Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 2

4363 - Evaluation of endocrine therapy and patients preferences in early breast cancer: results of Elena study

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Presenters

Emilia Montagna

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v55-v98. 10.1093/annonc/mdz240

Authors

E. Montagna1, E. Pagan2, V. Bagnardi2, M.A. Colleoni1, G. Cancello1, E. Munzone1, S. Dellapasqua1, N. Bianco1, G.M. Campennì1, M. Iorfida1, M. Mazza1, A. De Maio1, M. Milano1, P. Veronesi1, C. Sangalli1, B. Scateni1, G. Pravettoni3, K. Mazzocco3, V. Galimberti1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Division Of Medical Senology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, 20141 - Milan/IT
  • 2 Department Of Statistics And Quantitative Methods, University of Milan-Bicocca, 20126 - Milan/IT
  • 3 Psychology, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, 20141 - Milan/IT
More

Resources

Abstract 4363

Background

Hormonal therapy (HT) is generally proposed to all patients with endocrine receptor positive breast cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence and death. However, HT is associated with side effects. The aim of the present study was to determine the preferences of women treated with adjuvant HT for breast cancer.

Methods

Preferences have been elicited with a self-completed, validated questionnaire administered at study entry in eligible patients. The questionnaires, showing hypothetical scenarios based on potential survival times (5 or 15 years) and rates (60% or 80% at 5 years) without HT, were used to determine the lowest gains women judged necessary to make the treatment. The analyses were conducted into three different groups of early breast cancer patients to evaluate the expected survival benefit before starting HT (A), after a few months from the beginning (B) and after several years of HT (C). Patients also completed psychological questionnaires and the patient reported symptoms form.

Results

A total of 452 patients were included in the study: 149 in group A, 150 in group B and 153 in group C. In group C, 65% of patients were receiving HT with aromatase inhibitors (with or without a LHRH analogue). 12%, 24% and 35% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy in group A, B and C, respectively. Overall, 355 women (79%) had children. The responses were quite similar between the three groups. A mean gain of 13 years was judged necessary to make adjuvant endocrine therapy worthwhile based on the hypothetical scenario of untreated mean survival time of 15 years. A mean gain of 22% more women surviving was judged necessary to make adjuvant HT worthwhile based on an untreated 5-year survival rate expectation of 60%. Cognitive dysfunction was considered the side effect least compatible with the continuation of treatment in all three groups. The willingness to continue therapy was unrelated to age, marriage and presence of children.

Conclusions

This is a large study of patient preferences on HT. Preferences have been elicited also in premenopausal patients treated with aromatase inhibitors. Compared with other studies with similar design, the patients included in the present study required larger benefits to make adjuvant therapy worthwhile.

Clinical trial identification

NCT 03939156 Release date 05.03.2019.

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Women cancer center.

Disclosure

E. Montagna: Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: gentili; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. M.A. Colleoni: Honoraria (self): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: OBI Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy: Puma Biotechnology; Advisory / Consultancy: Celldex; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca. G. Cancello: Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: gentili. E. Munzone: Advisory / Consultancy: Pierre Fabre; Advisory / Consultancy: Genomic Health. S. Dellapasqua: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. M. Mazza: Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Gentili; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings