WHEC Women's Health and Education Center
Language: Language
Gynecologic Oncology : MainAll ArticlesPrint This ArticleEmail This Article

Breast Cancer: Radiotherapy & Adjuvant Systemic Modalities

Women’s Health & Education Center’s Contribution

Radiation therapy (RT) plays an important role in management of breast cancer. In all situations, RT must be delivered in a manner that will appropriately treat the target tissues and minimize risks to adjacent normal tissues. For patients desirous of breast-conserving therapy (BCT), lumpectomy plus breast RT is typically the preferred approach, because it provides long-term survival rates equivalent to that achieved with mastectomy. BCT with lumpectomy plus breast RT is appropriate for most women with ductal carcinoma in-situ. Radiotherapy has long played an important role in the management of patients with locally advanced disease. There is also growing recognition of the utility of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer has been a primary focus of oncology research for more than 40 years. Breast cancer is an example of a disease that has substantially benefited from the cumulative effect of small incremental improvements involving all available therapeutic modalities, which can explain the recently observed decrease in breast cancer mortality in some countries.

The purpose of this document is to briefly describe the different techniques currently used to treat patients with breast cancer, as well as newer approached that may become more widely used in future. This chapter also briefly reviews our current understanding of the role of adjuvant systemic therapy in the management of breast cancer in the modern era.

Radiotherapy Techniques

In all situations, radiotherapy (RT) must be delivered in a manner that will appropriately treat the target tissues and minimize risks to adjacent normal tissues (1). The various techniques currently used are:

Interstitial Implantation:

It is also termed as brachytherapy refers to the placement of radioactive materials inside the patient’s tissues. These materials typically emit low-energy radiation such that only the limited volume of tissue in the immediate vicinity of the implant is treated. This technique can deliver localized treatment to the tumor bed following lumpectomy for either invasive cancer or carcinoma in-situ, or in some special situations it can be used to irradiate a modest portion of the chest wall. Implants have also been used to treat large portions of the breast to very high doses in patients who have not undergone tumor excision. Implants have usually been used in conjunction with external-beam treatment, although there is growing interest in treating selected patients with implants alone. Breast implants are typically temporary, that is, the radioactive sources are placed in the patient for a finite time and then removed. High-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is becoming very popular. Dose per dose, normal tissue reactions are generally more severe with HDR than with low-dose-rate (LDR) implants. For this reason, HDR therapy is typically delivered in a fractionated manner (eg, giving multiple treatments spread over a several-day period) to mitigate its effect.

External-Beam Treatment:

It is also termed as teletherapy refers to delivery of radiation to a patient from a device located a distance outside the patient. It is the most common method to deliver therapeutic radiation. Two types of external-beam radiation are commonly used: photons and electrons. A variety of radioactive materials theoretically can be used for external-beam photon irradiation. In practice only cobalt-60 provides a photon beam of high enough energy to be clinically useful. A linear accelerators (LINACs) also can generate a therapeutic electron beam. Removing the tungsten target from the path of the electron beam does this. Radioactive isotopes may also emit electrons. However, their energy is typically too small, and thus their depth of penetration is limited to be useful in the management of breast cancer. By varying the energy of the photon or electron beam, one can vary the depth of penetration of these beams. Low-energy photons, such as those emitted from brachytherapy sources (eg, Ir192) do not penetrate deeply.

Most patients receiving RT to the intact breast or chest wall are treated with tangential photon fields to limit exposure of the underlying lungs and heart. “Wedges” which are wedge-shaped pieces of metal, are typically used to attenuate the beam more in some areas than others so as to compensate from the changing slope and thickness of the breast or chest wall and thereby make the distribution of radiation dose more uniform. Before delivering RT, patients undergo treatment planning on a simulator. The simulator has the same geometry as the treatment machine but provides diagnostic quality fluoroscopy. This facilitates the iterative process of field design. More recently, techniques of CT simulation have been developed that allow internal anatomic information to be incorporated into a “three-dimensional” treatment planning process. There is substantial patient-to-patient variation in normal anatomy, which may result in over-treatment of critical normal tissues and/ or under-treatment of target tissues when planning is based on surface anatomy, as is done using traditional fluoroscopic simulators.

With conventional RT techniques, the dose to the contralateral breast is minimal (2). In the United States and most of Europe, the entire breast of chest wall receives a dose of 46 to 50 Gy delivered in 25 to 28 individual sessions, giving one fraction daily, 5 days per week with a dose of 1.8 to 2.0 Gy per fraction. This “protracted” fractionation schedule appears to reduce the risk of late normal tissue reactions. Some centers advocate a shorter treatment regimen with higher daily dose per fraction and a lower total radiation dose. Following lumpectomy an additional 10 to 15 Gy “boost dose” is often delivered to the tumor bed region because most failures are in this area. This is usually done with an external electron field.

Therapy to the tumor-bed alone:

There is a growing interest in using brachytherapy alone to the lumpectomy site, without whole-breast external-beam irradiation, as definitive treatment for both invasive and non-invasive carcinoma. Such localized therapy can also be delivered with focused external-beam electron or photon techniques. The rationale for this approach is that most local recurrences are in the vicinity of the index lesion. Radiotherapy to the excision cavity, with several surrounding centimeters of normal breast tissue, should therefore in principle provide a high rate of tumor control. This approach however does not address microscopic multifocal disease and is technically challenging. The utility of this approach therefore is unclear because whole-breast RT remains useful even after quandrantectomy (2).

Intraoperative Radiation Therapy:

Devices have been developed to allow localized irradiation of the tumor bed, immediately following excision. Such “intraoperative RT” can be done using either low-energy photons or electrons. A trial using a miniaturized radiation source that can be introduced into the lumpectomy cavity, is being conducted in England.

Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy:

Traditional RT uses treatment fields that maintain a fairly uniform intensity of radiation dose in the two dimensions perpendicular to the direction of the beam. Newer hardware and software enable the radiation oncologist to adjust the two-dimensional intensity of the radiation beam, thus allowing the dose to be made purposely non-uniform. Such “intensity-modulated radiation therapy” (IMRT) may result in better conformation of the therapeutic dose to the target tissues. This may allow increased sparing of normal tissues and increased control of dose delivery to the target tissues, thus improving the therapeutic ratio of RT.

Prone Positioning and Respiratory Gating:

Patients undergoing RT for breast cancer are typically treated in the supine position. Delivering external RT to the patient in the prone position may improve the therapeutic ratio by moving the majority of the breast away from the underlying normal tissues. However, matching of such breast fields to the fields needed to treat the abutting supraclavicular and axillary regions may be challenging. Conventional RT is delivered virtually continuously throughout the respiratory cycle. It is possible to gate therapy such that, the machine is “on” only during a portion of the cycle, such as during deep inspiration. This approach might reduce the amount of lung and heart in the treatment fields without compromising treatment of the target tissues (3).

Radiotherapy without Surgery:

Patients with locally advanced breast cancers (LABCs) treated only with external-beam radiotherapy techniques (with or without systemic therapy) have loco-regional failure (LRF) rate of 30% or greater. LRF rates of 10% to 20% have been achieved using high-dose interstitial implantation (20 to 30 Gy) as a boost treatment following external-beam radiotherapy (45 to 50 Gy to the breast and regional lymph nodes). Because very large radiation doses must be given, such treatment may result in a 10% to 20% rate of moderate and severe complications (4). One approach, which has been especially popular in France, is to treat patients who have a complete (or near complete) clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy with radiotherapy alone; no breast surgery of any kind is performed. Local control rates among highly selected patients have been excellent in some series. One difficulty in selecting patients for this approach is the limited reliability of clinical and mammographic examination in detecting residual disease or estimating its volume and extent after neoadjuvant therapy. Small studies have found that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has high accuracy in this regard.

Both mastectomy (with immediate reconstruction if the patient so desires) and radiotherapy are usually needed to achieve optimal loco-regional control in patients with LABC. It is as yet unknown whether selected patients undergoing mastectomy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have such a low risk of LRF that post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) could be omitted. It thus seems prudent at present to use PMRT routinely, even for patients with a pathologic complete response. Only a minority of patients with LABC are candidates for breast-conserving treatment after neoadjuvant therapy. It is unknown whether such patients would have a superior outcome if treated instead with mastectomy. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to offer breast-conserving treatment to carefully selected patients. Results with approach are likely to be better with excision of tumor than when radiotherapy alone is used.

Radiotherapy and Ductal Carcinoma in-situ:

The rationale for treating patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with radiation therapy (RT) following conservative surgery (CS) is that RT can substantially reduces the incidence of tumor recurrence. The effectiveness of such treatment was hindered until recently by the limited available knowledge of the natural history of the disease of factors correlated with improved rates of tumor control. The cause-specific survival rates achieved with CS and RT have been reported to be 95% to 100%. This suggests that the long-term efficacy of this treatment approach is similar to that of mastectomy. Multiple retrospective studies and three prospective randomized trials have clearly established the long-term efficacy and role of CS and RT in the management of patients with DCIS. Data from multiple institutions support the value of thorough mammographic/ pathologic correlation and the need for careful attention to adequacy of excision in producing optimal long-term results; particularly for younger patients. Identification of clinical, pathologic and treatment related factors associated with a greater risk of local recurrence have helped define subsets of patients for whom CS and RT may be less appropriate than mastectomy. Current research goals include establishing which patients do not require RT after CS and the role of tamoxifen.

Radiotherapy and Regional Nodes:

Patients with pathologically uninvolved axillary nodes following technically adequate axillary surgery are at low risk of regional nodal failure and should not receive specific nodal irradiation. Supraclavicular irradiation should be given to all patients with four or more positive axillary lymph nodes, given the substantial risk of failure in this area and the difficulty of controlling such recurrences. However, there is substantial controversy about whether supraclavicular irradiation should be used routinely for patients with one to three positive axillary nodes. There is no consensus on the value of prophylactic internal mammary nodal irradiation for patients with positive axillary nodes. Radiotherapy is effective in preventing axillary recurrence in patients with clinically uninvolved nodes. Hence, axillary irradiation is a reasonable alternative to dissection for such patients. The rate of serious complications resulting from current doses and techniques of axillary, supraclavicular, and internal mammary nodal irradiation is low.

Adjuvant Systemic Modalities

Breast cancer is an example of a disease that has substantially benefited from the cumulative effect of small incremental improvements involving all available therapeutic modalities, which can help explain the recently observed decrease in breast cancer mortality in some countries. More recently, a greater emphasis has been placed on the role of meta-analyses. Although both randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses are important tools to minimize the effects of bias on the observed results, even the latter can also be affected by the “play of chance”. These important developments have forced physicians caring for breast cancer patients to acquire a working knowledge of important biostatistics and methodology principles. Adjuvant systemic therapy includes endocrine manipulation, chemotherapy or both.

Who should not receive Adjuvant Systemic Therapy?

Decisions about whether to offer an individual woman adjuvant systemic therapy should balance her risk of relapse, the possible absolute benefit of therapy, and the importance of other comorbid conditions that may limit her survival or put her at an increased risk for adverse events associated with the treatment. Traditionally, women with early-stage breast cancer with a moderate to high risk of relapse have been offered adjuvant systemic therapy. Tumors from more than 50% of all women diagnosed as having breast cancer will express the estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR). Although long in duration treatment with tamoxifen or other therapies that reduce estrogen content to the tumor cells is generally well tolerated and almost every woman with hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer will benefit from such treatment if contraindications do not exist. Although the risk of chemotherapy-related life-threatening events is small, there are many known and possibly unknown short- and long-term risks of chemotherapy. Based on usual prognostic factors, chemotherapy is recommended to most women with a node-negative breast cancer whose tumor size is at least 2 cm. Women with stage I breast cancer have an improved prognosis overall; however, up to 20% may suffer a recurrence. Thus other prognostic factors need to be considered in treatment factors of this early stage.

