Abstract

Background:

Several agents have been advocated for breast cancer primary prevention. However, few of them appear effective, the associated severe adverse effects limiting their uptake.

Methods:

We performed a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the ability of chemoprevention agents (CPAs) to reduce the incidence of primary breast carcinoma. Using network meta-analysis, we ranked CPAs based simultaneously on efficacy and acceptability (an inverse measure of toxicity). All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results:

We found 48 eligible RCTs, enrolling 271 161 women randomly assigned to receive either placebo or one of 21 CPAs. Aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and exemestane, considered a single CPA class because of the lack of between-study heterogeneity; relative risk [RR] = 0.468, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.346 to 0.634), arzoxifene (RR = 0.415, 95% CI = 0.253 to 0.682), lasofoxifene (RR = 0.208, 95% CI = 0.079 to 0.544), raloxifene (RR = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.372 to 0.881), tamoxifen (RR = 0.708, 95% CI = 0.595 to 0.842), and tibolone (RR = 0.317, 95% CI = 0.127 to 0.792) were statistically significantly associated with a therapeutic effect, which was restricted to estrogen receptor–positive tumors of postmenopausal women (except for tamoxifen, which is active also during premenopause). Network meta-analysis ranking showed that the new selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, and raloxifene have the best benefit-risk ratio. Aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen ranked second and third, respectively.

Conclusions:

These results provide physicians and health care regulatory agencies with RCT-based evidence on efficacy and acceptability of currently available breast cancer CPAs; at the same time, we pinpoint how much work still remains to be done before pharmacological primary prevention becomes a routine option to reduce the burden of this disease.

In women, breast carcinoma is the first tumor type by incidence and the second cause of death by cancer (1,2). Surgery remains the only potentially curative approach when the tumor is localized, whereas chemotherapy prolongs the survival of patients with high-risk locally advanced disease or metastatic disease (3,4). Overall, the burden of this disease for the community in terms of mortality, morbidity, psychological stress, and costs is enormous. Therefore, any effort is sorely needed to make breast cancer prevention effective. So far, most results have been obtained with secondary prevention programs, which aim for early detection of the disease (mainly by means of screening mammography), an approach not free of criticisms (5–7).

With regard to primary prevention (ie, all the interventions capable of reducing the occurrence of new cases), several approaches have been proposed and tested, such as lifestyle changes (including smoking cessation and active exercise), prophylactic surgery, and chemoprevention (also known as preventive therapy [8]) (9–11). Although lifestyle changes are broadly recommended for their undoubted effectiveness on a range of malignant and nonmalignant illnesses, the magnitude of their impact specifically on breast cancer incidence has been questioned (12). Alternatively, bilateral mastectomy is limited to very-high-risk women (such as those harboring BRCA1/2 germline pathologic mutations (13) or those with a personal history of breast cancer (14) and thus cannot have a notable impact on the global incidence of this disease. In the end, the highest expectations reside in chemoprevention (4,8).

In the light of the hormone dependence of the majority of breast carcinomas (at least in the early phase of disease) (15), the most highly researched drug class in breast cancer primary prevention has been that of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (16). However, many other potential chemoprevention agents (CPAs) have been investigated, ranging from anti-estrogen drugs (eg, aromatase inhibitors) (17), to micronutrients (eg, vitamins) (18), to compounds investigated for their activity against nonmalignant diseases and then discovered to have potential anticancer effects (eg, anti-osteopenia drugs, anticholesterol drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and antidiabetes drugs) (19,20).

Internationally trusted guidelines (eg American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] [21], National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] [22], US Preventive Services Task Force [23], National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] [24]) do recommend the use of some hormone-related CPAs in high-risk women, although the uptake is low mainly because of the associated adverse effects (10,11,25). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of single CPAs support these guidelines (26).

However, to our knowledge, no multiple treatment meta-analysis has yet been published that covers the highest level of evidence (ie, based on the findings of RCTs) on the range of compounds so far tested in this field. Unlike conventional pairwise meta-analysis, the relatively recently implemented “network meta-analysis” (also known as multiple treatment meta-analysis) (27–30) enables investigators not only to combine direct evidence (ie, information deriving from head-to-head comparisons such as treatment A vs treatment B) with indirect evidence (ie, information on the A-vs-B comparison deriving from studies comparing B vs C and A vs C) but also to compare and rank multiple treatments based simultaneously on their efficacy (ability to reduce disease incidence) and acceptability (inversely proportional to CPA toxicity). With the present work we attempted to fill this gap in the medical literature and provide readers with useful information to make evidence-based decisions about the administration of CPAs for the primary prevention of breast cancer in women without prior history of this disease.

Methods

Literature Search

We first performed a systematic review of RCT reporting on the efficacy of any potential CPA to affect the incidence of breast cancer. To this aim we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (31) and Cochrane guidelines (32). The search consisted of three stages. In the first stage, two authors (SM and PP) independently performed an electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Collaboration, US Clinicaltrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, and Scopus databases until March 2015. The following medical subject heading terms and text words were used in combination: “breast;” “cancer” or “tumor” or “carcinoma;” “chemoprevention” or “prevention” or “risk” or “incidence” or “preventive therapy;” and “randomized.” In the second stage, the electronic search was enriched with the names of the chemoprevention agents (CPAs) retrieved in the first stage. In the final stage, the references of eligible studies as well as those from review articles and meta-analyses were screened.

According to the so called PICO checklist (32), eligibility criteria were the following: 1) Population: women without breast cancer history; 2) Intervention: any pharmacological compound with hypothesized activity against cancer; 3) Control: placebo (or any CPA in trials comparing different compounds); 4) Outcomes: breast cancer incident cases (beneficial effect, hereafter referred to as “efficacy”) and severe adverse events (toxicity, hereafter referred to as “acceptability”). As regards breast cancer incidence, the primary outcome was any type carcinoma (invasive + noninvasive [in situ carcinoma]). At subgroup analysis, invasive and noninvasive carcinomas as well as estrogen receptor–positive and –negative carcinomas were considered separately. Breast cancer risk of women enrolled in the included trials could not be used as a study-level covariate for network meta-regression analysis because of the low number of available studies. Severe adverse events were defined as treatment-related deaths, life-threatening events (eg, myocardial infarction, stroke, thrombo-embolism, cancer [eg, endometrial carcinoma]) and any side effect classified as G3-G4.

Only full text articles were included; if multiple publications of the same trial were retrieved, only the most recent and informative publication was included.

Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers (SM and PP) for potentially relevant studies according to the aforementioned eligibility criteria: After excluding duplicated and nonrelevant studies, the remaining articles were read in full text. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus with the other two authors (MB and DN). The authors of the original article were contacted when essential data (eg, those necessary to calculate the outcome measures) were unreported.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was adopted to assess the risk of bias for each RCT (32). This tool includes seven domains: random sequence generation (capturing selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), and other sources of bias (eg, per-protocol analysis instead of intention-to-treat analysis, sample size calculation, and achievement). Based on the above domains, the included RCTs were classified into one of three categories: low risk, high risk, or unclear risk.

Evidence Grading

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system (33) adapted to network meta-analysis (34) was employed to grade the quality of evidence into four levels: high, moderate, low, and very low quality.

The quality can be downgraded by one (serious concern) or two levels (very serious concern) for the following reasons: risk of bias (see above paragraph), inconsistency (unexplained heterogeneity, inconsistency of results), indirectness (indirect population, intervention, control, outcomes), and imprecision (wide predictive intervals, single trial). The quality can also be upgraded by one level because of large summary effect (we chose efficacy relative risk < 0.5) and dose-response gradient (eg, effect increases as the drug dose increases).

Statistical Analysis

The outcome measure was the relative risk (RR), which is the ratio between the incidence of breast cancer (or severe adverse events) in the experimental arm and that in the control arm. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as a measure of estimate uncertainty. For direct comparisons, standard pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model (35). If a direct comparison was based on two or more studies, result inconsistency across studies (ie, between-study heterogeneity) was quantified using the I-squared statistic; heterogeneity was considered low, moderate, or high for I-squared values under 25%, between 25% and 50% and over 50%, respectively (36).

Heterogeneity assessment also helped us to combine biologically similar CPAs in a single treatment group, which was dictated by the need to minimize the issue of rare categories (ie, to avoid that a given treatment was represented by one or very few trials). For two or more CPAs to be grouped in a single category, between-study heterogeneity had to be absent.

Random effects network meta-analysis was carried out within a frequentist setting (as an alternative to the Bayesian model) (37,38) to synthesize the available evidence on primary breast cancer prevention agents by combining all the information regarding efficacy and acceptability from different studies. Network meta-analysis combines data from a network of trials testing more than two competing treatments by integrating direct evidence (ie, deriving from the head-to-head comparison of the treatments of interest, such as A and B) and indirect evidence (ie, information on the A-vs-B comparison deriving from trials comparing B vs C and A vs C); this increases the estimate precision and produces a relative ranking of all interventions while properly accounting for correlations between effects sizes from multi-arm trials (see also the Methods in the Supplementary Materials, available online) (27,28).

A common heterogeneity parameter (tau-squared) was assumed across all comparisons. Each summary effect is presented along with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and predictive interval (PrI). The latter (which is calculated using the between-study variance tau-squared) is the interval within which the estimate of a future study is expected to be, thus providing information on the magnitude of heterogeneity.

When combining the results of direct and indirect comparisons, the extent to which these results are inconsistent with each other was examined. In a network of treatments, different direct comparisons may form evidence cycles (also called loops) within which inconsistency is evaluated.

Besides allowing for indirect comparisons, network meta-analysis also provides a ranking probability curve of each treatment (rankogram) by calculating the probability of each arm to achieve the best rank among all. A simple numerical summary to supplement the graphical display of cumulative ranking is to estimate the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) line for each treatment, which equals one when a treatment is certain to be the best and zero when a treatment is certain to be the worst (39).

Finally, the number needed to treat (NNT; the number of patients to be treated in order to avoid one event of interest) was calculated in order to provide readers with information on the absolute effect of treatment on patients’ outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided. For statistical analysis and graph generation we used Stata 11.2 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Risk of bias was assessed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.1, The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Norway).

Results

Search Findings

The literature search led to the identification of 48 eligible RCTs (40–77), enrolling 271 161 women randomly assigned to receive either placebo or one of 21 chemically distinct compounds belonging to the following eight pharmacological classes: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: aspirin; bisphosphonates: alendronate and zeledronate; aromatase inhibitors: anastrozole and exemestane, selective estrogen receptor modulators: tamoxifen, arzoxifene, bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene, and raloxifene; statins: lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin; insulin stimulating agents: metformin and thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone); vitamins (vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, and folic acid); synthetic hormones: tibolone (see network plot in Figure 1). The main features of these studies are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Main characteristics of eligible randomized controlled trials

