Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Toremifene
- Thread starter John Juan
- Start date
Elvia1023
New member
John Juan
New member
Exactly. Even taken alone it sounds great
It sounds like a good legal alternative to hcg.
John Juan
New member
Toremifene/Fareston differs from Nolvadex in several ways, however- even though it’s very similar to it in others. Firstly, the risk of certain side effects (although relatively rare with Nolvadex) is actually quite a bit lower with Fareston.However unlikely these risks are in the first place, the risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism, and cataract is probably lower with Fareston than with Nolvadex. This is going to be of interest to people who have issues with “floaters” in their vision, which is sometimes caused by Nolvadex and Clomid, as this product may represent significantly less occular toxicity. It also differs slightly from Nolvadex in its potent with regards to improving lipid (cholesterol) profiles. In terms of improving bone mineral density, Fareston is roughly equal to Nolvadex.
John Juan
New member
Randomized controlled trial of toremifene 120 mg compared with exemestane 25 mg after prior treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.
AuthorsYamamoto Y, et al. Show all Journal
BMC Cancer. 2013 May 16;13(1):239. [Epub ahead of print]
Affiliation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After the failure of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (nsAI) for postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), it is unclear which of various kinds of endocrine therapy is the most appropriate. A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of daily toremifene 120 mg (TOR120), a selective estrogen receptor modulator, and exemestane 25 mg (EXE), a steroidal aromatase inhibitor. The primary end point was the clinical benefit rate (CBR). The secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity.
METHODS: Initially, a total of 91 women was registered in the study and randomly assigned to either TOR120 (n = 46) or EXE (n = 45) from October 2008 to November 2011. Three of the 46 patients in the TOR120 arm were not received treatment, 2 patients having withdrawn from the trial by their preference and one having been dropped due to administration of another SERM.
RESULTS: When analyzed after a median observation period of 16.9 months, the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there were no statistical difference between TOR120 (N = 46) and EXE (n = 45) in terms of CBR (41.3% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.14), ORR (10.8% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.083), and OS (Hazard ratio, 0.60; P = 0.22). The PFS of TOR120 was longer than that of EXE, the difference being statistically significant (Hazard ratio, 0.61, P = 0.045). The results in treatment-received cohort (N = 88) were similar to those in ITT cohort. Both treatments were well-tolerated with no severe adverse events, although the treatment of 3 of 43 women administered TOR120 was stopped after a few days because of nausea, general fatigue, hot flush and night sweating.
CONCLUSIONS: TOR120, as a subsequent endocrine therapy for mBC patients who failed non-steroidal AI treatment, could potentially be more beneficial than EXE.
AuthorsYamamoto Y, et al. Show all Journal
BMC Cancer. 2013 May 16;13(1):239. [Epub ahead of print]
Affiliation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After the failure of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (nsAI) for postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), it is unclear which of various kinds of endocrine therapy is the most appropriate. A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of daily toremifene 120 mg (TOR120), a selective estrogen receptor modulator, and exemestane 25 mg (EXE), a steroidal aromatase inhibitor. The primary end point was the clinical benefit rate (CBR). The secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity.
METHODS: Initially, a total of 91 women was registered in the study and randomly assigned to either TOR120 (n = 46) or EXE (n = 45) from October 2008 to November 2011. Three of the 46 patients in the TOR120 arm were not received treatment, 2 patients having withdrawn from the trial by their preference and one having been dropped due to administration of another SERM.
RESULTS: When analyzed after a median observation period of 16.9 months, the intention-to-treat analysis showed that there were no statistical difference between TOR120 (N = 46) and EXE (n = 45) in terms of CBR (41.3% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.14), ORR (10.8% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.083), and OS (Hazard ratio, 0.60; P = 0.22). The PFS of TOR120 was longer than that of EXE, the difference being statistically significant (Hazard ratio, 0.61, P = 0.045). The results in treatment-received cohort (N = 88) were similar to those in ITT cohort. Both treatments were well-tolerated with no severe adverse events, although the treatment of 3 of 43 women administered TOR120 was stopped after a few days because of nausea, general fatigue, hot flush and night sweating.
CONCLUSIONS: TOR120, as a subsequent endocrine therapy for mBC patients who failed non-steroidal AI treatment, could potentially be more beneficial than EXE.
NoFatChicks91
New member
What is your opinion on a PCT including both clomid and Torem?
Clomid 50/50/25/25
Tore 120/90/90/60
Sent from my SPH-L710 using EliteFitness
Clomid 50/50/25/25
Tore 120/90/90/60
Sent from my SPH-L710 using EliteFitness
John Juan
New member
Based on pct plans I've seen at various forums, that looks like a solid plan to me. I'm a bad person to ask about pct as I stay on AAS year round. I rotate various compounds in and out regularly and raise and lower doses based on my goals at the time.,
John Juan
New member
Toremifene improves lipid profiles in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: interim analysis of a multicenter phase III study.
AuthorsSmith MR, et al. Show all Journal
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 10;26(11):1824-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5517.
Affiliation
Comment in
Eur Urol. 2008 Nov;54(5):1202-3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with greater risk of incident coronary heart disease and hospital admission for myocardial infarction; treatment-related increases in serum lipids may contribute to greater cardiovascular disease risk. We evaluated the effects of toremifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator, on fasting serum lipid levels in men receiving ADT for prostate cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III fracture-prevention study, 1,389 men receiving ADT for prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive toremifene (80 mg/d) or placebo. In this interim analysis of 188 patients, changes in fasting serum lipids from baseline to month 12 were compared between the placebo and toremifene groups.
RESULTS: Changes in serum lipids differed significantly between the groups. Mean (+/- SE) total cholesterol decreased by 1.0% +/- 1.7% from baseline to month 12 in the placebo group and decreased by 8.1% +/- 1.4% in the toremifene group (P = .001 for between group comparison). Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased by 0.8% +/- 2.5% in the placebo group and decreased by 8.2% +/- 2.5% in the toremifene group (P = .003). In contrast, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol decreased by 4.9% +/- 1.2% in the placebo group and increased by 0.5% +/- 2.2% in the toremifene group (P = .018). Triglycerides increased by 6.9% +/- 4.2% in the placebo group and decreased by 13.2% +/- 3.6% in the toremifene group (P = .003).
CONCLUSION: Toremifene significantly decreased total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and increased HDL cholesterol in men receiving ADT for prostate cancer.
AuthorsSmith MR, et al. Show all Journal
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 10;26(11):1824-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5517.
Affiliation
Comment in
Eur Urol. 2008 Nov;54(5):1202-3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with greater risk of incident coronary heart disease and hospital admission for myocardial infarction; treatment-related increases in serum lipids may contribute to greater cardiovascular disease risk. We evaluated the effects of toremifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator, on fasting serum lipid levels in men receiving ADT for prostate cancer.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III fracture-prevention study, 1,389 men receiving ADT for prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive toremifene (80 mg/d) or placebo. In this interim analysis of 188 patients, changes in fasting serum lipids from baseline to month 12 were compared between the placebo and toremifene groups.
RESULTS: Changes in serum lipids differed significantly between the groups. Mean (+/- SE) total cholesterol decreased by 1.0% +/- 1.7% from baseline to month 12 in the placebo group and decreased by 8.1% +/- 1.4% in the toremifene group (P = .001 for between group comparison). Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased by 0.8% +/- 2.5% in the placebo group and decreased by 8.2% +/- 2.5% in the toremifene group (P = .003). In contrast, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol decreased by 4.9% +/- 1.2% in the placebo group and increased by 0.5% +/- 2.2% in the toremifene group (P = .018). Triglycerides increased by 6.9% +/- 4.2% in the placebo group and decreased by 13.2% +/- 3.6% in the toremifene group (P = .003).
CONCLUSION: Toremifene significantly decreased total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and increased HDL cholesterol in men receiving ADT for prostate cancer.
