Skip to main content
Log in

Randomized trial of diethylstilbestrol vs. tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. An updated analysis

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One hundred fifty‐one postmenopausal women with progressive metastatic breast cancer and no prior hormonal therapy were treated with either diethylstilbestrol (DES) or tamoxifen (TAM). One hundred forty‐three eligible patients were followed until death or for a minimum of 14.1 years on the DES arm or 16.7 years on the TAM arm. The overall objective response was 42% for DES and 33% for TAM (p=0.31) and the median duration of response was 11.8 months for DES and 9.9 months for TAM (p=0.38). Duration of response and progression‐free survival were not found to be significantly different between DES and TAM (p=0.32 and 0.65, respectively). The median survival was 3.0 years for DES vs. 2.4 years for TAM. The 5‐year survival was 35% for the DES arm and 16% for the TAM arm. Survival was significantly better for women on DES than for women on TAM (adjusted p=0.039). Review of records did not show any difference in pattern of treatment failure or subsequent treatments in the DES and TAM arms.

Treatment with DES was more commonly associated with toxicity such as nausea, edema, vaginal bleeding, and cardiac problems, whereas hot flashes were commonly seen with TAM therapy.

The initial treatment with DES is associated with increased survival. The basis of this survival advantage is not known. TAM still is the preferred agent in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but this trial underscores the fact that estrogens have activity and remain in the armamentarium for treatment of selected patients with metastatic breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Council On Drugs: Androgens and estrogens in the treatment of disseminated mammary carcinoma. Retrospective study of nine hundred forty four patients. JAMA 172: 1271–1283, 1960

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ingle JN, Ahmann DL, Green SJ, Edmonson JH, Bisel HF, Kvols LK, Nichols WC, Creagan ET, Hahn RG, Rubin J, Frytak S: Randomized clinical trial of diethylstilbestrol versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 304: 16–21, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sedlacek SM: An overview of megestrol acetate for the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol 15: 3–13, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goss PE, Gwyn KMEH: Current perspectives on aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 12: 2460–2470, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boyer MJ, Tattersall MHN: Diethylstilbestrol revisited in advanced breast cancer management. Med Ped Oncol 18: 317–320, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gershanovich M, Chaudri HA, Campos D, Lurie H, Bonaventura A, Jeffrey M, Buzzi F, Bodrogi I, Ludwig H, Reichardt P, O'Higgins N, Romieu G, Friederich P, Lassus M, for the Letrozole International Trial Group (AR/BC3): Letrozole, a new oral aromatase inhibitor: Randomised trial comparing 2.5 mg daily, 0.5 mg daily and aminoglutethimide in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 9: 639–645, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buzdar AU, Jonat W, Howell A, Jones SE, Blomqvist CP, Vogel C, Eiermann W, Wolter JM, Steinberg M, Webster A, Lee D: Anastrozole versus megestrol acetate in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer 83: 1142–1152, 1998

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peethambaram, P.P., Ingle, J.N., Suman, V.J. et al. Randomized trial of diethylstilbestrol vs. tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. An updated analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 54, 117–122 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006185805079

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006185805079

Navigation