Toremifene. A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in the management of advanced breast cancer

FDA-approved drugs containing dimethylamine pharmacophore: a review of the last 50 years

Dimethylamine (DMA) derivatives represent a promising class of compounds with significant potential in the field of medicinal chemistry. DMA derivatives exhibit a diverse range of pharmacological activities, including antimicrobial, antihistaminic, anticancer, and analgesic properties. Their unique chemical structure allows for the modulation of various biological targets, making them valuable candidates for the treatment of numerous diseases. Synthetic strategies for the preparation of DMA derivatives vary depending on the desired biological activity and target molecule. Common synthetic routes involve the modification of the DMA scaffold through functional group manipulation, scaffold hopping, or combinatorial chemistry approaches. Therapeutically, DMA derivatives have shown promise in the treatment of infectious diseases, especially bacterial infections. Additionally, by focusing on particular biochemical pathways involved in tumor growth and metastasis, DMA-based drugs have shown anticancer activity. In addition to their direct pharmacological effects, DMA derivatives can serve as valuable tools in drug delivery systems, prodrug design, and molecular imaging techniques, enhancing their utility in medicinal chemistry research. Overall, DMA derivatives represent a versatile class of compounds with immense potential in medicinal chemistry. Further research and development efforts are warranted to explore their full therapeutic capabilities and optimize their clinical utility in the treatment of various diseases. This article outlines the pharmacological properties, synthetic strategies, and therapeutic applications of DMA derivatives of FDA approved drugs, highlighting their importance in drug discovery and development.

Comparison of effects of tamoxifen and Toremifene on hepatic function and serum lipids in breast cancer patients during adjuvant endocrine therapy

To investigate the effects of tamoxifen (TAM) and toremifene (TOR) on hepatic function and serum lipid levels in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy. The clinical data of 597 early breast cancer patients treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University between January 2016 and December 2022 were collected. All the patients received standard adjuvant endocrine therapy with TAM or TOR after chemotherapy. Hepatic function and serum lipid data of all patients before and at 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years after the treatment were collected retrospectively and analyzed statistically. There: no negative effect on hepatic function was observed in patients treated with either TAM or TOR. The triglyceride levels in both groups increased during treatment, and the effect of TAM on improving total cholesterol levels was stronger. Total cholesterol levels were not affected by time or treatment regimen. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels decreased in both groups, and the effect was similar between groups. TAM can decrease the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, whereas TOR can increase the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and there was a significant difference between groups. In the postoperative adjuvant endocrine therapy, TOR and TAM will not negatively impact the hepatic function of breast cancer patients, and TOR is better than TAM in the management of serum lipids; therefore, it may be a better choice for clinical medication.

Estrogen Receptor Signaling in Breast Cancer

Estrogen receptor (ER) signaling is a critical regulator of cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival in breast cancer (BC) and other hormone-sensitive cancers. In this review, we explore the mechanism of ER-dependent downstream signaling in BC and the role of estrogens as growth factors necessary for cancer invasion and dissemination. The significance of the clinical implications of ER signaling in BC, including the potential of endocrine therapies that target estrogens' synthesis and ER-dependent signal transmission, such as aromatase inhibitors or selective estrogen receptor modulators, is discussed. As a consequence, the challenges associated with the resistance to these therapies resulting from acquired ER mutations and potential strategies to overcome them are the critical point for the new treatment strategies' development.

Natural compounds targeting nuclear receptors for effective cancer therapy

Human nuclear receptors (NRs) are a family of forty-eight transcription factors that modulate gene expression both spatially and temporally. Numerous biochemical, physiological, and pathological processes including cell survival, proliferation, differentiation, metabolism, immune modulation, development, reproduction, and aging are extensively orchestrated by different NRs. The involvement of dysregulated NRs and NR-mediated signaling pathways in driving cancer cell hallmarks has been thoroughly investigated. Targeting NRs has been one of the major focuses of drug development strategies for cancer interventions. Interestingly, rapid progress in molecular biology and drug screening reveals that the naturally occurring compounds are promising modern oncology drugs which are free of potentially inevitable repercussions that are associated with synthetic compounds. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to draw our attention to the potential therapeutic effects of various classes of natural compounds that target NRs such as phytochemicals, dietary components, venom constituents, royal jelly-derived compounds, and microbial derivatives in the establishment of novel and safe medications for cancer treatment. This review also emphasizes molecular mechanisms and signaling pathways that are leveraged to promote the anti-cancer effects of these natural compounds. We have also critically reviewed and assessed the advantages and limitations of current preclinical and clinical studies on this subject for cancer prophylaxis. This might subsequently pave the way for new paradigms in the discovery of drugs that target specific cancer types.

