follow-up period (median >50 months).

Compliance with treatment was suboptimal in both arms of the study, with 23 women on tamoxifen 20 women on toremifene ceasing therapy after a few months (p = 0.961; Figure 1). Many turned to traditional Chinese medicine and refused any further consultation. These patients were not included in the final analysis. However, patients who discontinued tamoxifen and toremifene within 5 years because of menopause or other unavoidable reasons were still included, in accordance with intent-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions

This work represents the first study comparing the clinical efficacy and side effects of tamoxifen and toremifene in premenopausal breast cancer patients. The results demonstrated that toremifene has similar effect as tamoxifen, but can prevent further recurrence. These findings are important for clinicians treating premenopausal breast cancer patients who are beginning adjuvant endocrine therapy.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 30901767 (for Young Scientists).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Breast Surgery, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University
(2)
Department of Pathology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University
(3)
Republic Health, Sun Yat-Sen University

References

  1. Bao T, Davidson NE: Adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2007, 9 (6): 115-10.1186/bcr1830.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ: Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009, 20 (8): 1319-1329. 10.1093/annonc/mdp322.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Braithwaite RS, Chlebowski RT, Lau J, George S, Hess R, Col NF: Meta-analysis of vascular and neoplastic events associated with tamoxifen. J Gen Intern Med. 2003, 18 (11): 937-947. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20724.x.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Dignam JJ, Fisher B: Occurrence of stroke with tamoxifen in NSABP B-24. Lancet. 2000, 355 (9206): 848-849.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J, Croyle R, Freedman L, Helzlsouer K, et al: Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999, 91 (21): 1829-1846. 10.1093/jnci/91.21.1829.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. McDonald CC, Alexander FE, Whyte BW, Forrest AP, Stewart HJ: Cardiac and vascular morbidity in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen for breast cancer in a randomised trial. The Scottish Cancer Trials Breast Group. BMJ. 1995, 311 (7011): 977-980. 10.1136/bmj.311.7011.977.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Reis SE, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Tan-Chiu E, Wang J, Kavanah M: Cardiovascular effects of tamoxifen in women with and without heart disease: breast cancer prevention trial. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Investigators. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001, 93 (1): 16-21. 10.1093/jnci/93.1.16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai Q, Bensen M, Greene R, Kirchner J: Tamoxifen-induced transient multifocal hepatic fatty infiltration. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000, 95 (1): 277-279. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01708.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chern S, Danis RP: Retinopathy associated with low-dose tamoxifen. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993, 116 (3): 372-373.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dray X, Tainturier MH, De La Lande P, Marty O, Mallet L: Cirrhosis with non alcoholic steatohepatitis: role of tamoxifen. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2000, 24 (11): 1122-1123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Grodstein F, Newcomb PA, Stampfer MJ: Postmenopausal hormone therapy and the risk of colorectal cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 1999, 106 (5): 574-582. 10.1016/S0002-9343(99)00063-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Law CH, Tandan VR: The association between tamoxifen and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma: case report and literature review. Can J Surg. 1999, 42 (3): 211-214.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Nayfield SG, Gorin MB: Tamoxifen-associated eye disease. A review. J Clin Oncol. 1996, 14 (3): 1018-1026.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Newcomb PA, Solomon C, White E: Tamoxifen and risk of large bowel cancer in women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999, 53 (3): 271-277. 10.1023/A:1006117220284.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Oien KA, Moffat D, Curry GW, Dickson J, Habeshaw T, Mills PR, et al: Cirrhosis with steatohepatitis after adjuvant tamoxifen. Lancet. 1999, 353 (9146): 36-37. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74872-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pavlidis NA, Petris C, Briassoulis E, Klouvas G, Psilas C, Rempapis J, et al: Clear evidence that long-term, low-dose tamoxifen treatment can induce ocular toxicity. A prospective study of 63 patients. Cancer. 1992, 69 (12): 2961-2964. 10.1002/1097-0142(19920615)69:12<2961::AID-CNCR2820691215>3.0.CO;2-W. Jun 15View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes DF, Van Zyl JA, Hacking A, Goedhals L, Bezwoda WR, Mailliard JA, et al: Randomized comparison of tamoxifen and two separate doses of toremifene in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1995, 13 (10): 2556-2566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pagani O, Gelber S, Price K, Zahrieh D, Gelber R, Simoncini E, et al: Toremifene and tamoxifen are equally effective for early-stage breast cancer: first results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials 12–93 and 14–93. Ann Oncol. 2004, 15 (12): 1749-1759.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gershanovich M, Garin A, Baltina D, Kurvet A, Kangas L, Ellmen J: A phase III comparison of two toremifene doses to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Eastern European Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997, 45 (3): 251-262. 10.1023/A:1005891506092.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyrhonen S, Valavaara R, Modig H, Pawlicki M, Pienkowski T, Gundersen S, et al: Comparison of toremifene and tamoxifen in post-menopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: a randomized double-blind, the 'nordic' phase III study. Br J Cancer. 