Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDonnelly, L
dc.contributor.authorEvans, D
dc.contributor.authorWiseman, J
dc.contributor.authorFox, J
dc.contributor.authorGreenhalgh, R
dc.contributor.authorAffen, J
dc.contributor.authorJuraskova, I
dc.contributor.authorStavrinos, P
dc.contributor.authorDawe, S
dc.contributor.authorCuzick, J
dc.contributor.authorHowell, Anthony
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-27T09:48:14Z
dc.date.available2014-03-27T09:48:14Z
dc.date.issued2014-03-04
dc.identifier.citationUptake of tamoxifen in consecutive premenopausal women under surveillance in a high-risk breast cancer clinic. 2014: Br J Canceren
dc.identifier.issn1532-1827
dc.identifier.pmid24594998
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/bjc.2014.109
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/314863
dc.description.abstractBackground:Randomised trials of tamoxifen versus placebo indicate that tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 33%, yet uptake is low. Approximately 10% of women in our clinic entered the IBIS-I prevention trial. We assess the uptake of tamoxifen in a consecutive series of premenopausal women not in a trial and explore the reasons for uptake through interviews.Methods:All eligible women between 33 and 46 years at 17% lifetime risk of breast cancer and undergoing annual mammography in our service were invited to take a 5-year course of tamoxifen. Reasons for accepting (n=15) or declining (n=15) were explored using semi-structured interviews.Results:Of 1279 eligible women, 136 (10.6%) decided to take tamoxifen. Women >40 years (74 out of 553 (13.4%)) and those at higher non-BRCA-associated risk were more likely to accept tamoxifen (129 out of 1109 (11.6%)). Interviews highlighted four themes surrounding decision making: perceived impact of side effects, the impact of others' experience on beliefs about tamoxifen, tamoxifen as a 'cancer drug', and daily reminder of cancer risk.Conclusions:Tamoxifen uptake was similar to previously ascertained uptake in a randomised controlled trial (IBIS-I). Concerns were similar in women who did or did not accept tamoxifen. Decision making appeared to be embedded in the experience of significant others.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 4 March 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.109 www.bjcancer.com.
dc.languageENG
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to British journal of canceren
dc.titleUptake of tamoxifen in consecutive premenopausal women under surveillance in a high-risk breast cancer clinic.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentNightingale and Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester M23 9LT, UKen
dc.identifier.journalBritish Journal of Canceren
html.description.abstractBackground:Randomised trials of tamoxifen versus placebo indicate that tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 33%, yet uptake is low. Approximately 10% of women in our clinic entered the IBIS-I prevention trial. We assess the uptake of tamoxifen in a consecutive series of premenopausal women not in a trial and explore the reasons for uptake through interviews.Methods:All eligible women between 33 and 46 years at 17% lifetime risk of breast cancer and undergoing annual mammography in our service were invited to take a 5-year course of tamoxifen. Reasons for accepting (n=15) or declining (n=15) were explored using semi-structured interviews.Results:Of 1279 eligible women, 136 (10.6%) decided to take tamoxifen. Women >40 years (74 out of 553 (13.4%)) and those at higher non-BRCA-associated risk were more likely to accept tamoxifen (129 out of 1109 (11.6%)). Interviews highlighted four themes surrounding decision making: perceived impact of side effects, the impact of others' experience on beliefs about tamoxifen, tamoxifen as a 'cancer drug', and daily reminder of cancer risk.Conclusions:Tamoxifen uptake was similar to previously ascertained uptake in a randomised controlled trial (IBIS-I). Concerns were similar in women who did or did not accept tamoxifen. Decision making appeared to be embedded in the experience of significant others.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 4 March 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.109 www.bjcancer.com.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record