The stated goal for an investment in cancer research is the eradication of cancer. But this is just talk. A world with no cancer is a noble goal but the problem becomes where to start. In other words, how to put ideas into action and move forward from rhetoric. The task is enormous, but one solution where there has been much talk is cancer prevention. In the case of lung cancer, the solution is simple—stop smoking. But the social engineering that is required to prevent one sector of society from creating a massive health care crisis in another seems to be insoluble. It is now clear that women have been the victims here through a callous campaign to recruit smokers. Lung cancer is the disease that kills more women with cancer than any other. Based on this inconvenient truth of modern society, is there any reason to believe that the cancer research community has made any progress with practical help for people? In contrast to lung cancer, progress is quantifiable in another major killer of women—breast cancer.

In 1971, President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act and declared war on cancer, but there were no serious plans to prevent breast cancer. Nevertheless, the first experiments were being conducted to prevent breast cancer with antihormones but, regrettably, at that time no one cared (1). All efforts were focused on the application of combinations of cytotoxic chemotherapy to treat and cure cancer by killing the last cancer cell. Despite heroic attempts to kill the cancer without killing the patient, progress has been modest but significant improvements in survival did occur in premenopausal patients (2). Unfortunately, this is a hollow victory that on the face of it cannot be applied to cancer prevention; or can it?

We have known for more than a century that there is a link between the growth of breast cancer in patients and sex steroids secreted from the ovary (3) or produced peripherally in a woman's body fat. Furthermore, we have known for more than 30 years that combination cytotoxic chemotherapy will destroy ovarian function (reviewed in ref. 4) and stop estrogen production. Indeed, we now know that younger women who do not have a premature menopause and who do not take antiestrogen therapy have shorter survival than women who have ovarian failure (5-7). We also know that adjuvant oophorectomy produces disease-free survival comparable with the use of adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy in premenopausal women (8, 9). Thus, based on these clinical observations, one would be drawn to the conclusion that preventing hormone action might be a valuable line of future investigation for prevention if one could only work out the mechanism. But research does not travel in straight lines; a parallel universe of knowledge had already developed to address chemoprevention with antihormones.

An ovarian link between spontaneous breast (mammary) cancer in laboratory mice was shown in 1916 (10), but it was Professor Antoine Lassasagne (11) in 1936 who proposed that “a therapeutic antagonist should be sought to prevent the congestion of oestrone in the breast.” In other words, an antiestrogen could be a valuable chemopreventive agent; however, at the time, there was no scientific foundation to support this strategy. The discovery of the estrogen receptor as the putative mechanism of estrogen action in its target tissues (12) opened the door to reinvent tamoxifen from a failed contraceptive (13) to become the first targeted therapy for breast cancer treatment (14). Tamoxifen, a nonsteroidal antiestrogen, was discovered in the 1960s as part of a worldwide effort by the pharmaceutical industry to exploit the serendipitous discovery of the drug group (15). Applications were sought based on in vivo studies and without reference to receptor mechanisms (16). The compounds were excellent postcoital contraceptive in rats but failed in this application because they induced ovulation in women (i.e., it could guarantee pregnancy), exactly the opposite effect that was being sought. As a result, tamoxifen was briefly marketed for the induction of ovulation (17). Although numerous compounds were discovered, only tamoxifen was reinvented as a long-term receptor targeted breast cancer treatment (ref. 18; and potential preventive ref. 19). A decade later, the drugs described as nonsteroidal antiestrogens (20) were recognized as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM) that could be estrogen-like at one site (i.e., bone or endometrial cancer) but antiestrogenic at another (i.e., breast; refs. 21-23). This discovery of SERM action (24) led to the proposition that it was plausible to prevent osteoporosis with SERMs in women but prevent breast cancer at the same time (15, 25). Raloxifene, a failed breast cancer drug (26), emerged as the first SERM used to prevent osteoporosis with the beneficial side effect of preventing both breast and endometrial cancer (27-29). This was perfect timing as hormone replacement therapy used to prevent osteoporosis was shown to increase breast cancer incidence (30, 31).

The practical application of using tamoxifen for breast chemoprevention was pioneered by Trevor Powles (32, 33), Bernard Fisher (34, 35), and Umberto Veronesi (36, 37) who created a fundamental change in health care. There were no surprises as the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of laboratory research coupled with the vast resource of clinical experience with tamoxifen that reduced contralateral breast cancer when used as an adjuvant (38-40) were, in the main, predictive for the results in the chemoprevention trials. The “good” news was that tamoxifen reduced the risk of breast cancer in the large trials (34, 35, 41). Cuzick et al. (42) provided additional clinical trials data with the International Breast Intervention Study and did an “overview analysis” of all tamoxifen trials (plus the osteoporosis study with raloxifene; ref. 43). Tamoxifen is currently the only medicine that will reduce breast cancer risk safely and for prolonged periods (5 and probably 10 years) after therapy is stopped (35, 44, 45). This is remarkable and occurs at a time when there are no side effects. The advance with tamoxifen, now Food and Drug Administration–approved for risk reduction in high-risk women for almost a decade, does have problems, but these seem to be overplayed by the media. Concerns about the “bad” side effects of endometrial cancer (generally good grade and curable) or blood clots and stroke are, in the main, associated with use in postmenopausal women. There is, however, a very small concern about uterine sarcomas (46, 47). Obviously, hysterectomized women are an appropriate target population for breast chemoprevention with tamoxifen.

The “bad” for some women is the increased incidence of menopausal symptoms. As it turns out, this may in fact be “good.” Tamoxifen needs to be metabolically activated to endoxifen by the CYP2D6 gene product so patients with a variant CYP2D6 usually have fewer hot flashes but have a higher recurrent rate (48, 49). Ironically, women who use the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxitene or fluoxetine to suppress hot flashes have a poor response to tamoxifen (48-50). This is because these selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors block tamoxifen metabolism. Venlafaxine is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor of choice because it does not block endoxifen production.

The “ugly” concern with tamoxifen was liver cancer induced in rats, but this did not translate to an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in women. It seemed to be obvious that this property, unique to rats, was not going to affect women, as the drug had already been marketed for 20 years at the time the hepatic toxicity was noted (51). No elevation in hepatocellular carcinoma are currently observed (8). Clinicians, however, do have another choice, raloxifene. This compound does not produce hepatocellular carcinomas in rats.

The SERM raloxifene had been rigorously investigated as a drug to prevent osteoporosis, and translational research predicted that this SERM would reduce the risk of breast cancer (21, 22, 25, 27). Based on this evaluation, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project chose to initiate the landmark SERM trial, the study of tamoxifen and raloxifene or STAR (28). The results were clear and predictable: Tamoxifen and raloxifene were equivalent at reducing the risk of invasive breast cancer in high-risk women. There were trivial differences in ductal carcinoma in situ in favor of tamoxifen (probably due to the failure of compliance and the short duration of action of raloxifene when compared with tamoxifen; ref. 52) but the safety profile of the two SERMs favored raloxifene. Tamoxifen-treated women had more blood clots, more endometrial cancer, hysterectomies, and cataract operations compared with raloxifene-treated women. Supportive evidence for the value of raloxifene for the chemoprevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women without a concern about an elevation of endometrial cancer comes from the trial named Raloxifene Use for the Heart (29). This trial was established to test the worth of raloxifene to prevent deaths from coronary heart disease but did not show an advantage for raloxifene over placebo. However, the trial showed a significant decrease in breast cancer and no elevation in endometrial cancer (29). Raloxifene is now a new weapon in the clinician's armamentarium to prevent breast cancer in osteoporotic women as well as postmenopausal women at high risk for breast cancer.

In closing, the question that needs to be addressed is why clinicians and women at high risk chose to avoid using approved medicines for appropriate indications? We have seen a dramatic change in the approach to breast cancer treatment and prevention in the past 30 years. Drugs can now be targeted to specific populations. In the case of prevention, tamoxifen is fully tested and is best used for high-risk premenopausal women with wild-type CYP2D6 gene product, and venlafaxine can be used to control hot flashes. Raloxifene cannot be used in premenopausal women. Raloxifene is the agent of choice in postmenopausal women. Raloxifene is being used by an estimated 500,000 women to prevent osteoporosis, which will also prevent the development of tens of thousands of breast cancers over the next decade (53). The recent approval of raloxifene to prevent breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women will add to a reduction in breast cancer incidence while enhancing bone strength. The SERM concept (15, 25, 54, 55) works in medical practice and agents are available now to help the right patient. Only clinician and patient prejudice, convinced by negative media messages, is preventing progress in chemoprevention.

Returning to my original arguments about lung cancer, it is hard to believe that it is acceptable to smoke cigarettes with the attendant list of known health hazards and the highest death rate for cancer among women, but it is unacceptable to use approved medicines to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Fortunately, research is not static and new ideas will evolve and new SERMs will be developed, but, regrettably, progress will not occur in the near future. This is compounded by a lack of will by the government to support clinical research in chemoprevention and to support the training of a new generation of innovative clinical investigators. In the face of these obstacles, it is essential for the physicians to make the right choices for the appropriate patient. Interventions validated by decades of clinical and laboratory research and approved by the Food and Drug Administration can help reduce the risk of breast cancer now. After all, it's a once around life.

Grant support: Department of Defense Breast Program under award number BC050277 Center of Excellence [views and opinions of, and endorsements by the author(s) do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense], R01 GM067156, Fox Chase Cancer Center Core Grant NIH P30 CA006927, and the Weg Fund of Fox Chase Cancer Center.

1
Jordan VC, Brodie AMH. Development and evolution of therapies targeted to the estrogen receptor for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer.
Steroids
2007
;
72
:
7
–25.
2
EBCTCG. Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer. An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women.
N Engl J Med
1988
;
319
:
1681
–92.
3
Beatson CT. On treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma: suggestions for a new method of treatment with illustrative cases.
Lancet
1896
;
2
:
162
–5.
4
Jordan VC. Chemotherapy is antihormonal therapy—how much proof do oncologists need?
Eur J Cancer
1998
;
34
:
606
–8.
5
Dellapasqua S, Colleoni M, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with early breast cancer.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
1736
–50.
6
Colleoni M, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tamoxifen after adjuvant chemotherapy for premenopausal women with lymph node-positive breast cancer: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 13-93.
J Clin Oncol
2006
;
24
:
1332
–41.
7
Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Peruzzotti G, et al. Role of endocrine responsiveness and adjuvant therapy in very young women (below 35 years) with operable breast cancer and node negative disease.
Ann Oncol
2006
;
17
:
1497
–503.
8
Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials.
Lancet
2005
;
365
:
1687
–717.
9
Schmid P, Untch M, Kosse V, et al. Leuprorelin acetate every-3-months depot versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer: the TABLE study.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
2509
–15.
10
Lathrop AE, Loeb L. Further investigations on the origins of tumors in mice III on the part played by internal secretions in the spontaneous development of tumors.
J Cancer Res
1916
;
1
:
1
–19.
11
Lacassagne A. Hormonal pathogenesis of adenocarcinoma of the breast.
Am J Cancer
1936
;
27
:
217
–25.
12
Jensen EV, Jacobson HI. Basic guides to the mechanism of estrogen action.
Recent Prog Horm Res
1962
;
18
:
387
–414.
13
Harper MJ, Walpole AL. Mode of action of I.C.I. 46,474 in preventing implantation in rats.
J Endocrinol
1967
;
37
:
83
–92.
14
Jensen EV, Jordan VC; The Dorothy P. Landon AACR Prize for Translational Research. The estrogen receptor: a model for molecular medicine.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
1980
–9.
15
Lerner LJ, Jordan VC. The development of antiestrogens for the treatment of breast cancer: Eighth Cain Memorial Award Lecture.
Cancer Res
1990
;
50
:
4177
–89.
16
Harper MJ, Walpole AL. A new derivative of triphenylethylene: effect on implantation and mode of action in rats.
J Reprod Fertil
1967
;
13
:
101
–19.
17
Klopper A, Hall M. New synthetic agent for the induction of ovulation. Preliminary trial in women.
Br Med J
1971
;
1
:
152
–4.
18
Jordan VC. Tamoxifen: a most unlikely pioneering medicine.
Nat Rev Drug Discov
2003
;
2
:
205
–13.
19
Jordan VC. Effect of tamoxifen (ICI 46,474) on initiation and growth of DMBA- induced rat mammary carcinoma.
Eur J Cancer
1976
;
12
:
419
–24.
20
Jordan VC. Biochemical pharmacology of antiestrogen action.
Pharmacol Rev
1984
;
36
:
245
–76.
21
Jordan VC, Phelps E, Lindgren JU. Effects of anti-estrogens on bone in castrated and intact female rats.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
1987
;
10
:
31
–5.
22
Gottardis MM, Jordan VC. Antitumor actions of keoxifene and tamoxifen in the N-nitrosomethylurea-induced rat mammary carcinoma model.
Cancer Res
1987
;
47
:
4020
–4.
23
Gottardis MM, Robinson SP, Satyaswaroop PG, Jordan VC. Contrasting actions of tamoxifen on endometrial and breast tumor growth in the athymic mouse.
Cancer Res
1988
;
48
:
812
–5.
24
Jordan VC. Selective estrogen receptor modulation: a personal perspective.
Cancer Res
2001
;
61
:
5683
–7.
25
Jordan VC. Chemosuppression of breast cancer with tamoxifen: laboratory evidence and future clinical investigations.
Cancer Invest
1988
;
6
:
589
–95.
26
Buzdar A, Marcus C, Holmes F, Hug V, Hortobagyi G. Phase II evaluation of Ly156758 in metastatic breast cancer.
Oncology
1988
;
45
:
344
–5.
27
Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA, et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation.
JAMA
1999
;
281
:
2189
–97.
28
Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. The Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR): Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-2 Trial.
JAMA
2006
;
295
:
2727
–41.
29
Barrett-Connor E, Mosca L, Collins P, et al. Effects of raloxifene on cardiovascular events and breast cancer in postmenopausal women.
N Engl J Med
2006
;
355
:
125
–37.
30
Million Women Study Collaborators. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study.
Lancet
2003
;
362
:
419
–27.
31
Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N, et al. The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States.
N Engl J Med
2007
;
356
:
1670
–4.
32
Powles TJ, Hardy JR, Ashley SE, et al. A pilot trial to evaluate the acute toxicity and feasibility of tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer.
Br J Cancer
1989
;
60
:
126
–31.
33
Powles T, Eeles R, Ashley S, et al. Interim analysis of the incidence of breast cancer in the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial [see comments].
Lancet
1998
;
352
:
98
–101.
34
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1998
;
90
:
1371
–88.
35
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2005
;
97
:
1652
–62.
36
Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Costa A, et al. Prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial among hysterectomised women. Italian Tamoxifen Prevention Study.
Lancet
1998
;
352
:
93
–7.
37
Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: late results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial among women with hysterectomy.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2007
;
99
:
727
–37.
38
Cuzick J, Baum M. Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer [letter].
Lancet
1985
;
2
:
282
.
39
Fornander T, Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen in early breast cancer: occurrence of new primary cancers.
Lancet
1989
;
1
:
117
–20.
40
Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors.
N Engl J Med
1989
;
320
:
479
–84.
41
Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J, et al. Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst
1999
;
91
:
1829
–46.
42
Cuzick J, Forbes J, Edwards R, et al. First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial.
Lancet
2002
;
360
:
817
–24.
43
Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U, et al. Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials.
Lancet
2003
;
361
:
296
–300.
44
Powles TJ, Ashley S, Tidy A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast cancer prevention trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2007
;
99
:
283
–90.
45
Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, et al. Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer—96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2007
;
99
:
272
–82.
46
Wickerham DL, Fisher B, Wolmark N, et al. Association of tamoxifen and uterine sarcoma.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
2758
–60.
47
Bergman L, Beelen ML, Gallee MP, Hollema H, Benraadt J, van Leeuwen FE. Risk and prognosis of endometrial cancer after tamoxifen for breast cancer. Comprehensive Cancer Centres' ALERT Group. Assessment of liver and endometrial cancer risk following tamoxifen.
Lancet
2000
;
356
:
881
–7.
48
Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, et al. Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
9312
–8.
49
Goetz MP, Knox SK, Suman VJ, et al. The impact of cytochrome P450 2D6 metabolism in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen.
Breast Cancer Res Treat
2007
;
101
:
113
–21.
50
Stearns V, Johnson MD, Rae JM, et al. Active tamoxifen metabolite plasma concentrations after coadministration of tamoxifen and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2003
;
95
:
1758
–64.
51
Jordan VC. What if tamoxifen (ICI 46,474) had been found to produce rat liver tumors in 1973? A personal perspective.
Ann Oncol
1995
;
6
:
29
–34.
52
Snyder KR, Sparano N, Malinowski JM. Raloxifene hydrochloride.
Am J Health Syst Pharm
2000
;
57
:
1669
–75; quiz 1676–8.
53
Jordan VC. Optimising endocrine approaches for the chemoprevention of breast cancer. Beyond the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) trial.
Eur J Cancer
2006
;
42
:
2909
–13.
54
Jordan VC. Designer estrogens.
Sci Am
1998
;
279
:
60
–7.
55
Jordan VC. Chemoprevention of breast cancer with selective oestrogen-receptor modulators.
Nat Rev Cancer
2007
;
7
:
46
–53.