Medical prevention of breast cancer

Selective estrogen receptor modulators in the prevention of breast cancer in premenopausal women: a review

The detection of premenopausal women at high risk of breast cancer is key to chemoprevention. Therapy with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) induces a significant antiproliferative effect in estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer. This review was designed according the guidelines of the 2009 PRISMA statement. Searching different databases, including PubMed, MedlinePlus, PLoS One, Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialized Register, Clinical Trials.gov and American Society of Clinical Oncology. From 168 records screened, 15 full text articles were assessed for eligibility and only 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies included analyzed changes in Ki-67 expression, revealing weaker expression after treatment with acolbifene and raloxifene (P<0.001). Three studies also analyzed the breast volume by magnetic resonance imagining (MRI) and demonstrate a significant difference after 1 year with raloxifene treatment (P=0.0017). Moreover, a 20% reduction in breast density was observed after a 2-year treatment with tamoxifen in premenopausal women. SERMs reduce the risk of developing breast cancer. The studies reviewed here demonstrate the modulation of Ki-67 expression and changes in breast density, suggesting an important preventive role for this group of drugs in prevention for premenopausal women at high risk of developing breast cancer.

Risk-reducing medications for primary breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.Using a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.For the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.For the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.For the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.An indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).

Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk

Several medical management approaches have been shown to be effective in preventing breast cancer and detecting it early among women at elevated risk: 1) prophylactic mastectomy; 2) prophylactic oophorectomy; 3) chemoprevention; and 4) enhanced screening routines. To varying extents, however, these approaches are substantially underused relative to clinical practice recommendations. This article reviews the existing research on the uptake of these prevention approaches, the characteristics of women who are likely to use various methods, and the decision-making processes that underlie the differing choices of women. It also highlights important areas for future research, detailing the types of studies that are particularly needed in four key areas: documenting women's perspectives on their own perceptions of risk and prevention decisions; explicit comparisons of available prevention pathways and their likely health effects; the psychological, interpersonal, and social processes of prevention decision making; and the dynamics of subgroup variation. Ultimately, this research could support the development of interventions that more fully empower women to make informed and values-consistent decisions, and to move towards favorable health outcomes.

Aromatase: Contributions to Physiology and Disease in Women and Men

Aromatase (estrogen synthetase; EC 1.14.14.1) catalyzes the demethylation of androgens' carbon 19, producing phenolic 18-carbon estrogens. Aromatase is most widely known for its roles in reproduction and reproductive system diseases, and as a target for inhibitor therapy in estrogen-sensitive diseases including cancer, endometriosis, and leiomyoma (141, 143). However, all tissues contain estrogen receptor-expressing cells, the majority of genes have a complete or partial estrogen response element that regulates their expression (61), and there are plentiful nonreceptor effects of estrogens (79); therefore, the effect of aromatase through the provision of estrogen is almost universal in terms of health and disease. This review will provide a brief but comprehensive overview of the enzyme, its role in steroidogenesis, the problems that arise with its functional mutations and mishaps, the roles in human physiology of aromatase and its product estrogens, its current clinical roles, and the effects of aromatase inhibitors. While much of the story is that of the consequences of the formation of its product estrogens, we also will address alternative enzymatic roles of aromatase as a demethylase or nonenzymatic actions of this versatile molecule. Although this short review is meant to be thorough, it is by no means exhaustive; rather, it is meant to reflect the cutting-edge, exciting properties and possibilities of this ancient enzyme and its products.

The phytoestrogenic Cyclopia extract, SM6Met, increases median tumor free survival and reduces tumor mass and volume in chemically induced rat mammary gland carcinogenesis

SM6Met, a phytoestrogenic extract of Cyclopia subternata indigenous to the Western Cape province of South Africa, displays estrogenic attributes with potential for breast cancer chemoprevention. In this study, we report that SM6Met, in the presence of estradiol, induces a significant cell cycle G0/G1 phase arrest similar to the selective estrogen receptor modulator, tamoxifen. Furthermore, as a proof of concept, in the N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea induced rat mammary gland carcinogenesis model, SM6Met increases tumor latency by 7days and median tumor free survival by 42 days, while decreasing palpable tumor frequency by 32%, tumor mass by 40%, and tumor volume by 53%. Therefore, the current study provides proof of concept that SM6Met has definite potential as a chemopreventative agent against the development and progression of breast cancer.

The impact of Anastrazole and Letrozole on the metabolic profile in an experimental animal model

Anastrazole and Letrozole are used as endocrine therapy for breast cancer patients. Previous studies suggested a possible association with metabolic and liver adverse effects. Their results are conflicting. Fifty-five 4-week-old female Wistar rats were allocated in 4 groups 1) ovariectomy control (OC), 2) ovariectomy-Anastrazole (OA) 3) ovariectomy -Letrozole (OL), 4) control. Serum glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-c and LDL-c were measured at baseline, 2 and 4 months. At the end, the animals' liver were dissected for pathology. At 4 months, total cholesterol differed among the OC and OL groups (p = 0.15) and the control and OL groups (p = 0.12). LDL-C differed between the control and OC groups (p = 0.015) as well as between the control and OA (p =0 .015) and OL groups (p = 0.002). OC group triglycerides, differed from those of the OL group (p =0 .002) and the control group (p = 0.007). The OA also significantly differed from the OL (p = 0.50). Liver pathology analysis revealed differences among groups with favored mild steatosis and ballooning. Anastrazole and Letrozole seem to negatively influence the lipid profile in our experimental model. This information should be taken in caution by medical oncologists when addressing patients with altered lipid metabolism.

The Promise of Preventive Cancer Vaccines

Years of unsuccessful attempts at fighting established tumors with vaccines have taught us all that they are only able to truly impact patient survival when used in a preventive setting, as would normally be the case for traditional vaccines against infectious diseases. While true primary cancer prevention is still but a long-term goal, secondary and tertiary prevention are already in the clinic and providing encouraging results. A combination of immunopreventive cancer strategies and recently approved checkpoint inhibitors is a further promise of forthcoming successful cancer disease control, but prevention will require a considerable reduction of currently reported toxicities. These considerations summed with the increased understanding of tumor antigens allow space for an optimistic view of the future.