Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Frontiers in Oncology · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background Ocular adverse events may affect tolerability during long-term endocrine therapy for breast cancer, but comparative real-world evidence remains limited. We characterized ocular adverse-event reporting patterns using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and VigiAccess. Methods FAERS reports from Q1–2004 to Q1–2026 involving seven endocrine therapies were analyzed. Drug-specific signals were assessed using reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC) within a breast cancer indication-restricted, primary-suspect reference population. Class comparisons used multivariable logistic regression with Benjamini–Hochberg false-discovery-rate correction. Age, ovarian function suppression (OFS), and time to onset (TTO) were evaluated; VigiAccess was descriptive. Results Among 42,851 eligible reports, 2,528 contained ocular adverse events. Tamoxifen showed the broadest signal spectrum, while aromatase inhibitors (AIs) showed ocular-surface and posterior-segment signals. No ocular Preferred Terms met signal criteria for toremifene or elacestrant. FDR-adjusted comparisons showed broader retinal, macular, optic nerve, corneal, and vitreous reporting with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), particularly versus AIs. Among SERM users, age ≤45 years showed lower reporting odds than age 45–60 years (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.94). Concomitant OFS showed lower reporting odds among AI users (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28–0.63), interpreted as exploratory. Median TTO was 79, 77, and 491 days for AIs, selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), and SERMs. Conclusions Ocular adverse-event reporting differed across endocrine therapies. These findings generate hypotheses for future pharmacoepidemiological, clinical, and mechanistic investigation but should not be interpreted as incidence, causality, or differential clinical risk.