Heterocycles in Breast Cancer Treatment: The Use of Pyrazole Derivatives

Among the aromatic heterocycle rings, pyrazole -a five-membered ring with two adjacent nitrogen atoms in its structure has been postulated as a potent candidate in the pharmacological context. This moiety is an interesting therapeutic target covering a broad spectrum of biological activities due to its presence in many natural substances. Hence, the potential of the pyrazole derivatives as antitumor agents has been explored in many investigations, showing promising results in some cases. In this sense, breast cancer, which is already the leading cause of cancer mortality in women in some countries, has been the topic selected for this review, which covers a range of different research from the earliest studies published in 2003 to the most recent ones in 2021.

Drug repurposing for the treatment of COVID-19: Pharmacological aspects and synthetic approaches

In December 2019, a new variant of SARS-CoV emerged, the so-called acute severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This virus causes the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and has been plaguing the world owing to its unprecedented spread efficiency, which has resulted in a huge death toll. In this sense, the repositioning of approved drugs is the fastest way to an effective response to a pandemic outbreak of this scale. Considering these facts, in this review we provide a comprehensive and critical discussion on the chemical aspects surrounding the drugs currently being studied as candidates for COVID-19 therapy. We intend to provide the general chemical community with an overview on the synthetic/biosynthetic pathways related to such molecules, as well as their mechanisms of action against the evaluated viruses and some insights on the pharmacological interactions involved in each case. Overall, the review aims to present the chemical aspects of the main bioactive molecules being considered to be repositioned for effective treatment of COVID-19 in all phases, from the mildest to the most severe.

Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 drug repurposing

Drug repurposing or repositioning is a technique whereby existing drugs are used to treat emerging and challenging diseases, including COVID-19. Drug repurposing has become a promising approach because of the opportunity for reduced development timelines and overall costs. In the big data era, artificial intelligence (AI) and network medicine offer cutting-edge application of information science to defining disease, medicine, therapeutics, and identifying targets with the least error. In this Review, we introduce guidelines on how to use AI for accelerating drug repurposing or repositioning, for which AI approaches are not just formidable but are also necessary. We discuss how to use AI models in precision medicine, and as an example, how AI models can accelerate COVID-19 drug repurposing. Rapidly developing, powerful, and innovative AI and network medicine technologies can expedite therapeutic development. This Review provides a strong rationale for using AI-based assistive tools for drug repurposing medications for human disease, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Repurposing of FDA-Approved Toremifene to Treat COVID-19 by Blocking the Spike Glycoprotein and NSP14 of SARS-CoV-2

The global pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has led to the death of more than 675,000 worldwide and over 150,000 in the United States alone. However, there are currently no approved effective pharmacotherapies for COVID-19. Here, we combine homology modeling, molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation, and binding affinity calculations to determine potential targets for toremifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator which we have previously identified as a SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor. Our results indicate the possibility of inhibition of the spike glycoprotein by toremifene, responsible for aiding in fusion of the viral membrane with the cell membrane, via a perturbation to the fusion core. An interaction between the dimethylamine end of toremifene and residues Q954 and N955 in heptad repeat 1 (HR1) perturbs the structure, causing a shift from what is normally a long, helical region to short helices connected by unstructured regions. Additionally, we found a strong interaction between toremifene and the methyltransferase nonstructural protein (NSP) 14, which could be inhibitory to viral replication via its active site. These results suggest potential structural mechanisms for toremifene by blocking the spike protein and NSP14 of SARS-CoV-2, offering a drug candidate for COVID-19.

Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Exploiting Signaling Pathways Implicated in Endocrine Resistance

Advancements in molecular profiling and endocrine therapy (ET) have led to more focused clinical attention on precision medicine. These advances have expanded our understanding of breast cancer (BC) pathogenesis and hold promising implications for the future of therapy. The estrogen receptor-α is a predominant endocrine regulatory protein in the breast and in estrogen-induced BC. Successful targeting of proteins and genes within estrogen receptor (ER) nuclear and nonnuclear pathways remains a clinical goal. Several classes of antiestrogenic agents are available for patients with early, advanced, or metastatic BC, including selective ER modulators, aromatase inhibitors, and a selective ER degrader. Clinical development is focused upon characterizing the efficacy and tolerability of inhibitors that target the phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K)/akt murine thymoma viral oncogene (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTOR) signaling pathway or the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) cell cycle pathway in women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative BC who have demonstrated disease recurrence or progression. De novo and acquired resistance remain a major challenge for women with BC receiving antiestrogenic therapy. Therefore, sequential combination of targeted ET is preferred in these patients, and the ever-increasing understanding of resistance mechanisms may better inform the selection of future therapy. This review describes the intricate roles of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and CDK4/6 pathways in intracellular signaling and the use of endocrine and endocrine-based combination therapy in BC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The foundational strategy for treating hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth receptor 2-negative, advanced breast cancer includes the use of endocrine therapy either alone or in combination with targeted agents. The use of combination therapy aims to downregulate cell-signaling pathways with the intent of minimizing cellular "crosstalk," which can otherwise result in continued tumorigenesis or progression through redundant pathways. This review provides the clinician with the molecular rationale and clinical evidence for these treatments and refers to evidence-based guidelines to inform the decision-making process.

The evolution of nonsteroidal antiestrogens to become selective estrogen receptor modulators

The discovery of the first nonsteroidal antiestrogen ethamoxytriphetol (MER25) in 1958, opened the door to a wide range of clinical applications. However, the finding that ethamoxytriphetol was a "morning after" pill in laboratory animals, energized the pharmaceutical industry to discover more potent derivatives. In the wake of the enormous impact of the introduction of the oral contraceptive worldwide, contraceptive research was a central focus in the early 1960's. Numerous compounds were discovered e.g., clomiphene, nafoxidine, and tamoxifen, but the fact that clinical studies showed no contraceptive actions, but, in fact, induced ovulation, dampened enthusiasm for clinical development. Only clomiphene moved forward to pioneer an application to induce ovulation in subfertile women. The fact that all the compounds were antiestrogenic made an application in patients to treat estrogen responsive breast cancer, an obvious choice. However, toxicities and poor projected commercial returns severely retarded clinical development for two decades. In the 1970's a paradigm shift in the laboratory to advocate long term adjuvant tamoxifen treatment for early (non-metastatic) breast cancer changed medical care and dramatically increased survivorship. Tamoxifen pioneered that paradigm shift but it became the medicine of choice in a second paradigm shift for preventing breast cancer during the 1980's and 1990's. This was not surprising as it was the only medicine available and there was laboratory and clinical evidence for the eventual success of this application. Tamoxifen is the first medicine to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at high risk. But it was the re-evaluation of the toxicology of tamoxifen in the 1980's and the finding that there was both carcinogenic potential and a significant, but small, risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women that led to a third paradigm shift to identify applications for selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulation. This idea was to establish a new group of medicines now called selective ER modulators (SERMs). Today there are 5 SERMs FDA approved (one other in Europe) for applications ranging from the reduction of breast cancer risk and osteoporosis to the reduction of menopausal hot flashes and improvements in dyspareunia and vaginal lubrication. This article charts the origins of the current path for progress in women's health with SERMs.

Genotoxicity of the some selective estrogen receptor modulators: a review

The objective of this article is to review genotoxicological profile of the major selective estrogen receptor modulators, including clomiphene, tamoxifen, toremifene, raloxifene. These drugs have been used for infertility treatment and breast cancer prevention in high risk-women. However, some studies reported that especially tamoxifen is a genotoxic agent and is related with endometrial cancer. Our review indicate that clomiphene and tamoxifen were found as genotoxic agent in majority of the tests. However published reports showed that toremifene is a weakly genotoxic agent. The genotoxic effects of raloxifene are still poorly known. Further genotoxicity studies should be conducted especially for raloxifene.

Toremifene to reduce fracture risk in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with fracture risk in men with prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of toremifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, on fracture incidence in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy during a 2-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo controlled phase III study 646 men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer were assigned to toremifene (80 mg by mouth daily) and 638 were assigned to placebo. Subjects were followed for 2 years. The primary study end point was new vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included fragility fractures, bone mineral density and lipid changes.

RESULTS

The 2-year incidence of new vertebral fractures was 4.9% in the placebo group vs 2.5% in the toremifene group, a significant relative risk reduction of 50% (95% CI -1.5 to 75.0, p = 0.05). Toremifene significantly increased bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, hip and femoral neck vs placebo (p <0.0001 for all comparisons). There was a concomitant decrease in markers of bone turnover (p <0.05 for all comparisons). Toremifene also significantly improved lipid profiles. Venous thromboembolic events occurred more frequently with toremifene than placebo with 7 subjects (1.1%) in the placebo group experiencing a venous thromboembolic event vs 17 (2.6%) in the toremifene group. Other adverse events were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Toremifene significantly decreased the incidence of new vertebral fractures in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. It also significantly improved bone mineral density, bone turnover markers and serum lipid profiles.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of toremifene and its clinical implications for the treatment of osteoporosis

INTRODUCTION

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that differs from tamoxifen in a single chloride ion addition on a side chain, resulting in a potentially more favorable toxicity profile.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of toremifene and its potential use for the treatment of osteoporosis. This article was based on articles found through a literature search containing the terms 'toremifene' and 'SERMs.'

EXPERT OPINION

Toremifene can be administered orally with an excellent bioavailability. The overall pharmacokinetic profile is remarkably similar to tamoxifen. Toremifene is highly metabolized in the liver and is eliminated primarily in the feces following enterohepatic circulation. Some of its metabolites retain biological activity. This SERM was approved by the FDA for the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer and is under investigation for its potential skeletal benefits in men on androgen deprivation therapy. Despite the positive preclinical and clinical evidences for the prevention of bone loss and fractures, the chemopreventive effect on prostate cancer remains to be confirmed and an increased risk of venous thromboembolism was evidenced in a large Phase III trial. Thus, additional data are required to establish the full clinical profile of this compound and its potential advantages over antiresorptive agents commonly in use for the treatment of osteoporosis.

Toremifene to reduce fracture risk in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with fracture risk in men with prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of toremifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, on fracture incidence in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy during a 2-year period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo controlled phase III study 646 men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer were assigned to toremifene (80 mg by mouth daily) and 638 were assigned to placebo. Subjects were followed for 2 years. The primary study end point was new vertebral fractures. Secondary end points included fragility fractures, bone mineral density and lipid changes.

RESULTS

The 2-year incidence of new vertebral fractures was 4.9% in the placebo group vs 2.5% in the toremifene group, a significant relative risk reduction of 50% (95% CI -1.5 to 75.0, p = 0.05). Toremifene significantly increased bone mineral density at the lumbar spine, hip and femoral neck vs placebo (p <0.0001 for all comparisons). There was a concomitant decrease in markers of bone turnover (p <0.05 for all comparisons). Toremifene also significantly improved lipid profiles. Venous thromboembolic events occurred more frequently with toremifene than placebo with 7 subjects (1.1%) in the placebo group experiencing a venous thromboembolic event vs 17 (2.6%) in the toremifene group. Other adverse events were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Toremifene significantly decreased the incidence of new vertebral fractures in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. It also significantly improved bone mineral density, bone turnover markers and serum lipid profiles.

Toremifene--a promising therapy for the prevention of prostate cancer and complications of androgen deprivation therapy

Deregulation of the estrogen axis in humans prompts a series of tissue-specific events. In the breast and prostate, alterations in estrogen signalling lead to genotypic and phenotypic molecular alterations that result in dysplastic cellular appearance, deregulated cell growth and carcinoma. In bone, decreased estrogen leads to increased osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption, decreased bone mineral density and a significant fracture risk. Toremifene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator that exerts pharmacological activity in the breast, bone and prostate. An intense interest in developing this agent for prostate cancer chemoprevention is based on the reduction of premalignant and malignant prostate lesions in a transgenic model of prostate cancer. Biological and clinical activity was demonstrated in Phase II trials by the prevention of progression to prostate cancer in men with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia and through suppression of bone turnover biomarkers and increased bone mineral density in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.

