This article is
- freely available
Chemoprevention of Breast Cancer: The Paradox of Evidence versus Advocacy Inaction
Division of Surgical Oncology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo Breast Center of Excellence, 1400 Coulter, Amarillo, TX 79106, USA
Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 31 July 2012; in revised form: 23 September 2012 / Accepted: 19 October 2012 / Published: 29 October 2012
Abstract: Women who are at high risk of breast cancer can be offered chemoprevention. Chemoprevention strategies have expanded over the past decade and include selective receptor modulator inhibitors and aromatase inhibitors. Physicians are expected to provide individualized risk assessments to identify high risk women who may be eligible for chemoprevention. It is prudent that physicians utilize a shared decision approach when counseling high risk women about their preventive options. Barriers and misperceptions however exist with patient and physician acceptance of chemoprevention and continue to impede uptake of chemoprevention as a strategy to reduce breast cancer risk. Programs to increase awareness and elucidate the barriers are critical for women to engage in cancer prevention and promote chemoprevention adherence.
Keywords: aromatase inhibitors; chemoprevention; exemestane; raloxifene; SERMs; tamoxifen
Article StatisticsClick here to load and display the download statistics.
Notes: Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Layeequr Rahman, R.; Pruthi, S. Chemoprevention of Breast Cancer: The Paradox of Evidence versus Advocacy Inaction. Cancers 2012, 4, 1146-1160.
Layeequr Rahman R, Pruthi S. Chemoprevention of Breast Cancer: The Paradox of Evidence versus Advocacy Inaction. Cancers. 2012; 4(4):1146-1160.
Layeequr Rahman, Rakhshanda; Pruthi, Sandhya. 2012. "Chemoprevention of Breast Cancer: The Paradox of Evidence versus Advocacy Inaction." Cancers 4, no. 4: 1146-1160.