Bui Kim Tam, Willson Melina L, Goel Shom, Beith Jane, Goodwin Annabel
Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Medical Oncology Department, 1A Hospital Road, Concord, NSW, Australia, 2137.
NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Systematic Reviews and Health Technology Assessments, Locked Bag 77, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1450.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 6;3(3):CD013538. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013538.
Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment.
To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.
For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.
We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided.
This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.
绝经前女性中约80%的乳腺癌为激素受体阳性。辅助内分泌治疗是激素受体阳性乳腺癌治疗的重要组成部分,对于绝经前女性,包括使用他莫昔芬阻断雌激素受体、使用促黄体生成素释放激素(LHRH)激动剂暂时抑制卵巢雌激素合成,以及通过卵巢切除术或放射治疗永久阻断卵巢雌激素合成。最近的国际共识声明推荐单药他莫昔芬或芳香化酶抑制剂联合卵巢功能抑制(OFS)作为绝经前女性目前的标准辅助内分泌治疗(通常在化疗之前)。本综述探讨了在另一种治疗(即化疗、内分泌治疗或两者)中添加OFS的作用,或比较OFS与不进行进一步辅助治疗的效果。
评估OFS对绝经前激素受体阳性早期乳腺癌女性治疗的效果。
为了更新本综述,我们于2019年9月26日检索了Cochrane乳腺癌小组专业注册库、MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL;2019年第8期)、世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)和ClinicalTrials.gov。我们筛选了相关文章的参考文献列表,联系了试验作者,且未设语言限制。
我们纳入了所有评估任何OFS方法(即卵巢切除术、放射诱导卵巢消融或LHRH激动剂)作为绝经前早期乳腺癌女性辅助治疗的随机试验。我们纳入了比较以下情况的研究:(1)OFS与观察;(2)OFS + 化疗与化疗;(3)OFS + 他莫昔芬与他莫昔芬;(4)OFS + 化疗 + 他莫昔芬与化疗 + 他莫昔芬。
两位综述作者独立提取数据,并使用GRADE方法评估偏倚风险和证据的确定性。从事件发生时间结局中得出风险比(HRs),并使用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析。主要结局指标为总生存期(OS)和无病生存期(DFS)。毒性、对侧乳腺癌和第二原发性恶性肿瘤以风险比(RRs)表示,如有提供,提取生活质量数据。
本综述更新纳入了15项研究,涉及11,538名绝经前激素受体阳性早期乳腺癌女性;这些研究于1978年至2014年进行。其中一些治疗并非当前的标准治疗方法,早期研究未评估HER2受体状态。研究测试了OFS与观察(1项研究)、OFS加化疗与化疗(6项研究)、OFS加他莫昔芬与他莫昔芬(6项研究)以及OFS加化疗和他莫昔芬与化疗和他莫昔芬(2项研究)。在那些报告了化疗方案的研究中,估计72%的女性接受了蒽环类药物治疗。以下结果涉及OFS与无OFS的总体比较。高确定性证据表明,在治疗中添加OFS可降低死亡率(风险比(HR)0.86,95%置信区间(CI)0.78至 0.94;11项研究;10,374名女性;1933例报告事件)。当OFS添加到观察、他莫昔芬或化疗和他莫昔芬中时,均可见到这种治疗效果。当OFS添加到未使用他莫昔芬治疗的化疗中时,未观察到对死亡率的影响(HR 0.95,95% CI 0.82至1.09;5项研究;3087名女性;中位随访时间:7.7至12.1年)。添加OFS可改善DFS(HR 0.83,95% CI 0.77至0.90;10项研究;8899名女性;2757例报告事件;高确定性证据)。当OFS添加到观察、他莫昔芬以及化疗和他莫昔芬中时,DFS治疗效果持续存在。当OFS添加到未使用他莫昔芬治疗的化疗中时,对DFS的影响降低(HR 0.90,95% CI 0.79至1.01;5项研究;2450名女性)。各研究中DFS和OS的异质性分别为低到中度。有证据表明,添加OFS会略微增加潮热的发生率(3/4级或任何级别;风险比(RR)1.60,95% CI 1.41至1.82;6项研究;5581名女性;低确定性证据,因为这些研究中可能未充分报告)。另外两项无法纳入荟萃分析的研究报告称,OFS组的潮热次数高于无OFS组。七项涉及5354名女性的研究收集了与情绪相关的信息;然而,这些信息报告为3或4级抑郁、焦虑或神经精神症状,或者报告了症状但未提及级别。两项研究报告称,与无OFS组相比,OFS组的抑郁、焦虑和神经精神症状有所增加,五项研究表明两个治疗组的焦虑均有增加(但组间无差异),或者总体症状随时间或治疗组之间无差异。一项研究将骨健康报告为骨质疏松症(定义为T评分 < -2.5);这一有限证据表明,在中位随访5.6年时,与无OFS相比,OFS增加了骨质疏松症的风险(RR 1.16,95% CI 1.10至28.82;2011名女性;低确定性证据)。在治疗中添加OFS可能会降低对侧乳腺癌的风险(HR 0.75,95% CI 0.57至0.97;9项研究;9138名女性;中度确定性证据)。五项研究评估了生活质量;四项研究使用了经过验证的工具,第五项研究未提供关于数据收集方式的信息。两项研究报告称,与无OFS组的女性相比,接受OFS的女性生活质量指标更差(即阴道干燥、日夜盗汗)。另外两项研究表明症状有所恶化(例如血管舒缩症状、妇科症状、阴道干燥、性兴趣下降、骨和关节疼痛、体重增加);然而,这些副作用在OFS组和无OFS组中均有报告。未使用经过验证的生活质量工具的研究表明组间无显著差异。
本综述发现有证据支持为绝经前早期激素受体阳性乳腺癌女性添加OFS。与观察相比,以及添加到内分泌治疗(他莫昔芬)或化疗和内分泌治疗(他莫昔芬)中时,OFS的益处持续存在。使用OFS的决定可能取决于基于肿瘤和患者特征的总体风险评估,并且可能需要考虑添加OFS后出现的所有副作用。