First-line fadrozole HCI (CGS 16949A) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Prospective randomised trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK 20/88

The implications of genetic variation for the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aromatase inhibitors

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the most common female cancer and remains a serious public health concern worldwide. Third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are widely used in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. However, there is marked interindividual variability in terms of the efficacy and incidence of adverse events following treatment with AIs. Pharmacogenetics has the potential to predict clinical outcomes based on patients' genetic information, paving the way towards personalized treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews pharmacogenetic studies of AIs, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects, highlighting those studies where the efficacy and adverse events of AIs have been examined using both candidate gene and genome-wide approaches.

EXPERT OPINION

Pharmacogenetics is a promising approach to develop personalized medicine with AIs. However, the application of pharmacogenetics to predict therapeutic efficacy and adverse events in breast cancer patients is still far from implementation in routine clinical practice. Large, comprehensive, multicenter studies that simultaneously evaluate multiple genes and pathways, including rare variants, are warranted in order to produce reliable and informative results. The ultimate aim is to develop clinically-relevant guidelines for breast cancer therapy.

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.

Cost-effective treatment options in first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in Japan

Concern regarding the economic aspect of cancer care has been increasing in the face of mounting healthcare expenditure in Japan. The need, not only for effective, but also for efficient treatment options in breast cancer care have been recognized in a broader context. In clinical practice, treatment options in first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer have become similar to those in Western countries in the past 5 to 10 years in the context of so-called 'evidence-based medicine' employing clinical evidence; whereas evidence of cost-effectiveness has been less acknowledged. Limited economic evidence suggests that current Japanese practice in first-line hormonal therapy is cost-effective. However, the efficiency of other options, such as chemotherapy, remains unknown. The expanding use of an expensive molecular-targeting agent, trastuzumab, has great implications for a treatment algorithm for breast cancer as well as for cost-effectiveness of care. Trastuzumab, of which use in first-line therapy was not found to be cost-effective in Western countries, is expected to be used for a number of HER2-overexpressing primary breast cancers in Japan. The extension of indication of this single agent would increase national healthcare expenditure by 0.1%. The authors believe explicit discussion on value for money of new expensive drugs would be unavoidable, not only among health policy makers, but also leading breast cancer specialists in Japan in the near future.

Structural insights into aldosterone synthase substrate specificity and targeted inhibition

Aldosterone is a major mineralocorticoid hormone that plays a key role in the regulation of electrolyte balance and blood pressure. Excess aldosterone levels can arise from dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and are implicated in the pathogenesis of hypertension and heart failure. Aldosterone synthase (cytochrome P450 11B2, CYP11B2) is the sole enzyme responsible for the production of aldosterone in humans. Blocking of aldosterone synthesis by mediating aldosterone synthase activity is thus a recently emerging pharmacological therapy for hypertension, yet a lack of structural information has limited this approach. Here, we present the crystal structures of human aldosterone synthase in complex with a substrate deoxycorticosterone and an inhibitor fadrozole. The structures reveal a hydrophobic cavity with specific features associated with corticosteroid recognition. The substrate binding mode, along with biochemical data, explains the high 11β-hydroxylase activity of aldosterone synthase toward both gluco- and mineralocorticoid formation. The low processivity of aldosterone synthase with a high extent of intermediates release might be one of the mechanisms of controlled aldosterone production from deoxycorticosterone. Although the active site pocket is lined by identical residues between CYP11B isoforms, most of the divergent residues that confer additional 18-oxidase activity of aldosterone synthase are located in the I-helix (vicinity of the O(2) activation path) and loops around the H-helix (affecting an egress channel closure required for retaining intermediates in the active site). This intrinsic flexibility is also reflected in isoform-selective inhibitor binding. Fadrozole binds to aldosterone synthase in the R-configuration, using part of the active site cavity pointing toward the egress channel. The structural organization of aldosterone synthase provides critical insights into the molecular mechanism of catalysis and enables rational design of more specific antihypertensive agents.

Systematic review of aromatase inhibitors in the first-line treatment for hormone sensitive advanced or metastatic breast cancer

To undertake a systematic review of three first-line treatments (letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane) for hormone sensitive advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in post-menopausal women. We searched six databases from inception up to January 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Randomised controlled clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of first-line AIs for post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+, i.e. ER+ and/or PgR+) with or without ErbB2 (HER2)-positive MBC, who have not received prior therapy for advanced or metastatic disease were included. Where meta-analysis using direct or indirect comparisons was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. Four studies (25 papers) met the inclusion criteria. From the available evidence, it was possible to directly compare the three AIs with tamoxifen. In addition, by using a network meta-analysis it was possible to compare the three AIs with each other. Based on direct evidence, letrozole seemed to be significantly better than tamoxifen in terms of time-to-progression (TTP) (HR = 0.70 (95% CI: 0.60, 0.82)), objective response rate (RR = 0.65 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.82)) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-Twist difference = 1.5; P < 0.001). Exemestane seemed significantly superior to tamoxifen in terms of objective response rate (RR = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.89)). Anastrozole seemed significantly superior to tamoxifen in terms of TTP in one trial (HR = 1.42 (95% CI: 1.15, NR)), but not in the other (HR = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.87, NR)). In terms of adverse events, no significant differences were found between letrozole and tamoxifen. Tamoxifen was associated with significantly more serious adverse events in comparison with exemestane (OR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.97)); while exemestane was associated with significantly more arthralgia in comparison with tamoxifen (OR = 2.33 (95% CI: 1.07, 5.11)). Anastrozole was associated with significantly more total adverse events (OR = 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.09)) and hot flushes (OR = 1.39 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.89)) in comparison with tamoxifen in one trial; however, the other trial showed no significant differences in adverse events between anastrozole and tamoxifen. The indirect comparison of AIs with each other in women with post-menopausal, hormone sensitive advanced or MBC showed that letrozole and exemestane were better in terms of objective response rate than anastrozole; while the more clinically relevant outcomes overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) showed no significant differences between AIs. OS and PFS showed no significant differences between AIs and hence based on these results a class effect for all AIs is possible. However, these results are based on indirect comparisons and a network analysis for which the basic assumptions of homogeneity, similarity and consistency were not fulfilled. Therefore, despite the fact that these are the best available data, the results need to be interpreted with appropriate caution. Head-to-head comparisons between letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane in the first-line MBC setting are warranted.

Letrozole

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Aromatase is an enzyme which converts adrenal androgens to estrogens in postmenopausal women. Given the importance of estrogens in breast cancer growth, aromatase inhibitors are used to treat breast cancer in different settings. This review focuses on letrozole, a third generation aromatase inhibitor, encompassing pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects as well as its clinical efficacy and safety.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

A literature search and review of the studies published on letrozole were carried out using the MEDLINE database up to November 2009.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The paper provides the reader with information about pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic aspects of letrozole, its preclinical and clinical efficacy and its safety.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Letrozole is a well-tolerated and effective drug in metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Two clinical trials conducted in early breast cancer have confirmed its role in the adjuvant setting in postmenopausal women. More recently, data have confirmed its efficacy as neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer. Future developments include the combination of letrozole with new biologic agents and tailoring of treatment with gene expression profiling studies.

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.

Aromatase inhibitors: past, present and future in breast cancer therapy

Estrogen has been implicated in promoting breast cancer in a majority of women. Endocrine therapy controlling estrogen production has been the guiding principle in treating breast cancer for more than a century. A greater understanding of this disease at a molecular level has led to the development of molecules that inhibit estrogen production by inhibiting the aromatase enzyme, that is the primary source of estrogen in postmenopausal women. This review examines the evolution of aromatase inhibitor (AI) based therapies over the past three decades. The third generation aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane), which have been found to be extremely specific and effective in an adjuvant/neoadjuvant/extended adjuvant setting are discussed from a biochemical and clinical perspective. A comprehensive discussion of the past, present, and future of aromatase inhibitors is conducted in this review.

The discovery and mechanism of action of letrozole

Because estrogen contributes to the promotion and progression of breast cancer, a greater understanding of the role of estrogen in breast cancer has led to therapeutic strategies targeting estrogen synthesis, the estrogen receptor, and intracellular signaling pathways. The enzyme aromatase catalyses the final step in estrogen biosynthesis and was identified as an attractive target for selective inhibition. Modern third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) effectively block the production of estrogen without exerting effects on other steroidogenic pathways. The discovery of letrozole (Femara^®) achieved the goal of discovering a highly potent and totally selective AI. Letrozole has greater potency than other AIs, including anastrozole, exemestane, formestane, and aminoglutethimide. Moreover, letrozole produces near complete inhibition of aromatase in peripheral tissues and is associated with greater suppression of estrogen than is achieved with other AIs. The potent anti-tumor effects of letrozole were demonstrated in several animal models. Studies with MCF-7Ca xenografts successfully predicted that letrozole would be clinically superior to the previous gold standard tamoxifen and also indicated that it may be more effective than other AIs. An extensive program of randomized clinical trials has demonstrated the clinical benefits of letrozole across the spectrum of hormone-responsive breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Letrozole in advanced breast cancer: the PO25 trial

Tamoxifen has been a standard first-line endocrine therapy for post-menopausal women with hormone-responsive advanced breast cancer, but more than half of patients fail to respond and time to progression is less than 12 months in responders. The third-generation aromatase inhibitors were developed to provide more effective alternatives to tamoxifen. In the Femara Study PO25, post-menopausal women with advanced breast cancer were randomized to receive letrozole 2.5 mg (n=453) or tamoxifen 20 mg (n=454) given orally daily until progressive disease occurred. Patients were permitted to cross over to the other treatment at progression. In the primary efficacy analysis, median time to progression (TTP) was significantly longer with letrozole than with tamoxifen (9.4 months vs. 6.0 months, respectively; P<0.0001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher for letrozole than for tamoxifen (32% vs. 21%; P=0.0002). Prospectively planned analyses of the intent-to-treat population showed that letrozole significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with tamoxifen over the first 24 months of the trial. An exploratory analysis of patients, who did not cross over, indicated a median OS benefit of 14 months for letrozole compared with tamoxifen. Letrozole is the only third-generation aromatase inhibitor that has demonstrated significant improvements in ORR, TTP, and early OS.

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.

Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators have been extensively tested in patients with advanced breast cancer, but it is unclear whether they offer any survival benefits compared with standard hormonal treatment with tamoxifen or progestagens. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared several generations of aromatase inhibitors and inactivators with standard hormonal treatment in patients with advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

The endpoint that we assessed was survival. Trials were located through searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library (last update March 2006). Relative hazards (RHs) were summarized across trials through fixed- and random-effects analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed with the Q and I2 statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Twenty-five different comparisons, with a total of 8504 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. We found statistically significant survival benefits with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators (vorozole, letrozole, examestane, and anastrazole) (RH = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.93; P<.001) but not with first-generation (aminoglutethimide) or second-generation (formestane and fadrozole) agents. The difference in the summary effects between these two groups of trials was statistically significant (P = .04). The survival benefit with third-generation agents in first-line trials, in which these agents were compared with tamoxifen (11% RH reduction, 95% CI = 1% to 19%; P = .03), was identical to their benefit in second- and subsequent-line trials in which these agents were compared with other treatments (14% RH reduction, 95% CI = 6% to 21%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibition of the aromatase system, in particular with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators, appears to be associated with statistically significant improved survival of patients with advanced breast cancer compared with standard hormonal treatments.

Second- and third-generation aromatase inhibitors as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients: a pooled analysis of the randomised trials

The purpose of this study was to estimate in all randomised trials the relative risk of overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit (CB), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and toxicity of aromatase inhibitors (AI), compared with tamoxifen (Tam) as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (PMBC) women. Prospective randomised studies were searched through computerised queries of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstract database. Relative risk, 95% confidence interval, and heterogeneity were derived according to the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel method and Q statistics. Six phase III prospective randomised trials including 2787 women were gathered. A significant advantage in ORR (P = 0.042), TTP (P = 0.007), and CB (P = 0.001) in favour of AI over Tam was detected at the fixed effects model. These results were not significant at the random effects model, owing to the significant heterogeneity. On the contrary, no difference was registered for OS (P = 0.743) with no significant heterogeneity. Regarding toxicity, Tam caused more frequently thromboembolic events (P = 0.005) and vaginal bleeding (P = 0.001) compared with AI. Aromatase inhibitors appear to be superior to Tam as first-line endocrine option in PMBC women. Owing to a component of variability between the six studies analysed, the random effects estimates differed from corresponding fixed ones. Investigators should assess heterogeneity of trial results before deriving summary estimates of treatment effect.

Letrozole: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in postmenopausal women with breast cancer

Letrozole (Femara), an aromatase inhibitor that blocks estrogen synthesis by inhibiting the final step of the estrogen biosynthetic pathway, is approved for use in a wide range of breast cancer settings. Randomised clinical trials in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early-stage breast cancer have demonstrated that, as adjuvant therapy, letrozole has greater efficacy than tamoxifen. It is also more effective than placebo as extended adjuvant therapy after completion of tamoxifen therapy in these patients. In women with hormone-responsive advanced breast cancer, letrozole is superior to tamoxifen in prolonging the time to disease progression and time to treatment failure in a first-line setting, and is at least as effective as anastrozole and more effective than megestrol for some endpoints (in one of two trials) in a second-line setting. Letrozole is generally well tolerated, and in a health-related quality-of-life analysis from a large clinical trial, patient well-being with letrozole as extended adjuvant therapy did not differ from that with placebo. Modelled analyses from the UK and the US suggest that, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer, letrozole is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy; moreover, using letrozole as extended adjuvant therapy after tamoxifen, rather than no further treatment, is also a cost-effective treatment strategy. Sensitivity analyses have shown these results to be robust. In terms of direct healthcare costs, pharmacoeconomic models suggest that letrozole is a cost-effective alternative to tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive advanced breast cancer from the perspectives of the UK NHS, the Canadian and Italian public healthcare systems and the Japanese national health insurance system. Incremental costs per QALY or progression-free year gained over tamoxifen were well within the recommended limits for acceptability of new agents that are more effective and more expensive than existing therapies in the UK, Japan and Canada. Modelled analyses from the UK and Canada have also suggested that letrozole is cost effective as second-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women who have disease progression following anti-estrogen therapy. In conclusion, letrozole is an effective and well tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with early-stage or advanced hormone-responsive breast cancer. Pharmacoeconomic analyses from UK and North American perspectives support the use of letrozole in hormone-responsive early-stage breast cancer in both the adjuvant and extended adjuvant settings. In addition, other modelled analyses conducted in a variety of healthcare systems across different countries consistently suggest that letrozole is cost effective in advanced treatment settings.

Aromatase inhibition: translation into a successful therapeutic approach

The development of the novel third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators for breast cancer treatment is one of the most successful contemporary achievements in cancer therapy. Parallel to studies evaluating toxicity and clinical efficacy in metastatic disease, the endocrine effects of multiple compounds were evaluated, leading to the identification of the highly potent third-generation aromatase inhibitors based on estrogen deprivation and aromatase inhibition in vivo. Thus, translational studies have been of vital importance identifying the unique characteristics of these compounds. Whereas first- and second-generation aromatase inhibitors inhibit estrogen synthesis in vivo by up to 90%, the third-generation compounds anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole were found to cause > or =98% aromatase inhibition. This article summarizes and discusses the "translational research" that provided the background for the implementation of the third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators into large clinical trials. The need for future translational research exploiting the mechanisms of resistance to these compounds for future improvement of endocrine therapy is emphasized.

Endocrinology and hormone therapy in breast cancer: aromatase inhibitors versus antioestrogens

Endocrine therapies act by either blocking or downregulating the oestrogen receptor or by reducing oestrogen concentrations around and within the cancer cell. In postmenopausal women, oestrogen suppression is achieved by inhibition of the enzyme aromatase by aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Modern AIs (anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane) are more potent than earlier ones and suppress oestradiol levels in plasma to virtually undetectable concentrations. Recent comparisons of AIs with the most widely used oestrogen receptor blocking drug tamoxifen indicate that, in general, AIs result in increased response rates and greater durations of response. Here, we summarize data supporting the difference between the two types of treatment and attempt to account for the underlying mechanisms that favour AIs.

Anastrozole (‘Arimidex’) versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: Results of the double-blind cross-over SAKK trial 21/95 - a sub-study of the TARGET (Tamoxifen or ‘Arimidex’ Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability) trial

It is desirable to identify the most effective sequence of endocrine therapies for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced, hormone-responsive breast cancer. In a retrospective analysis of two large, randomized, comparative Phase III trials in this patient population, the Tamoxifen or 'Arimidex' Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability (TARGET) trial and the North American trial, we ascertained that tumors responding to anastrozole as first-line therapy may subsequently respond to tamoxifen as second-line therapy. In a double-blind cross-over trial, the SAKK 21/95 sub-trial (including patients from the Swiss centres in the TARGET trial), we further investigated the clinical impact of anastrozole followed by tamoxifen compared with that of tamoxifen followed by anastrozole. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had continued on randomized treatment until objective disease progression and were still considered suitable for endocrine therapy, could continue on blinded therapy crossing-over to the alternative treatment. They were assessed for time to progression (TTP) from treatment randomization, TTP after crossing-over treatments, time from randomization to progression after crossing-over treatments and overall survival. Median TTP from randomization for patients receiving first-line treatment with anastrozole (n = 31) and tamoxifen (n = 29) was 11.3 and 8.3 months, respectively, p = 0.75. Median TTP from treatment cross-over was 6.7 months for tamoxifen after progression on anastrozole (n = 19) and 5.7 months for anastrozole after progression on tamoxifen (n = 18), while median time from randomization to second progression was 28.2 and 19.5 months, respectively. Overall survival from randomization for the anastrozole-tamoxifen sequence and the tamoxifen-anastrozole sequence was 69.7 versus 59.3 months, respectively, p = 0.10. The relative risk of death was higher for the tamoxifen followed by anastrozole sequence (1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-2.98). Tamoxifen is an effective second-line therapy after anastrozole. Our data, together with the better tolerability profile of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen, support the use of anastrozole as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive tumors. Treatment with tamoxifen may still be useful upon subsequent progression.

Oestrogen suppression--lessons from clinical studies

In few, if any, areas of cancer research has "translational research" played a role such as the one it has played in the development of endocrine therapy. Thus, much of the understanding of the mechanisms of action of different therapies has been achieved by developing novel hypotheses based on clinical observations. Ovarian ablation was developed as an empirical therapy long before characterization of oestrogen disposition or detection of the oestrogen receptor. The first-generation aromatase inhibitor, aminoglutethimide, was implemented as a strategy to achieve a 'medical adrenalectomy' and was discovered as an aromatase inhibitor subsequent to clinical observations. Currently, observations such as the lack of cross-resistance between aromatase inhibitors and inactivators and the diverse effects from combined therapy using tamoxifen in concert with hormonal suppression in pre- and post-menopausals are provoking interesting questions for further research.

First-line endocrine treatment of breast cancer: aromatase inhibitor or antioestrogen?

Until recently, endocrine therapy for breast cancer was relatively simple. If the tumour expressed hormone receptors, regardless of stage and age, tamoxifen was indicated. While this largely remains the case for premenopausal women, clinical trials in postmenopausal women have broadened our choice to include one of three selective aromatase inhibitors (AIs), the nonsteroidal agents anastrozole or letrozole and the steroidal agent exemestane. Comparative data concerning the efficacy, toxicity, tolerability and cost of AI vs tamoxifen continues to evolve with over 40 000 women slated to be involved in clinical trials. Currently, tamoxifen remains an appropriate choice for adjuvant treatment, and will remain so unless a clear survival advantage emerges for adjuvant AI therapy. However, anastrozole is widely seen as a useful alternative, with particular merit for patients prone to the development of serious tamoxifen side effects. For endocrine therapy naïve advanced disease, several trials have provided evidence that a nonsteroidal AI has replaced tamoxifen as optimal treatment. In the neoadjuvant setting, letrozole was also more effective than tamoxifen, both in terms of response rates and the incidence of breast-conserving surgery, and so AI therefore also dominates this evolving indication. The ongoing adjuvant clinical trials ask all the relevant questions regarding tamoxifen and AI in combination, sequence and duration, except for 5 years of an AI vs a longer period. For both the advanced and early-stage disease, resistance remains the key obstacle to overcome, and trials that combine endocrine agents with signal transduction inhibitors such as HER1 and HER2 kinase inhibitors, farnesyl transferase inhibitors, mTOR inhibitors as well as COX2 inhibitors are being developed in a concerted attempt to address this problem.

Efficacy of tamoxifen following anastrozole (‘Arimidex’) compared with anastrozole following tamoxifen as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women

Anastrozole ('Arimidex') is indicated for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Combined analysis of two international randomised, double-blind trials (n=1021) showed that in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumours, first-line treatment with anastrozole significantly prolonged the time to progression (TTP) compared with tamoxifen (median TTP: 10.7 versus 6.4 months, respectively; P=0.022). Second-line tamoxifen following anastrozole, or vice versa, in this trial population was unblinded. The treatments were crossed over and then efficacy was assessed using a questionnaire. Of 511 patients randomised to anastrozole, 137 (26.8%) received second-line tamoxifen. Questionnaire data were available for 119 patients; 58 (48.7%) gained clinical benefit (CB=complete+partial response (CR+PR)+(stable disease (SD) >/=24 weeks)), while 12 (10.1%) had an objective response (OR=CR+PR). Of 510 patients randomised to tamoxifen, 134 (26.3%) received second-line anastrozole. Questionnaire data from 95 patients showed that 54 (56.8%) gained CB and 7 of the patients gaining CB (7.4%) had an OR. Previous studies showed anastrozole is effective after first-line tamoxifen. These data show that the sequential administration of first-line anastrozole followed by tamoxifen provides effective use of these drugs in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

In a recent trial of first-line therapy in 353 postmenopausal women with predominantly hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (the North American trial), anastrozole 1 mg QD produced a significantly longer time to disease progression (TTP) than tamoxifen 20 mg QD (11.1 months vs 5.6 months; P = 0.005). Both treatments were well tolerated, but there were fewer thromboembolic events and a reduced incidence of vaginal bleeding with anastrozole.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct an economic analysis of anastrozole versus tamoxifen based on data from the North American trial.

METHODS

Quality-adjusted TTP (QATTP) was determined by combining TTP values with uniform or graded weights for adverse events using the Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity method. Direct health care costs before and after disease progression were determined from the perspective of 4 types of health care insurers in the United States: health maintenance organizations (HMOs), indemnity plans, preferred provider organizations (PPOs), and point-of-service (POS) plans.

RESULTS

Median QATTP with graded weights was 9.7 months for anastrozole, compared with 4.6 months for tamoxifen (P = 0.003). A resultant reduction in health care resource utilization was observed, particularly the requirements for hospitalization, outpatient visits, and chemotherapy, but the statistical significance of this observation was not assessed. Incremental cost savings per patient before and after disease progression were observed with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen (9064 dollars for HMO, 9678 dollars for indemnity plan, 14,273 dollars for PPO, and 12,715 dollars for POS; all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the US managed care setting, anastrozole produced a higher QATTP and incurred lower treatment costs than tamoxifen in a population of postmenopausal women with predominantly hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Therefore, anastrozole was more cost-effective than tamoxifen as first-line endocrine therapy in the population studied.

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.

Comparison between aromatase inhibitors and sequential use

The biochemical efficacy of aromatase inhibitors and inactivators in vivo may be determined by two types of methods; by measuring plasma or tissue estrogen levels, or assessment of the conversion of the androgen substrate (in practice, androstenedione) into estrogens (estrone) by the use of tracer methods. While methods to determine plasma and tissue estrogens are limited through lack of sensitivity required to measure the very low concentrations recorded in postmenopausal women on treatment with these compounds, measurement of in vivo aromatization is an extensive procedure, applicable to a limited number of patients only. While we may correlate the mean level of aromatase inhibition achieved with different compounds to clinical efficacy, data correlating individual estrogen suppression to clinical outcome among patients treated with a specific compound is limited. The now well-characterized phenomenon of lack of cross-resistance between non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors and steroidal aromatase inactivators are likely due to biochemical effects not related to differences in total body aromatase inhibition.

Phase III study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group

PURPOSE

To analyze overall survival (OS) and update efficacy data for letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned 916 patients with hormone receptor-positive or unknown tumors letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 458) or tamoxifen 20 mg (n = 458) daily until disease progression. Optional cross-over was permitted at the treating physician's discretion. This report updates efficacy at a median follow-up of 32 months.

RESULTS

The superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen was confirmed for time to progression (median, 9.4 v 6.0 months, respectively; P <.0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9 v 5.7 months, respectively; P <.0001), overall objective response rate (32% v 21%, respectively; P =.0002), and overall clinical benefit. Median OS was slightly prolonged for the randomized letrozole arm (34 v 30 months, respectively). Although this difference in OS is not significant, survival was improved in the randomized letrozole arm over the first 2 years of the study. Approximately one half of the patients in each arm crossed over. Total duration of endocrine therapy ("time to chemotherapy") was significantly longer (P =.005) for patients initially on letrozole (median, 16 months) than for patients initially on tamoxifen (median, 9 months). Time to worsening of Karnofsky performance score was significantly delayed with letrozole compared with tamoxifen (P =.001).

CONCLUSION

This study documents the superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen in first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

Cost utility analysis of first-line hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: comparison of two aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen

Recent randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara) to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer have demonstrated that both agents were at least as effective as tamoxifen. In addition, one RCT has revealed significant superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen with regard to tumor response rate and time to progression. Based on the efficacy and toxicity data, anastrozole or letrozole may replace tamoxifen. A cost effectiveness analysis was undertaken to determine whether the new agents are economically acceptable alternatives to tamoxifen. In the absence of a randomized three-arm trial, a decision model was developed to simulate and compare the most common therapeutic outcomes. The clinical data were obtained from a meta analysis of modern (i.e., post-1990) randomized trials. Clinical outcomes data from the various trials were statistically pooled using a random effects model to provide point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Total hospital resource consumption was collected from the charts of 87 patients with advanced disease who had failed tamoxifen therapy. The model suggested a comparable duration of quality-adjusted progression-free survival between letrozole and anastrozole, both being superior to tamoxifen (179 days vs. 172 days vs. 161 days). Letrozole and anastrozole had overall costs of Can2,883 dollars and 2,847 dollars per patient, respectively, which were marginally higher than tamoxifen at Can2,258 dollars per patient. When the costs and benefits were combined, the data generated an incremental cost per quality-adjusted progression-free year of 12,500 dollars and 19,600 dollars for letrozole and anastrozole, respectively, relative to tamoxifen. Letrozole and anastrozole are both economically acceptable alternatives to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment setting. However, when efficacy and cost effectiveness are considered together, letrozole could be preferentially considered.

Tamoxifen ("Nolvadex"): a review

Tamoxifen has been used in the management of breast cancer for over 30 years. Since its introduction for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, its indications have increased to include the treatment of early breast cancer, ductal carcinoma in situ, and more recently for breast cancer chemoprevention. Tamoxifen has a good tolerability profile and moreover, unlike many other endocrine therapies, it is efficacious in both pre- and postmenopausal women. It is the combination of efficacy and tolerability that allows tamoxifen to maintain its position as the hormonal treatment of choice for most patients with oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. Ongoing studies will provide further information about the optimal duration of tamoxifen therapy and how it compares with the newer aromatase inhibitors.

Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators for breast cancer therapy

Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators are increasingly important to the therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. These compounds are also currently being evaluated in the adjuvant setting and may have potential in breast cancer prevention. In addition to the recent clinical results, experimental research with development of aromatase 'knockout' mice as well as certain clinical observations in individuals lacking this enzyme have deepened our understanding of estrogens outside of the field of reproduction. Such information should help us to further develop this type of therapy in breast cancer and, in particular, extend our understanding of the lack of complete cross-resistance between aromatase inhibitors and inactivators. Clinically, third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators have shown superiority compared with conventional treatment in advanced postmenopausal breast cancer with respect to second-line (tamoxifen failures) as well as first-line therapy. The fact that tamoxifen is noncurative in metastatic disease but improves long-term survival in the adjuvant setting suggests that even modest improvements in therapy of advanced disease may be translated into survival benefits in patients with early disease. In addition, these novel compounds with lack of complete cross-resistance extend the scope of using sequential treatment options to maximise the duration of optimal endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer disease.

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.

Biologic basis and evolving role of aromatase inhibitors in the management of invasive carcinoma of the breast

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The most powerful predictor of the response of breast cancers to hormonal therapy is the presence of estrogen receptors in the tumor cells. Estrogen receptors are expressed in approximately 35-55% of all breast tumors but up to 80-90% of tumors from women older than 55 years.

METHODS

At this time, tamoxifen remains the first-line hormonal therapy for breast cancer of all stages. However, the aromatase inhibitors are evolving into an important treatment option. Aromatase inhibitors prevent the conversion of precursors (androgens) to estrogens.

RESULTS

On the basis of several randomized clinical trials, aromatase inhibitors have become established as the second-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing during tamoxifen therapy. Furthermore, very recent trials support the use of these agents as first-line therapy in place of tamoxifen.

CONCLUSIONS

The roles of the selective aromatase inhibitors in the prevention of breast cancer and in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer are the focus of several planned and ongoing large-scale clinical trials. These trials will answer some of the many questions that remain regarding optimal hormonal therapy for hormone-dependent breast cancer.

Aromatase inhibitors in the treatment and prevention of breast cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the current clinical status and possible future applications of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer.

METHODS

A review of the literature on the third-generation aromatase inhibitors was conducted. Some data that have been presented but not published are included. In addition, the designs of ongoing trials with aromatase inhibitors are outlined and the implications of possible results discussed.

RESULTS

All of the third-generation oral aromatase inhibitors--letrozole, anastrozole, and vorozole (nonsteroidal, type II) and exemestane (steroidal, type I)--have now been tested in phase III trials as second-line treatment of postmenopausal hormone-dependent breast cancer. They have shown clear superiority compared with the conventional therapies and are therefore considered established second-line hormonal agents. Currently, they are being tested as first-line therapy in the metastatic, adjuvant, and neoadjuvant settings. Preliminary results suggest that the inhibitors might displace tamoxifen as first-line treatment, but further studies are needed to determine this.

CONCLUSION

The role of aromatase inhibitors in premenopausal breast cancer and in combination with chemotherapy and other anticancer treatments are areas of future exploration. The ongoing adjuvant trials will provide important data on the long-term safety of aromatase inhibitors, which will help to determine their suitability for use as chemopreventives in healthy women at risk of developing breast cancer.

Recent advances in the clinical application of aromatase inhibitors

Aromatase inhibitors have evolved over a period of 20 years to well tolerated agents that can effectively obliterate aromatase activity in postmenopausal women. Breast cancer is the predominant clinical application and here the newer agents have established themselves as the preferred second-line agent after tamoxifen in the treatment of advanced disease. Recent data indicate that they be more efficacious than tamoxifen and, therefore, may replace it as the first-line agent of choice in the near future. On-going clinical trials in the adjuvant setting and prospective prevention studies will elucidate whether these drugs have a yet greater role in breast cancer.

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.

