Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer
By: Evelyn Acevedo • Article Review • 341 Words • November 15, 2014 • 844 Views
Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer
Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer
Hypothesis: The hypothesis of the article: “Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer” is that an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive to breast cancer. Testing to see the Adjuvant Exemestane ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.
Testing the Hypothesis which is considered the experiment:
Five Factors needed for it to be a well-designed experiment:
- Large sample size: The study included 4690 patients in two trails. Good sample size.
- Using an experimental and controlled group: They the patients were selected randomly to get the adjuvant treatment and tamoxifen. This was controlled for 5 years. They had those who took adjuvant treatment and those who were given tamoxifen.
- Quantitative data: Throughout the whole article they use quantitative data in representing their statistical analysis of their findings.
- Use of blind measurement: The use of blind measurement was used in the view of giving the women different treatments like that of Tamoxifen and adjuvant treatment for a period of 5 years. They were randomly selected.
- Reproducibility: I feel like if this was meant to be re done it would be possible. This experiment is able to be redone again if needed.
Conclusion: The studies show in premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence.
Their conclusion seems reasonable since there wasn’t a big of a change in the results. But most experiments have some change even if it’s little. This experiment was done for 5 years so the results where taken over a good period of time. They compared two different methods. The reason this is a good one would be that they can reproduce it over and over again if they had too.