Author
(reference)
YearArm 1Arm 2Women,
arm 1
Women,
arm 2
Breast riskMenopauseMedian age, yMedian follow-up, ySettingDrug regimen
Cummings (40)1998AlendronatePlacebo31033091NormalPost683.8Osteoporosis5–10mg daily
Black (41)2007ZeledronatePlacebo37923788NormalPost732.8Osteoporosis5mg daily
Cuzick (42)2014AnastrozolePlacebo19141937HighPost59.45Breast risk1mg daily
Goss (43)2011ExemestanePlacebo22852275HighPost62.52.9Breast risk25mg daily
Powels (44)2012ArzoxifenePlacebo46764678NormalPost67.54.5Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18861885NormalPost653Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer_bis (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18721885NormalPost653Osteoporosis40mg daily
Archer_ter (45)2009RaloxifenePlacebo18491885NormalPost653Osteoporosis60mg daily
Lacroix (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27292740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.25mg daily
Lacroix_bis (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27452740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.50mg daily
Grady (47)2008RaloxifenePlacebo50445057NormalPost67.55.6Heart risk60mg daily
Martino (48)2004RaloxifenePlacebo27251286NormalPost668Osteoporosis60mg daily
Vogel (49)2010RaloxifeneTamoxifen97549736HighPost58.56.7Breast riskT: 20mg/day, R: 60mg/day
Cuzick (50)2015TamoxifenPlacebo35793575HighMixed49.916Breast risk20mg daily
Powles (51)2007TamoxifenPlacebo12381233HighMixed4714.3Breast risk20mg daily
Fisher (52)2005TamoxifenPlacebo65976610HighMixed554.8Breast risk20mg daily
Veronesi (53)2007TamoxifenPlacebo27002708NormalMixed4511.6Breast risk20mg daily
Decensi (54)2013TamoxifenPlacebo938946HighPost53.16.2HRT5mg daily
Decensi (55)2009TamoxifenPlacebo5858HighPre465.5Breast risk5mg daily
Cummings (56)2008TibolonePlacebo22492257NormalPost683Osteoporosis1.25mg daily
Cook (57)2013AspirinPlacebo19 93419 942NormalMixed5510Healthy100mg on alternate days
Rothwell (58)2012AspirinPlacebo72407282NormalMixedMixedMixedHeart riskLow-dose daily
Decensi (55)2009Vitamin APlacebo5958HighPre465.5Breast risk200mg daily
Lee (59)1999Vitamin APlacebo19 93919 937NormalMixed554.1Healthy50mg on alternate days
Hercberg (60)2004Vitamin APlacebo38443869NormalMixed46.67.5Healthy6mg daily
Avenell (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11421132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU daily
Avenell_bis (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11101132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU (plus calcium) daily
Lappe (62)2007Vitamin DPlacebo446288NormalPost66.74Menopause1100 IU (plus calcium) daily
Chleboski (63)2008Vitamin DPlacebo18 17618 106NormalPost657Menopause400 IU (plus calcium) daily
Trivedi (64)2003Vitamin DPlacebo326323NormalPost73.45Healthy100 000 IU every 4 months
Lee (65)2005Vitamin EPlacebo19 93719 939NormalMixed5510.1Healthy600 IU on alternate days
Vollset (66)2013Folic acidPlacebo74407447NormalUnspecified645Heart riskMixed: 0.5 to 5mg daily
Downs (67)1998LovastatinPlacebo496495NormalPost585.2Heart risk20–40mg daily
Sacks (68)1996PravastatinPlacebo291291NormalPost595Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (69)1998PravastatinPlacebo767765NormalMixed626.1Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (70)2002PravastatinPlacebo25232530NormalMixed66.34.8Heart risk40mg daily
Shepherd (71)2002PravastatinPlacebo15031515NormalMixed75.43.2Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (72)2002SimvastatinPlacebo25412541NormalMixed605Heart risk40mg daily
Strandberg (73)2004SimvastatinPlacebo411411NormalMixed6010.4Heart risk20–40mg daily
Erdmann (74)2014PioglitazonePlacebo870905NormalUnspecified558.7DiabetesAs needed (based on glycemia levels)
Home (75)2009RosiglitazonePlacebo*516521NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Home_bis (75)2009RosiglitazoneMetformin562554NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Kahn (76)2006RosiglitazonePlacebo†645605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Kahn_bis (76)2006MetforminPlacebo†590605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Gregorio (77)1999MetforminPlacebo*4547NormalUnspecified>701.5Diabetes
Author
(reference)
YearArm 1Arm 2Women,
arm 1
Women,
arm 2
Breast riskMenopauseMedian age, yMedian follow-up, ySettingDrug regimen
Cummings (40)1998AlendronatePlacebo31033091NormalPost683.8Osteoporosis5–10mg daily
Black (41)2007ZeledronatePlacebo37923788NormalPost732.8Osteoporosis5mg daily
Cuzick (42)2014AnastrozolePlacebo19141937HighPost59.45Breast risk1mg daily
Goss (43)2011ExemestanePlacebo22852275HighPost62.52.9Breast risk25mg daily
Powels (44)2012ArzoxifenePlacebo46764678NormalPost67.54.5Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18861885NormalPost653Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer_bis (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18721885NormalPost653Osteoporosis40mg daily
Archer_ter (45)2009RaloxifenePlacebo18491885NormalPost653Osteoporosis60mg daily
Lacroix (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27292740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.25mg daily
Lacroix_bis (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27452740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.50mg daily
Grady (47)2008RaloxifenePlacebo50445057NormalPost67.55.6Heart risk60mg daily
Martino (48)2004RaloxifenePlacebo27251286NormalPost668Osteoporosis60mg daily
Vogel (49)2010RaloxifeneTamoxifen97549736HighPost58.56.7Breast riskT: 20mg/day, R: 60mg/day
Cuzick (50)2015TamoxifenPlacebo35793575HighMixed49.916Breast risk20mg daily
Powles (51)2007TamoxifenPlacebo12381233HighMixed4714.3Breast risk20mg daily
Fisher (52)2005TamoxifenPlacebo65976610HighMixed554.8Breast risk20mg daily
Veronesi (53)2007TamoxifenPlacebo27002708NormalMixed4511.6Breast risk20mg daily
Decensi (54)2013TamoxifenPlacebo938946HighPost53.16.2HRT5mg daily
Decensi (55)2009TamoxifenPlacebo5858HighPre465.5Breast risk5mg daily
Cummings (56)2008TibolonePlacebo22492257NormalPost683Osteoporosis1.25mg daily
Cook (57)2013AspirinPlacebo19 93419 942NormalMixed5510Healthy100mg on alternate days
Rothwell (58)2012AspirinPlacebo72407282NormalMixedMixedMixedHeart riskLow-dose daily
Decensi (55)2009Vitamin APlacebo5958HighPre465.5Breast risk200mg daily
Lee (59)1999Vitamin APlacebo19 93919 937NormalMixed554.1Healthy50mg on alternate days
Hercberg (60)2004Vitamin APlacebo38443869NormalMixed46.67.5Healthy6mg daily
Avenell (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11421132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU daily
Avenell_bis (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11101132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU (plus calcium) daily
Lappe (62)2007Vitamin DPlacebo446288NormalPost66.74Menopause1100 IU (plus calcium) daily
Chleboski (63)2008Vitamin DPlacebo18 17618 106NormalPost657Menopause400 IU (plus calcium) daily
Trivedi (64)2003Vitamin DPlacebo326323NormalPost73.45Healthy100 000 IU every 4 months
Lee (65)2005Vitamin EPlacebo19 93719 939NormalMixed5510.1Healthy600 IU on alternate days
Vollset (66)2013Folic acidPlacebo74407447NormalUnspecified645Heart riskMixed: 0.5 to 5mg daily
Downs (67)1998LovastatinPlacebo496495NormalPost585.2Heart risk20–40mg daily
Sacks (68)1996PravastatinPlacebo291291NormalPost595Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (69)1998PravastatinPlacebo767765NormalMixed626.1Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (70)2002PravastatinPlacebo25232530NormalMixed66.34.8Heart risk40mg daily
Shepherd (71)2002PravastatinPlacebo15031515NormalMixed75.43.2Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (72)2002SimvastatinPlacebo25412541NormalMixed605Heart risk40mg daily
Strandberg (73)2004SimvastatinPlacebo411411NormalMixed6010.4Heart risk20–40mg daily
Erdmann (74)2014PioglitazonePlacebo870905NormalUnspecified558.7DiabetesAs needed (based on glycemia levels)
Home (75)2009RosiglitazonePlacebo*516521NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Home_bis (75)2009RosiglitazoneMetformin562554NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Kahn (76)2006RosiglitazonePlacebo†645605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Kahn_bis (76)2006MetforminPlacebo†590605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Gregorio (77)1999MetforminPlacebo*4547NormalUnspecified>701.5Diabetes

* Sulfonylurea. HRT = hormone replacement therapy; IU = international unit.

† Glibenclamide.

Table 1.

