RAZOR: A Phase II Open Randomized Trial of Screening Plus Goserelin and Raloxifene Versus Screening Alone in Premenopausal Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Background: Ovarian suppression in premenopausal women is known to reduce breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess uptake and compliance with ovarian suppression using the luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue, goserelin, with add-back raloxifene, as a potential regimen for breast cancer prevention.Methods: Women at ≥30% lifetime risk breast cancer were approached and randomized to mammographic screening alone (C-Control) or screening in addition to monthly subcutaneous injections of 3.6 mg goserelin and continuous 60 mg raloxifene daily orally (T-Treated) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was therapy adherence. Secondary endpoints were toxicity/quality of life, change in bone density, and mammographic density.Results: A total of 75/950 (7.9%) women approached agreed to randomization. In the T-arm, 20 of 38 (52%) of women completed the 2-year period of study compared with the C-arm (27/37, 73.0%). Dropouts were related to toxicity but also the wish to have established risk-reducing procedures and proven chemoprevention. As relatively few women completed the study, data are limited, but those in the T-arm reported significant increases in toxicity and sexual problems, no change in anxiety, and less cancer worry. Lumbar spine bone density declined by 7.0% and visually assessed mammographic density by 4.7% over the 2-year treatment period.Conclusions: Uptake is somewhat lower than comparable studies with tamoxifen for prevention with higher dropout rates. Raloxifene may preserve bone density, but reduction in mammographic density reversed after treatment was completed.Impact: This study indicates that breast cancer risk reduction may be possible using LHRH agonists, but reducing toxicity and preventing bone changes would make this a more attractive option. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(1); 58-66. ©2017 AACR.

Subjective outcomes of auditory brainstem implantation.

AIM: To assess the long-term subjective benefits of auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) and investigate the extent to which ABI users perceive it to be a useful device. METHODS: Using the Manchester database, all 31 living patients registered as ABI users were identified and sent the ABI performance questionnaire. Data regarding daily duration of use, auditory fatigue, ability to differentiate between speech and environmental sounds, and subjective usefulness of the ABI in different listening conditions were collected. Patients were asked to rate the usefulness of the device in various settings on a scale of 1 (not useful) to 6 (very useful). The mean age at implantation was 33 years (13-73 yr), and the mean follow-up period was 6 years (1.5-15 yr). RESULTS: Between March 1994 and September 2009, 57 patients underwent ABI insertion. A total of 26 patients were not eligible for inclusion in the study (19 nonusers, 5 deceased, and 2 sleepers). Of the 31 eligible patients identified as ABI users, 23 returned the questionnaire, 1 was excluded as the questionnaire had been completed on his or her behalf, giving a net response rate of 71%. Mean duration of usage per day was 12.62 hours (range, 8-16 h). Seventy-one percent of the patients turned the processor off at one or more points during the day. Differentiation between speech and environment was achieved in 95%, and 70% were able to differentiate between gender and adult and pediatric voices. The ABI was perceived as most beneficial when dealing with a familiar voice in a quiet place, with a median usefulness score of 4, rising to 5 when used in conjunction with lip reading. The ABI was least useful when dealing with an unfamiliar voice in a loud place, with a mean score of 1, rising to 2 when used in conjunction with lip reading. In all environments, combining the ABI with lip reading served to increase usefulness ratings by at least 1 point. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ABI users make use of their device for at least 12 hours per day on average and obtain considerable subjective benefit in speech discrimination when using the device with familiar speakers in a quiet environment. Benefit is less significant in noise and with an unfamiliar speaker. Lip reading enhances subjective benefit by at least 1 point, and lip reading training may have a role to play in maximizing subjective benefit.