Selective oestrogen receptor modulators/new antioestrogens: a clinical perspective

Following tamoxifen, the first selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM), a number of other antioestrogens have been developed. The first-generation SERMs exhibit cross-resistance with tamoxifen and have agonist effects on the uterus. Toremifene has equal efficacy to tamoxifen and may be useful as a tamoxifen alternative. Efficacy results for droloxifene and idoxifene were disappointing and their clinical development ceased. Response rates for second-generation SERMs such as raloxifene and arzoxifene are also not high, although raloxifene shows promise in the chemoprevention of breast cancer. Paradoxically, high-dose oestrogens are proving to be effective breast cancer treatment with similar responses to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced disease, although these drugs are not well tolerated. Fulvestrant is a new type of oestrogen receptor (ER) antagonist with no agonist effects, which binds, blocks and degrades the ER. Fulvestrant produces high response rates compared with the SERMs, is not cross-resistant with SERMs or aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and is equally as effective as the AI anastrozole in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer who have progressed after prior antioestrogen therapy. Pure antioestrogens such as the ER antagonist fulvestrant provide opportunities for therapeutic sequencing with tamoxifen and AIs and offer exciting possibilities for the future treatment of breast cancer.

The use of selective estrogen receptor modulators and selective estrogen receptor down-regulators in breast cancer

Tamoxifen is one of the most effective treatments for breast cancer through its ability to antagonize estrogen-dependent growth by binding estrogen receptors (ERs) and inhibiting proliferation of breast epithelial cells. However, tamoxifen has estrogenic agonist effects in other tissues such as bone and endometrium due to liganded ER activating target genes in these different types of cell. Several novel anti-estrogen compounds have been developed which have a reduced agonist profile on breast and gynaecological tissues. These compounds offer the potential for enhanced efficacy and reduced toxicity compared with tamoxifen. In advanced breast cancer clinical data exist for two groups of agents: the selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), further divided into "tamoxifen-like" (e.g. toremifene, droloxifene and idoxifene) and "fixed ring" compounds (e.g. raloxifene, arzoxifene and EM-800), and the selective estrogen receptor down-regulators (SERDs; e.g. fulvestrant (ICI 182780), SR 16234 and ZK 191703) also termed "pure anti-estrogens". In phase II trials in tamoxifen-resistant metastatic breast cancer the SERMs show low objective response rates (range 0-15%), suggesting cross resistance with tamoxifen. Randomized phase III trials for toremifene and idoxifene in over 1500 patients showed no significant difference compared with tamoxifen. Fewer clinical data exist for the "fixed ring" SERMs and it remains unclear whether any clinical advantage exists for the "fixed ring" SERMs over tamoxifen as first-line therapy. The main advantage for SERMs such as tamoxifen and raloxifene probably remains in early-stage disease (adjuvant therapy or prevention). Fulvestrant and the other SERDs have a high affinity for the estrogen receptor (ER) compared to tamoxifen, but none of its agonist activities. Of the SERDs, only fulvestrant has entered the clinic and this new agent is showing promising clinical activity in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Recently published phase III studies have shown fulvestrant to be at least as effective as the third-generation aromatase inhibitor anastrozole in patients whose disease has relapsed or progressed on prior endocrine therapy. Surprisingly, however, in a phase III trial versus tamoxifen for the first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer fulvestrant did not attain the requirements for equivalence to tamoxifen, and in terms of time-to-treatment failure was inferior (5.9 versus 7.8 months for fulvestrant and tamoxifen, respectively; P=0.029). Future clinical studies will evaluate fulvestrant in the neoadjuvant setting together with its optimal sequencing in relation to tamoxifen and other endocrine therapies in advanced disease.

Update on the current use of hormonals as therapy in advanced breast cancer

Hormonal agents have a confirmed role in the management of postmenopausal women with receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Until recently, tamoxifen has been the accepted agent for treating these patients. However, accumulating evidence suggests that the new antiaromatase agents will replace the antiestrogens as the preferable option in hormone-naive patients. Comparative trials indicate that the aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole and letrozole, and the aromatase inactivator, exemestane, have at least equivalent efficacy to tamoxifen with similar or superior tolerability. These agents are also more effective than the progestin, megestrol acetate, when studied in patients progressing on tamoxifen. The improved aromatase selectivity and high potency of these antiaromatase agents when compared with earlier agents have resulted in improved efficacy and tolerability. Additionally, no cross-resistance has been reported between the antiaromatase agents and tamoxifen or, in some instances, among the antiaromatase agents themselves. The role of antiaromatase agents will certainly expand in the near future to include not only treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but use in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings as well, and, ultimately, breast cancer prevention. The results of ongoing investigations are awaited with interest.

Idoxifene versus tamoxifen: a randomized comparison in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

More efficacious and safer hormonal agents are needed for breast cancer treatment and prevention. Idoxifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that, in preclinical models, has greater antiestrogenic but lower estrogenic activity than tamoxifen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three hundred and twenty-one postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either tamoxifen or idoxifene as initial endocrine therapy for advanced disease. Data were analyzed based on intention to treat and all the responses were subject to independent review.

RESULTS

At the time of a second planned interim analysis, the trial was stopped for economic considerations, not for reasons related to safety or efficacy. Complete data for the 219 patients included in the second interim analysis are fully available and reported here. Median age was 59.1 years for idoxifene patients and 59.9 years for tamoxifen patients. Complete response (CR) plus partial response (PR) rates were as follows: tamoxifen, 9%; idoxifene, 13% (P = 0.39). Clinical benefit rate [CR + PR + stable disease (SD) >or=6 months] was 34.3% for idoxifene and 38.7% for tamoxifen (P = 0.31). Median time to progression and duration of response were 140 days and 151.5 days, respectively, for tamoxifen compared with 166 days and 218 days for idoxifene. None of these endpoints was significantly different for the two drugs, nor was survival. Adverse events (lethal, serious but not lethal and important but not life threatening) were similar in the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Idoxifene was both active and well tolerated in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Idoxifene had similar efficacy and toxicity to tamoxifen in this randomized comparison.

Comparative tolerability of first-generation selective estrogen receptor modulators in breast cancer treatment and prevention

In general, the selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) currently indicated for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer, i.e. tamoxifen and toremifene, are fairly well tolerated. However, tamoxifen has been shown to induce hepatocellular carcinomas in rats, but not in humans, and can increase the risk of endometrial cancer in humans by two to three times. Other potentially serious adverse effects which have been associated with tamoxifen and toremifene therapy include vasomotor symptoms, an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, and an increased incidence of cataracts and ocular toxicity, fatty liver, and nonmalignant hepatic and uterine changes. In addition, long term tamoxifen use almost always results in resistance to the drug and, indeed, has actually been shown to promote tumour proliferation in human breast cancer cells. Both tamoxifen and toremifene display drug interactions with a variety of drug classes. The adverse events associated with these compounds have raised significant concerns regarding their widespread use for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer. In addition, because of the weakness and scarcity of the data on toremifene, any conclusions about its tolerability remain tentative until outcomes of ongoing clinical trials in the adjuvant setting are known. A third SERM, raloxifene, is the focus of several large randomised trials examining its efficacy in the prevention of breast cancer. At present, each potential adverse event needs to be weighed against potential benefits in the decision to undergo SERM treatment. An array of therapies is currently available for patients with breast cancer and women at increased risk of disease; the risk-to-benefit ratio for each agent should be carefully examined in determining the most advantageous regimen.

