Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33638810›Full record

Trial reportBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2021

A follow-up study of a randomized controlled study evaluating safety and efficacy of leuprorelin acetate every-3-month depot for 2 versus 3 or more years with tamoxifen for 5 years as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer.

Junichi Kurebayashi, Eiichi Shiba, Tatsuya Toyama, Hiroshi Matsumoto, Minoru Okazaki, Tadashi Nomizu, Tohru Ohtake, Takaaki Fujii, Yasuo Ohashi

Abstract readObservational StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Bone Effects of Anti-Cancer Treatments in 2024.Calcified tissue international · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Junichi KurebayashiDepartment of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Kawasaki Medical School, 577 Matsushima, Kurashiki, Okayama, 701-0192, Japan. kure@med.kawasaki-m.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-842X
Eiichi ShibaDepartment of Breast Surgery, Osaka Breast Clinic, 1-13-8 Ohiraki, Osaka Fukushima-ku, Osaka, 553-0007, Japan.
Tatsuya ToyamaDepartment of Breast Surgery, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, 1-Kawasumi, Mizuho-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi, 467-8602, Japan.
Hiroshi MatsumotoDivision of Breast Surgery, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina-machi, Kitaadachi-gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.
Minoru OkazakiDivision of Breast Surgery, Sapporo Breast Surgical Clinic, 19-22-6 Kita 6-jonishi, Sapporo Chuo-ku, Hokkaido, 060-0006, Japan.
Tadashi NomizuDepartment of Surgery, Hoshi General Hospital, 159-1 Mukaigawaramachi, Koriyama-shi, Fukushima, 963-8501, Japan.
Tohru OhtakeDepartment of Breast Surgery, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, 1 Hikariga-oka, Fukushima-City, Fukushima, 960-1295, Japan.
Takaaki FujiiDivision of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Gunma University Hospital, 3-39-15 Showamachi, Maebashi-shi, Gunma, 371-8511, Japan.
Yasuo OhashiDepartment of Integrated Science and Technology, Chuo University, 1-13-27 Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, TokyoTokyo, 112-8551, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreviously, we conducted the 5-year open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of leuprorelin adjuvant therapy in post-operative premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, which was a pilot study to investigate the optimal duration of leuprorelin treatment. Since, however, long-term outcomes became required for the adjuvant endocrine therapy, we performed this follow-up observation study.

methodsFollow-up observation study was performed up to 10th year after randomization, continuing RCT to evaluate the efficacy and safety of leuprorelin every 3 months for ≥ 3 versus 2 years, with daily tamoxifen for 5 years. Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and 2-year landmark DFS.

resultsEligible patients (N = 222) were randomly assigned to receive leuprorelin for either 2 years (N = 112) or ≥ 3 years (N = 110) with tamoxifen. Leuprorelin treatment for ≥ 3 years versus 2 years provided no significant difference in DFS (HR 0.944, 95% CI 0.486-1.8392) or 2-year landmark DFS (N = 99 and 102 in 2-year and ≥ 3-year groups, HR 0.834, 0.397-1.753). In small, higher-risk subgroup (n = 17); however, 2-year landmark DFS in ≥ 3-year group was significantly longer (HR 0.095, 0.011-0.850) than that in 2-year group. The incidence of bone-related adverse events was around 5% in both groups.

conclusionsAdjuvant leuprorelin treatment for ≥ 3 years with tamoxifen only showed similar efficacy and safety profiles to those for 2 years in analyses among all patients but suggested greater benefit in higher-risk patients. No new safety signal was identified for long-term leuprorelin treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable. This was an observational study.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, HormonalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLeuprolidePremenopauseTamoxifenTime FactorsAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalLeuprolideTamoxifenAdjuvant endocrine therapyEndocrine-responsive breast cancerLH-RH agonistOvarian function suppressionPremenopausal patient

Identifiers

PMID33638810
PMCPMC8064970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.