Predictors of response to second-line endocrine therapy for breast cancer

The Place of Chemotherapy in The Evolving Treatment Landscape for Patients With HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC

Endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR-positive/HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has changed markedly over recent years with the emergence of new ETs and the use of molecularly targeted agents. Cytotoxic chemotherapy continues, however, to have an important role in these patients and it is important to maximize its efficacy while minimizing toxicity to optimize outcomes. This review examines current HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC clinical guidelines and addresses key questions around the use of chemotherapy in the face of emerging therapeutic options. Specifically, the indications for chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC and the choice of optimal chemotherapy are discussed.

Macrophage-elicited loss of estrogen receptor-α in breast cancer cells via involvement of MAPK and c-Jun at the ESR1 genomic locus

Estrogen receptor-α (ERα, ESR1) is a pivotal transcriptional regulator of breast cancer physiology and is targeted by endocrine therapies. Loss of ERα activity or expression is an indication of endocrine resistance and is associated with increased risk of tumor recurrence and worse prognosis. In this study, we sought to investigate whether elements of the tumor microenvironment, namely macrophages, would impact on ERα and we found that macrophage-derived factors caused loss of ERα expression in breast cancer cells. Conditioned media from macrophages caused activation of several intracellular pathways in breast cancer cells of which c-Src, protein kinase c and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) were essential for loss of ERα expression. Moreover, a prolonged hyperactivation of MAPK was observed. The activation of this kinase cascade resulted in recruitment of extracellular signal regulated kinase 2 (ERK2) directly to chromatin at the ESR1 gene locus in a process that was dependent upon activation and recruitment of the c-Jun transcription factor. Thus, we identify a novel mechanism for loss of ERα expression in breast cancer cells via macrophage activation of kinase cascades in the cancer cells causing transcriptional repression of the ESR1 gene by a direct chromatin action of a c-Jun/ERK2 complex. The findings in this study support an alternative mechanism, not intrinsic to the tumor cell but derived from the cross-talk with the tumor microenvironment, that could lead to endocrine resistance and might be targeted therapeutically to prevent loss of ERα expression in breast tumors.

Epigenetics and cancer treatment

In addition to the genetic alterations, observed in cancer cells, are mitotically heritable changes in gene expression not encoded by the DNA sequences, which are referred to as epigenetic changes. DNA methylation is among the most studied epigenetic mechanisms together with various histone modifications involved in chromatin remodeling. As opposed to genetic lesions, the epigenetic changes are potentially reversible by a number of small molecules, known as epi-drugs. This review will focus on the biological mechanisms underlying the epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes observed in cancer cells, and the targeted molecular strategies that have been investigated to reverse these aberrations. In particular, we will focus on DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs) as epigenetic targets for cancer treatment. A synergistic effect of a combined use of DNMT and HDAC inhibitors has been observed. Moreover, epi-drugs sensitize multiple different cancer cells to a large variety of other treatment strategies. In particular, we have focused on the ability of DNMT and HDAC inhibitors to restore the estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) activity in breast cancer. Finally, we will discuss the potential of DNA methylation changes as biomarkers to be used in diverse areas of cancer treatment, especially for predicting response to treatment with DNMT and HDAC inhibitors.

ER re-expression and re-sensitization to endocrine therapies in ER-negative breast cancers

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer amongst women in the westernized world. The presence or absence of ERalpha in breast cancers is an important prognostic indicator. About 30-40% of breast cancers lack detectable ERalpha protein. ERalpha- breast cancers are resistant to endocrine therapies and have a worse prognosis than ERalpha+ breast cancers. Since expression of ERalpha is necessary for response to endocrine therapies, investigational studies are ongoing in order to understand the generation of the ERalpha- phenotype and develop interventions to restore ERalpha expression in ERalpha- breast cancers. DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling are two epigenetic mechanisms that have been linked with the lack of ERalpha expression and in these cases; demethylation of the ERalpha promoter or treatment with HDAC inhibitors shows promise in restoring ERalpha expression in ERalpha- breast cancers. Two additional potential mechanisms underlying generation of the ERalpha- phenotype involve E6-AP and Src, both of which have been shown to be elevated in ERalpha- breast cancer and can drive the proteasomal degradation of ERalpha. Recently, studies have demonstrated that upregulated growth factor signaling due to hyperactive MAPK activity significantly contributes to generation of the ERalpha- phenotype and that inhibition of MAPK activity can cause re-expression of the ERalpha and restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies. Given the challenges in treating ERalpha- breast cancer, understanding and manipulating the cellular mechanisms that effect expression of ERalpha are imperative in order to restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies and to design novel therapeutics for the treatment of ERalpha- breast cancers.

