corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5631

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Breast cancer pill saves few lives, study finds
Reuters 2006 Jul 24
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-07-24T130814Z_01_N23307003_RTRUKOC_0_US-CANCER-TAMOXIFEN.xml

Keywords:
tamoxifen


Full text:

Breast cancer pill saves few lives, study finds
Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:12am ET177

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Tamoxifen, the pill that prevents breast cancer in high-risk women, does not appear in the long run to save many lives, U.S. researchers reported on Monday.

Women at the highest risk of breast cancer do appear to live longer if they take tamoxifen, the researchers report in the latest issue of the journal Cancer.

But for women at the low end of the high risk group, the sometimes serious side effects of tamoxifen outweigh the benefits, Dr. Joy Melnikow of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues reported.

Tamoxifen can cause blood clots and uterine cancer.

“We found that for women at the lower end of the high-risk range for developing breast cancer, there is a very small likelihood that taking tamoxifen will reduce mortality,” Melnikow said in a statement.

Melnikow and her colleagues calculated that tamoxifen can extend life expectancy only when a woman’s five-year risk of developing breast cancer is 3 percent or higher. This is especially true for women who have not had a hysterectomy, and thus risk endometrial cancer from taking tamoxifen.

Many women are in any case switching to a newer class of drugs known as aromatase inhibitors to treat breast cancer or to the osteoporosis drug raloxifene to prevent it.

Raloxifene, made by Eli Lilly and Co. under the name Evista, has been shown to prevent breast cancer as well as tamoxifen does, without causing as many blood clots, cataracts or as many cases of uterine cancer.

In June, researchers reported that women with breast cancer who switched to Pfizer Inc.‘s drug Aromasin after taking tamoxifen were 17 percent less likely to die.

Tamoxifen blocks estrogen, which can help fuel the growth of tumors in some cases.

In women considered at high risk of breast cancer, usually meaning they have a close relative with breast cancer, have had several suspicious-looking lumps, or other conditions, tamoxifen reduced their risk of breast cancer by 49 percent.

Aromasin, known generically as exemestane, and similar drugs inhibit the enzyme aromatase, which is needed to produce estrogen. The aromatase inhibitors are now being used just after breast cancer surgery instead of tamoxifen in many women to keep the disease from returning.

They are not approved for prevention of breast cancer.

Tamoxifen was sold by AstraZeneca Plc under the name Nolvadex but is now marketed by several generic drug makers. It remains the only drug approved for use in preventing breast cancer in women who have not yet reached menopause.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among U.S. women, after lung cancer. More than 200,000 people are diagnosed and another roughly 40,000 die from it each year, according to the American Cancer Society.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963