Exemestane Use in Postmenopausal Women at High Risk for Invasive Breast Cancer: Evaluating Biomarkers of Efficacy and Safety

Drug repurposing for cancer therapy

Cancer, a complex and multifactorial disease, presents a significant challenge to global health. Despite significant advances in surgical, radiotherapeutic and immunological approaches, which have improved cancer treatment outcomes, drug therapy continues to serve as a key therapeutic strategy. However, the clinical efficacy of drug therapy is often constrained by drug resistance and severe toxic side effects, and thus there remains a critical need to develop novel cancer therapeutics. One promising strategy that has received widespread attention in recent years is drug repurposing: the identification of new applications for existing, clinically approved drugs. Drug repurposing possesses several inherent advantages in the context of cancer treatment since repurposed drugs are typically cost-effective, proven to be safe, and can significantly expedite the drug development process due to their already established safety profiles. In light of this, the present review offers a comprehensive overview of the various methods employed in drug repurposing, specifically focusing on the repurposing of drugs to treat cancer. We describe the antitumor properties of candidate drugs, and discuss in detail how they target both the hallmarks of cancer in tumor cells and the surrounding tumor microenvironment. In addition, we examine the innovative strategy of integrating drug repurposing with nanotechnology to enhance topical drug delivery. We also emphasize the critical role that repurposed drugs can play when used as part of a combination therapy regimen. To conclude, we outline the challenges associated with repurposing drugs and consider the future prospects of these repurposed drugs transitioning into clinical application.

Efficacy of Alternative Dose Regimens of Exemestane in Postmenopausal Women With Stage 0 to II Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Successful therapeutic cancer prevention requires definition of the minimal effective dose. Aromatase inhibitors decrease breast cancer incidence in high-risk women, but use in prevention and compliance in adjuvant settings are hampered by adverse events.

Objective

To compare the noninferiority percentage change of estradiol in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer given exemestane, 25 mg, 3 times weekly or once weekly vs a standard daily dose with a noninferiority margin of -6%.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, presurgical, double-blind phase 2b randomized clinical trial evaluated 2 alternative dosing schedules of exemestane. Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer who were candidates for breast surgery were screened from February 1, 2017, to August 31, 2019. Blood samples were collected at baseline and final visit; tissue biomarker changes were assessed from diagnostic biopsy and surgical specimen. Biomarkers were measured in different laboratories between April 2020 and December 2021.

Interventions

Exemestane, 25 mg, once daily, 3 times weekly, or once weekly for 4 to 6 weeks before surgery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Serum estradiol concentrations were measured by solid-phase extraction followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry detection. Toxic effects were evaluated using the National Cancer Institute terminology criteria, and Ki-67 was assessed by immunohistochemistry.

Results

A total of 180 women were randomized into 1 of the 3 arms; median (IQR) age was 66 (60-71) years, 63 (60-69) years, and 65 (61-70) years in the once-daily, 3-times-weekly, and once-weekly arms, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population (n = 171), the least square mean percentage change of serum estradiol was -89%, -85%, and -60% for exemestane once daily (n = 55), 3 times weekly (n = 56), and once weekly (n = 60), respectively. The difference in estradiol percentage change between the once-daily and 3-times-weekly arms was -3.6% (P for noninferiority = .37), whereas in compliant participants (n = 153), it was 2.0% (97.5% lower confidence limit, -5.6%; P for noninferiority = .02). Among secondary end points, Ki-67 and progesterone receptor were reduced in all arms, with median absolute percentage changes of -7.5%, -5.0%, and -4.0% for Ki-67 in the once-daily, 3-times-weekly, and once-weekly arms, respectively (once daily vs 3 times weekly, P = .31; once daily vs once weekly, P = .06), and -17.0%, -9.0%, and -7.0% for progesterone receptor, respectively. Sex hormone-binding globulin and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol had a better profile among participants in the 3-times-weekly arm compared with once-daily arm. Adverse events were similar in all arms.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, exemestane, 25 mg, given 3 times weekly in compliant patients was noninferior to the once-daily dosage in decreasing serum estradiol. This new schedule should be further studied in prevention studies and in women who do not tolerate the daily dose in the adjuvant setting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02598557; EudraCT: 2015-005063-16.

Role of Exemestane in the Treatment of Estrogen-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer diagnosed among women worldwide with an estimated 2.3 million new cases every year. Almost two-thirds of all patients with BC have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors. In this review, the clinical evidence of exemestane in different treatment settings in ER+ BC is presented and summarized.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search strategy with the keywords "breast cancer [MeSH Terms]" AND "exemestane [Title/Abstract]" was devised and a search was performed in PubMed.

RESULTS

The efficacy of exemestane in different treatment settings has been established by numerous clinical studies. Exemestane is recommended as an adjuvant treatment in postmenopausal women previously treated with tamoxifen in trials comparing 5 years of tamoxifen with 2-3 years of tamoxifen combined with 2-3 years of exemestane, which proved that treatment with exemestane provided better survival outcomes. Similarly, exemestane could be considered as a safe treatment option for neoadjuvant treatment, prevention of chemotherapy, and treatment of advanced BC either alone or in combination with other targeted therapy drugs in both pre- and postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Exemestane could be considered as a reasonable therapeutic option in the treatment of ER+ BC at any stage in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Variation in the UGT2B17 genotype, exemestane metabolism and menopause-related toxicities in the CCTG MAP.3 trial

PURPOSE

To examine associations between the UGT2B17 gene deletion and exemestane metabolites, and commonly reported side effects (fatigue, hot flashes, and joint pain) among postmenopausal women participating in the MAP.3 chemoprevention trial.

METHODS

The analytical samples for the UGT2B17 analysis comprised 1752 women on exemestane and 1721 women on placebo; the exemestane metabolite analysis included 1360 women on exemestane with one-year serum samples. Both the UGT2B17 gene deletion and metabolites were measured in blood. The metabolites were conceptualized as a ratio (17-DHE-Gluc:17-DHE). Symptoms were assessed using the CTCAE v4.0 at approximately 1-year intervals. Log-binomial regression was used to examine the associations between UGT2B17 deletion, exemestane metabolites and each side effect at 1 and up to 5-year follow-up, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among individuals on exemestane with the UGT2B17 gene deletion (i.e., lower detoxification), a higher risk of severe fatigue (RR = 2.59 95% CI: 1.14-5.89) was observed at up to 5-year follow-up. Among individuals on placebo, those with the UGT2B17 gene deletion had a higher risk of any fatigue (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.02-1.89) at year 1. A lower metabolite ratio (poor detoxification) was associated with a higher risk of any fatigue, hot flashes and joint pain at year 1 (fatigue: RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.16-3.09; hot flashes: RR = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.40-2.24; joint pain: RR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.35-3.12); similar associations were observed at 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Variation in the metabolism of exemestane through the UGT2B17-mediated pathway is associated with subsequent risk of commonly reported symptoms in MAP.3.

Mammographic density: a potential monitoring biomarker for adjuvant and preventative breast cancer endocrine therapies

Increased mammographic density (MD) has been shown beyond doubt to be a marker for increased breast cancer risk, though the underpinning pathobiology is yet to be fully elucidated. Estrogenic activity exerts a strong influence over MD, which consequently has been observed to change predictably in response to tamoxifen anti-estrogen therapy, although results for other selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors are less consistent. In both primary and secondary prevention settings, tamoxifen-associated MD changes correlate with successful modulation of risk or outcome, particularly among pre-menopausal women; an observation that supports the potential use of MD change as a surrogate marker where short-term MD changes reflect longer-term anti-estrogen efficacy. Here we summarize endocrine therapy-induced MD changes and attendant outcomes and discuss both the need for outcome surrogates in such therapy, as well as make a case for MD as such a monitoring marker. We then discuss the process and steps required to validate and introduce MD into practice as a predictor or surrogate for endocrine therapy efficacy in preventive and adjuvant breast cancer treatment settings.

Transcriptome analysis of endometrial tissues following GnRH agonist treatment in a mouse adenomyosis model

Purpose

Adenomyosis is a common, benign gynecological condition of the female reproductive tract characterized by heavy menstrual bleeding and dysmenorrhea. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are one of the medications used in adenomyosis treatment; however, their underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Moreover, it is difficult to obtain endometrial samples from women undergoing such treatment. To overcome this, we generated an adenomyosis mouse model, which we treated with an GnRH agonist to determine its effect on pregnancy outcomes. We also analyzed endometrial gene expression following GnRH agonist treatment to determine the mechanisms that may affect pregnancy outcome in individuals with adenomyosis.

Methods

Neonatal female mice were divided into a control group, an untreated adenomyosis group, and an adenomyosis group treated with a GnRH agonist (n=6 each). The pregnancy outcome was observed and compared among the groups. Then, three randomly chosen transcriptomes from endometrial tissues from day 4 of pregnancy were analyzed between the adenomyosis group and the GnRH agonist treatment group by RNA sequencing and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Results

The litter size was significantly smaller in the adenomyosis group than in the control group (7±0.28 vs 11±0.26; P<0.05). However, the average live litter size was increased (10±0.28 vs 7±0.28; P<0.05) after GnRH agonist treatment. Three hundred and fifty-nine genes were differentially expressed in the GnRH agonist-treated group compared with the untreated group (218 were downregulated and 141 were upregulated). Differentially expressed genes were related to diverse biological processes, including estrogen metabolism, cell cycle, and metabolite biosynthesis.

Conclusion

GnRH agonist treatment appears to improve the pregnancy outcome of adenomyosis in a mouse model. Besides pituitary down-regulation, other possible mechanisms such as the regulation of cell proliferation may play a role in this. These new insights into GnRH agonist mechanisms will be useful for future adenomyosis treatment.