Early participant-reported symptoms as predictors of adherence to anastrozole in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Studies II
Open accessAbstract
Background: Anastrozole reduces breast cancer risk in women at high risk, but implementing preventive therapy in clinical practice is difficult. Here, we evaluate adherence to anastrozole in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS)-II prevention and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) trials, and its association with early symptoms. Patients and methods: In the prevention trial, 3864 postmenopausal women were randomized to placebo versus anastrozole. A total of 2980 postmenopausal women with DCIS were randomized to tamoxifen versus anastrozole. Adherence to trial medication was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and all P-values were two-sided. Results: In the prevention trial, adherence was 65.8% [anastrozole (65.7%) versus placebo (65.9%); HR = 0.97 (0.87-1.09), P = 0.6]. Adherence was lower for those reporting arthralgia in the placebo group (P = 0.02) or gynecological symptoms in the anastrozole group (P = 0.003), compared with those not reporting these symptoms at 6 months. In the DCIS study, adherence was 66.7% [anastrozole (67.5%) versus tamoxifen (65.8%); HR = 1.06 (0.94-1.20), P = 0.4]. Hot flashes were associated with greater adherence in the anastrozole arm (P = 0.02). In both studies, symptoms were mostly mild or moderately severe, and adherence decreased with increasing severity for most symptoms. Drop-outs were highest in the first 1.5 years of therapy in both trials. Conclusions: In the IBIS-II prevention and DCIS trials, over two-thirds of women were adherent to therapy, with no differences by treatment groups. Participants who reported specific symptoms in the IBIS-II prevention trial had a small but significant effect on adherence, which strengthened as severity increased. Strategies to promote adherence should target the first year of preventive therapy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most symptoms occur in the first year of using HT.
“Most symptoms occur in the first year of using HT, suggesting this period could be the optimal opportunity for delivering supportive care for this patient group [20–22].”
The first year of using HT could be the optimal opportunity for delivering supportive care for this patient group.
“Most symptoms occur in the first year of using HT, suggesting this period could be the optimal opportunity for delivering supportive care for this patient group [20–22].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Sestak, I., Smith, S. G., Howell, A., Forbes, J. F., & Cuzick, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital (AU)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- Venue
- Annals of Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 504-509
- ISSN
- 0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5834118
- OpenAlex
- W2767717564
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Cancer Research UK (C569/A5032 to JC, C42785/A17965 to SGS)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
- Keywords
- anastrozole, medication adherence, breast cancer prevention, ductal carcinoma in situ, symptom severity, joint pain, gynecological symptoms, hot flashes, tamoxifen, postmenopausal women, treatment discontinuation
- MeSH terms
- Anastrozole, Assessment of Medication Adherence, Adult, Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Tamoxifen, Drug Monitoring, Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal, Medication Adherence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review