Navegando por Palavras-chave "Anastrozol"

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
  • Imagem de Miniatura
    Item
    Acesso aberto (Open Access)
    Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole, in comparison with tamoxifen, in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer in Brazil
    (Associação Médica Brasileira, 2009-01-01) Fonseca, Marcelo Cunio Machado [UNIFESP]; Araujo, Gabriela Tannus Branco de [UNIFESP]; Saad, Everardo D.; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP); Axia.Bio Consultoria Econômica; Dendrix Ltda
    OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer, a leading type of cancer in many developing countries, is the most frequent non-cutaneous tumor in Brazil. Hormone therapy is the standard of care in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage, hormone-receptor-positive disease, and both tamoxifen and third-generation aromatase inhibitors are options in postmenopausal women. The comparative cost-effectiveness of different treatment strategies is of considerable interest in societies facing limited resources. METHODS: In an attempt to compare cost-effectiveness of upfront treatment with tamoxifen or anastrozole, the medical and economic results in a hypothetical cohort of 64-year-old postmenopausal women, was analyzed considering the Brazilian healthcare system in 2005, the primary perspective of the private sector, and a lifetime horizon. Data from the ATAC Trial, Markov modeling, a modified Delphi panel, and microcosting (in Brazilian R$) were used to estimate costs and effectiveness of the two upfront strategies. RESULTS: The model estimated a gain of 0.55 discounted life-years for patients receiving anastrozole, relative to those treated with tamoxifen. With an incremental cost of R$ 15,141.15, the model estimated that the cost-effectiveness of anastrozole, in relation to tamoxifen, was R$ 27,326.80. Monte Carlo simulations showed that approximately 50% of the cases fell below the threshold of R$ 29,229.00 per life-year gained, which is recommended by the World Health Organization for Brazil. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that upfront anastrozole is a cost-effective option compared with tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer.
  • Imagem de Miniatura
    Item
    Acesso aberto (Open Access)
    Estudo do biomarcador p16 no carcinoma de mama de mulheres submetidas à endocrinoterapia primária de curta duração com tamoxifeno e anastrozol
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2009-11-25) Melitto, Alexandre Santos [UNIFESP]; Gebrim, Luiz Henrique [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    Background: Frequent deletions or mutations of the INK4 gene, which encodes the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 inhibitor p16INK4a, have been documented in various human cancers, but little is known about the role of this tumor suppressor gene in primary breast cancer and there is a lack in the literature about its expression behavior in neoadjuvant endocrinetherapy with tamoxifen or anastrozole. Objective: Analysis of p16INK4a expression in patients with invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) prior to tamoxifen and anastrozole neoadjuvant treatment and possible correlation between predictive and prognostical factors – estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR). Methods: We examined p16INK4a mRNA expression and its relationship with short period (26 days) neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen and anastrozole in 58 primary breast cancers with palpable ER-positive IDC. They were double-blind randomized in three neoadjuvant treatment groups for 21 days: Anastrozole 1mg/day (n= 17), Placebo (n=25) and Tamoxifen 20mg/day (n=15). Biomarkers status (ER, PgR and p16) were obtained by comparing single immunohistochemical evaluation of pre and post-surgery samples using Allred’s method. Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software for Windows. Results: Variation in p16 was 22% to 17% in anastrozole group, 8% to 4% in placebo group and there was no variation in tamoxifen group, standing in 7%. There was no significant statistical diference in p16INK4a expression among the three groups (p=0.17). Variation in p16 was 12% to 9% (p<0.05) when considering the three groups together. There was a significant decrease of p16 expression in pre and post surgery results. There was no significant statistical correlation between p16 expression and hormonal status (RE and RP). Conclusions: There was no significant statistical diference in p16INK4a expression among the three groups. There was a significant statistical decrease in p16INK4a expression when compared pre and post surgery values. These findings could indicate that expression of p16 and variation in pre and post surgery samples are associated with hormone responsiveness and mechanisms of resistance. There were no significant statistical correlation between p16 expression and hormonal status (RE and RP). Further studies are necessary to understand their functional interrelationships and whether high p16INK4a expression may be associated with a lack of hormone responsiveness in breast cancer.