Prospective study on gynaecological effects of two antioestrogens tamoxifen and toremifene in postmenopausal women

To assess and compare the gynaecological consequences of the use of 2 antioestrogens we examined 167 postmenopausal breast cancer patients before and during the use of either tamoxifen (20 mg/day, n = 84) or toremifene (40 mg/day, n = 83) as an adjuvant treatment of stage II-III breast cancer. Detailed interview concerning menopausal symptoms, pelvic examination including transvaginal sonography (TVS) and collection of endometrial sample were performed at baseline and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months of treatment. In a subgroup of 30 women (15 using tamoxifen and 15 toremifene) pulsatility index (PI) in an uterine artery was measured before and at 6 and 12 months of treatment. The mean (+/-SD) follow-up time was 2.3 +/- 0.8 years. 35% of the patients complained of vasomotor symptoms before the start of the trial. This rate increased to 60.0% during the first year of the trial, being similar among patients using tamoxifen (57.1%) and toremifene (62.7%). Vaginal dryness, which was present in 6.0% at baseline, increased during the use of tamoxifen (26.2%) and toremifene (24.1%). Endometrial thickness increased from baseline (3.9 +/- 2.7 mm) to 6.8 +/- 4.2 mm at 6 months (P< 0.001), and no difference emerged between the 2 regimens in this regard. Before the start of the antioestrogen regimen, the endometrium was atrophic in 71 (75.5%) and proliferative in 19 of 94 (20.2%) samples; 4 patients had benign endometrial polyps. During the use of antioestrogen altogether 339 endometrial samples were taken (159 in tamoxifen group, 180 in toremifene group). The endometrium was proliferative more often in the tamoxifen group (47.8%) than in the toremifene group (32.2%) (P< 0.0001). 20 patients had a total of 24 polyps (17 in tamoxifen and 9 in toremifene group, P< 0.05) during the use of antioestrogens. One patient in the toremifene group developed endometrial adenocarcinoma at 12 months, and one patient had breast cancer metastasis on the endometrium. Tamoxifen failed to affect the PI in the uterine artery, but toremifene reduced it by 15.0% (P< 0.05) by 12 months. In conclusion, tamoxifen and toremifene cause similarly vasomotor and vaginal symptoms. Neither regimen led to the development of premalignant endometrial changes. Our data suggest that so close endometrial surveillance as used in our study may not be mandatory during the first 3 years of use of antioestrogen treatment.

Phase III randomized trial of toremifene vs tamoxifen in hormonodependant advanced breast cancer

PURPOSE

Efficacy and safety of toremifene (TOR) 60 mgs/dayly/o.r. was compared with tamoxifen (TAM) 40 mgs/dayly/o.r. in a group of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, without previous systemic therapy for advanced breast cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was a prospective double-blind randomized trial. All treated patients presented with positive estrogen receptors. Main end points were response rates, toxicity profile analysis, time to progression and survival. WHO and ECOG criteria were employed for response evaluation while toxicity was assesed according to WHO guidelines. Curves were constructed by means of Kaplan-Meier methodology and were compared by means of log-rank test.

RESULTS

From January 1996 to January 1999 a total of 217 patients were included in the study (106 in the TOR branch and 111 in the TAM arm). Both groups of patients were homogeneous regarding the main prognostic factors. A response rate of 64% (68/106) was observed in the TOR group as compared with a 52% (58/111) in the TAM group. Median times to progression and overall survival were not significantly different. A lower incidence of undesirable effects was apreciated in the TOR arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that TOR is an efficient and well-tolerated agent for the therapy of postmenopausal women with hormonal positive receptors advanced breast cancer, and must be considered an alternative to TAM as first line therapy for ER+ advanced breast cancer patients and as well as an adjuvant treatment.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of toremifene

Toremifene is a chlorinated triphenylethylene derivative of tamoxifen approved for use in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Toremifene is well tolerated in patients, and common adverse effects of this drug include vasomotor symptoms such as hot flashes and vaginal discharge. This compound is administered to patients orally at a dose of 60 mg/day, although alternative methods of administration have been investigated. Oral bioavailability is estimated to be approximately 100%. At steady state, toremifene and its metabolites are highly protein bound (>95%). Toremifene is metabolised in the liver by cytochrome P450 enzymes, and it is eliminated primarily in the faeces following enterohepatic circulation. The half-life of toremifene is approximately 5 days, and steady state is reached by 6 weeks depending on the dose given. The pharmacokinetics of toremifene have been shown to be altered by certain liver conditions, but age and kidney function do not appear to be as significant.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators: structure, function, and clinical use

The sex hormone estrogen is important for many physiologic processes. