RAZOR: A phase II open randomized trial of screening plus goserelin and raloxifene versus screening alone in premenopausal women at increased risk of breast cancer

  • Howell A
  • Ashcroft L
  • Fallowfield L
 et al. 
  • 16

    Readers

    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 0

    Citations

    Citations of this article.

Abstract

Background: Ovarian suppression in premenopausal women is known to reduce breast cancer risk. This study aimed to assess uptake and compliance with ovarian suppression using the luteinizing hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue, goserelin, with add-back raloxifene, as a potential regimen for breast cancer prevention. Methods: Women at30% lifetime risk breast cancer were approached and randomized to mammographic screening alone (C-Control) or screening in addition to monthly subcutaneous injections of 3.6 mg goserelin and continuous 60 mg raloxifene daily orally (T-Treated) for 2 years. The primary endpoint was therapy adherence. Secondary endpoints were toxicity/quality of life, change in bone density, and mammographic density. Results: A total of 75/950 (7.9%) women approached agreed to randomization. In the T-arm, 20 of 38 (52%) of women completed the 2-year period of study compared with the C-arm (27/37, 73.0%). Dropouts were related to toxicity but also the wish to have established risk-reducing procedures and proven chemoprevention. As relatively few women completed the study, data are limited, but those in the T-arm reported significant increases in toxicity and sexual problems, no change in anxiety, and less cancer worry. Lumbar spine bone density declined by 7.0% and visually assessed mammographic density by 4.7% over the 2-year treatment period. Conclusions: Uptake is somewhat lower than comparable studies with tamoxifen for prevention with higher dropout rates. Raloxifene may preserve bone density, but reduction in mammographic density reversed after treatment was completed. Impact: This study indicates that breast cancer risk reduction may be possible using LHRH agonists, but reducing toxicity and preventing bone changes would make this a more attractive option.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document

Authors

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free