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer: an overview

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer has been established in the adjuvant treatment for primary disease and in the treatment of advanced disease. The ER remains the best predictor of response although other factors exist and need to be identified. Pharmacological manipulation has been replacing ablative procedures. Tamoxifen used to be the most popular agent of choice and promising new agents include the pure anti-oestrogens and the third generation selective aromatase inhibitors. Ongoing and future studies will optimise treatment in established areas and will exploit its potential roles in preoperative use and chemoprevention.

"Resurrection of clinical efficacy" after resistance to endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer

Background

In a significant proportion of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients whose tumour has progressed within 6 months of endocrine therapy (de novo resistance), it is generally believed that the chance of achieving clinical benefit (CB) with further endocrine therapy is minimal.

Methods

Data was retrieved from a prospectively updated database of metastatic breast cancer. Relevant data was exported to SPSS™ software for statistical analysis.

Results

In oestrogen receptor (ER) positive MBC patients with assessable disease, CB was achieved in 159 (71.3%) (1^st line) patients. When these patients were put on further endocrine therapy, the CB rates were 63.2% (on 2^nd line), 46.1% (on 3^rd line) and 20% (on 4^th line) with a median duration of response (DOR) in those with CB of 22, 12, 11 and 15 months respectively. The remaining 64(28.7%) patients had de novo resistance on 1^st line endocrine therapy. Seventeen of these patients were treated with further endocrine therapy. The CB rates were 29.4% (on 2^nd line) and 22.2% (on 3^rd line) with a median DOR in those with CB of 22.7 months and 14 months respectively.

Conclusion

The chance of further endocrine response continues to decrease with each line of therapy, yet CB is still seen with reasonable duration even with a 4^th line agent. In addition, further endocrine response, with long duration, can be seen in a significant proportion of patients who have developed de novo resistance to 1^st line endocrine therapy. The use of further endocrine therapy should not be excluded under these circumstances.

Endocrine therapy--current benefits and limitations

Endocrine therapy is a valuable option for the treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer due to its demonstrated efficacy and favorable safety profile. Although tamoxifen has been the established treatment for more than 20 years its long-term use is associated with several tolerability concerns and may lead to increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic complications. In addition, many patients who initially respond to treatment with endocrine agents such as tamoxifen eventually relapse with resistant disease. Sequential use of endocrine therapies is often used in patients as resistance to individual agents develops. Several endocrine approaches have been developed that deprive the tumor of estrogen stimulation, either by directly modulating the ER-signaling pathway or by lowering serum or tumor concentrations of estrogen. In the classic pathway of estrogen signal transduction, the steroid hormone binds to its intracellular ER, triggering a cascade of events that ultimately leads to altered gene transcription. More recently, it has become apparent that ER activation can also occur via estrogen-independent receptor activation or by non-nuclear action through cell surface receptors. Consequently, molecular cross-talk exists between the ER and growth factor signaling cascades, which is a key factor in de novo and acquired resistance to endocrine therapy. Inappropriate activation of growth factor signaling can readily promote endocrine therapy failure in breast cancer cells, either by overriding the growth-inhibitory properties of antiestrogenic drugs or by establishment of a new self-propagating autocrine loop that efficiently drives resistant cell growth. Fulvestrant is a new type of ER antagonist with no agonist effects that binds, blocks and causes degradation of the ER. As multiple signaling pathways are involved in the activation of ER, the use of agents such as fulvestrant that directly target the ER and lead to both degradation of the receptor and abrogation of ER signaling may prevent or delay the development of absolute endocrine resistance. In addition, combining antiestrogenic drugs with inhibitors of cell signaling molecules to target both the ER and growth factor signaling pathways is likely to provide a means of delaying endocrine therapy resistance, leading the way to more effective breast cancer treatment.

Tamoxifen--what next?

