Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2010 Jun;3(6):689-91.
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-10-0096.

Long-term follow-up in cancer prevention trials (It ain't over 'til it's over)

Jack Cuzick  1
Affiliations
Editorial

Long-term follow-up in cancer prevention trials (It ain't over 'til it's over)

Jack Cuzick. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010 Jun.

Abstract

The update of the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene by Vogel et al. (beginning on p. 696 in this issue of the journal) highlights the overall importance of long-term follow-up of cancer prevention trials, which need long follow-up to fully determine agent risks and benefits. Biomarkers (e.g., reduced cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 after human papillomavirus vaccination) can provide an early indication of efficacy but almost never replace the cancer end point in determining the ultimate utility of an agent. Long follow-up is also important to fully determine preventive benefit, as illustrated by the tamoxifen trials, where only 60% as many treated women were needed to prevent one cancer at 10 years as at approximately 5 years, the time of the early reports.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
One-minus Kaplan-Meier curves of the cumulative incidence rates for all breast cancers (invasive and noninvasive) and invasive estrogen-receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancers according to treatment arm in the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I (IBIS-I). Differences in absolute breast-cancer risk at 5 and 10 years are also given. The figure originally appeared in ref. and is reproduced here by permission of Oxford University Press.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

References

    1. Schiller JT, Castellsagué X, Villa LL, Hildesheim A. An update of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like particle vaccine clinical trial results. Vaccine. 2008;26:K53–62. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cuzick J, Castañón A, Sasieni P. Predicted impact of vaccination against human papillomavirus 16/18 on cancer incidence and cervical abnormalities in women aged 20–29 in England. Br J Cancer. 2010:1–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rowhani-Rahbar A, Mao C, Alvarez FB, et al. Long-term efficacy of a prophylactic human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. Presented at the 25th International Papillomavirus Conference: Clinical & Educational Workshop; Malmö, Sweden. 2009 May 8–14; Abstract O-01.03.
    1. Paavonen J, Naud P, Salmerón J, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet. 2009;374:301–14. - PubMed
    1. Brown DR, Kjaer SK, Sigurdsson K, et al. The impact of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV; types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine on infection and disease due to oncogenic nonvaccine HPV types in generally HPV-naive women aged 16-26 years. J Infect Dis. 2009;199:926–35. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances