Breast Cancer Chemoprevention among High-risk Women and those with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Chemoprevention with the anti-estrogens, tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors, reduce breast cancer incidence in high-risk women; however, uptake has been poor (<5%) in the prevention setting. We assessed use of anti-estrogens for breast cancer prevention, among high-risk women seen at an academic breast center, to observe how uptake rates compare in this setting. We collected data on demographics, breast cancer risk factors, and health behaviors via self-administered questionnaires and medical chart abstraction. Women eligible for chemoprevention with anti-estrogens had a 5-year predicted breast cancer risk according to the Gail model of ≥1.67%, history of lobular or ductal carcinoma in situ (LCIS/DCIS), and/or BRCA mutation. We dichotomized anti-estrogen use as ever or never. Predictors of use were evaluated using multivariable log-binomial regression. Of 412 high-risk women enrolled, 316 (77%) were eligible for chemoprevention. Among eligible women, 55% were non-Hispanic white, 29% Hispanic, 8% non-Hispanic black, and 7% Asian. Women were grouped based upon their highest category of breast cancer risk (in descending order): BRCA mutation carriers (3%), DCIS (40%), LCIS (22%), and 5-year Gail risk ≥1.67% (36%). Among those eligible for chemoprevention, 162 (51%) had ever initiated anti-estrogen therapy (71% tamoxifen, 23% raloxifene, 5% aromatase inhibitor). Anti-estrogen use was highest among women with DCIS (73%). In multivariable analysis, women with a 5-year Gail risk ≥1.67% had approximately a 20% lower likelihood of anti-estrogen use compared to women with DCIS (p = 0.01). In the primary prevention setting, excluding women diagnosed with DCIS, anti-estrogen use was 37%. Multivariable analysis showed differences in uptake by education and potentially by race/ethnicity. Among high-risk women seen at a breast center, anti-estrogen use for chemoprevention was relatively high as compared to the published literature. Clinicians can support high-risk women by effectively communicating breast cancer risk and enhancing knowledge about the risks and benefits of chemoprevention.

Randomized controlled trial of a clinic-based survivorship intervention following adjuvant therapy in breast cancer survivors.

In 2006, the IOM released a report citing the importance of "survivorship plans" to improve quality of life and care coordination for cancer survivors, but little has been done to evaluate their efficacy. Women with early-stage breast cancer were randomized within 6 weeks of completing adjuvant therapy to a survivorship intervention group (SI) or control group (CG). All subjects were given the NCI publication, "Facing Forward: Life after Cancer Treatment." The SI also met with a nurse/nutritionist to receive a treatment summary, surveillance, and lifestyle recommendations. Both groups completed questionnaires on the impact of cancer (IOC), patient satisfaction (FACIT-TS-PS), and assessment of survivor concerns (ASC) at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Within and between group t tests and linear regression analyses were performed. Among 126 women (60 CG, 66 SI), mean age was 54 years, 48 % were Hispanic, and the groups were well-balanced by baseline characteristics. No significant differences between the CG and SI on the FACIT-TS-PS or IOC at 3 and 6 months were seen. The ASC health worry subscale was lower (less worry) in the SI compared to CG (p = 0.02). At all time-points, Hispanic women had higher (worse) health worry (p = 0.0008), social-life interference (p = 0.009), and meaning of cancer scales (p = 0.0004), and more trust in medical professionals (p = 0.03) compared to non-Hispanic women. While the SI did not lead to significant improvements in most patient-reported outcomes, it was associated with decreased health worry. Future interventions should determine the most efficient and effective method for delivering survivorship care plans.