Research News: 10 Years of Arimidex Reduces Recurrence Risk, But Doesn’t Improve Overall Survival
10 Years of Arimidex Reduces Recurrence Risk, But Doesn’t Improve Overall Survival
May 5, 2023
Taking Arimidex for 10 years after breast cancer surgery reduced recurrence risk, but didn’t improve overall survival. Read more…
Mods, am I reading this right that this study is looking at survival at the 10 year point after the initial diagnosis? Max, 15 years, if the study started enrolling in 2007?
I feel that is important information to highlight in the title. This is limited new data.0
@salamandra, thank you for pointing this out. We're passing along to our editorial team!
Hi, Our editorial team was wondering specifically what you are suggesting. That the title should have 15 years?0
As the write-up says, the women took hormonal therapy for either five or 10 years after surgery, not diagnosis. The five year disease-free rates were for the five years after the 10 years of Arimidex. So, we're not sure why it's "limited data."
Just let us know your thoughts. Thank you!0
When I saw the headline, I assumed that it was looking at long term survival rates. I was 38 at diagnosis and of course I care about the 10-15 year survival rate, but when I am thinking about how long to stay on the hormonal drugs, I am thinking far beyond that. I am hoping to make it to 60 and beyond.
If a study shows that long term endocrine therapy does not help with long term survival, that feels like new and relevant info to me that I definitely want to consider. But as far as I can tell, this study is only telling me about my risks during years 5-10 after diagnosis. E.g., that I'm not more likely to make it 48 by staying on the drug until 48 vs 43. But it doesn't say anything about whether I'll be more likely to make it to 55 or 65.
I thought we already knew that endocrine therapy has some persistent benefit after you stop taking it, and I hoped this study would add to that info about how long that benefit persists. But if they only started recruiting in 2007, then it seems like for most women, they only know 10-15 year survival rates - i.e., how much benefit persists 5-10 years after stopping the drug. That seems pretty limited to me, especially assuming that many of the women were recruited after 2007. Maybe that's not the right scientific word to describe what I mean - which is that it seems to bring limited new info because it is based on a limited amount of post-therapy time. I think this study will be a lot more informative in another 10 years, for example.
Hopefully that helps? In any case, I think it is extremely relevant to state the time frame that this study applies to. If it's going to say that 10 year arimidex use doesn't improve overall survival, it should include a time span - e.g. 'doesn't improve ten year survival rates' or 'doesn't improve fifteen year survival rates'. As it reads, I could legitimately infer that this study provides evidence that extended arimidex has no impact on thirty year survival rates (a time frame that is extremely relevant to me since that's about when I'll hopefully be making it to retirement age). But that would not be correct inference. Does that make sense?
Thank you for clarifying! We will follow up with our editorial team on the points you made.0