FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2169598794> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2169598794 endingPage "4951" @default.
• W2169598794 startingPage "4949" @default.
• W2169598794 abstract "Although Schinzinger first suggested that oophorectomy might be used to treat breast cancer in 1889, it is Sir George Beatson who is associated with its establishment as an effective therapeutic modality based on his seminal 1896 Lancet publication describing successful treatment of young women with advanced breast cancer with bilateral oophorectomy. Studies of surgical oophorectomy were followed by those assessing ovarian irradiation, leading ultimately to the 1948 launch at the Christie Hospital (Manchester, United Kingdom) of the first randomized trial of ovarian ablation (OA) using irradiation versus no OA for premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. By the 1960s, many considered OA to be an effective adjuvant modality in breast cancer, but interest subsided with the demonstration of the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy and the belief that OA failed to alter survival in premenopausal women. This view was challenged by the serial reports of the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group showing that OA or ovarian suppression (OS) offered an unequivocal survival benefit compared with no therapy for women under 50 years of age. In addition, the ovarian suppressive or ablative effects of chemotherapy in young women were recognized, which raised the possibility that the benefits of chemotherapy might be mediated in part by indirect effects on the ovary leading to estrogen deprivation. These observations led to a generation of randomized trials assessing the efficacy of OA/OS by surgery, radiotherapy, or luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonists compared with chemotherapy or in addition to chemotherapy. In this issue, Ejlertsen et al report the long-term outcome of patients treated in such a trial, the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) Trial 89B. This study randomly assigned 762 premenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer deemed at high risk for recurrence (axillary nodal involvement or tumor size 5 cm) to receive pelvic irradiation as a form of OA/OS or nine courses of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) intravenously every 3 weeks. Both therapies were well tolerated, and there was no apparent difference in overall survival after a median follow-up time of 10.5 years and 358 first events (hazard ratio 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.42). The unique strengths of this study include its maturity, exclusion of women with known steroid receptor–negative breast cancer who are unlikely to benefit from endocrine therapy, focus on an essentially node-positive population at high risk for recurrence, and uniform approach to therapy. Potential limitations include the use of a chemotherapy regimen (CMF) that some might consider substandard in the era of taxanes and anthracyclines, failure to incorporate tamoxifen, and elements of the statistical design and power. The DBCG 89B investigators used a noninferiority statistical design to test the hypothesis that ovarian irradiation was not inferior to chemotherapy. Active-control noninferiority trials are often used when the choice of a placebo-controlled study is considered unethical. However, this type of trial design is challenging because of the need to define an acceptable margin of inferiority to reduce the risk of introducing a potentially suboptimal treatment into clinical practice while maintaining a reasonable sample size. The predefined sample size of 750 patients chosen for DBCG 89B permitted detection of a 25% relative decrease in disease-free survival with pelvic irradiation as clinically unacceptable using twosided testing with 5% and 20%. The observed unadjusted hazard ratio estimate for disease-free survival of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.22; P .95) rejects the null hypothesis of inequality and supports the alternative hypothesis of equality. However, the upper boundaries of the CIs do not rule out a possible 22% greater disease-free survival or a 42% greater overall survival benefit with CMF, which raises the question of whether the DBCG 89B trial was adequately powered to address a noninferiority question in a clinically meaningful way. Nonetheless, the conclusion of Ejlertsen et al that radiationinduced OA/OS and CMF have a similar effect on disease-free and overall survival for premenopausal women with receptor-positive breast cancer is likely to be correct. This study joins four other published studies comparing OA/OS by surgery, goserelin, or leuprolide with variations of CMF that have shown similar results for women with hormone-responsive disease. DBCG 89B is the only study that exclusively used irradiation to induce OA/OS and excluded women with known hormone receptor–negative disease (although 22% of the enrolled subjects had unknown receptor status), thereby limiting inclusion of patients expected to gain nothing from OA/OS and derive greater benefit from chemotherapy. A tragedy of all of these trials, as well as concurrent trials that tested chemotherapy followed by OA/OS, is that they failed to incorporate tamoxifen because of the prevailing belief at the time that it was not effective in premenopausal women with JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 24 NUMBER 31 NOVEMBER 1 2006" @default.
• W2169598794 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2169598794 creator A5026024346 @default.
• W2169598794 creator A5044143691 @default.
• W2169598794 date "2006-11-01" @default.
• W2169598794 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2169598794 title "Still Waiting After 110 Years: The Optimal Use of Ovarian Ablation As Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer" @default.
• W2169598794 cites W1493668961 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W1562190372 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W158884809 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2014052017 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2027743396 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2028520842 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W206480088 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2074330162 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2104828918 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2105882193 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2127518232 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2128146259 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2135415635 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2151396148 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2156610465 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2157840751 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2160377567 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2162149241 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2163988169 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2166797988 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2167027232 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2167926320 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2343407300 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W2901368272 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W3162684029 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W4244186096 @default.
• W2169598794 cites W4361868389 @default.
• W2169598794 doi "https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.9160" @default.
• W2169598794 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17075110" @default.
• W2169598794 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2169598794 type Work @default.
• W2169598794 sameAs 2169598794 @default.
• W2169598794 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2169598794 countsByYear W21695987942015 @default.
• W2169598794 countsByYear W21695987942016 @default.
• W2169598794 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2169598794 hasAuthorship W2169598794A5026024346 @default.
• W2169598794 hasAuthorship W2169598794A5044143691 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C143998085 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C2777863537 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C2777982462 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C2780427987 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C121608353 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C126322002 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C141071460 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C143998085 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C2777863537 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C2777982462 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C2780427987 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C29456083 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C530470458 @default.
• W2169598794 hasConceptScore W2169598794C71924100 @default.
• W2169598794 hasIssue "31" @default.
• W2169598794 hasLocation W21695987941 @default.
• W2169598794 hasLocation W21695987942 @default.
• W2169598794 hasOpenAccess W2169598794 @default.
• W2169598794 hasPrimaryLocation W21695987941 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2349441096 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2378135797 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2384493525 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2386116568 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2387425470 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2557359331 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2801222998 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2892370718 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2892677547 @default.
• W2169598794 hasRelatedWork W2944387023 @default.
• W2169598794 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2169598794 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2169598794 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2169598794 magId "2169598794" @default.
• W2169598794 workType "article" @default.