Combined tamoxifen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist versus LHRH agonist alone in premenopausal advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid plus endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding zoledronic acid 4 mg intravenously every 6 months to endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer from a US health care system perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed to predict disease progression, mortality, and costs of breast cancer care for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving up to 3 years of (1) endocrine therapy (goserelin plus tamoxifen or anastrozole); or (2) endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid. Model parameters were obtained from ABCSG-12 (Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial-12) and the literature. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with zoledronic acid was calculated under 2 scenarios: (1) benefits of zoledronic acid persist to maximum (7 years) follow-up in ABCSG-12 ("trial benefits") or (2) benefits persist until death ("lifetime benefits").

RESULTS

Adding zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy was projected to yield a gain of 0.41 life years (LYs) and 0.43 QALYs assuming trial benefits and 1.34 LYs and 1.41 QALYs assuming lifetime benefits. Assuming trial benefits, the incremental cost per QALY gained with zoledronic acid was $9300. Assuming lifetime benefits, zoledronic acid was estimated to increase QALYs and reduce costs. Cost per QALY gained was <or= $56,000 in all deterministic sensitivity analyses and was <or= $50,000 in 94% and 97% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses for trial and lifetime benefits scenarios, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Adding zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer is cost-effective from a US health care system perspective.

Benefits and adverse effects of endocrine therapy

Endocrine-responsive tumors that are small and without nodal involvement (i.e. tumors classified as pT1 pN0) are a heterogeneous group of tumors that are associated with a low risk of relapse in the majority of the cases. Therefore, the costs and benefits of adjuvant endocrine therapy should be carefully considered within this subgroup of patients. Treatment decisions should take into consideration co-morbidities as well as the presence of other classical risk factors such as HER2 overexpression or extensive peritumoral vascular invasion. Tamoxifen or tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression should be considered as proper endocrine therapies in premenopausal patients. Ovarian function suppression alone or ovarian ablation might also be considered adequate in selected patients (e.g. very low-risk patients, in the presence of co-morbidities or patient preference). An aromatase inhibitor should form part of standard endocrine therapy for most postmenopausal women with receptor-positive breast cancer, although patients at low risk or with co-morbid musculoskeletal or cardiovascular risk factors may be considered suitable for tamoxifen alone. Tailored endocrine treatments should be considered in patients with endocrine-responsive tumors classified as pT1 pN0. Issues focusing on safety, quality of life and subjective side effects should be routinely discussed.

Suppression of ovarian function in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as treatment for advanced breast cancer in pre-menopausal women

Trials have shown superiority of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) over tamoxifen for post-menopausal oestrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ER+ABC). We previously reported the use of goserelin plus anastrozole (G+A) as second-line endocrine therapy for pre-menopausal ER+ABC. We report clinical and endocrine data from G+A as first-line systemic therapy. Thirty-six patients (median age=44 years) with metastatic (N=28) and locally advanced disease were administered G+A for ≥6 months (unless progressed prior). Some (N=13) received further therapy with goserelin plus another AI (steroidal), exemestane (G+E). Serial serum hormone assays (oestradiol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate, testosterone, follicle stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone) were performed. Twenty-four patients (67%) derived clinical benefit (CB) (5% complete response, 31% partial response, 31% stable disease for ≥6 months) with median time to progression and duration of CB of 12 (2-47) and 24+(7-78+) months respectively. Ten patients were still receiving first-line G+A at analysis. Amongst 13 patients who went onto receive G+E, 38% achieved CB with a mean duration of 13+(7-32) months. Therapy was well tolerated with no withdrawals. The combination of G+A resulted in 98% reduction (from pre-treatment to 6-month) in median levels of oestradiol (from 574.5 pmol/L; inter-quartile range (IQR)=209-1426; (N=6) to 13.45 pmol/L; IOQ=5.5-31.5 (N=4) whilst the levels of other hormones had minimal fluctuations during therapy. The combinations of ovarian function suppression (using G) and AIs produce sustained CB and minimal side effects in pre-menopausal ER+ABC with significant reduction in oestradiol levels. Within the limitations of being a non-randomised study, they should be considered in appropriate patients with hormone-sensitive ABC.

Phase II Trial of Anastrozole Plus Goserelin in the Treatment of Hormone Receptor–Positive, Metastatic Carcinoma of the Breast in Premenopausal Women

Purpose

To explore the antitumor activity of the aromatase inhibitor, anastrozole, in the treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive, metastatic breast cancer who have been rendered functionally postmenopausal with the use of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist, goserelin.

Patients and Methods

Premenopausal women with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor–positive, metastatic or recurrent breast cancer were enrolled in this prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase II trial. Patients were treated with goserelin 3.6 mg subcutaneous monthly and began anastrozole 1-mg daily 21 days after the first injection of goserelin. Patients continued on treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Results

Thirty-five patients were enrolled of which 32 were evaluable for response and toxicity. Estradiol suppression was assessed, with mean estradiol levels of 18.7 pg/mL at 3 months and 14.8 pg/mL at 6 months. One participant (3.1%) experienced a complete response, 11 (34.4%) experienced partial response, and 11 (34.4%) experienced stable disease for 6 months or longer for a clinical benefit rate of 71.9%. Median time to progression was 8.3 months (range, 2.1 to 63+) and median survival was not been reached (range, 11.1 to 63+). The most common adverse events were fatigue (50%), arthralgias (53%), and hot flashes (59%). There were no grade 4 to 5 toxicities.

Conclusion

The combination of goserelin plus anastrozole has substantial antitumor activity in the treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer.

Uterine changes during tamoxifen, toremifene, and other therapy for breast cancer: evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging

PURPOSE

We have performed pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery before and after adjuvant drug therapy. Our purpose was to detect any radiographic uterine changes induced by various types of adjuvant therapy on pre- and postmenopausal patients by evaluating prospectively performed MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between September 2004 and December 2007, a total of 41 women with breast cancer (11 premenopausal, 30 postmenopausal) were enrolled. All underwent MRI of the pelvis before and after drug therapy, and uterine changes were evaluated. Postoperative drugs used were selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) including tamoxifen and toremifene (n = 18), aromatase inhibitors (n = 13), and anticancer drugs (n = 10).

RESULTS

Only the postmenopausal patients receiving SERMs showed a significant increase in endometrial thickness: from 2.4 +/- 0.4 mm before therapy to 4.5 +/- 2.6 mm after therapy (P = 0.0485). No statistically significant endometrial change was evident in postmenopausal patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (P = 0.573) or anticancer drugs (P = 0.754). Also, in premenopausal patients treated with SERMs or anticancer drugs, the change in endometrial thickness was not statistically significant (P = 0.958, 0.370).

CONCLUSION

This prospective study using MRI has demonstrated that uterine changes associated with adjuvant drugs for breast cancer occur exclusively in postmenopausal patients receiving SERMs.

Phase II Parallel Group Study Showing Comparable Efficacy Between Premenopausal Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Letrozole Plus Goserelin and Postmenopausal Patients Treated With Letrozole Alone As First-Line Hormone Therapy

Purpose

Goserelin and letrozole in premenopausal patients can result in clinical outcomes comparable to those obtained by letrozole alone in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Patients and Methods

A total of 73 patients with hormone-responsive MBC were included. Of those, 35 premenopausal patients received goserelin (3.6 mg subcutaneously every 28 days) plus letrozole (2.5 mg orally daily), and 38 postmenopausal patients received letrozole alone as their first-line endocrine therapy in a metastatic setting.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups, except for a younger age (median, 41 v 53.5 years; P < .001) and a shorter disease-free interval (median, 1.8 v 3.3 years; P = .03) in the premenopausal group. Clinical benefit rates were comparable between the two groups (77% v 74%; P = .77). With the median follow-up of 27.4 months, there was no statistical difference in the median time to progression between the two groups (9.5 months [95% CI, 6.4 to 12.1 months] v 8.9 months [95% CI, 6.4 to 13.3 months]). In patients who did not receive bisphosphonate, letrozole ± goserelin caused a greater loss of bone mineral density at 6 months compared with that of patients receiving bisphosphonate treatment (premenopausal group, −16.7% v 53.9%; P = .002 and postmenopausal group, −13.3% v 17.4%; P = .04 at the lumbar spine).