Main characteristics of eligible randomized controlled trials

Author
(reference)
YearArm 1Arm 2Women,
arm 1
Women,
arm 2
Breast riskMenopauseMedian age, yMedian follow-up, ySettingDrug regimen
Cummings (40)1998AlendronatePlacebo31033091NormalPost683.8Osteoporosis5–10mg daily
Black (41)2007ZeledronatePlacebo37923788NormalPost732.8Osteoporosis5mg daily
Cuzick (42)2014AnastrozolePlacebo19141937HighPost59.45Breast risk1mg daily
Goss (43)2011ExemestanePlacebo22852275HighPost62.52.9Breast risk25mg daily
Powels (44)2012ArzoxifenePlacebo46764678NormalPost67.54.5Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18861885NormalPost653Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer_bis (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18721885NormalPost653Osteoporosis40mg daily
Archer_ter (45)2009RaloxifenePlacebo18491885NormalPost653Osteoporosis60mg daily
Lacroix (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27292740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.25mg daily
Lacroix_bis (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27452740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.50mg daily
Grady (47)2008RaloxifenePlacebo50445057NormalPost67.55.6Heart risk60mg daily
Martino (48)2004RaloxifenePlacebo27251286NormalPost668Osteoporosis60mg daily
Vogel (49)2010RaloxifeneTamoxifen97549736HighPost58.56.7Breast riskT: 20mg/day, R: 60mg/day
Cuzick (50)2015TamoxifenPlacebo35793575HighMixed49.916Breast risk20mg daily
Powles (51)2007TamoxifenPlacebo12381233HighMixed4714.3Breast risk20mg daily
Fisher (52)2005TamoxifenPlacebo65976610HighMixed554.8Breast risk20mg daily
Veronesi (53)2007TamoxifenPlacebo27002708NormalMixed4511.6Breast risk20mg daily
Decensi (54)2013TamoxifenPlacebo938946HighPost53.16.2HRT5mg daily
Decensi (55)2009TamoxifenPlacebo5858HighPre465.5Breast risk5mg daily
Cummings (56)2008TibolonePlacebo22492257NormalPost683Osteoporosis1.25mg daily
Cook (57)2013AspirinPlacebo19 93419 942NormalMixed5510Healthy100mg on alternate days
Rothwell (58)2012AspirinPlacebo72407282NormalMixedMixedMixedHeart riskLow-dose daily
Decensi (55)2009Vitamin APlacebo5958HighPre465.5Breast risk200mg daily
Lee (59)1999Vitamin APlacebo19 93919 937NormalMixed554.1Healthy50mg on alternate days
Hercberg (60)2004Vitamin APlacebo38443869NormalMixed46.67.5Healthy6mg daily
Avenell (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11421132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU daily
Avenell_bis (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11101132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU (plus calcium) daily
Lappe (62)2007Vitamin DPlacebo446288NormalPost66.74Menopause1100 IU (plus calcium) daily
Chleboski (63)2008Vitamin DPlacebo18 17618 106NormalPost657Menopause400 IU (plus calcium) daily
Trivedi (64)2003Vitamin DPlacebo326323NormalPost73.45Healthy100 000 IU every 4 months
Lee (65)2005Vitamin EPlacebo19 93719 939NormalMixed5510.1Healthy600 IU on alternate days
Vollset (66)2013Folic acidPlacebo74407447NormalUnspecified645Heart riskMixed: 0.5 to 5mg daily
Downs (67)1998LovastatinPlacebo496495NormalPost585.2Heart risk20–40mg daily
Sacks (68)1996PravastatinPlacebo291291NormalPost595Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (69)1998PravastatinPlacebo767765NormalMixed626.1Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (70)2002PravastatinPlacebo25232530NormalMixed66.34.8Heart risk40mg daily
Shepherd (71)2002PravastatinPlacebo15031515NormalMixed75.43.2Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (72)2002SimvastatinPlacebo25412541NormalMixed605Heart risk40mg daily
Strandberg (73)2004SimvastatinPlacebo411411NormalMixed6010.4Heart risk20–40mg daily
Erdmann (74)2014PioglitazonePlacebo870905NormalUnspecified558.7DiabetesAs needed (based on glycemia levels)
Home (75)2009RosiglitazonePlacebo*516521NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Home_bis (75)2009RosiglitazoneMetformin562554NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Kahn (76)2006RosiglitazonePlacebo†645605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Kahn_bis (76)2006MetforminPlacebo†590605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Gregorio (77)1999MetforminPlacebo*4547NormalUnspecified>701.5Diabetes
Author
(reference)
YearArm 1Arm 2Women,
arm 1
Women,
arm 2
Breast riskMenopauseMedian age, yMedian follow-up, ySettingDrug regimen
Cummings (40)1998AlendronatePlacebo31033091NormalPost683.8Osteoporosis5–10mg daily
Black (41)2007ZeledronatePlacebo37923788NormalPost732.8Osteoporosis5mg daily
Cuzick (42)2014AnastrozolePlacebo19141937HighPost59.45Breast risk1mg daily
Goss (43)2011ExemestanePlacebo22852275HighPost62.52.9Breast risk25mg daily
Powels (44)2012ArzoxifenePlacebo46764678NormalPost67.54.5Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18861885NormalPost653Osteoporosis20mg daily
Archer_bis (45)2009BazedoxifenePlacebo18721885NormalPost653Osteoporosis40mg daily
Archer_ter (45)2009RaloxifenePlacebo18491885NormalPost653Osteoporosis60mg daily
Lacroix (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27292740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.25mg daily
Lacroix_bis (46)2010LasofoxifenePlacebo27452740NormalPost67.55Osteoporosis0.50mg daily
Grady (47)2008RaloxifenePlacebo50445057NormalPost67.55.6Heart risk60mg daily
Martino (48)2004RaloxifenePlacebo27251286NormalPost668Osteoporosis60mg daily
Vogel (49)2010RaloxifeneTamoxifen97549736HighPost58.56.7Breast riskT: 20mg/day, R: 60mg/day
Cuzick (50)2015TamoxifenPlacebo35793575HighMixed49.916Breast risk20mg daily
Powles (51)2007TamoxifenPlacebo12381233HighMixed4714.3Breast risk20mg daily
Fisher (52)2005TamoxifenPlacebo65976610HighMixed554.8Breast risk20mg daily
Veronesi (53)2007TamoxifenPlacebo27002708NormalMixed4511.6Breast risk20mg daily
Decensi (54)2013TamoxifenPlacebo938946HighPost53.16.2HRT5mg daily
Decensi (55)2009TamoxifenPlacebo5858HighPre465.5Breast risk5mg daily
Cummings (56)2008TibolonePlacebo22492257NormalPost683Osteoporosis1.25mg daily
Cook (57)2013AspirinPlacebo19 93419 942NormalMixed5510Healthy100mg on alternate days
Rothwell (58)2012AspirinPlacebo72407282NormalMixedMixedMixedHeart riskLow-dose daily
Decensi (55)2009Vitamin APlacebo5958HighPre465.5Breast risk200mg daily
Lee (59)1999Vitamin APlacebo19 93919 937NormalMixed554.1Healthy50mg on alternate days
Hercberg (60)2004Vitamin APlacebo38443869NormalMixed46.67.5Healthy6mg daily
Avenell (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11421132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU daily
Avenell_bis (61)2012Vitamin DPlacebo11101132NormalMixed776.2Osteoporosis800 IU (plus calcium) daily
Lappe (62)2007Vitamin DPlacebo446288NormalPost66.74Menopause1100 IU (plus calcium) daily
Chleboski (63)2008Vitamin DPlacebo18 17618 106NormalPost657Menopause400 IU (plus calcium) daily
Trivedi (64)2003Vitamin DPlacebo326323NormalPost73.45Healthy100 000 IU every 4 months
Lee (65)2005Vitamin EPlacebo19 93719 939NormalMixed5510.1Healthy600 IU on alternate days
Vollset (66)2013Folic acidPlacebo74407447NormalUnspecified645Heart riskMixed: 0.5 to 5mg daily
Downs (67)1998LovastatinPlacebo496495NormalPost585.2Heart risk20–40mg daily
Sacks (68)1996PravastatinPlacebo291291NormalPost595Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (69)1998PravastatinPlacebo767765NormalMixed626.1Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (70)2002PravastatinPlacebo25232530NormalMixed66.34.8Heart risk40mg daily
Shepherd (71)2002PravastatinPlacebo15031515NormalMixed75.43.2Heart risk40mg daily
Miscellany (72)2002SimvastatinPlacebo25412541NormalMixed605Heart risk40mg daily
Strandberg (73)2004SimvastatinPlacebo411411NormalMixed6010.4Heart risk20–40mg daily
Erdmann (74)2014PioglitazonePlacebo870905NormalUnspecified558.7DiabetesAs needed (based on glycemia levels)
Home (75)2009RosiglitazonePlacebo*516521NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Home_bis (75)2009RosiglitazoneMetformin562554NormalUnspecified56.55.5Diabetes
Kahn (76)2006RosiglitazonePlacebo†645605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Kahn_bis (76)2006MetforminPlacebo†590605NormalUnspecified584Diabetes
Gregorio (77)1999MetforminPlacebo*4547NormalUnspecified>701.5Diabetes

* Sulfonylurea. HRT = hormone replacement therapy; IU = international unit.

† Glibenclamide.

Network plot: chemoprevention agents tested in randomized controlled trials for their ability to reduce primary breast cancer incidence. All agents were compared with placebo (except for one trial comparing tamoxifen to raloxifene). Circles and connectors are proportional to the number of trials (aromatase inhibitors = 2, arzoxifene = 1, aspirin = 5, bazedoxifene = 2, bisphosphonates = 2, folic acid = 8, lovastatin = 1, lasofoxifene = 2, metformin = 2, pravastatin = 4, raloxifene = 3, simvastatin = 2, tamoxifen = 6, tibolone = 1, thiazolidinediones = 3, vitamin A = 3, vitamin D = 5, vitamin E = 1). ARIN = aromatase inhibitor; BISPH = bisphosphonate; TZD = thiazolidinedione.
Figure 1.