Most patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) ultimately die due to disease progression. Consequently, treatments for ABC are predominantly palliative in nature and, therefore, the tolerability profile of a given treatment is particularly relevant in these patients. While cytotoxic chemotherapy and endocrine therapy exhibit efficacy in hormone-sensitive, advanced disease, it is endocrine therapy that combines efficacy with minimal acute toxicity. Tamoxifen has been the chosen endocrine therapy for postmenopausal, hormone-sensitive, ABC for over 20 years. More recently, new endocrine agents with different mechanisms of action from tamoxifen have been introduced. Evidence indicates that the aromatase inhibitors anastrozole (Arimidex; AstraZeneca; Wilmington, DE), letrozole (Femara; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.; East Hanover, NJ) and exemestane (Aromasin; Pharmacia Corp.; Peapack, NJ) offer superior efficacy and tolerability to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal, hormone-sensitive ABC. Similarly, after tamoxifen failure, fulvestrant (Faslodex; AstraZeneca), a new estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that downregulates the ER, is at least as effective as anastrozole, is well tolerated, and is not cross-resistant with tamoxifen. Unlike tamoxifen, fulvestrant has no known agonist effects. The sequential use of such agents may prolong the time during which endocrine therapies can be used, thereby avoiding the more acute toxicities associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Indeed, a series of studies has shown that this sequential use is a relevant, active, and well-tolerated option. Establishing the comparative efficacies and optimal sequences that incorporate the newer endocrine agents will be central in determining the future role of hormonal therapy in ABC; the results of this work will determine the relative place of tamoxifen in what is a rapidly changing therapeutic environment.

Clinical and endocrine data for goserelin plus anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy for premenopausal advanced breast cancer

A total of 16 premenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer (N=13) or locally advanced primary breast cancer (N=3) were treated with a combination of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist goserelin, and a selective aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. All had previously been treated with goserelin and tamoxifen. In all, 12 patients (75%) achieved objective response or durable stable disease at 6 months, with a median duration of remission of 17+ months (range 6–47 months). Four patients still have clinical benefit. Introduction of goserelin and tamoxifen resulted in an 89% reduction in mean oestradiol levels (pretreatment vs 6 months=224 vs 24 pmol l⁻¹) (P<0.0001). Substitution of tamoxifen by anastrozole on progression resulted in a further 76% fall (to 6 pmol l⁻¹ at 3 months) (P<0.0001). Treatment with goserelin and tamoxifen led to a 90% fall in the mean follicle-stimulating hormone (P<0.001). This was reversed once therapy was changed to goserelin and anastrozole. A similar initial reduction was seen in the mean luteinising hormone levels, but substitution of tamoxifen by anastrozole on progression resulted in no significant change. Goserelin and tamoxifen did not lead to any significant change in testosterone and androstenedione levels. The combined use of goserelin and anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy produces a significant clinical response of worthwhile duration, with demonstrable endocrine changes, in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, and offers them another therapeutic option. Further studies involving more patients and longer follow-up are indicated.

Postmenopausal women who progress on fulvestrant ('Faslodex') remain sensitive to further endocrine therapy

PURPOSE

This retrospective evaluation of data from two randomized, multicenter trials examined whether tumor responses to further endocrine therapy were seen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who had progressed on both initial endocrine therapy, usually tamoxifen, and on the estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist fulvestrant ('Faslodex').

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A combined total of 423 patients received fulvestrant 250 mg as a monthly intramuscular injection. After progression on fulvestrant, some patients received another endocrine therapy. Responses to subsequent endocrine therapy were assessed using a questionnaire sent to the trial investigators. Best responses were classified as a complete or partial response (CR or PR), stable disease (SD) lasting > or = 24 weeks, or disease progression.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 54 patients who derived clinical benefit (CB, defined as CR, PR or SD) from fulvestrant and who received subsequent endocrine therapy, resulting in a PR in 4 patients, SD in 21 patients, and disease progression in 29 patients. Data were available for 51 patients who derived no CB from fulvestrant and who received further endocrine therapy, resulting in a PR in 1 patient, SD in 17 patients, and disease progression in 33 patients. Aromatase inhibitors were used as subsequent endocrine therapy in > 80% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

After progression on fulvestrant, patients may retain sensitivity to other endocrine agents. Fulvestrant provides an additional option to existing endocrine therapies for the treatment of advanced or metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women, and may provide the opportunity to extend the sequence of endocrine regimens before cytotoxic chemotherapy is required.

