Affiliations 

  • 1 The International Breast Cancer Research Foundation, USA. Electronic address: richardibcrf@gmail.com
  • 2 Khulna Medical College and Hospital, Khulna, Bangladesh. Electronic address: drsmozammel@yahoo.com
  • 3 Dhaka Medical College and Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Electronic address: dr.margub@gmail.com
  • 4 National Cancer Research Institute and Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Electronic address: dr.mohammadgolammostafa@gmail.com
  • 5 Philippines General Hospital, Manila, Philippines. Electronic address: yago_md@yahoo.com
  • 6 Vicente Sotto Memorial Hospital, Cebu, Philippines. Electronic address: ssiguan@yahoo.com
  • 7 University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Electronic address: cadebamo@yahoo.com
  • 8 Qilu Hospital, Jinan, China. Electronic address: Doctor_sun@tom.com
  • 9 Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: fei.fei@eortc.be
  • 10 Cancer Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: libin206@163.com
  • 11 4th Hospital, Hebei, China. Electronic address: Lyj818326@126.com
  • 12 BSMMU Postgraduate Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Electronic address: syedmdakram@gmail.com
  • 13 Cancer Institute and Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. Electronic address: cdb8891@126.com
  • 14 People's Hospital, Beijing, China. Electronic address: chenglin@pkuph.edu.cn
  • 15 University of Indonesia General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. Electronic address: sonarsp@yahoo.com
  • 16 University of Indonesia General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia. Electronic address: fardiana_w@yahoo.com
  • 17 Chao Yang Hospital, Beijing, China. Electronic address: JHC2000@sohu.com
  • 18 Rizal Medical Center, Pasig City, Philippines. Electronic address: rdmsurgn@yahoo.com
  • 19 University of Malaya Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Electronic address: chenghar.yip@gmail.com
  • 20 Santo Thomas University Hospital, Manila, Philippines. Electronic address: nsnavarrojr@yahoo.com
  • 21 National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: huangcs@ntu.edu.tw
  • 22 National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: yslu@ntu.edu.tw
  • 23 Amader Gram, Khulna, Bangladesh. Electronic address: tahminaferdousy@yahoo.com
  • 24 Amader Gram, Khulna, Bangladesh. Electronic address: rezasalim02@yahoo.com
  • 25 Amader Gram, Khulna, Bangladesh. Electronic address: chameli@agbreastcare.org
  • 26 BSMMU Postgraduate Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Electronic address: shamsunnahar73@yahoo.com
  • 27 Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines. Electronic address: gemmauymd@yahoo.com
  • 28 The Ohio State University Center for Biostatistics, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: gregory.young@osumc.edu
  • 29 The Ohio State University Center for Biostatistics, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: erinn.hade@osumc.edu
  • 30 The Ohio State University Center for Biostatistics, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Electronic address: davidjarjoura@gmail.com
Eur J Cancer, 2016 06;60:107-16.
PMID: 27107325 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.011

Abstract

PURPOSE: In premenopausal women with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, hormonal therapy is the first-line therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue + tamoxifen therapies have been found to be more effective. The pattern of recurrence risk over time after primary surgery suggests that peri-operative factors impact recurrence. Secondary analyses of an adjuvant trial suggested that the luteal phase timing of surgical oophorectomy in the menstrual cycle simultaneous with primary breast surgery favourably influenced long-term outcomes.

METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine premenopausal women with incurable or metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer entered a trial in which they were randomised to historical mid-luteal or mid-follicular phase surgical oophorectomy followed by oral tamoxifen treatment. Kaplan-Meier methods, the log-rank test, and multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess overall and progression-free survival (PFS) in the two randomised groups and by hormone-confirmed menstrual cycle phase.

RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) and PFS were not demonstrated to be different in the two randomised groups. In a secondary analysis, OS appeared worse in luteal phase surgery patients with progesterone levels <2 ng/ml (anovulatory patients; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.41, p = 0.14) compared with those in luteal phase with progesterone level of 2 ng/ml or higher. Median OS was 2 years (95% CI: 1.7-2.3) and OS at 4 years was 26%.

CONCLUSIONS: The history-based timing of surgical oophorectomy in the menstrual cycle did not influence outcomes in this trial of metastatic patients. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00293540.

Study site: Bangladesh, The Philippines, China, Nigeria,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Morocco, and Vietnam

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.