Risk Reduction from Tamoxifen..did I figure this right?

Hey Beesie, what formula is used for that, and does it change for post menopausal women (who in this case is me and I can't take aromitase inhibitors).

Ah rats! Was hoping for a formula I used an online calculator which shows my risk as really low. Just a way to distract myself as I wait for the MammaPrint results.

kec, is that any recurrence or metastatic recurrence?

When I was first diagnosed 13+ years ago, I had bookmarks with all the research study data on Tamox. But because the drug is so old now, none of the sites are active anymore. I have top line results from the studies, but have been unsuccessful so far at digging around for the detailed data that I want.

kec--keep in mind it depends on how you look at the probability reduction--in absolute or relative terms. 16% down to 10% can be viewed as a 6% reduction, or <more appropriately> as a 40% reduction in the probability of recurrence, as you stated in your original post. That is really significant. (And just to be picky, that 16.666666 would round to 17%. ;-) )

I didn’t hesitate to take Tamoxifen because frankly I was afraid not to. I wanted that extra insurance in trying to prevent a recurrence. Having said that I didn’t have unmanageable SEs like a lot of women have. According to my Oncotype report I have an 8% chance of a recurrence with taking Tamoxifen for 5 years. My Oncotype score was 11.

I know ladies who have either refused the drug or quit taking it when it literally made their QOL a living hell. They are fine many years later so you never know.

Do what you think is best for you- that’s the most important thing. I know doctors get all bent out of shape when a patient decides to go against their recommendations but it isn’t their life - it’s yours.

Diane

Yes, but in the original post, edj was using the 40% relative risk reduction to determine the absolute risk reduction that she will get from Tamoxifen, which is a 6 point benefit.

The 40% is a necessary part of the mathematical equation, but I agree with edj that it's the absolute benefit that we each need to consider when we make our decision on whether or not to take endocrine therapy. The 40% relative risk reduction would work out to be a 2 point benefit for one person (whose risk of mets without endocrine therapy is 5%) and a 12 point benefit for another person (whose risk of mets without endocrine therapy is 30%). Quite the difference, when measuring these benefits against the risk and side effects from the Tamoxifen itself. This is why the 40% on it's own is misleading.

I would say that the absolute benefit (6 points, for edj) is the appropriate way to assess the benefit of endocrine therapy vs. the relative benefit (a 40% reduction in risk). Absolute benefit is how my MO talks about all treatments.