Static disease on anastrozole provides similar benefit as objective response in patients with advanced breast cancer

Management and outcomes for older women with early breast cancer treated with primary endocrine therapy (PET)

BACKGROUND

This study reports the detailed management and outcomes of women treated with Primary Endocrine Therapy (PET) in a large prospective UK cohort of older women (≥70) with breast cancer.

METHODS

This was an unplanned secondary analysis of a prospective, multicentre, observational study (The Age Gap study). Data were collected at baseline and regular intervals on patient, tumour and treatment characteristics with tumour RECIST response category recorded. Direct study follow-up was 24 months with longer-term survival data obtained from the UK cancer registry.

RESULTS

The Age Gap study recruited 3316 women across 56 breast units. Primary endocrine therapy (PET) was initiated for 505/3316 (15 %) women; median age was 84 (IQR 79-88) with median follow-up 41.9 months (IQR 27-60). Death occurred in 205/505(40.6 %) patients, 160/205; 78 % non- Breast Cancer related, 45/205; 21.9 % Breast Cancer related. Multivariate analysis identified older age (HR-1.055(95 % Confidence Interval: 1.029-1.084); P < 0.001) and higher Charlson Index (HR-1.166 (1.086-1.252); P < 0.001) as risk factors for all-cause mortality, but conversion to surgery (HR-0.372(0.152-0.914); P = 0.031) was protective. Grade 3 cancer (G1 vs G3 HR-0.28 (0.094-0.829); P = 0.022 & G2 vs G3 HR-0.469 (0.226-0.973); P = 0.042), axillary positivity (axilla positivity HR-2.548 (1.321-4.816); P = 0.005) and change of endocrine therapy (HR-3.010 (1.532-5.913); P = 0.001) were associated with worse breast cancer specific survival (BCSS). RECIST category was not significantly associated with either overall survival or BCSS (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Early disease response and change of endocrine therapy are not significantly associated with overall survival, conversion to surgery is linked to improved outcome. Prognosis is largely determined by age and comorbidity in older women treated with PET.

Practical consensus recommendations on management of triple-negative metastatic breast cancer

Patients with breast cancer along with metastatic estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR)- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors are referred to as having metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) disease. Resistance to current standard therapies such as anthracyclines or taxanes limits the available options for previously treated patients with metastatic TNBC to a small number of non-cross-resistant regimens, and there is currently no preferred standard chemotherapy. Clinical experience suggests that many women with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) relapse quickly. Expert oncologist discussed about new chemotherapeutic strategies and agents used in treatment of mTNBC and the expert group used data from published literature, practical experience and opinion of a large group of academic oncologists to arrive at this practical consensus recommendations for the benefit of community oncologists.

Over-treatment in metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer is an incurable disease and the main goals of treatment are prolongation of survival and preservation/improvement of quality of life. Thus the main philosophy of treatment should be to use the least toxic methods, as long as they provide sufficient disease control. In ER-positive tumours this can be in many cases achieved by endocrine therapy; in HER2-positive cancers efficacy of backbone therapy can be enhanced by an anti-HER2 agent. In patients requiring chemotherapy, consecutive single agent regimen provide disease control of a duration at least comparable to multidrug regimen, at a cost of significantly lower toxicity and are a preferred strategy in the majority of cases. Available data demonstrate, however, that aggressive chemotherapy is still overused in many metastatic breast cancer patients. The objective of this manuscript is to critically review available data on treatment choices and sequence in metastatic breast cancer across all breast cancer subtypes in relation to possible overtreatment, including therapies which are not recommended by current guidelines or not even approved. Our aim is to provide guidance on applying these data to clinical practice, but also to describe various, often non-scientific factors influencing therapeutic decisions in an aim to identify areas requiring educational and possibly political actions.

A Review of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Patients with breast cancer along with metastatic estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR)- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative tumors are referred to as having metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) disease. Although there have been many new treatment options approved by the Food and Drug Administration for ER/PR-positive and Her2/neu-amplified metastatic breast cancer, relatively few new agents have been approved for patients with mTNBC. There have been several head-to-head chemotherapy trials performed within the metastatic setting, and much of what is applied in clinical practice is extrapolated from chemotherapy trials in the adjuvant setting, with taxanes and anthracyclines incorporated early on in the patient's treatment course. Select synergistic combinations can produce faster and more significant response rates compared with monotherapy and are typically used in the setting of visceral threat or symptomatic disease. Preclinical studies have implicated other possible targets and mechanisms in mTNBC. Ongoing clinical trials are underway assessing new chemotherapeutic strategies and agents, including targeted therapy and immunotherapy. In this review, we evaluate the standard systemic and future treatment options in mTNBC.

Clinical outcome of Turkish metastatic breast cancer patients with currently available treatment modalities--single center experience

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women in the developed countries. Despite advances in screening, improved local therapies and adjuvant systemic treatments, median survival of metastatic breast cancer patients (MBC) is in the range of 2-3 years at most. We aimed to investigate whether the prognostic factors and therapeutic responses of our Turkish patients are similar to those in the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of MBC patients who had been treated in our institution between 1999-2009 and analyzed their clinicopathological features and survival outcomes retrospectively.

RESULTS

A hundred and sixty patients were included. Median age was 47 (23-82), median follow up was 24 (2-186) months. At the time of diagnosis 59% of patients were under the age of 50 and 46% were postmenopausal. The majority (37%) had multiple sites of metastases. Forty percent received endocrine therapy and 40% chemotherapy as first line metastatic treatment. Thirty (20%) patients were treated with molecular targeting agents like trastuzumab, lapatinib and sunitinib, frequently combined with a chemotherapy agent. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 32% and median OS was 38 months for the whole group. Five year progression free survival (PFS) was 10% and median PFS was 10 months. Menopausal status, hormone receptor expression and disease free status had a significant impact on overall survival in the multivariate analysis (p 0.018, p 0.018 and p:0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

All our patients were treated with the modern oncologic therapies recommended by the international guidelines. From our data, MBC patients live up to 3-4 years, indicating that further improvement beyond that requires development of new treatment modalities. The survival outcomes of our patients were consistent with the data reported in the literature.

Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer in Women Aged 65 Years and Older

Breast cancer is a disease of aging and the incidence of breast cancer increases dramatically with increasing age. In spite of major advances in prevention, screening and treatment approximately 40,000 Americans still die of metastatic breast cancer every year – the majority being women aged 65 years and older. Metastatic breast cancer remains incurable regardless of age and the goals of treatment are to reduce symptoms when present and to provide the patient with the best quality of life for as long as possible. Cornerstones of treatment to control metastases include endocrine therapy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Supportive care that includes psychosocial support and treatment of pain is also a key component of management. This review focuses on the issues related to the care of older women with metastatic breast cancer.

A randomized trial of combination anastrozole plus gefitinib and of combination fulvestrant plus gefitinib in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer

EGFR signalling pathways appear involved in endocrine therapy resistance in breast cancer. This trial estimates the antitumor efficacy and toxicity of the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib in combination with anastrozole or fulvestrant in postmenopausal hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Subjects with estrogen receptor and/or PgR positive, metastatic breast cancer were randomized into this phase II study of gefitinib (initial dose was 500 mg orally daily, due to high rate of diarrhea, starting dose was reduced to 250 mg orally daily) with either anastrozole 1 mg daily or fulvestrant 250 mg every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit (complete responses plus partial responses plus stable disease for 6 months or longer). 141 eligible subjects were enrolled, 72 in the anastrozole plus gefitinib arm, and 69 in the fulvestrant plus gefitinib arm. Anastrozole plus gefitinib had a clinical benefit rate of 44% [95% confidence interval (CI) 33-57%] and fulvestrant plus gefitinib 41% (95% CI 29-53%). Median progression-free survival was 5.3 months (95% CI 3.1-10.4) versus 5.2 months (95% CI 2.9-8.2) for anastrozole plus gefitinib versus fulvestrant plus gefitinib, respectively. Median survival was 30.3 months (95% CI 21.2-38.9+) versus 23.9 months (95% CI 15.4-33.5) for anastrozole plus gefitinib versus fulvestrant plus gefitinib, respectively. In general, the toxicity is greater than expected for single agent endocrine therapy alone. Anastrozole plus gefitinib and fulvestrant plus gefitinib have similar clinical benefit rates in the treatment of estrogen and/or PgR positive metastatic breast cancer, and the rates of response are not clearly superior to gefitinib or endocrine therapy alone. Further studies of EGFR inhibition plus endocrine therapy do not appear warranted, but if performed should include attempts to identify biomarkers predictive of antitumor activity.

Aromatase inhibitors for treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Endocrine therapy removes the influence of oestrogen on breast cancer cells and so hormonal treatments such as tamoxifen, megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate have been in use for many years for advanced breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) inhibit oestrogen synthesis in the peripheral tissues and have a similar tumour-regressing effect to other endocrine treatments. Aminoglutethimide was the first AI in clinical use and now the third generation AIs, anastrozole, exemestane and letrozole, are in current use. Randomised trial evidence on response rates and side effects of these drugs is still limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare AIs to other endocrine therapy in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and relevant conference proceedings were searched (to 30 June 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in postmenopausal women comparing the effects of any AI versus other endocrine therapy, no endocrine therapy, or a different AI in the treatment of advanced (metastatic) breast cancer. Non-English language publications, comparisons of the same AI at different doses, AIs used as neoadjuvant treatment, or outcomes not related to tumour response were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from published trials were extracted independently by two review authors and cross-checked by a third. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived for analysis of time-to-event outcomes (overall and progression-free survival). Odds ratios (OR) were derived for objective response, clinical benefit, and toxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified, 31 of which were included in the main analysis of any AI versus any other treatment (11,403 women). No trials were excluded due to inadequate allocation concealment. The pooled estimate showed a significant survival benefit for treatment with an AI over other endocrine therapies (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). A subgroup analysis of the three commonly prescribed AIs (anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole) also showed a similar survival benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96). There were very limited data to compare one AI with a different AI, but these suggested an advantage for letrozole over anastrozole.AIs have a different toxicity profile to other endocrine therapies. For those currently prescribed, and for all AIs combined, they had similar levels of hot flushes and arthralgia; increased risks of rash, nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting; but a 71% decreased risk of vaginal bleeding and 47% decrease in thromboembolic events compared with other endocrine therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with advanced (metastatic) breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors including those in current clinical use show a survival benefit when compared to other endocrine therapy.

Fulvestrant (Faslodex) -- how to make a good drug better

Fulvestrant (Faslodex); AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE) is an estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist with a novel mode of action; it binds, blocks, and increases degradation of ER. Fulvestrant (at the approved dose [250 mg/month]) is at least as effective as anastrozole (1 mg/day) in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (HR(+) ABC) progressing or recurring on antiestrogen therapy, and is also an active first-line treatment. Although fulvestrant (250 mg/month) is clearly effective, it takes 3-6 months to achieve steady-state plasma levels. Steady-state concentrations are approximately twofold higher than those achieved with a single dose; reaching this earlier, for example, via a loading-dose (LD) regimen (250 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 0 and 250 mg on day 14 of month 1), may allow responses to be achieved more quickly and limit the possibility of early relapse. Fulvestrant high-dose (HD) regimens (500 mg/month) offer the possibility of greater antitumor activity, because (a) ER downregulation is a dose-dependent process (an approximately 70% reduction is observed with a single 250 mg dose of fulvestrant) and (b) evidence correlates greater ER downregulation with superior efficacy. A fulvestrant HD regimen offers the potential of achieving near 100% ER downregulation. There is also potential to increase fulvestrant-ER binding by reducing plasma estrogen levels, for example, with concomitant aromatase inhibitor treatment. Several ongoing trials use LD, HD, and combination regimens; results from these studies are awaited with interest. Meanwhile, fulvestrant (250 mg/month) remains a valuable additional endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with HR(+) ABC recurring or progressing on antiestrogen therapy.

Primary endocrine therapy in locally advanced breast cancers--the Nottingham experience

INTRODUCTION

There are trials comparing different neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for locally advanced primary breast cancer (LAPC). Few studies have evaluated alternative therapeutic approaches towards LAPC. A previous trial from our institute in LAPC patients unselected for oestrogen receptor (ER) status, comparing primary endocrine therapy versus multimodal treatment, showed no difference in breast cancer related deaths or overall survival. We report our experience of primary endocrine therapy in ER+ LAPC.

METHODS

Between 1988 and 2007, 195 ER+, non-inflammatory LAPC patients were treated with primary endocrine agents in our institute, due to patient choice, being unfit for chemotherapy, or recruitment into the above mentioned trial. All patients had disease assessable by UICC criteria.

RESULTS

Median age was 69 years. The median follow-up was 61 months. 154 patients (79%) received endocrine treatment alone. 185 patients (95%) derived clinical benefit (complete response/ partial response/ stable disease) for > or =6 months from primary endocrine therapy. Overall 5-year survival was 76% and 5-year breast cancer specific survival was 86%.

CONCLUSION

In selected group of ER+ LAPC patients, primary endocrine treatment achieves excellent survival outcome and is a viable alternative to other modalities of treatment.

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.

Fulvestrant in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced breast cancer: results from a single compassionate use programme centre

PURPOSE

Fulvestrant ('Faslodex') is an oestrogen receptor (ER) antagonist with no agonist effects. The drug was administered to heavily pre-treated patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients received Fulvestrant after disease progression (PD) on a previous endocrine treatment or as maintenance treatment after chemotherapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-seven postmenopausal women with ER and/or progesterone receptor-positive ABC resistant to previous endocrine treatments prospectively received fulvestrant 250 mg via intramuscular injection q 28.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients received fulvestrant after PD and 30 received it as maintenance therapy after chemotherapy. All patients received fulvestrant as second-up to eight-line endocrine treatment for ABC. One patient (2%) had a partial response (PR) and 24 patients (42%) had stable disease > or =12 weeks (SD), including 11 patients who had SD > or =24 weeks. Thirty-two patients (56%) had de novo PD. Clinical benefit (CB; PR + SD > or =24 weeks) occurred in 12 patients (21%). Patients treated as maintenance and treated upon PD had 0 and 4% PR, 43 and 41% SD (including 20 and 19% SD > or =24 weeks), 57 and 55% PD, respectively. Overall, median time to progression (TTP) was 3 months. No differences in CB rate (20% vs. 23%), TTP (3 months vs. 3 months) and time to treatment failure (3 months vs. 3 months) were observed between patients receiving fulvestrant as maintenance therapy and those treated at PD on prior endocrine treatment. No grade 2-4 NCI-CTC toxicity was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Fulvestrant treatment was associated with prolonged CB and was well tolerated in this group of heavily pre-treated patients with ABC. The outcomes appeared to be similar for patients treated upon PD and those receiving fulvestrant as maintenance therapy.

Aromatase inhibitors for treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Hormonal treatments for advanced or metastatic breast cancer, such as tamoxifen and the progestins megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate, have been in use for many years. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are a class of compounds that systemically inhibit oestrogen synthesis in the peripheral tissues. Aminoglutethimide was the first AI in clinical use (first generation) and had a similar tumour-regressing effect to other endocrine treatments, which showed the potential of this alternative type of therapy. Other AIs have since been developed and the third generation AIs anastrozole, exemestane and letrozole are in current use. Randomised evidence on response rates and side effects of these drugs is still limited.

OBJECTIVES

To compare aromatase inhibitors to other endocrine therapy in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register was searched on 3 December 2004 using the codes for "advanced" and "endocrine therapy". Details of the search strategy applied to create the Register and the procedure used to code references are described in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group module on The Cochrane Library. The search was updated to 30 September 2005 and additional publications were included. Experts were consulted to determine that no relevant studies had been excluded.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing the effects of any aromatase inhibitor versus other endocrine therapy, no endocrine therapy or a different aromatase inhibitor in the treatment of advanced (metastatic) breast cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from published trials were extracted by two independent review authors. A third independent author then carried out a further cross check for accuracy and consistency. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived for analysis of time-to-event outcomes (overall and progression-free). Odds ratios (OR) were derived for objective response and clinical benefit (both analysed as dichotomous variables). Toxicity data were extracted where present and treatments were compared using odds ratios. All but one of the studies included data on one or more of the following outcomes: overall survival, progression-free survival, clinical benefit and objective response.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty studies were identified, twenty five of which were included in the main analysis of any AI versus any other treatment (9416 women). The pooled estimate showed a significant survival benefit for treatment with an AI over other endocrine therapies (HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.96). A subgroup analysis of the three commonly prescribed AIs (anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole) also showed a similar survival benefit (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.80 to 0.96). The results for progression-free survival, clinical benefit and objective response were not statistically significant and there was statistically significant heterogeneity across types of AI. There were very limited data to compare one AI with a different AI, but these suggested an advantage for letrozole over anastrozole. All the trials of AIs used exclusively as first-line therapy were against tamoxifen. There was an advantage to treatment with AIs in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) and clinical benefit (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97) but not overall survival or objective response. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies when considering clinical benefit (P = 0.001). Use of an AI as second-line therapy showed a significant benefit in terms of overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96) but not for progression-free survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.31), clinical benefit (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14) or objective response (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14). This is difficult to interpret due to the extreme heterogeneity across AIs for progression-free survival but not the other endpoints.AIs have a different toxicity profile to other endocrine therapies. For all AIs combined, they had similar levels of hot flushes (especially when compared to tamoxifen) and arthralgia, increased risks of nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, but a decreased risk of vaginal bleeding and thromboembolic events compared with other endocrine therapies. A similar pattern of risks and benefits was still seen when analyses were limited to the currently most-prescribed third generation AIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with advanced (metastatic) breast cancer, aromatase inhibitors including those in current clinical use show a survival benefit when compared to other endocrine therapy.

Time to Response: Comparison of Fulvestrant and Oral Endocrine Agents

BACKGROUND

The different pharmacokinetic profiles of the intramuscularly administered antioestrogen fulvestrant and oral endocrine treatments have led to speculation among some physicians that this could result in a delayed time to response (TTR) with fulvestrant.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An analysis of TTR was performed on data from 2 phase III trials comparing fulvestrant and anastrozole as second-line treatments for postmenopausal women with advanced-stage, tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer.

RESULTS

In a combined analysis of the data from these trials, median TTR was 3.1 months (range, 0.9-33.1 months) for fulvestrant and 3 months (range, 0.7-20.2 months) for anastrozole, although responses were still being noted after 2-3 years of stable disease in some patients. Data were subsequently analyzed from 3 other randomized phase III trials of fulvestrant, anastrozole, and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. Time to response was also similar between the 3 treatments in these additional analyses.

CONCLUSION

Time to response is similar between fulvestrant and oral endocrine treatments, despite pharmacokinetic differences.

Phase II study of sequential hormonal therapy with anastrozole/exemestane in advanced and metastatic breast cancer

Hormonal therapy is the preferred systemic treatment for recurrent or metastatic, post-menopausal hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. Previous studies have shown that there is no cross-resistance between exemestane and reversible aromatase inhibitors. Exposure to hormonal therapy does not hamper later response to chemotherapy. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic, hormonal receptor positive or unknown, breast cancer were treated with oral anastrozole, until disease progression, followed by oral exemestane until new evidence of disease progression. The primary end point of the study was clinical benefit, defined as the sum of complete responses (CR), partial responses (PR) and > 24 weeks stable disease (SD). In all, 100 patients were enrolled in the study. Anastrozole produced eight CR and 19 PR for an overall response rate of 27% (95% CI: 18.6-36.8%). An additional 46 patients had long-term (> 24 weeks) SD for an overall clinical benefit of 73% (95% CI: 63.2-81.4). Median time to progression (TTP) was 11 months (95% CI: 10-12). A total of 50 patients were evaluated for the second-line treatment: exemestane produced one CR and three PR; 25 patients had SD which lasted > or = 6 months in 18 patients. Median TTP was 5 months. Toxicity of treatment was low. Our study confirms that treatment with sequential hormonal agents can extend the period of time during which endocrine therapy can be used, thereby deferring the decision to use chemotherapy.

Subcutaneously administered recombinant human interleukin-2 and interferon alfa-2a for advanced breast cancer: a phase II study of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9041)

New and more effective treatments are needed for metastatic breast cancer. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a combination of subcutaneously administered recombinant human interleukin-2 (rIL-2), 1.5 MU/m(2) for 5 consecutive days repeated for 3 weeks, and interferon alpha-2a (IFN), 7.5 MU/m(2), administered subcutaneously three times per week. Women who had previously received 1-2 prior chemotherapy regimens for measurable inoperable, recurrent, or metastatic breast cancer were eligible. Of 40 patients accrued to the study, 32 were evaluable for response assessment. Toxicities were frequent but manageable. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were lymphopenia (17%) and malaise/fatigue (24%). There were no complete responses, one partial response (3%), and six patients with stable disease (19%). Of the seven patients with partial response or stable disease, all had tumors that expressed hormone receptors. The median survival was 8.9 months and all patients have died. Good performance status was the most important predictor of survival. In this group of women with metastatic breast cancer, the overall prognosis was poor. This combination of rIL-2 and IFN was ineffective.

Cardiopulmonary complications of intramedullary fixation of long bone metastases

Intramedullary fixation of long bone metastases is an effective method of treating or preventing pathologic fractures. An important complication of this technique is the development of pulmonary embolism, which may occur at any number of steps during bone manipulation. Passage of normal marrow contents or tumor into the pulmonary circulation is thought to cause various biochemical, hemodynamic, or physical responses that lead to hypotension, arrythmia, and O2 desaturation. Death is a known risk of this procedure. Numerous surgical and anesthetic strategies have been developed to prevent or treat pulmonary embolic phenomena; however, the most important prophylaxis may be a heightened awareness of this possibility during any procedure that involves intramedullary manipulation of tumor containing bone.

Letrozole versus tamoxifen in the treatment of advanced breast cancer and as neoadjuvant therapy

Letrozole, a third generation aromatase inhibitor, has been compared with tamoxifen in the treatment of advanced breast cancer and as neoadjuvant therapy. In a first-line trial in advanced disease, 939 post menopausal women were randomised double blind to receive treatment with letrozole 2.5 mg daily or tamoxifen 20 mg daily. Letrozole was significantly superior in terms of median time to progression (9.4 months versus 6.1 months, P=0.0001), objective response (30% versus 20%, P=0.0006), and clinical benefit (49% versus 38%, P=0.0001). Superiority of letrozole was independent of disease site, receptor status, or prior adjuvant anti-oestrogen therapy. In an extended phase of this trial, 200 patients were crossed over to tamoxifen after letrozole, compared with 197 crossed over to letrozole after tamoxifen. Median overall survival was 34 months for letrozole versus 30 months for tamoxifen (not significant). In a similar randomised double-blind neoadjuvant trial, 337 post menopausal patients with large ER/or PgR positive T2-T4 cancers, either requiring mastectomy or locally advanced, were randomised to preoperative letrozole or tamoxifen for 4 months prior to surgery. Overall response was 55% for letrozole versus 36% for tamoxifen (P<0.001). Conservative surgery was possible in 45% of patients treated with letrozole versus 35% with tamoxifen (P=0.022). In both trials, both treatments were well tolerated with no significant differences in side effects. These results indicate that letrozole is more active than tamoxifen both as neoadjuvant therapy and as first-line treatment in advanced disease. They support the importance of current adjuvant trials comparing the two treatments.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone-dependent advanced breast cancer: a prospective, randomized, phase III study

A prospective phase III trial comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal, hormone-dependent, advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients were randomized to anastrozole 1 mg daily (n = 121) or tamoxifen 40 mg daily (n = 117). Efficacy and tolerability were evaluated after 3 months' therapy, and survival was evaluated at median time of follow-up. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, clinical benefit (CB) was achieved in 83% and 56% of anastrozole and tamoxifen patients, respectively (p < 0.001); median time to disease progression (TTP) in patients achieving CB was 18.0 months and 7.0 months, respectively, (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.08-0.20, p < 0.01). At data cutoff, 89% of tamoxifen patients had died, compared with 60% of anastrozole patients; median time to death was 17.4 months and 16.0 months, respectively (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.47-0.86, p = 0.003). Therapy was well tolerated in both groups. Anastrozole showed significant advantages over tamoxifen for CB, median TTP in patients gaining CB, and survival. These data further support routine use of anastrozole as first-line treatment for postmenopausal hormone-dependent ABC.

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.

Outstanding problems with response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In 1999 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States and National Cancer Institute of Canada published Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) as a revision of the WHO criteria to achieve a unified, objective set of criteria for assessing antitumor activity. The present paper discusses breast cancer assessment using RECIST and discusses various outstanding problems in breast cancer therapy.

METHODS

The subjects were 50 advanced/recurrent breast cancer patients who were eligible/completed cases and were registered in various clinical trials at Gunma Cancer Center from 1995-2000. The subjects were investigated with regard to the application of RECIST to evaluate the appropriateness and efficacy of the criteria for these patients, in comparison with General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Recording of Breast Cancer formulated by the Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS). In addition, a study was conducted of the survival rate as a function of the initial site of metastasis in 258 recurrent cases.

RESULTS

Of the 50 cases judged to be eligible by the JBCS General Rules, 16 cases (32%) were judged to be ineligible by RECIST. The results using the two sets of criteria were the same for CR and PD, while there were some differences in PR and SD/NC.

CONCLUSION

To fully adopt RECIST for breast cancer, the following should be discussed further: (1) the exclusion of bone lesions (2) assessment of long NC (3) difference in survival by metastatic lesion site (4) eligible cases are reduced due to the exclusion of target lesions having a diameter of less than 2.0 cm.

Anastrozole in the management of breast cancer

Anastrozole (Arimidex, AstraZeneca) is a third-generation aromatase inhibitor which rapidly reduces oestradiol concentrations to below detectable levels. It is both potent and selective for the aromatase enzyme, with near-maximal suppression of serum oestrogens occurring at the clinical dose of 1 mg/day in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Anastrozole has also been shown to be a potent suppressor of intratumoural oestrogens, with responses comparable to those in serum. The results of two large, identically designed, randomised trials in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who had progressed on tamoxifen showed that oral anastrozole 1 mg/day produced a statistically significant survival advantage over megestrol acetate 40 mg q.i.d. The median duration of survival was 26.7 months for anastrozole versus 22.5 months for megestrol acetate. Anastrozole was as well-tolerated as megestrol acetate, while weight gain was significantly increased in the megestrol acetate group compared with the anastrozole group. In another Phase III clinical trial involving 1021 postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, anastrozole showed a statistically significant advantage over tamoxifen in median time to progression in a combined analysis of 611 patients who were known to be oestrogen receptor- or progesterone receptor-positive. Anastrozole was as well-tolerated as tamoxifen, with a low rate of withdrawals (2%) due to drug-related adverse events. In addition, anastrozole was associated with fewer thromboembolic events and episodes of vaginal bleeding than tamoxifen. For women with hormone receptor-positive tumours who progress on tamoxifen, anastrozole is superior to megestrol acetate. In addition, anastrozole is a reasonable alternative to tamoxifen for first-line endocrine therapy of advanced breast cancer. Recent data confirm an emerging role for anastrozole as adjuvant therapy for primary breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. Anastrozole is also being investigated in the neoadjuvant setting.

Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy in hormone receptor positive advanced breast carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Two randomized, double-blind trials have compared tamoxifen 20 mg daily and the selective, nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor anastrozole 1 mg daily as first-line therapy for advanced breast carcinoma (ABC) in postmenopausal women. The trials were prospectively designed to allow for combined data analyses.

METHODS

The combined study population included 1021 postmenopausal women (median age, 67 years [range, 30-92]) with ABC whose tumors were either estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive or of unknown receptor status. Primary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), objective response, and tolerability.

RESULTS

At a median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months, anastrozole was at least equivalent to tamoxifen in terms of median TTP (8.5 and 7.0 months, respectively; estimated hazard ratio [tamoxifen relative to anastrozole], 1.13 [lower 95% confidence level, 1.00]). In a retrospective subgroup analysis, anastrozole was superior to tamoxifen with respect to TTP (median values of 10.7 and 6.4 months for anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively, two-sided P = 0.022) in patients with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor positive tumors (60% of combined trial population). In terms of objective response, 29.0% of anastrozole and 27.1% of tamoxifen patients achieved either a complete response (CR) or a partial response (PR). Clinical benefit (CR + PR + stabilization of > or = 24 weeks) rates were 57.1% and 52.0% for anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively. Both anastrozole and tamoxifen were well tolerated. Anastrozole led to significantly fewer venous thromboembolic (P = 0.043; not adjusted for multiple comparisons) events, and vaginal bleeding was reported in fewer patients treated with anastrozole than with tamoxifen.

CONCLUSIONS

In postmenopausal women with hormonally sensitive ABC, anastrozole should be considered as the new standard first-line treatment.

Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a North American multicenter randomized trial. Arimidex Study Group

PURPOSE

The efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole (Arimidex; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, and Macclesfield, United Kingdom) and tamoxifen were compared as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 353 postmenopausal women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was designed to evaluate anastrozole 1 mg once daily relative to tamoxifen 20 mg once daily in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors or tumors of unknown receptor status who were eligible for endocrine therapy. Primary end points were objective response (OR), defined as complete (CR) or partial (PR) response, time to progression (TTP), and tolerability.

RESULTS

Anastrozole was as effective as tamoxifen in terms of OR (21% v 17% of patients, respectively), with clinical benefit (CR + PR + stabilization > or = 24 weeks) observed in 59% of patients on anastrozole and 46% on tamoxifen (two-sided P =.0098, retrospective analysis). Anastrozole had a significant advantage over tamoxifen in terms of TTP (median TTP of 11.1 and 5.6 months for anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively; two-sided P =.005). The tamoxifen:anastrozole hazards ratio was 1.44 (lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). Both treatments were well tolerated. However, thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding were reported in fewer patients who received anastrozole compared with those who received tamoxifen (4.1% v 8.2% [thromboembolic events] and 1.2% v 3.8% [vaginal bleeding], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Anastrozole satisfied the predefined criteria for equivalence to tamoxifen. Furthermore, we observed both a significant increase in TTP and a lower incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding with anastrozole. These findings indicate that anastrozole should be considered as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in 668 postmenopausal women: results of the Tamoxifen or Arimidex Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole (Arimidex; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, and Macclesfield, United Kingdom) with that of tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal women.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy of anastrozole 1 mg once daily relative to tamoxifen 20 mg once daily in patients with tumors that were hormone receptor-positive or of unknown receptor status who were eligible for endocrine therapy. The primary end points were time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and tolerability.

RESULTS

A total of 668 patients (340 in the anastrozole arm and 328 in the tamoxifen arm) were randomized to treatment and followed-up for a median of 19 months. Median TTP was similar for both treatments (8.2 months in patients who received anastrozole and 8.3 months in patients who received tamoxifen). The tamoxifen:anastrozole hazards ratio was 0.99 (lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 0.86), demonstrating that anastrozole was at least equivalent to tamoxifen. Anastrozole was also as effective as tamoxifen in terms of OR (32.9% of anastrozole and 32.6% of tamoxifen patients achieved a complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Clinical benefit (CR + PR + stabilization of > or = 24 weeks) rates were 56.2% and 55.5% for patients receiving anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated. However, incidences of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding were reported in fewer patients treated with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (4.8% v 7.3% [thromboembolic events] and 1.2% v 2.4% [vaginal bleeding], respectively).

CONCLUSION

Anastrozole satisfied the predefined criteria for equivalence to tamoxifen. Together with the lower observed incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding, these findings indicate that anastrozole should be considered as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with ABC.