Morgan Jenna, Wyld Lynda, Collins Karen A, Reed Malcolm W
The University of Sheffield, Academic Unit of Surgical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK, S10 2RX.
Sheffield Hallam University, Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Montgomery House 32 Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield, UK, S10 2BP.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 19;5(5):CD004272. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004272.pub3.
Several studies have evaluated the clinical effectiveness of endocrine therapy alone in women aged 70 years or over with operable breast cancer and who are fit for surgery.
To systematically review the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of surgery (with or without adjuvant endocrine therapy) in comparison to primary endocrine therapy in the treatment of operable breast cancer in women aged 70 years and over, both in terms of local progression and mortality.
We conducted an updated search of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (27th March 2013) and new searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and www.
gov, using the search terms 'early breast cancer', 'endocrine therapy', 'psychosocial' or 'surgery'.
Randomised trials comparing surgery, with or without adjuvant endocrine therapy, to primary endocrine therapy in the management of women aged 70 years or over with early breast cancer and who were fit for surgery.
We assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and two review authors independently extracted data from published trials. We derived hazard ratios for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We extracted toxicity and quality-of-life data, where present. Where outcome data were not available, we contacted trialists and requested unpublished data.
We identified seven eligible trials, of which six had published time-to-event data and one was published only in abstract form with no usable data. The quality of the allocation concealment was adequate in three studies and unclear in the remainder. In each case the endocrine therapy used was tamoxifen. Data, based on an estimated 1081 deaths in 1571 women, did not show a statistically significant difference in favour of either surgery or primary endocrine therapy in respect of overall survival. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of progression-free survival, which favoured surgery with (474 participants) or without endocrine therapy (164 participants). The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival were: HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.20, P = 0.85; 3 trials, 495 participants) for surgery alone versus primary endocrine therapy; HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.00, P = 0.06; 3 trials, 1076 participants) for surgery plus endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy. The HRs for progression-free survival were: HR 0.55 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.77, P = 0.0006) for surgery alone versus primary endocrine therapy; HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.81, P = 0.0001) for surgery plus endocrine therapy versus primary endocrine therapy (each comparison based on only one trial). Tamoxifen-related adverse effects included hot flushes, skin rash, vaginal discharge, indigestion, breast pain, sleepiness, headache, vertigo, itching, hair loss, cystitis, acute thrombophlebitis, nausea, and indigestion. Surgery-related adverse effects included paraesthesia on the ipsilateral arm and lateral thoracic wall in those who had axillary clearance. One study suggested that those undergoing surgery suffered more psychosocial morbidity at three months post-surgery, although this difference had disappeared by two years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Primary endocrine therapy should only be offered to women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours who are unfit for surgery, at increased risk of serious surgical or anaesthetic complications if subjected to surgery, or who refuse surgery. In a cohort of women with significant co-morbid disease and ER-positive tumours it is possible that primary endocrine therapy may be a superior option to surgery. Trials are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of aromatase inhibitors as primary therapy for an infirm older population with ER-positive tumours.
多项研究评估了单纯内分泌治疗对70岁及以上可手术乳腺癌且适合手术的女性的临床疗效。
系统评价手术(联合或不联合辅助内分泌治疗)与单纯内分泌治疗相比,在治疗70岁及以上女性可手术乳腺癌方面的临床疗效证据,包括局部进展和死亡率。
我们更新了对Cochrane乳腺癌小组专门注册库(2013年3月27日)的检索,并对Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL,2013年第3期)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(apps.who.int/trialsearch/)和www.CLINICALTRIALS.gov进行了新的检索,检索词为“早期乳腺癌”“内分泌治疗”“心理社会因素”或“手术”。
随机试验,比较手术(联合或不联合辅助内分泌治疗)与单纯内分泌治疗在管理70岁及以上早期乳腺癌且适合手术的女性中的效果。
我们评估研究的纳入资格和质量,两位综述作者独立从已发表的试验中提取数据。我们尽可能得出事件发生时间结局的风险比,并使用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。我们提取了毒性和生活质量数据(如有)。若未获得结局数据,我们联系试验者并索要未发表的数据。
我们确定了7项符合条件的试验,其中6项已发表事件发生时间数据,1项仅以摘要形式发表且无可用数据。3项研究的分配隐藏质量良好,其余研究情况不明。每种情况下使用的内分泌治疗均为他莫昔芬。基于1571名女性中估计1081例死亡的数据,在总生存期方面,手术和单纯内分泌治疗均未显示出统计学上显著的优势。然而,在无进展生存期方面存在统计学显著差异,手术联合(474名参与者)或不联合内分泌治疗(164名参与者)更具优势。总生存期的风险比为:单纯手术与单纯内分泌治疗相比,风险比为0.98(95%置信区间(CI)0.81至1.20,P = 0.85;3项试验,495名参与者);手术加内分泌治疗与单纯内分泌治疗相比,风险比为0.86(95%CI 0.73至1.00,P = 0.06;3项试验,1076名参与者)。无进展生存期的风险比为:单纯手术与单纯内分泌治疗相比,风险比为0.55(95%CI 0.39至0.77,P = 0.0006);手术加内分泌治疗与单纯内分泌治疗相比,风险比为0.65(95%CI 0.53至0.81,P = 0.0001)(每次比较仅基于一项试验)。与他莫昔芬相关的不良反应包括潮热、皮疹、阴道分泌物、消化不良、乳房疼痛、嗜睡、头痛、眩晕、瘙痒、脱发、膀胱炎、急性血栓性静脉炎、恶心和消化不良。与手术相关的不良反应包括腋窝清扫者同侧手臂和胸侧壁感觉异常。一项研究表明,接受手术的患者在术后3个月心理社会发病率更高,尽管这种差异在两年时已消失。
单纯内分泌治疗仅应提供给雌激素受体(ER)阳性肿瘤且不适合手术、手术会增加严重手术或麻醉并发症风险或拒绝手术的女性。在患有严重合并症且ER阳性肿瘤的女性队列中,单纯内分泌治疗可能是优于手术的选择。需要进行试验以评估芳香化酶抑制剂作为ER阳性肿瘤体弱老年人群主要治疗方法的临床疗效。