Preoperative Systemic Therapy:

Chemotherapy in women with early-stage breast cancer has traditionally been administered after definitive breast surgery. Based on the pathologic findings at the time of surgery (eg, the tumor size, nodal involvement, other characteristics such as grade and receptor status), clinicians can estimate the risk for recurrence and provide treatment recommendations to the patient. Primary chemotherapy (also designated preoperative chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemotherapy) has traditionally been reserved for women with locally advanced breast cancer to enhance the likelihood of negative surgical margins or even breast preservation (5). Studies of the primary administration of chemotherapy in the locally advanced breast cancer setting have demonstrated that this treatment modality may provide other benefits. The administration of primary chemotherapy enhances the likelihood of breast conservation. Response to primary chemotherapy can be correlated with long-term outcomes such as disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall-survival (OS). Early eradication of micro-metastases may lead to improved DFS and OS either by decreasing the possibility of encountering drug resistance or by producing less favorable growth kinetics. Some have concerns that administration of primary therapy may be associated with the loss of standard prognostic factors such as tumor size or nodal involvement that are generally used to guide treatment recommendations.

Endocrine Therapy:

Primary therapy may also include endocrine agents. For decades primary therapy with tamoxifen has been used for older women with inoperable receptor-positive tumors. Endocrine therapy offers similar reduction in the annual odds of recurrence and death irrespective of age, menopausal status, tumor size or lymph node status and should be offered to virtually all patients with endocrine-responsive invasive disease. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus panel made the following recommendations regarding endocrine therapy (6).

  1. The decision to recommend adjuvant hormonal therapy should be based on the presence of estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) as assessed with immuno-histochemical staining, and if insufficient tumor is available for testing, the hormone receptor status should be considered positive, especially in post-menopausal women.
  2. The expression pattern of the HER2/neu gene should not influence the decision to recommend hormonal therapy.
  3. Tamoxifen administration is not recommended for women with ER- and PR-negative invasive breast cancers.
  4. Five-years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy should be recommended for all women with hormone receptor-positive tumors, regardless of age, menopausal status, axillary lymph node status, tumor size, or use of adjuvant chemotherapy; possible exceptions include women with node-negative tumors smaller than 10 mm who wish to avoid the side effects of tamoxifen.
  5. Ovarian ablation or suppression may be considered an alternative to chemotherapy in pre-menopausal women.

The Consensus Panel also emphasized that for most women the benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen far outweighs any risk, such as endometrial cancer and venous thromboembolism, and that neither transvaginal ultrasonography nor endometrial biopsy is indicated as a screening test for endometrial cancer in asymptomatic women taking tamoxifen. Much remains to be learned about the optimal use of endocrine agents such as SERMs and aromatase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of breast cancer, alone or in combination with other agents. Biophosphonates reduce the risk for bone-related complications in patients with metastatic disease. Finally, one must not forget that an increasing number of breast cancer patients treated in the adjuvant setting will survive their disease or enjoy a long disease-free-survival (DFS). Therefore continuing efforts should be devoted to further understand the potential long-term effects of adjuvant systemic therapies and to develop strategies to minimize the risk for complications that might negatively affect the quality of life of these patients and negate the benefit gained from the use of adjuvant therapy.

Current Endocrine Therapies for Breast Cancer:

Antiestrogens Tamoxifen:

It is the most widely used endocrine therapy for the treatment of breast cancer. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have approved it for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women; estrogen-receptor-positive; metastatic breast cancer in premenopausal women; and estrogen-positive-receptor metastatic cancer in men. Tamoxifen has also been approved as an adjuvant therapy, either alone or after chemotherapy, for early-stage, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Tamoxifen is the first drug approved as chemoprevention agent for women at high-risk for breast cancer. The antitumor effect of tamoxifen is mediated primarily through the estrogen-receptor, although other potential mechanisms of action may contribute. The estrogen-responsive gene transcribes and subsequently translated to proteins that are involved in either growth responses or differentiation responses (7). A 20 mg/day dose of tamoxifen is generally viewed as the optimal dose in the advanced, adjuvant, and prevention settings. Recent data suggest the plausibility of a dosage reduction while maintaining the biologic activity and minimizing the toxicity associated with tamoxifen.