Network plot: chemoprevention agents tested in randomized controlled trials for their ability to reduce primary breast cancer incidence. All agents were compared with placebo (except for one trial comparing tamoxifen to raloxifene). Circles and connectors are proportional to the number of trials (aromatase inhibitors = 2, arzoxifene = 1, aspirin = 5, bazedoxifene = 2, bisphosphonates = 2, folic acid = 8, lovastatin = 1, lasofoxifene = 2, metformin = 2, pravastatin = 4, raloxifene = 3, simvastatin = 2, tamoxifen = 6, tibolone = 1, thiazolidinediones = 3, vitamin A = 3, vitamin D = 5, vitamin E = 1). ARIN = aromatase inhibitor; BISPH = bisphosphonate; TZD = thiazolidinedione.

Direct Comparison Meta-Analysis

Results of single RCTs and standard pairwise meta-analysis of direct comparisons are fully reported in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary Table 1, available online). Out of 21 CPAs, meta-analysis of efficacy was feasible in 11 cases (bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene, raloxifene, tamoxifen, aspirin, pravastatin, simvastatin, vitamin-A, vitamin-D, rosiglitazone, and metformin), for which at least two datasets were available. Among these 11 CPAs, meta-analysis showed that only tamoxifen (summary RR = 0.708, 95% CI = 0.595 to 0.842, P < .001) and raloxifene (summary RR = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.372 to 0.881, P = .01) were statistically significantly associated with a reduction in breast cancer risk. Subgroup analysis showed that full-dose (20mg) tamoxifen (summary RR = 0.705, 95% CI = 0.571 to 0.871, P = .001) but not low-dose (5mg) tamoxifen (summary RR = 0.748, 95% CI = 0.479 to 1.169, P = .20) was effective (Supplementary Table 1, available online). As regards lasofoxifene, the only available RCT showed that only the full dose (0.50mg) was associated with reduced disease risk (RR = 0.208, 95% CI = 0.079 to 0.544, P = .001).

Considering CPAs with only one dataset available (n = 10), alendronate and zeledronate, and anastrozole and exemestane were grouped together as two CPA classes (bisphosphonates and aromatase inhibitors, respectively) in the light of their homogeneity in terms of both pharmacological features and effect on breast cancer risk (lack of between-study heterogeneity, I-squared = 0%). The meta-analysis performed considering these two CPA groups showed that only aromatase inhibitors were associated with statistically significant risk reduction (summary RR = 0.468, 95% CI = 0.346 to 0.634, P < .001).

Finally, among the remaining CPAs with a single RCT available but without possibility of dataset combination (n = 6), only tibolone (RR = 0.317, 95% CI = 0.127 to 0.792, P = .01) and arzoxifene (RR = 0.415, 95% CI = 0.253 to 0.682, P = .001) were statistically significantly associated with decreased breast cancer incidence.

For the six CPAs (aromatase inhibitors [anastrozole and exemestane, considered a single CPA class], arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, raloxifene, tamoxifen, and tibolone) were statistically significantly associated with a therapeutic effect; standard pairwise meta-analysis was performed also for the acceptability outcome, the findings being reported in Supplementary Table 2 (available online).

Network Meta-Analysis

In order to compare and rank CPAs based on their efficacy and acceptability, we performed a network meta-analysis of the relevant RCTs. We limited this analysis to the six CPAs (aromatase inhibitors [anastrozole and exemestane, considered a single CPA], arzoxifene, lasofoxifene [0.50 mg], raloxifene, tamoxifen [20 mg], and tibolone), with evidence of efficacy in reducing breast cancer risk based on the above-mentioned direct comparisons data. There were seven mixed comparisons, that is, comparisons exploiting direct and possibly indirect evidence (see contribution matrix in Supplementary Figure 1 [efficacy] and Supplementary Figure 2 [acceptability], available online).

Network meta-analysis results in terms of both efficacy (Figure 2) and acceptability (Figure 3) were highly comparable with those from standard pairwise meta-analysis.

Network meta-analysis results: efficacy of six chemoprevention agents as compared with placebo and comparisons with each other. The treatment effect measure is expressed as relative risk (ratio of breast cancer incidence in the two arms). CI = confidence interval; PrI = predictive interval.
Figure 2.

Network meta-analysis results: efficacy of six chemoprevention agents as compared with placebo and comparisons with each other. The treatment effect measure is expressed as relative risk (ratio of breast cancer incidence in the two arms). CI = confidence interval; PrI = predictive interval.

Network meta-analysis results: acceptability of six chemoprevention agents as compared with placebo and comparisons with each other. The treatment effect measure is expressed as relative risk (ratio of severe adverse effects incidence in the two arms). ARINs = aromatase inhibitors; CI = confidence interval; PrI = predictive interval.
Figure 3.

Network meta-analysis results: acceptability of six chemoprevention agents as compared with placebo and comparisons with each other. The treatment effect measure is expressed as relative risk (ratio of severe adverse effects incidence in the two arms). ARINs = aromatase inhibitors; CI = confidence interval; PrI = predictive interval.

The numbers needed to treat (NNT) were 61, 151, 144, 165, 229, and 174 for aromatase inhibitors, arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, raloxifene, tamoxifen, and tibolone, respectively. These values do not necessarily reflect the magnitude of the relative risk (ie, risk reduction) associated with each CPA, which is because of the varying disease incidence observed in different RCTs (78).

Network meta-analysis generated also 14 indirect comparisons (see contribution matrix in Supplementary Figure 1 [efficacy] and Supplementary Figure 2 [acceptability], available online). As regards efficacy (Figure 2), the only indirect comparison that was statistically significant was that of tamoxifen vs lasofoxifene (RR = 3.39, 95% CI = 1.18 to 9.73, P = .02), suggesting that the therapeutic benefit linked to lasofoxifene is statistically significantly greater than that associated with tamoxifen.

In terms of acceptability (Figure 3), both lasofoxifene (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.96, P = .009) and raloxifene (RR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.95, P = .004) were associated with lower incidence of severe adverse effects as compared with aromatase inhibitors; tibolone resulted in more toxicity than aromatase inhibitors (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.43, P = .03), arzoxifene (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.59, P = .001), lasofoxifene (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.71, P < .001), and raloxifene (RR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.68, P < .001); finally, tamoxifen was less acceptable than arzoxifene (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.35, P = .02), lasofoxifene (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.45, P = .001), and raloxifene (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.42, P < .001).

Inconsistency findings were based on the only treatment loop placebo-raloxifene-tamoxifen (see network plot in Figure 1). As regards efficacy, the ratio between relative risks from direct and indirect evidence was not significantly different from one (RR ratio = 1.612, 95% CI = 1.00 to 2.94, P = .12). Similarly, no evidence of inconsistency was found for acceptability data (RR ratio = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.41, P = .40).

Ranking findings for both efficacy and acceptability are reported in Figure 4 (rankograms for the single CPAs are available in Supplementary Figure 3 [efficacy] and Supplementary Figure 4 [acceptability], available online). New-generation selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, and raloxifene appear to be the best candidates for breast cancer prevention therapy because they combine better efficacy with lower incidence of severe adverse events (Figure 4: right upper quadrant of the ranking plot). Aromatase inhibitors and first-generation SERM tamoxifen ranked second and third, respectively. A very low acceptability makes tibolone unlikely to be considered a good option as a breast cancer preventive agent.