1997, 76 (2): 270-277. 10.1038/bjc.1997.375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pyrhonen S, Ellmen J, Vuorinen J, Gershanovich M, Tominaga T, Kaufmann M, et al: Meta-analysis of trials comparing toremifene with tamoxifen and factors predicting outcome of antiestrogen therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999, 56 (2): 133-143.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Holli K, Valavaara R, Blanco G, Kataja V, Hietanen P, Flander M, et al: Safety and efficacy results of a randomized trial comparing adjuvant toremifene and tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer. Finnish Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2000, 18 (20): 3487-3494.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Milla-Santos A, Milla L, Rallo L, Solano V: Phase III randomized trial of toremifene vs tamoxifen in hormonodependant advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001, 65 (2): 119-124. 10.1023/A:1006440802709.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirsimaki P, Aaltonen A, Mantyla E: Toxicity of antiestrogens. Breast J. 2002, 8 (2): 92-96. 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2002.08204.x. Mar-AprView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams GM, Jeffrey AM: Safety assessment of tamoxifen and toremifene. Oncology (Williston Park). 1997, 11 (5 Suppl 4): 41-47.Google Scholar
  26. Kuramochi H: Conformational studies and electronic structures of tamoxifen and toremifene and their allylic carbocations proposed as reactive intermediates leading to DNA adduct formation. J Med Chem. 1996, 39 (15): 2877-2886. 10.1021/jm960255g.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Cummings FJ: Evolving uses of hormonal agents for breast cancer therapy. Clin Ther. 2002, 24 (Suppl C): C3-C25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Harvey HA, Kimura M, Hajba A: Toremifene: an evaluation of its safety profile. Breast. 2006, 15 (2): 142-157. 10.1016/j.breast.2005.09.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ochi J, Hayakawa K, Moriguchi Y, Urata Y, Yamamoto A, Kawai K: Uterine changes during tamoxifen, toremifene, and other therapy for breast cancer: evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2010, 28 (6): 430-6. 10.1007/s11604-010-0446-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nystedt M, Berglund G, Bolund C, Fornander T, Rutqvist LE: Side effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment in premenopausal breast cancer patients: a prospective randomized study. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21 (9): 1836-1844. 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.024.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cohen I, Figer A, Tepper R, Shapira J, Altaras MM, Yigael D, et al: Ovarian overstimulation and cystic formation in premenopausal tamoxifen exposure: comparison between tamoxifen-treated and nontreated breast cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol. 1999, 72 (2): 202-207. 10.1006/gyno.1998.5201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Varras M, Polyzos D, Akrivis C: Effects of tamoxifen on the human female genital tract: review of the literature. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2003, 24 (3–4): 258-268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sverrisdottir A, Fornander T, Jacobsson H, von Schoultz E, Rutqvist LE: Bone mineral density among premenopausal women with early breast cancer in a randomized trial of adjuvant endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22 (18): 3694-3699. 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.148.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Powles TJ, Hickish T, Kanis JA, Tidy A, Ashley S: Effect of tamoxifen on bone mineral density measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in healthy premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol. 1996, 14 (1): 78-84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Fornander T, Rutqvist LE, Sjoberg HE, Blomqvist L, Mattsson A, Glas U: Long-term adjuvant tamoxifen in early breast cancer: effect on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol. 1990, 8 (6): 1019-1024.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Tiitinen A, Nikander E, Hietanen P, Metsa-Heikkila M, Ylikorkala O: Changes in bone mineral density during and after 3 years' use of tamoxifen or toremifene. Maturitas. 2004, 48 (3): 321-327. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.02.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ahn SH, Son BH, Kim SW, Kim SI, Jeong J, Ko SS, et al: Poor outcome of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer at very young age is due to tamoxifen resistance: nationwide survival data in Korea–a report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25 (17): 2360-2368. 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ: Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18 (7): 1133-1144. 10.1093/annonc/mdm271.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Maenpaa JU, Ala-Fossi SL: Toremifene in postmenopausal breast cancer. Efficacy, safety and cost. Drugs Aging. 1997, 11 (4): 261-270. 10.2165/00002512-199711040-00002. OctView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gong C, Song E, Jia W, Qin L, Guo J, Jia H, et al: A double-blind randomized controlled trial of toremifen therapy for mastalgia. Arch Surg. 2006, 141 (1): 43-47. 10.1001/archsurg.141.1.43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Erkkola R, Mattila L, Powles T, Heikkinen J, Toivola B, Korhonen P, et al: Bone mineral density and lipid changes during 5 years of follow-up in a study of prevention of breast cancer with toremifene in healthy, high-risk pre- and post-menopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 93 (3): 277-287. 10.1007/s10549-005-5701-x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kroman N, Holtveg H, Wohlfahrt J, Jensen MB, Mouridsen HT, Blichert-Toft M, et al: Effect of breast-conserving therapy versus radical mastectomy on prognosis for young women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004, 100 (4): 688-693. 10.1002/cncr.20022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/12/161/prepub

Copyright

© Gu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement