Exemestane in metastatic breast cancer: Effective therapy after third-generation non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor failure

Superior suppression of serum estrogens during neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment with letrozole compared to exemestane

PURPOSE

The aromatase inhibitor letrozole and the aromatase inactivator exemestane are two of the most pivotal cancer drugs used for endocrine treatment of ER-positive breast cancer in all phases of the disease. Although both drugs inhibit CYP19 (aromatase) and have been used for decades, a direct head-to-head, intra-patient-cross-over comparison of their ability to decrease estrogen synthesis in vivo is still lacking.

METHODS

Postmenopausal breast cancer patients suitable for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy were randomized to receive either letrozole (2.5 mg o.d.) or exemestane (25 mg o.d.) for an initial treatment period, followed by a second treatment period on the alternative drug (intra-patient cross-over study design). Serum levels of estrone (E1), estradiol (E2), letrozole, exemestane, and 17-hydroxyexemestane were quantified simultaneously using a novel, ultrasensitive LC-MS/MS method established in our laboratory.

RESULTS

Complete sets of serum samples (baseline and during treatment with letrozole or exemestane) were available from 79 patients, including 40 patients starting with letrozole (cohort 1) and 39 with exemestane (cohort 2). Mean serum estrone and estradiol levels in cohort 1 were 174 pmol/L and 46.4 pmol/L at baseline, respectively. Treatment with letrozole suppressed serum E1 and E2 to a mean value of 0.2 pmol/L and 0.4 pmol/L (P < 0.001). After the cross-over to exemestane, mean serum levels of E1 and E2 increased to 1.4 pmol/L and 0.7 pmol/L, respectively. In cohort 2, baseline mean serum levels of E1 and E2 were 159 and 32.5 pmol/L, respectively. Treatment with exemestane decreased these values to 1.8 pmol/L for E1 and 0.6 pmol/L for E2 (P < 0.001). Following cross-over to letrozole, mean serum levels of E1 and E2 were significantly further reduced to 0.1 pmol/L and 0.4 pmol/L, respectively. Serum drug levels were monitored in all patients throughout the entire treatment and confirmed adherence to the protocol and drug concentrations within the therapeutic range for all patients. Additionally, Ki-67 values decreased significantly during treatment with both aromatase inhibitors, showing a trend toward a stronger suppression in obese women.

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, we present here for the first time a comprehensive and direct head-to-head, intra-patient-cross-over comparison of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole and the aromatase inactivator exemestane concerning their ability to suppress serum estrogen levels in vivo. All in all, our results clearly demonstrate that letrozole therapy results in a more profound suppression of serum E1 and E2 levels compared to exemestane.

Lack of cross-resistance between non-steroidal and steroidal aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients: the potential role of the adipokine leptin

PURPOSE

The aromatase inactivator exemestane may cause clinical disease stabilization following progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors like letrozole in patients with metastatic breast cancer, indicating that additional therapeutic effects, not necessarily related to estrogen-suppression, may be involved in this well-known "lack of cross-resistance".

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with ER positive, HER-2 negative, locally advanced breast cancer were enrolled in the NEOLETEXE-trial and randomized to sequential treatment starting with either letrozole (2.5 mg o.d.) or exemestane (25 mg o.d.) followed by the alternative aromatase inhibitor. Serum levels of 54 cytokines, including 12 adipokines were assessed using Luminex xMAP technology (multiple ELISA).

RESULTS

Serum levels of leptin were significantly decreased during treatment with exemestane (p < 0.001), regardless whether exemestane was given as first or second neoadjuvant therapy. In contrast, letrozole caused a non-significant increase in serum leptin levels in vivo.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an additional and direct effect of exemestane on CYP-19 (aromatase) synthesis presumably due to effects on the CYP19 promoter use that is not present during therapy with the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor letrozole. Our findings provide new insights into the influence of clinically important aromatase inhibitors on cytokine levels in vivo that contribute to the understanding of the clinically observed lack of cross-resistance between non-steroidal and steroidal aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered on March 23rd 2015 in the National trial database of Norway (Registration number: REK-SØ-84-2015).

Changes in serum estrogenic activity during neoadjuvant therapy with letrozole and exemestane

The aromatase inhibitors (AIs), letrozole (Femar®/Femara®) and exemestane (Aromasin®), are widely used to treat estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. In the setting of metastatic breast cancer, these drugs may be used after another causing new responses in selected patients after progressing on the first choice. The precise explanation for this "lack of cross resistance" is still missing. NEOLETEXE is a neoadjuvant, randomized, open-label, cross-over trial. Postmenopausal patients with ER-positive, HER-2 negative, locally advanced breast cancer were enrolled. All patients were randomized to treatment starting with either letrozole or exemestane for at least 2 months followed by another 2 months on the alternative AI. The total estrogenic activities in blood samples were determined using the AroER tri-screen assay developed in the Chen laboratory. Using this highly sensitive assay, estrogenic activity was detected at three time points for all patients. Importantly, a significantly higher total estrogenic activity was found during therapy with exemestane compared to letrozole in 21 out of 26 patients. When letrozole was included in the AroER tri-screen assay, the estrogenic activities in most samples collected during exemestane treatment were further reduced, suggesting that low levels of androgens remained in specimens obtained after exemestane treatment. Our results suggest the AroER tri-screen to be a very sensitive method to estimate the overall estrogen-mediated activity in human samples even during therapy with highly potent aromatase inhibitors. In the present study, serum estrogen activity was significantly higher during exemestane therapy when compared to letrozole therapy.

The NEOLETEXE trial: a neoadjuvant cross-over study exploring the lack of cross resistance between aromatase inhibitors

The aromatase inhibitor letrozole (Femar®/Femara®) and the aromatase inactivator exemestane (Aromasin®) differ in their biochemical effect on the aromatase enzyme. Letrozole is a competitive aromatase inhibitor while exemestane binds irreversibly to the aromatase enzyme. This pharmacological difference is of clinical interest since a lack of cross-resistance has been documented. It has been demonstrated in several clinical trials that exemestane may cause a disease regression following resistance to nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors. The exact mechanism(s) behind this phenomenon is yet unknown. Here, we present the NEOLETEXE trial with the aim of exploring the individual mechanisms involved behind the observed lack of cross resistance. Clinical trial registration: The trial has been approved by the Regional Ethics Committee of South-East Norway (project number 2015/84).

Everolimus and exemestane in long survival hormone receptor positive male breast cancer: case report

BACKGROUND

Male breast cancer is a rare event, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast carcinomas. Although men with breast cancer had poorer survival when compared with women, data on prognosis principally derive from retrospective studies and from extrapolation of female breast cancer series. We reported the case of a very long survival patient.

CASE PRESENTATION

A caucasian 42-year-old man underwent radical mastectomy with axillary dissection for breast cancer in 1993. Pathologic stage was pT4pN0M0 infiltrating ductal carcinoma of right breast without lymph nodes metastases. Biological characterization was not available. He received adjuvant treatment with chemotherapy, six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil, then endocrine therapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and complementary radiotherapy. Then he began clinical-instrumental follow up. In May 1996, a computed tomography scan showed multiple lung metastases. Hereafter he received several oncologic treatment including seven chemotherapy and five endocrine therapy lines with two re-challenge of endocrine therapy. In October 2007 further lung progression was showed and a biopsy was performed to characterize the disease. Histological examination confirmed breast cancer metastases, immunohistochemistry showed positive staining for estrogen receptor, negative for progesterone receptor and human epithelial growth factor receptor 2, proliferative index was 21%. In April 2013, bone disease progression was evident and he received radiant treatment to sacral spine. In May 2014 an off-label treatment with exemestane and everolimus combination was approved by Ethics Committee of the Marche Region. The patient received treatment for 3 months with evident clinical benefit to subcutaneous lesions of the chest wall that were not visible nor palpable on physical examination after 1 month of treatment.

CONCLUSION

That is the case of long survival male breast cancer patient with luminal B subtype and no BRCA mutations. He achieved higher progression free survival with endocrine therapy creating the rationale for last line treatment with everolimus and exemestane combination. Attending conclusive results from ongoing studies, everolimus and exemestane should not be used routinely in male metastatic breast cancer patients, but taking into account for selected cases. At the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of male beast cancer treated with exemestane and everolimus combination.

Clinical utility of exemestane in the treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, causing a significant mortality worldwide. Different endocrine strategies are available for the treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer, including antiestrogen tamoxifen and fulvestrant, as well as third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane. In this review, we will focus on exemestane, its clinical use, and its side effects. Exemestane is a steroidal third-generation AI now used in all treatment settings for breast cancer. In the metastatic disease, it has been extensively investigated as the first-, second-, and further-line treatment and it is now registered for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer whose disease has progressed following antiestrogen therapy. A potential lack of cross-resistance with nonsteroidal AIs has been described, giving additional therapeutic opportunities in sequences of endocrine agents. Exemestane is also approved for the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal early breast cancer, either as upfront monotherapy for 5 years, as a switch following 2–3 years of tamoxifen, or as extended therapy beyond 5 years of adjuvant treatment. New promising data also showed a beneficial effect in young premenopausal early breast cancer patients, when administered together with ovarian suppression. Interesting results have also emerged when exemestane has been investigated as neodjuvant treatment as well as preventive agent in healthy women at high risk for breast cancer. Exemestane is generally well tolerated, with a side effect profile similar to that of other AIs, including menopausal symptoms, arthralgia, and bone loss. In conclusion, exemestane can be considered an effective and well-tolerated endocrine treatment option for all stages of breast cancer.

Fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: the initial clinical experience

BACKGROUND

Fulvestrant 500 mg is currently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer after failure of prior endocrine therapies.

METHODS

A total of 117 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, who experienced progression after previous endocrine therapies, were treated with fulvestrant 500 mg between January 2012 and June 2014. Clinical response, time to progression (TTP) and adverse events were investigated.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients had recurrent breast cancer and 18 patients had stage IV disease. Patients had received a median of two endocrine therapies and a median of two chemotherapies, prior to fulvestrant. There were 10 patients with partial response, 39 patients with long stable disease, 18 patients with stable disease, and 50 patients with progressive disease, so that the objective response rate was 8.5 %, with a clinical benefit rate of 41.9 %. The median TTP was 6.1 months. The absence of liver metastases, a small number of previous chemotherapies, and the longer duration of first-line endocrine therapy were positively correlated with TTP in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, a significant association was observed between TTP and duration of first-line endocrine therapy. Serious adverse events were observed in one patient with pulmonary embolism and in one patient with psychiatric symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Fulvestrant 500 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after prior endocrine therapies. Patients with acquired resistance to endocrine therapies might be good candidates for fulvestrant therapy regardless of the number of prior endocrine treatments.

Targeting the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway with everolimus: implications for the management of metastatic breast cancer

The inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) have documented antitumor activity via disruption of various signaling pathways leading to impaired cellular growth, proliferation, and survival. In preclinical studies, mTOR inhibitors use in combination with hormonal therapy has shown promising results in overcoming endocrine resistance in breast cancer cells. The role of everolimus in breast cancer was established in the Breast Cancer Trial of Oral Everolimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial in combination with exemestane for patients with advanced metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, who relapsed after initial hormonal manipulation. The study met its primary endpoint of significant improvement in progression free survival (PFS) with a median time to progression of 6.9 months in the combination group versus 2.8 months in exemestane group. Favorable improvements in PFS were reported across all patient subgroups regardless of age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of prior therapies, and presence of visceral metastases. Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity and consistent with the known safety profile of everolimus. Major toxicities reported include stomatitis, non-infectious pneumonitis, and hyperglycemia. The purpose of this review is to discuss the role of everolimus as a valuable component in advanced metastatic breast cancer and delineate current strategies to prevent and manage the most common toxicities associated with this combination regimen.

Long-term complete remission of metastatic breast cancer, induced by a steroidal aromatase inhibitor after failure of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor

Patient: Female, 56

Final Diagnosis: Breast cancer

Symptoms: Solid mass in the right breast

Medication: Exemestane

Clinical Procedure: —

Specialty: Oncology

Aromatase inhibitors in the breast cancer clinic: focus on exemestane

Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer in women and responsible for significant female cancer-related mortality worldwide. In the Western world, over 80% of breast cancers are hormone-receptor positive for which endocrine therapy is administered. The main anti-estrogen treatments in use consist of selective estrogen-receptor modulators, such as tamoxifen, and third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as exemestane, letrozole, and anastrozole. In this review, the focus will lie on exemestane, its clinical use, and its side-effect profile. Exemestane is the only third-generation steroidal AI. Its efficacy as a first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer has been demonstrated. Therefore, exemestane could be considered a valid first-line therapeutic option, but it also can be used in second-line or further situations. Exemestane is mostly used as part of sequential adjuvant treatment following tamoxifen, but in this setting it is also active in monotherapy. Furthermore, this AI has been studied in the neoadjuvant setting as presurgical treatment, and even as chemoprevention in high-risk healthy postmenopausal women. It may reverse side effects of tamoxifen, such as endometrial changes and thromboembolic disease but may also cause some inconvenient side effects itself. Additionally, there is a lack of total cross-resistance between exemestane and nonsteroidal AIs as far as their anti-tumoral efficacy is concerned; moreover the two classes of AIs display a nontotal overlapping toxicity profile. Taking together, exemestane can be considered as a useful treatment option at all stages of breast cancer.

Breast cancer: current and future endocrine therapies

Endocrine therapy forms a central modality in the treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. The routine use of 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen has improved survival rates for early breast cancer, and more recently has evolved in the postmenopausal setting to include aromatase inhibitors. The optimal duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy remains an active area of clinical study with recent data supporting 10 years rather than 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. However, endocrine therapy is limited by the development of resistance, this can occur by a number of possible mechanisms and numerous studies have been performed which combine endocrine therapy with agents that modulate these mechanisms with the aim of preventing or delaying the emergence of resistance. Recent trial data regarding the combination of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, everolimus with endocrine therapy have resulted in a redefinition of the clinical treatment pathway in the metastatic setting. This review details the current endocrine therapy utilized in both early and advanced disease, as well as exploring potential new targets which modulate pathways of resistance, as well as agents which aim to modulate adrenal derived steroidogenic hormones.

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

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000001841.

Efficacy of exemestane in korean patients with metastatic breast cancer after failure of nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors

PURPOSE

Exemestane has shown good efficacy and tolerability in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, clinical outcomes in Korean patients have not yet been reported.

METHODS

Data on 112 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer were obtained retrospectively. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment history were extracted from medical records. All patients received 25 mg exemestane daily until objective disease progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR=complete response+partial response+stable disease for 6 months).

RESULTS

The median age of the subjects was 55 years (range, 28-76 years). Exemestane treatment resulted in a median PFS of 5.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-7.0 months) and median OS of 21.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-30.3 months). ORR was 6.4% and CBR was 46.4% for the 110 patients with evaluable lesions. Symptomatic visceral disease was independently associated with shorter PFS (hazard ratio, 3.611; 95% CI, 1.904-6.848; p<0.001), compared with bone-dominant disease in a multivariate analysis of PFS after adjusting for age, hormone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, Ki-67 status, dominant metastasis site, and sensitivity to nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment. Sensitivity to previous nonsteroidal AI treatment was not associated with PFS, suggesting no cross-resistance between exemestane and nonsteroidal AIs.

CONCLUSION

Exemestane was effective in postmenopausal Korean women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer who failed previous nonsteroidal AI treatment.

Aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of elderly women with metastatic breast cancer

The proportion of elderly women in the population is rising, and in tandem, the incidence of breast cancer rises with age. Because of health and tolerability concerns, as well as life expectancy, physicians may be reluctant to advise a standard treatment regimen for elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer. To elucidate this issue, we performed a literature review of clinical studies that included women with metastatic breast cancer who were over the age of 65. Our results show that although little clinical evidence exists, what is available suggests that standard treatment is tolerated and beneficial for patients meeting certain criteria. A geriatric assessment may identify specific patient groups (independent, dependent, or frail) and thereby guide treatment. Treatment recommendations for elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer are sparse, although first-line endocrine treatment, usually aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen, is recommended for hormone-sensitive disease. In general, the evidence from clinical studies suggests that aromatase inhibitors are more effective than either tamoxifen or megestrol acetate as first- or second-line treatment in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Ultimately, quality of life, treatment effects, and comorbidities are important aspects in this population and may guide treatment choice. To provide evidence-based treatment guidance, future clinical trials should include more patients over the age of 65 years.