Ranking plot representing simultaneously the efficacy (x-axis) and the acceptability (y-axis) of six chemoprevention agents. Bubble size is proportional to the number of randomized controlled trials (reported within the bubble). Bubble color shows the level of evidence. SUCRA = surface under the cumulative ranking (see text for more details).
Figure 4.

Ranking plot representing simultaneously the efficacy (x-axis) and the acceptability (y-axis) of six chemoprevention agents. Bubble size is proportional to the number of randomized controlled trials (reported within the bubble). Bubble color shows the level of evidence. SUCRA = surface under the cumulative ranking (see text for more details).

At subgroup analysis, when invasive breast cancer only was considered (ie, when in situ carcinoma was excluded) the efficacy findings were similar to those described above for invasive plus noninvasive tumors, as shown in Supplementary Figure 5 (network meta-analysis results, available online) and Supplementary Figure 6 (ranking plot, available online). When only estrogen receptor–positive carcinoma was evaluated, efficacy was even greater for five CPAs (data for tibolone were unavailable) (Supplementary Figure 7, available online), the ranking of which remaining basically unaltered (Supplementary Figure 8, available online). As regards estrogen receptor–negative carcinoma, data were limited to three CPAs (arzoxifene, raloxifene, tamoxifen), with no therapeutic effect either in single RTCs or meta-analysis of relevant trials.

Quality Assessment of Trials and Evidence Grading

None of the RCTs presented evidence for severe risk of bias (see Supplementary Figure 9 [risk of bias by trial] and Supplementary Figure 10 [risk of bias summary], available online). According to the modified GRADE system (see ranking plot in Figure 4), the level of evidence was high for aromatase inhibitors and lasofoxifene. For the latter, despite the availability of only one RCT (which lowers by one level the overall evidence), the summary effect for efficacy was better (ie, lower) than the prespecified 0.5 value (which upgrades by one level the overall evidence). The level of evidence was instead moderate for raloxifene and tamoxifen (the predictive interval of their summary effect crossed the null value) as well as for arzoxifene and tibolone (only one RCT available for each CPA).

Discussion

To our knowledge, we present the findings of the first network meta-analysis in the field of primary prevention of breast cancer by medical treatment. Current national and international guidelines (21–24) are based on the results of single randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as standard meta-analyses dedicated to single chemoprevention agents (CPAs) or CPA classes (26). In the present systematic review, we gathered evidence from RCTs assessing the role of 21 CPAs (belonging to eight different pharmacological classes) in more than 270 000 women, which makes the present series the largest ever analyzed in this field.

We ranked the six CPAs for which we found evidence of therapeutic activity (aromatase inhibitors [anastrozole plus exemestane], arzoxifene, lasofoxifene [0.50 mg], raloxifene, tamoxifen [20 mg], and tibolone), by considering simultaneously the two key outcomes: efficacy (ability to lower breast cancer incidence) and acceptability (inversely proportional to the incidence of severe side effects). According to an evidence grading system (GRADE) (33) specifically adapted to network meta-analysis (34), the level of evidence supporting the efficacy of these CPAs was high and moderate for two (ie, aromatase inhibitors and lasofoxifene) and four CPAs (ie, raloxifene, tamoxifen, arzoxifene, and tibolone), respectively. Our results suggest that new-generation selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) arzoxifene, lasofoxifene, and raloxifene are the best candidates for breast cancer prevention therapy (Figure 4).

These three compounds lower breast cancer incidence to a similar (or even higher) degree as compared with other drugs commonly accepted as CPAs for other tumors, such as aspirin for gastrointestinal cancers (79). The ability of these CPAs to (at least) halve the incidence of breast cancer might theoretically lead to better results as compared with secondary prevention strategies such as mammography-based screening (which is associated with a 19% reduction of breast cancer mortality [6]). However, such a comparison is currently unfeasible because chemoprevention studies have thus far focused exclusively on breast cancer incidence, leaving unaddressed the issue of the actual impact of CPAs on disease-related mortality.

Despite the wealth of data so far gathered on this subject, several other aspects remain to be elucidated. For instance, tamoxifen is the only CPA with proven activity in premenopausal women: In the light of its lower efficacy and acceptability as compared with other CPAs (Figure 4), the search for CPAs active in premenopausal patients is warranted. Analogously, currently available CPAs basically have no activity against estrogen receptor–negative breast carcinoma, which represents an apparently neglected field of investigation.

In addition, the optimal duration of treatment is unclear. For some CPAs (eg, aspirin [58]), the benefit is more evident after five years; as regards CPAs proven to be active against breast cancer (eg, tamoxifen), findings in the adjuvant setting suggest that 10-year use is more effective than five-year use (80). Unfortunately, no study has addressed this issue in the field of breast cancer primary prevention.

Finally, another key issue is the selection of the candidates who can most benefit from chemoprevention, taking into consideration the side effects associated with CPA administration. Use of risk assessment tools (eg, based on the Gail score and mammographic density) should be greatly encouraged (as is recommended for secondary prevention programs [6]) (81), although currently there is no consensus on the cutoffs to identify women with the highest benefit-risk ratio and thus suitable candidates for chemoprevention. Attempts to exploit molecular profiling (including the assessment of breast cancer–predisposing germ-line polymorphisms) in order to ameliorate the capability of selecting suitable chemoprevention candidates have been made (82,83), according to the principles of personalized medicine; however, none of them has thus far yielded results convincing enough to be implemented in routine clinical practice.

With regard to CPAs for which no evidence of activity against breast cancer is available (eg, aspirin, vitamins, statins), some considerations are needed. For these CPAs, the therapeutic effect has been so far evaluated in unselected women (that is, patients with an average lifetime risk of disease that lowers the likelihood of detecting a substantial benefit). Moreover, the efficacy of some of them (ie, vitamin D) has been recently re-analyzed and found increased in subgroups of patients (ie, after excluding those already taking micronutrient supplements) (84), a fact that calls for a reappraisal of their preventive potential. Finally, CPAs with borderline therapeutic activity (singularly considered) and low (or absent) toxicity might be combined to synergistically increase the magnitude of their preventive benefit and possibly to add to the preventive activity against different illnesses affecting the same person.

Finally, a couple of limitations of this work should be noted. First, despite our efforts to be fully systematic in the literature search, we might have overlooked some relevant articles: The findings from these missing reports might have changed the estimates of the treatment effects we calculated, although our conclusions are mainly based on very robust data (as supported by the narrow confidence intervals of most estimates generated by the network meta-analysis). Second, we could not verify the key assumption of the network meta-analysis, that is, inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence, because virtually all comparisons were between a given CPA and placebo (ie, lack of head-to-head comparisons between treatments): In fact, only one loop (placebo-raloxifene-tamoxifen) was present that showed no inconsistency. Nevertheless, our ranking results might prompt investigators to directly compare different CPAs, which would provide new data for an update of this network meta-analysis.

In conclusion, our findings provide physicians and health care regulatory agencies with RCT-based evidence on efficacy and acceptability of currently available breast cancer CPAs, the use of which still needs to be thoroughly discussed with high-risk women in terms of benefits and risks. At the same time, we pinpointed how much work still remains to be done to make primary prevention a routine option to defeat this disease.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1.

DeSantis
C
Ma
J
Bryan
L
Jemal
A
.
Breast cancer statistics, 2013
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2014
;
64
:
52
62
.

2.

Ferlay
J
Soerjomataram
I
Dikshit
R
et al.
Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012
.
Int J Cancer
.
2015
;
136
:
E359
-
E386
.

3.

Yeo
B
Turner
NC
Jones
A
.
An update on the medical management of breast cancer
.
BMJ
.
2014
;
348
:
g3608
.

4.

Sledge
GW
Mamounas
EP
Hortobagyi
GN
Burstein
HJ
Goodwin
PJ
Wolff
AC
.
Past, present, and future challenges in breast cancer treatment
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2014
;
32
:
1979
1986
.

5.

Amir
E
Bedard
PL
Ocana
A
Seruga
B
.
Benefits and harms of detecting clinically occult breast cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2012
;
104
:
1542
1547
.

6.

Pace
LE
Keating
NL
.
A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions
.
JAMA
.
2014
;
311
:
1327
1335
.

7.

Miscellany
.
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review
.
Lancet
.
2012
;
380
:
1778
1786
.

8.

Cuzick
J
DeCensi
A
Arun
B
et al.
Preventive therapy for breast cancer: a consensus statement
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2011
;
12
:
496
503
.

9.

Colditz
GA
Bohlke
K
.
Priorities for the primary prevention of breast cancer
.
CA Cancer J Clin
.
2014
;
64
:
186
194
.

10.

Wuttke
M
Phillips
KA
.
Clinical management of women at high risk of breast cancer
.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol
.
2015
;
27
:
6
13
.

11.

Euhus
DM
Diaz
J
.
Breast cancer prevention
.
Breast J
.
2015
;
21
:
76
81
.

12.

Prentice
RL
Caan
B
Chlebowski
RT
et al.
Low-fat dietary pattern and risk of invasive breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial
.
JAMA
.
2006
;
295
:
629
642
.

13.

Fatouros
M
Baltoyiannis
G
Roukos
DH
.
The predominant role of surgery in the prevention and new trends in the surgical treatment of women with BRCA1/2 mutations
.
Ann Surg Oncol
.
2008
;
15
:
21
33
.

14.

Murphy
JA
Milner
TD
O’Donoghue
JM
.
Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in sporadic breast cancer
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2013
;
14
:
e262
-
e269
.

15.

Vogel
VG
.
Role of hormones in cancer prevention
.
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book
.
2014
:
34
40
.

16.

Mirkin
S
Pickar
JH
.
Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs): a review of clinical data
.
Maturitas
.
2015
;
80
:
52
57
.

17.

Olin
JL
St Pierre
M
.
Aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer prevention
.
Ann Pharmacother
.
2014
;
48
:
1605
1610
.

18.

Lazzeroni
M
Gandini
S
Puntoni
M
Bonanni
B
Gennari
A
DeCensi
A
.
The science behind vitamins and natural compounds for breast cancer prevention. Getting the most prevention out of it
.
Breast
.
2011
;
20
Suppl 3
:
S36
S41
.

19.

Gronich
N
Rennert
G
.
Beyond aspirin-cancer prevention with statins, metformin and bisphosphonates
.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol
.
2013
;
10
:
625
642
.

20.

Cuzick
J
Thorat
MA
Bosetti
C
et al.
Estimates of benefits and harms of prophylactic use of aspirin in the general population
.
Ann Oncol
.
2015
;
26
:
47
57
.

21.

Visvanathan
K
Hurley
P
Bantug
E
et al.
Use of pharmacologic interventions for breast cancer risk reduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2013
;
31
:
2942
2962
.

22.

Miscellany
.
Breast Cancer Risk Reduction, NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2014
.
NCCN
2014
.

23.

Nelson
HD
Smith
ME
Griffin
JC
Fu
R
.
Use of medications to reduce risk for primary breast cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2013
;
158
:
604
614
.

24.

Wise
J
.
NICE recommends preventive drugs for breast cancer
.
BMJ
.
2013
;
346
:
f4116
.

25.

Ropka
ME
Keim
J
Philbrick
JT
.
Patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2010
;
28
:
3090
3095
.

26.

Cuzick
J
Sestak
I
Bonanni
B
et al.
Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data
.
Lancet
.
2013
;
381
:
1827
1834
.

27.

Cipriani
A
Higgins
JP
Geddes
JR
Salanti
G
.
Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2013
;
159
:
130
137
.

28.

Chaimani
A
Higgins
JP
Mavridis
D
Spyridonos
P
Salanti
G
.
Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA
.
PLoS One
.
2013
;
8
:
e76654
.

29.

Lu
G
Ades
AE
.
Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons
.
Stat Med
.
2004
;
23
:
3105
3124
.

30.

Salanti
G
Higgins
JP
Ades
AE
Ioannidis
JP
.
Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
.
Stat Methods Med Res
.
2008
;
17
:
279
301
.

31.

Moher
D
Liberati
A
Tetzlaff
J
Altman
DG
.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
.
BMJ
.
2009
;
339
:
b2535
.

32.

Higgins
J
Green
S
.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0
.
The Cochrane Collaboration (available from www.cochrane-handbook.org)
;
2011
.

33.

Guyatt
GH
Oxman
AD
Schunemann
HJ
Tugwell
P
Knottnerus
A
.
GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
.
J Clin Epidemiol
.
2011
;
64
:
380
382
.

34.

Salanti
G
Del Giovane
C
Chaimani
A
Caldwell
DM
Higgins
JP
.
Evaluating the quality of evidence from a network meta-analysis
.
PLoS One
.
2014
;
9
:
e99682
.

35.

DerSimonian
R
Laird
N
.
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
.
Control Clin Trials
.
1986
;
7
:
177
188
.

36.

Higgins
JP
Thompson
SG
Deeks
JJ
Altman
DG
.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
.
BMJ
.
2003
;
327
:
557
560
.

37.

Hong
H
Carlin
BP
Shamliyan
TA
et al.
Comparing Bayesian and frequentist approaches for multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons
.
Med Decis Making
.
2013
;
33
:
702
714
.

38.

White
JR
.
Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: Updates to mvmeta
.
STATA Journal
.
2011
;
11
:
255
270
.

39.

Salanti
G
Ades
AE
Ioannidis
JP
.
Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial
.
J Clin Epidemiol
.
2011
;
64
:
163
171
.

40.

Cummings
SR
Black
DM
Thompson
DE
et al.
Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures: results from the Fracture Intervention Trial
.
JAMA
.
1998
;
280
:
2077
2082
.

41.

Black
DM
Delmas
PD
Eastell
R
et al.
Once-yearly zoledronic acid for treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis
.
N Engl J Med
.
2007
;
356
:
1809
1822
.

42.

Cuzick
J
Sestak
I
Forbes
JF
et al.
Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2014
;
383
:
1041
1048
.

43.

Goss
PE
Ingle
JN
Ales-Martinez
JE
et al.
Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women
.
N Engl J Med
.
2011
;
364
:
2381
2391
.

44.

Powles
TJ
Diem
SJ
Fabian
CJ
et al.
Breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or low bone mass using arzoxifene
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
.
2012
;
134
:
299
306
.

45.

Archer
DF
Pinkerton
JV
Utian
WH
et al.
Bazedoxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator: effects on the endometrium, ovaries, and breast from a randomized controlled trial in osteoporotic postmenopausal women
.
Menopause
.
2009
;
16
:
1109
1115
.

46.

LaCroix
AZ
Powles
T
Osborne
CK
et al.
Breast cancer incidence in the randomized PEARL trial of lasofoxifene in postmenopausal osteoporotic women
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2010
;
102
:
1706
1715
.

47.

Grady
D
Cauley
JA
Geiger
MJ
et al.
Reduced incidence of invasive breast cancer with raloxifene among women at increased coronary risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2008
;
100
:
854
861
.

48.

Martino
S
Cauley
JA
Barrett-Connor
E
et al.
Continuing outcomes relevant to Evista: breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in a randomized trial of raloxifene
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2004
;
96
:
1751
1761
.

49.

Vogel
VG
Costantino
JP
Wickerham
DL
et al.
Update of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: Preventing breast cancer
.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila)
.
2010
;
3
:
696
706
.

50.

Cuzick
J
Sestak
I
Cawthorn
S
et al.
Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: extended long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I breast cancer prevention trial
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2015
;
16
:
67
75
.

51.

Powles
TJ
Ashley
S
Tidy
A
Smith
IE
Dowsett
M
.
Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2007
;
99
:
283
290
.

52.

Fisher
B
Costantino
JP
Wickerham
DL
et al.
Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2005
;
97
:
1652
1662
.

53.

Veronesi
U
Maisonneuve
P
Rotmensz
N
et al.
Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2007
;
99
:
727
737
.

54.

DeCensi
A
Bonanni
B
Maisonneuve
P
et al.
A phase-III prevention trial of low-dose tamoxifen in postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy users: the HOT study
.
Ann Oncol
.
2013
;
24
:
2753
2760
.

55.

Decensi
A
Robertson
C
Guerrieri-Gonzaga
A
et al.
Randomized double-blind 2 x 2 trial of low-dose tamoxifen and fenretinide for breast cancer prevention in high-risk premenopausal women
.
J Clin Oncol
.
2009
;
27
:
3749
3756
.

56.

Cummings
SR
Ettinger
B
Delmas
PD
et al.
The effects of tibolone in older postmenopausal women
.
N Engl J Med
.
2008
;
359
:
697
708
.

57.

Cook
NR
Lee
IM
Zhang
SM
Moorthy
MV
Buring
JE
.
Alternate-day, low-dose aspirin and cancer risk: long-term observational follow-up of a randomized trial
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2013
;
159
:
77
85
.

58.

Rothwell
PM
Price
JF
Fowkes
FG
et al.
Short-term effects of daily aspirin on cancer incidence, mortality, and non-vascular death: analysis of the time course of risks and benefits in 51 randomised controlled trials
.
Lancet
.
2012
;
379
:
1602
1612
.

59.

Lee
IM
Cook
NR
Manson
JE
Buring
JE
Hennekens
CH
.
Beta-carotene supplementation and incidence of cancer and cardiovascular disease: the Women’s Health Study
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
1999
;
91
:
2102
2106
.

60.

Hercberg
S
Galan
P
Preziosi
P
et al.
The SU.VI.MAX Study: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the health effects of antioxidant vitamins and minerals
.
Arch Intern Med
.
2004
;
164
:
2335
2342
.

61.

Avenell
A
MacLennan
GS
Jenkinson
DJ
et al.
Long-term follow-up for mortality and cancer in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of vitamin D(3) and/or calcium (RECORD trial)
.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab
.
2012
;
97
:
614
622
.

62.

Lappe
JM
Travers-Gustafson
D
Davies
KM
Recker
RR
Heaney
RP
.
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2007
;
85
:
1586
1591
.

63.

Chlebowski
RT
Johnson
KC
Kooperberg
C
et al.
Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of breast cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2008
;
100
:
1581
1591
.

64.

Trivedi
DP
Doll
R
Khaw
KT
.
Effect of four monthly oral vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation on fractures and mortality in men and women living in the community: randomised double blind controlled trial
.
BMJ
.
2003
;
326
:
469
.

65.

Lee
IM
Cook
NR
Gaziano
JM
et al.
Vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer: the Women’s Health Study: a randomized controlled trial
.
JAMA
.
2005
;
294
:
56
65
.

66.

Vollset
SE
Clarke
R
Lewington
S
et al.
Effects of folic acid supplementation on overall and site-specific cancer incidence during the randomised trials: meta-analyses of data on 50,000 individuals
.
Lancet
.
2013
;
381
:
1029
1036
.

67.

Downs
JR
Clearfield
M
Weis
S
et al.
Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study
.
JAMA
.
1998
;
279
:
1615
1622
.

68.

Sacks
FM
Pfeffer
MA
Moye
LA
et al.
The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators
.
N Engl J Med
.
1996
;
335
:
1001
1009
.

69.

Miscellany
.
Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group
.
N Engl J Med
.
1998
;
339
:
1349
1357
.

70.

Miscellany
.
Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT)
.
JAMA
.
2002
;
288
:
2998
3007
.

71.

Shepherd
J
Blauw
GJ
Murphy
MB
et al.
Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2002
;
360
:
1623
1630
.

72.

Miscellany
.
MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2002
;
360
:
7
22
.

73.

Strandberg
TE
Pyorala
K
Cook
TJ
et al.
Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)
.
Lancet
.
2004
;
364
:
771
777
.

74.

Erdmann
E
Song
E
Spanheimer
R
van Troostenburg de Bruyn
AR
Perez
A
.
Observational follow-up of the PROactive study: a 6-year update
.
Diabetes Obes Metab
.
2014
;
16
:
63
74
.

75.

Home
PD
Pocock
SJ
Beck-Nielsen
H
et al.
Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial
.
Lancet
.
2009
;
373
:
2125
2135
.

76.

Kahn
SE
Haffner
SM
Heise
MA
et al.
Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy
.
N Engl J Med
.
2006
;
355
:
2427
2443
.

77.

Gregorio
F
Ambrosi
F
Manfrini
S
et al.
Poorly controlled elderly Type 2 diabetic patients: the effects of increasing sulphonylurea dosages or adding metformin
.
Diabet Med
.
1999
;
16
:
1016
1024
.

78.

Marx
A
Bucher
HC
.
Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analysis: a word of caution
.
ACP J Club
.
2003
;
138
:
A11
A12
.

79.

Algra
AM
Rothwell
PM
.
Effects of regular aspirin on long-term cancer incidence and metastasis: a systematic comparison of evidence from observational studies versus randomised trials
.
Lancet Oncol
.
2012
;
13
:
518
527
.

80.

Davies
C
Pan
H
Godwin
J
et al.
Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial
.
Lancet
.
2013
;
381
:
805
816
.

81.

Cummings
SR
Tice
JA
Bauer
S
et al.
Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
.
2009
;
101
:
384
398
.

82.

Vachon
CM
Schaid
DJ
Ingle
JN
et al.
A polygenic risk score for breast cancer in women receiving tamoxifen or raloxifene on NSABP P-1 and P-2
.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
.
2015
;
149
:
517
523
.

83.

Goetz
MP
Schaid
DJ
Wickerham
DL
et al.
Evaluation of CYP2D6 and efficacy of tamoxifen and raloxifene in women treated for breast cancer chemoprevention: results from the NSABP P1 and P2 clinical trials
.
Clin Cancer Res
.
2011
;
17
:
6944
6951
.

84.

Bolland
MJ
Grey
A
Gamble
GD
Reid
IR
.
Calcium and vitamin D supplements and health outcomes: a reanalysis of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) limited-access data set
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2011
;
94
:
1144
1149
.

Supplementary data