{"id":58308,"date":"2021-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-16T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/2021\/07\/16\/no-benefit-seen-from-adjuvant-celecoxib-in-erbb2-negative-breast-cancer\/"},"modified":"2021-07-20T15:11:25","modified_gmt":"2021-07-20T15:11:25","slug":"no-benefit-seen-from-adjuvant-celecoxib-in-erbb2-negative-breast-cancer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/2021\/07\/16\/no-benefit-seen-from-adjuvant-celecoxib-in-erbb2-negative-breast-cancer\/","title":{"rendered":"No Benefit Seen From Adjuvant Celecoxib in ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>\n<p>Disease-free survival did not improve with two years of celecoxib versus placebo in ERBB2-negative breast cancer<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n<p><b><\/b><\/p>\n<p><b><\/b><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jamaoncology\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><\/a>FRIDAY, July 16, 2021 (HealthDay News) &#8212; For patients with ERBB2-negative breast cancer, two years of treatment with celecoxib as adjuvant to conventional therapy yields no disease-free survival (DFS) benefits compared with placebo, according to a study published online July 15 in <em>JAMA Oncology<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>R. Charles Coombes, M.D., Ph.D., from Imperial College London, and colleagues conducted a randomized trial in 160 centers testing two years of adjuvant celecoxib versus placebo among 2,639 patients with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative breast cancer. Participants were randomly assigned to either celecoxib or placebo in a 2:1 ratio (1,763 and 876, respectively).<\/p>\n<p>Overall, 73 percent of the tumors were estrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive and ERBB2-negative. Forty-eight percent of patients had node-positive disease and 42 percent had grade 3 tumors. The researchers found that DFS events were reported for 487 patients (19 percent) at a median follow-up of 74.3 months: 18 and 19 percent for those who received celecoxib and placebo, respectively (five-year DFS rates, 84 and 83 percent, respectively), with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.97 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.80 to 1.17; log-rank P = 0.75). Across both treatment groups, the rates of toxic effects were low, with no evidence of a difference.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Despite compelling preclinical and observational evidence suggesting a role for anti-inflammatory agents in the management of breast cancer, celecoxib failed to reduce the risk of recurrence or mortality among individuals with early-stage disease,&#8221; write the authors of an accompanying editorial.<\/p>\n<p>Several authors disclosed financial ties to biopharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, which manufactures celecoxib and partially funded the study.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jamaoncology\/article-abstract\/2781890\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Abstract\/Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/jamanetwork.com\/journals\/jamaoncology\/article-abstract\/2781895\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Editorial (subscription or payment may be required)<\/a><\/p>\n<p><i><\/i><\/p>\n<p><i>Copyright \u00a9 2021 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.healthday.com\/\" target=\"_new\" rel=\"noopener\">HealthDay<\/a>. All rights reserved.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Disease-free survival did not improve with two years of celecoxib versus placebo in ERBB2-negative breast cancer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":58511,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[11],"class_list":["post-58308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58308\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/58511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medgoo.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}