ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2019
Risk versus Benefit of Chemoprevention among Raloxifene and Tamoxifen Users with a Family History of Breast Cancer.
Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-benefits assessment of tamoxifen or raloxifene as chemoprevention for risk reduction of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Tool on Chemoprevention and Breast Imaging: ENGAGED-2 Trial.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2021Trial
- Crosstalk of methylation and tamoxifen in breast cancer (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2024Review
- The role of PKN1 in glioma pathogenesis and the antiglioma effect of raloxifene targeting PKN1.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2023Article
- Formulation Development for Transdermal Delivery of Raloxifene, a Chemoprophylactic Agent against Breast Cancer.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Chemopreventive Potential of Caryophyllane Sesquiterpenes: An Overview of Preliminary Evidence.Cancers · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Tamoxifen and raloxifene have been approved for the primary prevention of breast cancer in high-risk women, but are associated with an increased risk of serious side effects. Few studies have characterized risk-benefit profiles for chemoprevention among women who initiate tamoxifen or raloxifene outside of a clinical trial setting. Use of raloxifene and tamoxifen for chemoprevention was self-reported in 2014 to 2016 by participants in The Sister Study, a prospective cohort of women with a sister who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. After exclusions, 432 current raloxifene users and 96 current tamoxifen users were matched to 4,307 and 953 nonusers, respectively, on age and year of cohort enrollment. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate characteristics associated with chemoprevention use. Risk-benefit profiles were examined using published indices that assess the level of evidence (none, moderate, strong) that the benefits of chemoprevention outweigh the risk of serious side effects. Among current chemoprevention users, 44% of tamoxifen users and 5% of raloxifene users had no evidence of a net benefit. In analyses of factors associated with chemoprevention use, having strong evidence of benefit was a significant predictor of raloxifene use, but not of tamoxifen use. In our sample of women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer, raloxifene was more commonly used for breast cancer prevention than tamoxifen. Most raloxifene users, but <60% of tamoxifen users, were likely to benefit. Use of risk-benefit tables can help women and their healthcare providers make an informed decision about breast cancer chemoprevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.