Conclusion

Clinical efficacies in premenopausal MBC patients with combined letrozole and goserelin therapy were comparable to those in postmenopausal patients treated with letrozole alone. Although letrozole ± goserelin resulted in a modest increase in bone resorption, concurrent treatment with bisphosphonate could prevent bone loss at 6 months.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy of premenopausal women with early breast cancer: an overview

Tamoxifen is currently the standard of care for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancers. However, endocrine strategies in premenopausal women include not only estrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen but also temporary suppression of ovarian estrogen synthesis by luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or permanent interruption of ovarian estrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists have proven to be as effective as surgical oophorectomy in adjuvant treatment of premenopausal breast cancer. The addition of LHRH agonists compared to no therapy reduces the annual odds of recurrence and death in premenopausal women aged less than 50 years with estrogen receptor-positive tumors. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists alone or in combination with tamoxifen have shown disease-free survival rates similar to chemotherapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil) and other second-generation chemotherapies. The role of aromatase inhibitors in combination with ovarian suppression is still not established, especially as a large phase III randomized study (Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12) did not show superior efficacy compared with ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen in premenopausal early stage disease. Patients currently continue to receive ovarian suppression and tamoxifen. CYP2D6 status may become an important discriminator for the type of endocrine therapy for the premenopausal patient in the future.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with breast cancer

AIMS

Endocrine therapy is a pivotal treatment for women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. In premenopausal women, endocrine therapy primarily consists of tamoxifen and ovarian suppressive strategies. Younger women experience improvements in the risks of relapse or death from breast cancer with the use of chemotherapy as well, with part of this benefit explained by resultant premature amenorrhea. Unfortunately despite a centuries worth of clinical trials, the most efficacious combination of hormonal therapies and chemotherapy has yet to be determined. This paper serves as a comprehensive review of the substantial data in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal, hormone receptor-positive women with breast cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Proceedings searches from 1896 to present were performed. All of the trials examining the role of ovarian suppression and tamoxifen with and without chemotherapy in premenopausal women were included. The current data suggests that endocrine therapy can be an important alternative to chemotherapy in select patient populations, and improvements in outcome are also seen with the combination of hormonal and chemotherapy strategies in other populations. A majority of the trials examined did not use what is considered to be current standards of care regarding chemotherapy regimens and durations of adjuvant hormonal therapy. Many unanswered questions remain particularly regarding the combined use of ovarian suppression and tamoxifen in women who are also receiving chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

There is a persistent need to define optimal endocrine therapy in premenopasusal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. Contemporaneous trials, such as the SOFT trial will provide direction, and additional biomarker and pharmacogenomic data will further supplement individualized patient decision making.

Adjuvant! Online estimation of chemotherapy effectiveness when added to ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer

Adjuvant! Online (Adjuvant!) is a user-friendly, web-based tool that provides estimates of adjuvant therapy outcomes for individual patients. While reliable evidence underpins estimates for most patient cohorts, there is a paucity of data on the effect of adding chemotherapy to complete estrogen blockade for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial 11-93 enrolled 174 premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive, node-positive breast cancer. Among these patients, 55% had one positive axillary lymph node and 97% had three or fewer positive nodes. Patients were randomized to receive ovarian function suppression plus 5 years of tamoxifen with or without anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Estimated hazard rates and corresponding 10-year relapse-free survival percentages obtained from Trial 11-93 data were compared with those predicted using Adjuvant!. The 10-year relapse-free survival percentages predicted from Adjuvant! were 64.4% (95% CI, 61.9-67.2%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 73.1-76.8%) for chemoendocrine therapy. By contrast, these estimates in Trial 11-93 were 76.4% (95% CI, 65.8-84.0%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 64.5-82.7%) for chemoendocrine therapy. The Adjuvant! estimate for the endocrine-alone control group is lower than that observed in Trial 11-93 (P = 0.03), while the estimates for the two chemoendocrine therapy groups are similar. Adjuvant! appears to underestimate the effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for premenopausal women with endocrine responsive breast cancer, thus overestimating the added benefit, if any, from chemotherapy for this patient population.

Management of breast cancer with targeted agents: importance of heterogeneity. [corrected]

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease with different molecular drivers regulating its growth, survival and response to therapy. Breast cancer is divided in three major subtypes based on the pattern of expression of hormone receptors and HER2: luminal tumors (or HR positive), HER2 amplified tumors, and the remaining subtypes being collectively referred to as triple-negative breast cancer. While tumors within these subtypes have similar gene-expression patterns, clinical outcomes, and response to therapy, this division is far from perfect and subgroups within these groups are beginning to be identified. In terms of therapy, an increasingly rational drug development effort has resulted in agents against new molecular targets that are active against only those tumors with the targeted molecular alteration or phenotype. These agents include receptor and non-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (HER1, HER2, HER3, insulin-like growth factor receptor, c-met, fibroblast growth factor receptor and HSP 90 inhibitors), intracellular signaling pathways (PI3K, AKT, mTOR), angiogenesis inhibitors and agents that interfere with DNA repair (PARP inhibitors). Thus, the overall management of breast cancer will increasingly require an understanding of breast cancer heterogeneicity, the biological nature of any given tumor as well the existence of increased personalized treatment options.

Is the metalloendopeptidase EC 3.4.24.15 (EP24.15), the enzyme that cleaves luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH), an activating enzyme?

LHRH (GNRH) was first isolated in the mammalian hypothalamus and shown to be the primary regulator of the reproductive neuroendocrine axis comprising of the hypothalamus, pituitary and gonads. LHRH acts centrally through its initiation of pituitary gonadotrophin release. Since its discovery, this form of LHRH (LHRH-I) has been shown to be one of over 20 structural variants with a variety of roles in both the brain and peripheral tissues. LHRH-I is processed by a zinc metalloendopeptidase EC 3.4.24.15 (EP24.15) that cleaves the hormone at the fifth and sixth bond of the decapeptide (Tyr5-Gly6) to form LHRH-(1–5). We have previously reported that the auto-regulation of LHRH-I (GNRH1) gene expression and secretion can also be mediated by itself and its processed peptide, LHRH-(1–5), centrally and in peripheral tissues. In this review, we present the evidence that EP24.15 is the main enzyme of LHRH metabolism. Following this, we look at the metabolism of other neuropeptides where an active peptide fragments is formed during degradation and use this as a platform to postulate that EP24.15 may also produce an active peptide fragment in the process of breaking down LHRH. We close this review by the role EP24.15 may have in regulation of the complex LHRH system.

Recurrent breast cancer: treatment strategies for maintaining and prolonging good quality of life

BACKGROUND

Recurrent breast cancer remains a challenge for interdisciplinary treatment even though new therapeutic options are available.

METHODS

The PubMed database was selectively searched for articles that appeared from 1999 to 2009 and contained the key words "breast cancer," "recurrence," "metastatic," "advanced," and "treatment". Further sources consulted for this review included the German S3 guideline, the treatment recommendations of the German AGO-Mamma group, the NCCN guidelines, and the Cochrane database.

RESULTS

Locoregional recurrences are treated with curative intent. Metastatic breast cancer must be treated on an individualized basis: The treatment should be continued as long as its benefits for the individual patient outweigh its adverse side effects. Endocrine treatment is indicated for all patients whose tumors are hormone-receptor positive or of unknown receptor status and who have enough time for a response to be seen. Chemotherapy should be given if the tumor is hormone-receptor negative, if a rapid response is urgently needed, or if endocrine treatment has failed to produce a response. Combination chemotherapy improves response rates and prolongs progression-free survival, yet it does not prolong overall survival in comparison to monochemotherapy. In HER2-positive patients, first-line treatment with trastuzumab and monochemotherapy prolongs overall survival. Other treatment options include angiogenesis inhibitors, various tyrosine kinases inhibitors, radiotherapy, bisphosphonates, surgical or other ablative treatment of metastases, or a combination of these approaches, applied either simultaneously or consecutively.

CONCLUSIONS

While locoregional recurrences of breast cancer should be treated with curative intent, breast cancer with distant metastases is currently not curable. It is treated with the intention of restoring and maintaining good quality of life and relieving symptoms due to the metastases, rather than prolonging survival.

LHRH agonists for adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Approximately 60% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women express the nuclear oestrogen receptor (ER+ breast cancer). Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for ER+ breast cancer, exerting its effect by reducing the availability of oestrogen to micrometastatic tumour cells. Endocrine strategies in premenopausal women include oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, or permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Aromatase inhibitors are also available with concurrent suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis, either through LHRH agonists, surgery, or radiotherapy. Chemotherapy can also have an endocrine action in premenopausal women by interrupting ovarian oestrogen production, either temporarily or permanently. International consensus statements recommend single agent tamoxifen as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy), and the role of LHRH agonists remains under active investigation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess LHRH agonists as adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on 19 February 2009. This register incorporates references from CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (to 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2008), EMBASE (until 2002); and handsearches of abstracts from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, and the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia Annual Meeting. MEDLINE references (from August 2008 to 19th February 2009) were checked by the authors. The reference lists of related reviews were checked. A final check of the list of trials maintained by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group was made in January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials assessing LHRH agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with early stage breast cancer were included. Specifically, we included trials that compared:(A) LHRH agonists (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(B) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(C) LHRH agonists + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment;(D) LHRH agonists + anti-oestrogen + chemotherapy (experimental arm) versus another treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from trial reports. We reported estimates for the differences between treatments on recurrence free survival, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life using data available in the reports of each trial. Meta-analyses were not performed because of variability in the reporting of the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 randomised trials that involved over 13,000 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer, most of whom were ER+. The numbers of trials making the different comparisons were:(A) i. LHRH versus tamoxifen (three trials),ii. LHRH versus chemotherapy (four trials);(B) i. LHRH + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (two trials),ii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus LHRH (three trials),iii. LHRH + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy (two trials),iv. LHRH + aromatase inhibitor versus LHRH + tamoxifen (one trial);(C) i. LHRH + chemotherapy versus LHRH (one trial),ii. LHRH + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (five trials);(D) LHRH + tamoxifen + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (three trials).The LHRH agonist in most of these trials was goserelin.For most of the treatment comparisons there are too few trials, too few randomised patients, or too little follow up to draw reliable estimates of the relative effects of different treatments.(A) LHRH monotherapy: results suggest that adjuvant LHRH agonist monotherapy is similar to older chemotherapy protocols (eg. CMF) in terms of recurrence-free and overall survival in ER+ patients. There are insufficient data to compare LHRH agonist monotherapy to tamoxifen alone, but available results suggest that these treatments are comparable in terms of recurrence-free survival.(B) LHRH + anti-oestrogen therapy: there are insufficient data to compare the combination of an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen to tamoxifen alone. Results suggest that the LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen combination may be superior to an LHRH agonist alone or to chemotherapy alone, but the chemotherapy protocols tested are outdated. The data comparing LHRH agonists plus aromatase inhibitors to LHRH agonists plus tamoxifen are currently inconclusive.(C) LHRH + chemotherapy: there are insufficient data to compare the LHRH + chemotherapy combination to an LHRH agonist alone, although results from a single study suggest comparable efficacy in ER+ patients. There is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus chemotherapy combination in comparison to chemotherapy alone.(D) LHRH agonist + chemotherapy + tamoxifen: there is a trend towards improved recurrence-free and overall survival in patients who received an LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen plus chemotherapy in comparison to chemotherapy alone.There are insufficient data to assess the effect of the addition of LHRH agonists to the current standard treatment of chemotherapy plus tamoxifen.Endocrine therapy with LHRH agonists appears to have fewer side-effects than the forms of chemotherapy assessed. The optimal duration of LHRH therapy in the adjuvant setting is unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the data from currently published clinical trials of LHRH agonists in the adjuvant setting for premenopausal women with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer are supportive of clinical benefit. Nonetheless, definitive comparisons against current clinical standards of care that include third generation chemotherapy regimens and tamoxifen are required before their place in the adjuvant setting can be properly defined. The authors conclude that the current data strongly support the continuation of current trials that definitively compare a variety of combinations of LHRH agonists and anti-oestrogenic strategies to the current standard of five years of tamoxifen.

Emerging drugs in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and comprises 26% of all cancers diagnosed in women in the United States. Among presenting patients, 3 - 6% already have metastatic disease, and 50 - 70% of the remaining patients develop systemic relapse. Recently many new drugs, particularly molecular targeted therapies, have been developed in the field.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current and emerging data on the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, with emphasis on novel therapies that show promise.

METHODS

PubMed and ASCO annual meeting abstracts were used for a literature search.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved response rates, conventional treatments still result only in transient remission in most cases. New therapeutic alternatives and new strategies to overcome drug resistance are needed to improve these results.

Lifestyle, genes, and cancer

It is estimated that almost 1.5 million people in the USA are diagnosed with cancer every year. However, due to the substantial effect of modifiable lifestyle factors on the most prevalent cancers, it has been estimated that 50% of cancer is preventable. Physical activity, weight loss, and a reduction in alcohol use can strongly be recommended for the reduction of breast cancer risk. Similarly, weight loss, physical activity, and cessation of tobacco use are important behavior changes to reduce colorectal cancer risk, along with the potential benefit for the reduction of red meat consumption and the increase in folic acid intake. Smoking cessation is still the most important prevention intervention for reducing lung cancer risk, but recent evidence indicates that increasing physical activity may also be an important prevention intervention for this disease. The potential benefit of lifestyle change to reduce prostate cancer risk is growing, with recent evidence indicating the importance of a diet rich in tomato-based foods and weight loss. Also, in the cancers for which there are established lifestyle risk factors, such as physical inactivity for breast cancer and obesity for colorectal cancer, there is emerging information on the role that genetics plays in interacting with these factors, as well as the interaction of combinations of lifestyle factors. Integration of genetic information into lifestyle factors can help to clarify the causal relationships between lifestyle and genetic factors and assist in better identifying cancer risk, ultimately leading to better-informed choices about effective methods to enhance health and prevent cancer.

Crosstalk between IGF1R and estrogen receptor signaling in breast cancer

After the discovery that depriving certain breast tumors of estrogen promoted tumor regression, therapeutic strategies aimed at depriving tumors of this hormone were developed. The tumorigenic properties of estrogen are regulated through the estrogen receptor-alpha (ER), making understanding the mechanisms that activate this receptor highly relevant. In addition to estrogen activating the ER, other growth factor pathways, such as the insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), can activate the ER. This review will examine the interaction between these two pathways. Estrogen can activate the growth stimulatory properties of the IGF pathway via ER's genomic and non-genomic functions. Further, blockade of ER function can inhibit IGF-mediated mitogenesis and blocking IGF action can inhibit estrogen stimulation of breast cancer cells. Collectively, these observations suggest that the two growth regulatory pathways are tightly linked and a more thorough understanding of the mechanism of this crosstalk could lead to improved therapeutic strategies in breast cancer.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for perimenopausal women with early breast cancer

Adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) improves outcomes in postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer compared with tamoxifen. However, AIs should not be used in premenopausal women because they can paradoxically increase estrogen secretion and may therefore stimulate tumor progression. In perimenopausal women undergoing treatment for breast cancer, it can be difficult to determine true menopausal status because adjuvant chemotherapy, tamoxifen, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues can induce transient (or permanent) ovarian suppression. How can one determine whether these women are truly postmenopausal and therefore candidates for AI therapy? A panel of experts in the field of endocrine therapy in breast cancer met in Dubrovnik, Croatia, on October 23, 2006, to discuss this clinical dilemma. This report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations that arose from this discussion.

Endocrine therapy of metastatic breast cancer

Breast cancer growth and dissemination is regulated by estrogen and different growth factor receptor signalling pathways. The increasing knowledge of the biology of breast cancer regarding the interaction of these signalling pathways provides a tool to understand endocrine therapies response and resistance mechanisms. In patients with slowly progressive disease, no visceral involvement, and minimal symptoms, endocrine therapy could be the strategy of choice, even if the tumor has low estrogen receptor expression. Ovarian suppression and tamoxifen are recommended for premenopausal patients whether aromatase inhibitors are the option for postmenopausal ones. Chemotherapy still remains as the right alternative for hormone unresponsive or resistant patients. This is a review focused on the different strategies and combinations of endocrine therapies for metastatic breast cancer patients considering the potential strategies clinically tested to overcome resistance and the different treatments of choice available for each scenario of disseminated disease.

LHRH agonists for adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer in premenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Approximately 60% of breast cancer tumours in premenopausal women are hormone sensitive (ER+). These patients may be suitable for hormonal treatment. The goal of hormonal therapy is to reduce the availability of oestrogen to the cancer cell. This can be achieved by blocking oestrogen receptors with drugs such as tamoxifen, suppression of oestrogen synthesis by LHRH agonists, or ovarian ablation either surgically or by radiotherapy. Chemotherapy can also have a hormonal action by inducing amenorrhoea in premenopausal women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess LHRH agonists as adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The specialised register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched on 19 December 2006. The reference lists of related reviews were checked. A final check of the list of trials maintained by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group was made in January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of LHRH agonist versus LHRH agonist and tamoxifen, LHRH agonist versus chemotherapy, LHRH agonist versus ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonist versus LHRH agonist and chemotherapy, that recruited premenopausal women with early breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected from trial reports. We report estimates for the differences between treatments on recurrence free survival, overall survival, toxicity and quality of life using data available in the reports of each trial. Meta-analyses were not performed because of variability in the reporting of the trials and the need for more mature data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 randomised trials, involving nearly 12,000 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer, most of whom were ER+. The LHRH agonist in most of these trials was goserelin. For most of the treatment comparisons there are too few trials, too few randomised patients or too little follow-up to draw reliable estimates of the relative effects of different treatments. Four trials (nearly 5000 women) addressed the integration of LHRH agonists into adjuvant hormonal therapy, showing that a combination of an LHRH agonist and tamoxifen might be better than either alone. Insufficient data are available to inform a choice between tamoxifen and goserelin as sole adjuvant therapy. We included twelve trials (more than 10,000 women) of the integration of LHRH agonists into adjuvant chemo-hormonal therapy. Four trials assessed the effects of an LHRH agonist compared to chemotherapy and three other trials investigated a combination of an LHRH agonist and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy. One trial assessed the effects of adding chemotherapy to an LHRH agonist, five trials compared a combination of an LHRH agonist and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, and three trials compared the combination of LHRH agonist, tamoxifen and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. No trials compared an LHRH agonist containing regimen against chemotherapy and tamoxifen. No significant differences in recurrence free survival or overall survival were found between LHRH agonists, with or without adjuvant tamoxifen, and chemotherapy for premenopausal women with ER+ tumours, but hormonal therapy had fewer distressing side effects. The trials point to reductions in recurrence and death for premenopausal women with ER+ tumours who take LHRH agonists, with or without tamoxifen, along with chemotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For premenopausal women with early breast cancer who are not known to be ER negative, the use of an LHRH agonist, with or without tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy is likely to lead to a reduction in the risk of recurrence and a delay in death. The evidence is insufficient to support the LHRH agonists over chemotherapy, or vice versa, in regard to recurrence free survival and overall survival, but LHRH agonists have fewer or less severe adverse effects. Further follow-up of women in these trials is needed to provide reliable evidence on long term outcomes. Direct randomised comparisons of different durations of LHRH agonists (for example, two years versus longer) and, in the presence of uncertainty, of different LHRH agonists among ER+ or ER unknown premenopausal women are also needed. It is also uncertain how the findings from the CMF-based trials in this review would relate to the use of LHRH agonists with more modern chemotherapy regimens or the comparison of LHRH agonist containing regimens with combinations such as chemotherapy and tamoxifen.

GnRH and LHR gene variants predict adverse outcome in premenopausal breast cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer development and progression are dependent on estrogen activity. In premenopausal women, estrogen production is mainly regulated through the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis.

METHODS

We have investigated the prognostic significance of two variants of genes involved in the HPG-axis, the GnRH (encoding gonadotropin-releasing hormone) 16Trp/Ser genotype and the LHR (encoding the luteinizing hormone receptor) insLQ variant, in retrospectively collected premenopausal breast cancer patients with a long follow-up (median follow-up of 11 years for living patients).

RESULTS

Carriership was not related with breast cancer risk (the case control study encompassed 278 premenopausal cases and 1,758 premenopausal controls). A significant adverse relationship of the LHR insLQ and GnRH 16Ser genotype with disease free survival (DFS) was observed in premenopausal (hormone receptor positive) breast cancer patients. In particular, those patients carrying both the GnRH 16Ser and LHR insLQ allele (approximately 25%) showed a significant increased risk of relapse, which was independent of traditional prognostic factors (hazard ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 3.45; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the LHR insLQ and GnRH 16Ser alleles are independently associated with shorter DFS in premenopausal patients. When validated, these findings may provide a lead in the development of tailored treatment for breast cancer patients carrying both polymorphisms.

Is chemotherapy necessary for premenopausal women with lower-risk node-positive, endocrine responsive breast cancer? 10-year update of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 11-93

INTRODUCTION

International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial 11-93 is the largest trial evaluating the role of the addition of chemotherapy to ovarian function suppression/ablation (OFS) and tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer.

METHODS

IBCSG Trial 11-93 is a randomized trial comparing four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC: doxorubicin or epirubicin, plus cyclophosphamide) added to OFS and 5 years of tamoxifen versus OFS and tamoxifen without chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive, endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. There were 174 patients randomized from May 1993 to November 1998. The trial was closed before the target accrual was reached due to low accrual rate.

RESULTS

Patients randomized tended to have lower risk node-positive disease and the median age was 45. After 10 years median follow up, there remains no difference between the two randomized treatment groups for disease-free (hazard ratio=1.02 (0.57-1.83); P=0.94) or overall survival (hazard ratio=0.97 (0.44-2.16); P=0.94).

CONCLUSION

This trial, although small, offers no evidence that AC chemotherapy provides additional disease control for premenopausal patients with lower-risk node-positive endocrine-responsive breast cancer who receive adequate adjuvant endocrine therapy. A large trial is needed to determine whether chemotherapy adds benefit to endocrine therapy for this population.

Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Premenopausal Patients

Endocrine adjuvant therapy is the best-described molecular targeted treatment and should therefore be used for all patients with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Ta-moxifen for 5 years is standard of care and has proven efficacy in premenopausal patients. The combination of tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression and/or chemotherapy has been extensively tested, and some controversial approaches are used in clinical practice. Cessation or suppression of ovarian function appears to be beneficial for premenopausal patients. Particularly for premenopausal women with highly endocrine-responsive disease and/or low risk for relapse, the additional benefit of cytotoxic chemotherapy may be minor or nonexistent. While the use aromatase inhibitors is investigated in clinical trials, their application outside an academic trial setting cannot be recommended based on first available results. In contrast, the use of adjuvant bispho-sphonates may offer another strategy of further improving clinical outcomes in this important patient subgroup.

Survival after adjuvant oophorectomy and tamoxifen in operable breast cancer in premenopausal women

PURPOSE

Worldwide, approximately 750,000 new cases of breast cancer are diagnosed annually in premenopausal women with limited economic resources. Longer-term survival benefits from adjuvant therapies in such women with operable breast cancer are unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1993 to 1999, we recruited 709 premenopausal women with operable breast cancer to a multisite randomized clinical trial of adjuvant oophorectomy and tamoxifen for 5 years or observation and this combined hormonal therapy on recurrence.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 7.0 years, disease-free and overall survival were significantly improved with the adjuvant treatment (log-rank P = .0003 and .0002, respectively). Five year disease-free survival (DFS) probabilities of 74% and 61% (95% CI for difference, 7% to 21%) and overall survival (OS) rates of 78% and 71% (95% CI for difference, 1% to 21%) were observed in the adjuvant and observation groups. Ten-year DFS probabilities of 62% and 51% (95% CI for difference, 4% to 22%) and OS probabilities of 70% and 52% (95% CI for difference, 6% to 34%) between adjuvant and observation groups, respectively, were observed. In the subset of estrogen receptor-positive patients, 5-year DFS probabilities were 83% and 61%, and 10-year DFS probabilities were 66% and 47%, while 5-year OS probabilities were 88% and 74%, and 10-year OS probabilities were 82% and 49% in the adjuvant and observation groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In premenopausal women with operable breast cancer not selected for estrogen receptor status or with estrogen receptor-positive tumors, 5- and 10-year DFS and OS rates are significantly improved following adjuvant oophorectomy and tamoxifen.

Phosphorylation of Estrogen Receptor-α at Ser167Is Indicative of Longer Disease-Free and Overall Survival in Breast Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

Ser(167) was first identified as a major phosphorylation site of the estrogen receptor -alpha (ER) positive in the MCF7 breast cancer cell line. Subsequent studies have shown that Ser(167) phosphorylation is important in the regulation of ER activity and have identified p90RSK and AKT as protein kinases that phosphorylate Ser(167). The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of Ser(167) phosphorylation in breast cancer progression.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Immunohistochemical staining of primary breast cancer biopsies (n = 290) was carried out using antibodies specific for ER phosphorylated at Ser(167) and for phosphorylated p44/p42 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), phosphorylated p90RSK, and phosphorylated AKT.

RESULTS

In ER-positive breast cancer patients, Ser(167) phosphorylation was associated with low tumor grade (P = 0.011), lymph node negativity (P = 0.034), and relapse-free (P = 0.006) and overall (P = 0.023) survival. Further, Ser(167) phosphorylation was strongly associated with phosphorylated p90RSK (P < 0.001), previously shown to phosphorylate Ser(167) in vitro, as well as being associated with phosphorylated MAPK (P < 0.0005). The activities of both kinases also seemed to be indicative of better prognosis. There was, however, no association between HER2 positivity and Ser(167) phosphorylation nor were the activities of MAPK or p90RSK associated with HER2 status, suggesting that other cell surface receptors may be important in regulating these activities in breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show that phosphorylation at Ser(167) of ER predicts for likelihood of response of ER-positive breast cancer patients to endocrine therapies.

Controversies of adjuvant endocrine treatment for breast cancer and recommendations of the 2007 St Gallen conference

Endocrine treatment for breast cancer was introduced more than a century ago. The discovery of hormone receptors has allowed targeting of endocrine treatment to patients whose primary tumours express these receptors. In the adjuvant setting, different approaches are used in premenopausal or postmenopausal women. In premenopausal patients, suppression of ovarian function and the use of tamoxifen are the most important therapeutic options, even though questions on timing, duration, and combination of these compounds remain unanswered. The use of aromatase inhibitors in combination with ovarian-function suppression is currently under investigation in the premenopausal setting. In postmenopausal patients, aromatase inhibitors given after 2-3 years or 5 years of tamoxifen have shown a significant benefit over tamoxifen alone. However, questions on this treatment also remain unanswered. For example, whether all patients should receive an aromatase inhibitor or whether some subgroups of patients might be optimally treated by tamoxifen alone is yet to be established. In this paper we review the published work on adjuvant endocrine treatment in breast cancer and provide recommendations from the 2007 St Gallen International Conference on Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer.