Controversies in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer: new adjuvant endocrine treatment strategies

Aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer therapy: a variety of treatment strategies

Until recently, standard endocrine therapy for estrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer in the preoperative neoadjuvant and postoperative adjuvant settings was the selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen. An alternate therapeutic approach is to suppress total-body estrogen synthesis using an aromatase inhibitor. The highly potent and specific third-generation aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, exemestane and letrozole) have consistently demonstrated improved efficacy over tamoxifen in large randomised neoadjuvant and adjuvant clinical trials. As neoadjuvant therapy, compared with tamoxifen, all three aromatase inhibitors significantly improved breast-conserving surgery rates, but only letrozole achieved a significantly higher overall response rate. These agents have also been evaluated in three adjuvant strategies: instead of tamoxifen for 5 years, sequenced after 2-3 years of tamoxifen, or as extended adjuvant therapy following a full 5-year course of tamoxifen. In all cases, the aromatase inhibitor was significantly more effective in reducing the risk of recurrence, compared with tamoxifen in the first two approaches and with placebo or no treatment as extended therapy. Long-term aromatase inhibitor treatment is associated with less endometrial cancer, thromboembolic events and strokes than tamoxifen, but more musculoskeletal disorders and bone loss. Further investigation is focusing on identification of the patient subgroups most likely to benefit from each of these adjuvant therapy options.

From adjuvant to preventive breast cancer treatment: bridging the gap over troubled waters

Recently, chemoprevention trials have demonstrated the efficacy of preventive medical treatment (PMT) in reducing breast cancer (BC) detection rates in at-risk affected and unaffected women selected according to clinical and/or familial risk criteria, particularly with the use of tamoxifen (TAM). Major concerns limiting the routine use of TAM are the questionable benefit/risk ratio and poor patient compliance, which justify the studies undertaken to determine the efficacy of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) with respect to TAM. Issues such as therapy duration, impact on survival, incidence of side-effects and which subsets benefit most from treatment, still remain unsolved. Therefore, only ER+ BC patients are routinely subjected to PMT, independently of their BRCA1/2 status, using adjuvant hormonal therapy. More attention must be focused towards BRCA1/2 carriers as they are probably the women at highest risk of developing BC, in which available data remain controversial and in which hormone-therapy might be important. Hence, at-risk women (affected patients or unaffected women) should be carefully evaluated for inclusion into highly selected preventive clinical trials aimed at evaluating PMT independently of, or according to, BC predisposition status (unknown, positive or negative BRCA1/BRCA2 status) and with respect to menopausal status. BC patients, harboring a BRCA1/2 predisposition, may represent the best subset for extended adjuvant treatment, useful as PMT, simultaneously. Only the evolving differentiation of categories of at-risk women will allow physicians to discriminate PMT in a highly selective manner.