Understanding the mechanisms of aromatase inhibitor resistance

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have a central role in the treatment of breast cancer; however, resistance is a major obstacle to optimal management. Evidence from endocrine, molecular and pathological measurements in clinical material taken before and after therapy with AIs and data from clinical trials in which AIs have been given as treatment either alone or in combination with other targeted agents suggest diverse causes for resistance. These include inherent tumour insensitivity to oestrogen, ineffective inhibition of aromatase, sources of oestrogenic hormones independent of aromatase, activation of signalling by non-endocrine pathways, enhanced cell survival and selection of hormone-insensitive cellular clones during treatment.

An updated review on the efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapies in hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer

The third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIS) are largely replacing tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive tumours. To date, multiple trials have been conducted comparing tamoxifen treatment with an AI, and all have demonstrated improved disease-free survival with AI treatment. Trials have included direct 5-year comparisons between tamoxifen and an AI, switching to an AI within 5 years after initial tamoxifen treatment, or extending treatment with an AI after 5 years of completed tamoxifen treatment. Some of these trials have been completed; others are ongoing; and head-to-head trial comparisons of individual AIS are also in progress. The present article summarizes the data obtained from various clinical trials of hormonal therapy for early breast cancer. It also reviews recent data so as to shed light on the current status of these therapies. The focus is on the efficacy of treatment with an AI. Toxicity is discussed in the second article in this supplement.

A qualitative systematic review of the evidence base for non-cross-resistance between steroidal and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in metastatic breast cancer

AIMS

The most effective sequence of tamoxifen and both steroidal (SAIs) and non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) has been extensively studied in the adjuvant setting. However, treatments for women who have failed initial aromatase inhibitor therapy in the metastatic setting have received relatively little attention. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the use of SAIs and NSAIs in metastatic breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched using free text and MeSH terms. Studies assessing the cross-resistance, efficacy and safety of SAIs and NSAIs for postmenopausal women with advanced metastatic breast cancer confirmed by histology/cytology were included. Patients had progressed/relapsed from previous adjuvant, first- or second-line aromatase inhibitor treatment and had undergone treatment with at least two regimens consisting of aminoglutethimide, anastrozole, letrozole and/or exemestane.

RESULTS

Nine studies reported results for patients treated with an SAI after treatment failure with an NSAI. For SAI after NSAI, clinical benefit was the most frequently reported outcome. The clinical benefit for exemestane (SAI) after any NSAI failure or before treatment ranged from 12% (complete response not recorded, partial response 2%, stable disease 10%) to 55% (complete response 6%, partial response 13%, stable disease 35%) Survival outcomes were infrequently reported; four studies reported disease progression. The time to progression ranged from 3.7 to 5.2 months. Only one study reported a median overall survival with exemestane at 15.2 months. Only one study reported information for an NSAI after SAI and an NSAI followed by another NSAI.

DISCUSSION

This review suggests that switching from an NSAI to an SAI is a reasonable option. This would be particularly important for patients who would probably respond to further endocrine manoeuvres; strongly oestrogen receptor-positive disease, non-visceral disease, a good prior response or a long duration of response. Further research to optimise the sequence of endocrine therapies in metastatic breast cancer is needed.

Exemestane as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

Antiestrogen therapies generally offer significant disease control to hormone receptor-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer patients and are substantially better tolerated than standard chemotherapy regimens, thus representing an attractive first treatment option. The steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane exhibits antitumor effects by lowering full-body estrogen production in postmenopausal women and is an established treatment option for metastatic breast cancer. We review data from 2 recent phase III clinical trials that have confirmed exemestane activity in the first-line metastatic breast cancer setting, with moderate improvements in median progression-free survival (10-12 months) and objective response rates (37%-46%) compared with tamoxifen. The activity of first-line exemestane is comparable with other antiestrogen therapies, including fulvestrant and the nonsteroidal AIs letrozole and anastrozole. Additional findings demonstrating the clinical benefits of exemestane in women who previously progressed on nonsteroidal AIs highlight a partial lack of cross-resistance between these therapies and reinforce the opportunity to use multiple antiestrogen treatments sequentially. Future therapeutic developments in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer could include combinations with other targeted compounds plus AIs or other antiestrogen-based combinations and the identification of new strategies to evaluate differences among antiestrogen therapies to help optimize the treatment sequence and potential combinations.

A comparative study of exemestane versus anastrozole in patients with postmenopausal breast cancer with visceral metastases

PURPOSE

Patients developing visceral breast cancer metastases generally receive chemotherapy rather than endocrine therapy. Recent aromatase inhibitor studies have reported activity in such patients; therefore, this study formally evaluated anastrozole and exemestane in postmenopausal patients in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and > or = 1 visceral (liver or lung) lesion were randomized to anastrozole (1 mg/day orally) or exemestane (25 mg/day orally) for > or = 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response in visceral lesions based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Secondary endpoints included clinical benefit (objective response plus stable disease > or = 180 days), overall survival, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were enrolled, and 128 patients (64 anastrozole, 64 exemestane) were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Accrual delays caused study closure before the target enrollment (N = 200) was reached, limiting the statistical power of the study. Objective response in visceral sites was approximately 15% in both groups. Clinical benefit in visceral sites was 32% of the patients treated with anastrozole and 38% of the patients treated with exemestane. Median survival was 33.3 months and 30.5 months in the anastrozole and exemestane groups, respectively. Toxicities were similar to those previously reported; however, treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with anastrozole (41%) than with exemestane (31%). Both treatments were generally well tolerated in patients with postmenopausal breast cancer with visceral metastases.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy was similar in both treatment groups for all endpoints. Aromatase inhibitors can be considered as a treatment option in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive visceral breast cancer metastases.

Anastrozole Use in Early Stage Breast Cancer of Post-Menopausal Women

The majority of breast cancers express the estrogen receptor and depend on estradiol (E2) for their growth. Hormonal therapy aims at depriving estrogen signaling either by using selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM)-that interfere with the binding of E2 to its receptor (ER)-or aromatase inhibitors (AI)-that block the aromatase-dependent synthesis of E2. While SERMs are recommended for both pre- and post-menopausal patients, AIs are indicated only for post-menopausal patients. For the past 20 years, the SERM tamoxifen has been considered the "gold standard" for the treatment of hormone receptor positive breast cancers. However, tamoxifen's role is now challenged by third generation AIs, such as anastrozole, which exhibit greater efficacy in the adjuvant setting in several recently reported trials. This review will focus on anastrozole's mechanism of action, dosing, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical applications. It will briefly discuss the clinical trials that determined anastrozole's efficacy in the treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC) and in the neoadjuvant setting. Finally, it will present the clinical trials that established anastrozole as a frontline agent in the treatment of post-menopausal women with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer.

Optimal treatment strategies in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is unfortunately still considered incurable; treatment aims to prolong progression-free and overall survival, relieve disease symptoms, and maintain quality of life. Treatment can include endocrine therapy, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, bisphosphonates, and/or targeted therapy; which is used depends on the characteristics of the disease [e.g., hormone receptor status, disease site(s), and response to previous treatment] and the patient (age, comorbidity, and personal preferences). For most patients with hormone-receptor-positive tumors, the first choice of treatment is further endocrine therapy, but endocrine resistance is a common problem in advanced disease. Several novel anticancer agents have been developed with the aim of overcoming endocrine resistance, many of which target intracellular signaling pathways implicated in disease progression or resistance. Among these, inhibitors of growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases and of mammalian target of rapamycin have shown the most promise in clinical trials. Chemotherapy is the cornerstone of MBC treatment in most women. Important considerations when choosing chemotherapy include the choice of agents, and whether to use single-agent or combination therapy. Anthracyclines are one of the most active cytotoxic agents currently used for the treatment of breast cancer, and for many women, further anthracycline therapy at progression or relapse would be the preferred option. However, lifetime exposure to anthracyclines is limited by cumulative cardiotoxicity, which often prevents rechallenge in later lines of therapy. Newer anthracycline formulations have been developed with lower cardiotoxicity than the conventional anthracycline doxorubicin, but these agents still impair cardiac function, and have maximum recommended lifetime doses. Recently, the concomitant use of cardioprotective agents, such as dexrazoxane, has emerged as an effective approach to reducing the cardiotoxic effects of anthracyclines, thus permitting retreatment. Bisphosphonates, which are not associated with the acute toxicities of cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, are the established standard of care for patients with metastatic bone disease, and have greatly improved outcomes over the last decade. The search is ongoing for novel agents that will, hopefully, bring a cure closer to reality.

Lack of complete cross-resistance between different aromatase inhibitors; a real finding in search for an explanation?

While third-generation aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane) are successfully implemented as adjuvant and first-line therapy for hormone-sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women, important questions remain to be addressed. An issue of particular interest is the question about lack of complete cross-resistance between steroidal and non-steroidal compounds. Although the studies reporting this phenomenon in general contain a small number of patients, the findings across the different reports seem consistent. While several potential mechanisms have been suggested, so far we lack scientific proof what mechanisms may be responsible for this finding. Finally, we do not know whether lack of cross-resistance actually signals an improved efficacy for certain compounds or may be due to alternative mechanisms of action. Neither do we know whether some tumours are more sensitive to particular drugs. This paper summarizes clinical findings up to now with respect to lack of cross-resistance and discuss potential mechanisms involved.

Rational management of endocrine resistance in breast cancer: a comprehensive review of estrogen receptor biology, treatment options, and future directions

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer was introduced more than 100 years ago. In the last 30 years, it has been demonstrated that tamoxifen significantly improves outcomes for patients with hormone-responsive breast tumors. Aromatase inhibitors, which suppress the production of estrogen, are recognized today as an effective alternative for estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. However, despite an initial response to treatment, many tumors eventually recur or progress. When selecting subsequent endocrine therapy, it is helpful to understand the mechanisms of hormone resistance, consider the goals of treatment, and evaluate the clinical potential of each available drug. The objective of this article was to review the underlying mechanisms of action and resistance for each type of hormone therapy, evaluate the most recent data regarding the use of endocrine agents after disease progression or recurrence, and explore potential combinations of hormone therapies with novel molecules that target key growth factor signaling pathways.

Celecoxib anti-aromatase neoadjuvant (CAAN) trial for locally advanced breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combing aromatase inhibitor (AI) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor neoadjuvantly in postmenopausal patients with invasive hormone-sensitive breast cancer.

METHODS

Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to receive exemestane 25mg daily and celecoxib 400mg twice daily (group A, n=30), exemestane 25mg daily (group B, n=24) and letrozole 2.5mg daily (group C, n=28).

RESULTS

All groups showed clinical responses (58.6% for group A, 54.5% for group B and 62.0% for group C) and decrease in tumor area (61.8% for group A, 58.1% for group B and 55.7% for group C). 3 out of 5 patients with complete clinical response were observed from group A and 2 out of 69 patients operated with pathologic complete response were observed in group C. The mean microscopic tumor size was 2.53 cm for group A, 3.05 cm for group B and 2.10 cm for group C. The differences were only statistically significant when group C was compared with group B (P=0.025). The toxicity profiles among groups were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

AI is effective in treating breast cancer and may be safely used preoperatively. The addition of COX-2 inhibitor may provide additional benefit.

Aromatase inhibitors in post-menopausal metastatic breast carcinoma

To summarise the advances in the hormonal treatment of post-menopausal metastatic breast cancer, this paper reviews the published literature regarding the randomised trials comparing aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus tamoxifen as a first-line therapeutic choice, or AIs versus megestrole acetate (MEG) as a second-line option. The pooled analysis of these authors on AI versus MEG as a second-line option for post-menopausal metastatic breast cancer suggested that AIs do not add any significant benefit over MEG in terms of overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression. According to the Cochrane Database, use of an AI as a second-line therapy versus any other endocrine therapy (mostly MEG) has shown a significant benefit in terms of overall survival, but not for progression-free survival, clinical benefit (CB) or ORR. Concerning the authors' comparisons between AIs versus tamoxifen as a first-line endocrine option in post-menopausal women with metastatic breast carcinoma, AIs seem to be superior to tamoxifen, with a significant benefit in terms of ORR, CB and time to progression being observed in favour of AIs over tamoxifen with fixed effects estimates. According to the Cochrane Database, there was an advantage to the use of AIs over tamoxifen in terms of progression-free survival and CB, but not for overall survival or ORR. With regards to toxicity, AIs show similar levels of hot flushes and arthralgia, increased risks of nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, but a decreased risk of vaginal bleeding and thromboembolic events compared with other endocrine therapies. Weight gain, dyspnoea and peripheral oedema seem to be more frequent with MEG. At present, there is no proved overall survival difference in patients who are treated first with an AI and then with tamoxifen compared with the opposite sequence. In the metastatic setting, results are limited and are based on retrospective analyses.