Tamoxifen For Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: Low Uptake by High-Risk Women After Evaluation of a Breast Lump
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) published results in 1998 showing that the use of tamoxifen in high-risk women reduced the incidence of invasive breast cancer by 49%. We examined the clinical impact of the BCPT to determine whether high-risk women informed of these results would use tamoxifen for chemoprophylaxis and to investigate the factors influencing this decision. METHODS: Of 345 women evaluated for a breast lump at a referral center, 89 were defined as high risk for but did not currently have cancer. These women were contacted about their elevated risk and informed that there exists a medication proved to reduce this risk. They were encouraged to discuss the issue with their family physician, to whom we sent copies of the 3 largest tamoxifen chemoprevention studies, including the BCPT. Follow-up was conducted by telephone to determine each woman's choice regarding tamoxifen use for chemoprevention and to ascertain her reasons for reaching this decision. RESULTS: Of the 89 high-risk women, 1 decided to take tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention. Only 48 women discussed tamoxifen with their family physician; in 3 cases (3.4%) the family physician recommended that the patient start taking tamoxifen, in 8 cases (9.1%) the family physician made no recommendations, and in 37 cases (42%) the family physician advised against tamoxifen. The most frequently cited factors influencing the decision not to start tamoxifen were a fear of adverse events (46.8%), the family physician's recommendation (31.9%), and a perceived low breast cancer risk (34%). CONCLUSION: Family physicians recommended prophylactic tamoxifen to few women and even fewer women chose to take it. The major barrier appears to be concern about potential adverse effects of tamoxifen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".