Tamoxifen is an extremely well tolerated drug, and only rarely will it have to be discontinued because of toxicity. Its most common side-effect is hot-flashes, which are tolerated well by most patients. Other side effects include nausea, vomiting, weight gain, and vaginal bleeding or discharge. Occasionally patients complain of non-specific neurologic symptoms; thromboembolic disease; and visual disturbances caused by optic neuritis, retinopathy, and macular edema. Rarely patients with metastatic bone disease report increased bone pain (tumor flare), with or without hypercalcemia within 1 to 2 weeks of initiating tamoxifen therapy. This phenomenon is believed to be related to tamoxifen’s mild estrogenic effect, and it should be treated with supportive measures including analgesics and possibly low-dose prednisone. These symptoms usually dissipate within a few weeks, so tamoxifen should not be discontinued.

Toremifene:

Toremifene (Fareston) or chloro-tamoxifen is approved by FDA for treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Although toremifene exhibits anitestrogenic effects on the vaginal mucosa of estrogen-primed women, it has no effect in blocking short-term estrogen action in the uterus. Toremifene and tamoxifen produce the same estrogen-like effects on the histology of the postmenopausal endometrium, however no reliable long-term follow-up data are available on the incidence of endometrial cancer during toremifene treatment. Response rates, median time to disease progression, overall survival, and toxicity were similar between patients treated with the two drugs.

Other Tamoxifen-like Antiestrogens:

Both droloxifene and idoxifene differ modestly in structure from tamoxifen. Both drugs appeared promising in laboratory experiments and small clinical trials evaluating their activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer (response rate up to 30%). Another drug in early development is lasofoxifene, a derivative of tetrahydronaphthalene. Animal experiments suggest that lasofoxifene maintains bone density and that development may be targeted toward prevention of osteoporosis and chemoprevention.

Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs):

The newer selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) in development appear to possess potent antiestrogenic effects in the breast and uterus while retaining an agonist effect in bone. The most studied agent in this group is raloxifene (Evista).

Raloxifene:

Raloxifene (Evista) is an antiestrogen in the immature rate uterine weight test but has little agonist action on the uterus when administered alone. Raloxifene maintains bone density and tends to reduce circulating cholesterol. There is no evidence that raloxifene causes the formation of DNA adducts or induces hepato-carcinogenesis. The drug was subsequently developed and approved by the FDA for the treatment of osteoporosis (8). The Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial randomized data revealed that there is a 70% reduction in breast cancer incidence in the raloxifene-treated patients, compared with those treated with placebo at 2 years and 54% reduction at 3 years. The rate of response in estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer is better.

Arzoxifene (LY353381)

Arzoxifene is a benzothiophene analog that is a more potent inhibitor than tamoxifen or raloxifene in in-vitro and in-vivo models of breast cancer (9). Preclinical studies also confirm that arzoxifene has greater agonist activity on bone and cholesterol metabolism compared with raloxifene and appears to have the added advantage of a lack of estrogen-like effect on uterine tissue. An ongoing randomized, phase III trial is comparing arzoxifene (20 mg/ day) with tamoxifen as first-line therapy of hormone-sensitive, metastatic breast cancer.

Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists:

The primary effectiveness of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists for the treatment of breast cancer is to produce a reversible chemical castration. Naturally occurring LHRH is decapeptide with a short biologic half-life that is secreted in pulsatile fashion form hypothalamus into the portal circulation. LHRH causes the secretion of LH and FSH from the pituitary, which in turn stimulates the ovaries to synthesize and secrete estrogen. Of many LHRH agonists that have been synthesized, buserelin, leuprolide (Lupron) and goserelin (Zolodex) have been most extensively studied in clinical trials. All of these agents can be administered in a subcutaneous preparation, but buserelin and leuprolide are available in a depot preparation requiring a single monthly or every-3-month intramuscular injection. Goserelin is approved by the FDA for the treatment of breast cancer in premenopausal women. Other treatment strategies have attempted to provide maximal estrogen blockage by combining the use of tamoxifen and LHRH agonists.

Additive Hormonal Therapies:

With the exception of progestins, other additive hormone therapies are rarely used in practice today, primarily because other forms of endocrine therapy are more effective and are associated with fewer side effects.

Progestins:

Megestrol acetate (Megace) and medroxyprogestrone acetate are the progestins most widely used to treat advanced breast cancer. They are associated with response rates similar to those of other hormonal treatments. Progestins have several mechanisms of action that might explain the observed antitumor effect in breast cancer patients. Treatment with progestins down-regulate the expression of the ER (and the PR), potentially making the cell less sensitive to the effects of estrogen. Megace is an orally active progesterone derivative with better gastrointestinal absorption and bioavailability than medroxyprogestrone acetate. Standard-dose megestrol acetate (160 mg/ day) administered orally results in blood levels 5 to 10 times higher than those detected in patients treated with 1000 mg of oral medroxyprogestrone acetate.

Estrogens:

Treatment with high-dose estrogens such as DES and ethinyl estradiol is effective as a therapy for advanced breast cancer. The mechanism of action for estrogen’s antitumor effect is unknown. High-dose DES (15 mg/day) produces beneficial effects in patients with the estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer, possibly by down-regulating the ER and thereby decreasing the effect of estrogen. High-dose estrogen therapy is associated with toxicities, including vaginal bleeding, breast tenderness, cholestatic jaundice, nausea, vomiting and depression. Treatment with estrogen is accompanied by flare in about 10% of patients and withdrawal response after subsequent relapse in about 5% of patients.

Androgens:

Androgenic agents such as testosterone, fluoxymesterone, testolactone, and caluserone have been used to treat postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer. Patients with ER-positive breast tumors respond better than those with ER-negative tumors. The mechanism of action of androgens is unknown but probably involves blocking the stimulating effect of estrogen. The high-incidence of androgenic side effects (eg, hirsutism, male-pattern baldness, acne, fluid retention) makes these compounds second-line agents in the treatment of breast cancer. In addition, tumor may flare and hypercalcemia occurs more commonly with androgens than with other hormonal therapies. Danazol is a weak androgen that is associated with milder side effects compared with other androgens.

Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs):

The use of the newest generation of selective AIs has dramatically altered the endocrine treatment options for premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Unlike its predecessors, the new-generation AIs are more potent and have far fewer adverse effects because of their selectivity for the aromatase enzyme without significant perturbing the aldosterone or cortisol synthesis pathways. Most widely used AIs are: anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane AIs. One of the important advantages of the new generation of AIs, over older non-selective AIs such as amino-glutethimide, is their selectivity for the aromatase enzyme without significantly perturbing the aldosterone or cortisol pathway.

Conclusion:

Endocrine therapy has been used for the treatment of breast cancer for more than a century, but only in recent decades has a mechanistic model of hormonal influence on the development of progression of breast cancer been defined. Multiple forms of hormonal therapy have been evaluated, from surgical ablative techniques to modern pharmacologic approaches that use a rational drug design in an effort to block the influence of estrogen on tumor growth. The number of endocrine therapy options for patients with advanced disease has expanded, and the objective of several ongoing clinical trials is an effort to determine the optimal sequence of endocrine therapy.

References:

  1. Clarke MJ. Ovarian ablation in breast cancer, 1896 to1998: milestones along hierarchy of evidence from case report to Cochrane review, BMJ 317:1246; 1998.
  2. Veronesi U et al. Radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery in small breast carcinoma: long term results of a randomized trial. Ann Oncol 12:997; 2001.
  3. Sixel KE et al. Deep inspiration breath hold to reduce irradiated heart volume in breast cancer patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol Phys. 49:199; 2001.
  4. Calitchi E et al. Long-term results of neoadjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer (Radiat. Oncol. Invest) 96:253; 2001.
  5. Swain SM. Locally advanced non-inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer Invest. 17:211; 1999.
  6. Eiffel P. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000 J Natl. Cancer Inst. 93:979; 2001.
  7. Decensi A et al. Effect of blood tamoxifen concentrations on surrogate biomarkers in a trial of dose reduction in healthy women. J Clin Oncol 17:2633; 1999.
  8. Cummings SR et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women; results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene evaluation. JAMA 281:2189; 1999.
  9. Sato M et al. LY353381. HCL: a novel raloxifene analogue with improved SERM potency and efficiency in-vivo. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 287:1; 1998.
Women's Health & Education Center
Hospital Campus Medical Building
300 Stafford Street #265
Springfield, MA 01104
United States of America
Tel: 413-733-1177
www.womenshealthsection.com
*