Primary endocrine therapy of locally advanced breast cancer patients

Primary endocrine therapy has been traditionally reserved for elderly and unfit locally advanced breast cancer patients (LABC patients). In this group, the primary endocrine therapy could not be adequately compared to primary chemotherapy. Rare studies of primary endocrine therapy, and careful subgroup analyses of their results, showed that primary endocrine therapy could achieve at least the similar magnitude of response rate, compared to primary chemotherapy, in selected patients' population. Thus, the primary treatment with tamoxifen in steroid receptor (SR)-positive LABC patients became the standard arm in current studies of primary endocrine therapy. Several questions, concerning the use of endocrine primary treatment in routine clinical practice, should be answered, including the definition of optimum endocrine agents, biomarkers for prediction of response, and patients' selection criteria.

Modulation of epidermal growth factor receptor in endocrine-resistant, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer

An increasing body of evidence demonstrates that growth factor networks are highly interactive with estrogen receptor signaling in the control of breast cancer growth. As such, tumor responses to antihormones are likely to be a composite of the estrogen receptor and growth factor inhibitory activity of these agents. The modulation of growth factor networks during endocrine response is examined, and in vitro and clinical evidence is presented that epidermal growth factor receptor signaling, maintained in either an estrogen receptor-dependent or a receptor-independent manner, is critical to antihormone-resistant breast cancer cell growth. The considerable potential of the epidermal growth factor receptor-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor Iressa (ZD 1839) to efficiently treat, and perhaps even prevent, endocrine-resistant breast cancer is highlighted.

Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, for advanced breast cancer versus megestrol acetate

PURPOSE

To compare two doses of letrozole (0.5 mg and 2.5 mg every day) and megestrol acetate (40 mg qid) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, multicenter, multinational study enrolled 602 patients, all of whom were included in the primary analysis in the protocol. Patients had advanced or metastatic breast cancer with evidence of disease progression while receiving continuous adjuvant antiestrogen therapy, had experienced relapse within 12 months of stopping adjuvant antiestrogen therapy given for at least 6 months, or had experienced disease progression while receiving antiestrogen therapy for advanced disease. Tumors were required to be estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive or of unknown status. Confirmed objective response rate was the primary efficacy variable. Karnofsky Performance Status and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life assessments were collected for 1 year.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences among the three treatment groups for overall objective tumor response. Patients treated with letrozole 0.5 mg had improvements in disease progression (P =.044) and a decreased risk of treatment failure (P =.018), compared with patients treated with megestrol acetate. Letrozole 0.5 mg showed a trend (P =.053) for survival benefit when compared with megestrol acetate. Megestrol acetate was more likely to produce weight gain, dyspnea, and vaginal bleeding, and the letrozole groups were more likely to experience headache, hair thinning, and diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

Given a favorable tolerability profile, once-daily dosing, and evidence of clinically relevant benefit, letrozole is equivalent to megestrol acetate and should be considered for use as an alternative treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women after treatment failure with antiestrogens.

Selection of primary breast cancer patients for adjuvant endocrine therapy--is oestrogen receptor alone adequate?

Among 834 patients who had primary breast cancer treated by surgery without adjuvant systemic therapy, 363 had relapse treated by endocrine therapy alone. Patients with oestrogen receptor positive tumours (median: 70 vs. 45 months, p < 0.0001) or with non-progression at 6 months of therapy (median: 111 vs. 37 months, p < 0.0001) survived longer than those with oestrogen receptor negative tumours or with disease progression respectively, presumably due to the effect of therapy. On the other hand, the median disease-free interval, uninfluenced by therapy, showed a similar difference: oestrogen receptor positive versus negative = 29 versus 21 months, p < 0.005; non-progression versus progression = 40 versus 19 months, p < 0.0001. Patients with oestrogen receptor-positive tumours and non-progression at 6 months had the longest disease-free interval. The present study has established that there are factors, other than the oestrogen receptor, inherent in the primary tumour as reflected by the disease-free interval, which affect hormone sensitivity. Selection of adjuvant endocrine therapy based on the oestrogen receptor alone would deem inadequate. Further studies to elucidate other possible factors are warranted to refine the use of endocrine therapy, especially in the adjuvant setting when no indication of response is available.

Complete estrogen blockade for the treatment of metastatic and early stage breast cancer

Complete estrogen blockade has long been sought as a more effective means of controlling breast cancer compared with single agent endocrine therapy. This approach may be accomplished through the use of agents which reduce estrogen production combined with agents that prevent the activity of estrogen at the cellular level. For prostate cancer, another hormonally responsive malignancy, this approach has not been successful at improving survival compared with that achieved with single agent therapy. Preclinical information is contradictory for many promising combinations and may not reflect the true nature of in vivo interaction between agents. For premenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer, the combination of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist and tamoxifen is clearly effective, but whether the combination is more effective than either single agent is still controversial. Similar response rates and overall survival were reported with goserelin or goserelin plus tamoxifen by Jonat et al. in 1 randomised, prospective study, but the addition of tamoxifen improved time to progression. A second trial comparing buserelin plus tamoxifen with either single agent reported superior efficacy in terms of response rates, disease-free survival and overall survival with combination therapy. A meta-analysis of 4 randomised trials making similar comparisons, demonstrated significant improvement in median overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, and duration of response with the combination of a LHRH agonist (goserelin or buserelin) and tamoxifen in premenopausal breast cancer patients with metastatic disease. For postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, the addition of an aromatase inhibitor to tamoxifen has yet to be prospectively compared to single agent therapy. Use of endocrine combinations in the treatment of early stage breast cancer is under investigation. Preliminary results of some of the ongoing adjuvant therapy trials indicate that the combination of a LHRH agonist and tamoxifen may have similar efficacy to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive tumour. Addition of LHRH agonist therapy in premenopausal patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumour who had maintained the ovarian function following chemotherapy [cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin (adriamycin), fluorouracil, and tamoxifen], also led to a reduction in the risk of recurrence. These studies have identified a sub-population of patients who may benefit from the addition of combination endocrine therapy. Overall, the issue is quite complex and the data from many ongoing trials are still awaited with anticipation to further delineate the role of complete estrogen deprivation in this disease.

Current Status and Controversial Issues concerning Endocrine Therapy for Patients with Recurrent Breast Cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND: Four different endocrine therapeutic agents have been used in Japan since 1996. However, a consensus regarding proper use of these agents has notyet been established. Therefore, a questionaire survey of Japanese breast cancer authorities on endocrine therapy and a multi-institute survey to investigate the efficacy of a single first-line endocrine therapy for recurrent breast cancerwere conducted. MATERIALS AND PATIENTS: A total of 279 questionaires were sent to the Councilors of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society. The clinico-pathological data of 77 breast cancer patients who underwent a single first-line endocrine therapy were collected from five institutes. RESULTS: The response rate to this questionaire survey was 67.4%. The resultsshow that many authorities consider that: 1) both ER and PgR in primary tumors should be measured, 2) patient age, the disease-free interval and postoperative adjuvant therapy do not provide enough information for the selection of endocrine therapies, 3) antiestrogen and LH-RH agonists should be used as first-line endocrine therapies, 4) combined endocrine therapies, such as an antiestrogen plus an LH-RH agonist, should be used, 5) the optimal sequence of use of endocrine therapeutic agents is most controversial. The objective response rate to first-line endocrine therapies was 40.3% and the duration of response was over 15 months.The objective response rate to second-line endocrine therapies was 42.1%. A multiple regression analysis of predictive factors for the efficacy of first-line endocrine therapies indicated two factors, the disease-free interval and dominantsite of metastasis, to be significant. Conclusions: This questionaire survey suggests that clinical trials to investigate the optimal sequence of use of endocrine therapies and to clarify the usefulness of combined endocrine therapies should be conducted. Single first- or second-line endocrine therapies for recurrent breast cancer are effective and should be carried out by general clinicians.

Onapristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, as first-line therapy in primary breast cancer

The progesterone receptor antagonist, Onapristone, is an effective endocrine agent in experimental breast cancer models. This study aimed to investigate this agent as first-line endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer. However, owing to the recognition in this and other clinical studies that some patients on Onapristone developed liver function test abnormalities, the development of this drug and recruitment to the study stopped in 1995. 19 patients either with locally advanced breast cancer (n = 12) or who were elderly, unfit patients with primary breast cancer (n = 7) received Onapristone 100 mg/day. Seventeen of the 19 tumours expressed oestrogen receptors (ER) whilst 12 of the 18 tumours tested expressed progesterone receptors (PgR). Tumour remission was categorised by International Union Against Cancer criteria. One patient was withdrawn after 4.5 months while her disease was static. Of the remaining 18 patients, 10 (56%) showed a partial response and 2 (11%) durable static disease (> or = 6 months), giving an overall tumour remission rate of 67%. The median duration of remission was 70 weeks. Transient liver function test abnormalities developed in a number of patients, mainly during the first 6 weeks of treatment. In conclusion Onapristone can induce tumour responses in human breast cancer.