Exemestane in breast cancer: current status and future directions

Exemestane is a novel, potent, and specific third-generation aromatase inactivator developed for breast can-cer therapy. The drug is effective in patients with metastatic disease failing tamoxifen alone or tamoxifen followed by megestrol acetate or a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor. In a phase III study, exemestane was superior to megestrol acetate in overall survival, time to tumor progression, and time to treatment failure in women with metastatic disease who experienced failure of tamoxifen. Preliminary evidence suggests activity to exemestane exceeds that obtained with tamoxifen as first-line treatment. Two studies are comparing sequential treatment with tamoxifen followed by exemestane to tamoxifen monotherapy in the adjuvant setting. A third study is comparing the toxicity profile of exemestane with that of placebo in patients with early breast cancer who are at low risk of relapse. The findings from these studies will determine the role of exemestane in early breast cancer and lay the foundation for assessing its potential role in breast cancer prevention.

An overview of the use of non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer

A number of potent and selective non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors are now available for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. In particular, anastrozole represents a significant advantage over earlier agents, such as aminoglutethimide and formestane, in terms of both efficacy and tolerability. These agents are now established as the second-line therapy of choice in postmenopausal women with advanced disease progressing on tamoxifen and, furthermore, data are now available on the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole as first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer compared with tamoxifen. The full potential of the new-generation aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of breast cancer is currently being investigated in a large programme of clinical trials, including evaluation as neoadjuvant treatment in postmenopausal women with newly-diagnosed locally-advanced or large operable breast cancers, as first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Aromatase inhibitors have been available for over 20 years; the ability of these compounds to reduce circulating oestradiol levels has been shown to produce clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Early aromatase inhibitors, however, such as aminoglutethimide and formestane, were not specific for the aromatase enzyme and resulted in significant side-effects.

Other medical management of uterine fibroids

Several medicines are emerging with the potential to treat symptomatic uterine fibroids. Anti-progesterone compounds seem particularly promising. These drugs have been widely used for nearly 20 years and are known to be safe; medical politics have prevented their proper investigation for uterine fibroids. In particular, the value of mifepristone, 50 mg per day for 3 months, seems particularly promising. Further investigation is clearly warranted for this medicine. Several anti-oestrogen compounds have recently become available and may also be useful for the medical treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids. This includes the possibility of the use of selective oestrogen receptor modulators as well as the prospect of the use of pure anti-oestrogens. On a longer time frame, inhibitors of angiogenesis may be useful. These medicines would act upon the blood supply to uterine fibroids. Physicians also have an obligation to investigate scientifically any promising naturopathic treatment that appears to have possible activity for symptomatic fibroids.

A review of the newer aromatase inhibitors in the management of metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality world-wide. While aminoglutethimide, a first-generation aromatase inhibitor, has equivalent efficacy to first-line tamoxifen in the palliative treatment of metastatic breast cancer, its toxicity profile has relegated this drug to a second- or third-line agent in this setting. Recently, several aromatase inhibitors have been released onto the market while others are in phase II and III clinical trials.

AIM

To review the role of the new aromatase inhibitors in the management of metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Current literature, abstracts from meetings and information from pharmaceutical manufacturers have been summarized.

CONTENT

A review of the clinical pharmacology of the new aromatase inhibitors has been provided in addition to a synopsis of phase III clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

The newer aromatase inhibitors have several advantages compared to aminoglutethimide and are a useful addition to the armamentarium of therapies employed in the palliative management of advanced breast cancer.

Formestane versus megestrol acetate in postmenopausal breast cancer patients after failure of tamoxifen: a phase III prospective randomised cross over trial of second-line hormonal treatment (SAKK 20/90). Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK)

The aim of the study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of the new aromatase inhibitor formestane (Lentaron) with megestrol acetate (Megestat) (MGA) in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer. 179 patients were randomised to receive either 250 mg formestane intramuscularly biweekly or MGA 160 mg orally daily. 51% of the patients had received tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment; 73% of the patients had positive and 16% unknown oestrogen receptor values. The response rate was 17% in both treatment arms (95% confidence interval 10-26% for formestane and 10-27% for MGA). Disease stabilisation > or = 6 months was seen in 25% of the formestane and 22% of the MGA patients. Time to treatment failure was 120 days in the formestane arm and 111 days in the MGA arm. There was no significant difference between the treatments with regard to response rate and time to treatment failure. Overall toxicity was similar in both arms, but weight gain > 3 kg (P = 0.081) and severe cardiovascular toxicity (P = 0.044) were more frequently observed with MGA, e.g. deep vein thrombosis 0/90 formestane versus 5/81 MGA cases (P = 0.022). Formestane was associated with worsening of hot flushes/sleeping problems (P = 0.051) and mild leucopenia (P = 0.004). In our study, formestane and MGA showed similar antineoplastic activity as second-line hormonal treatment for advanced breast cancer. Both drugs have a specific toxicity profile. MGA was associated with significantly more severe cardiovascular toxicity and weight increase than formestane.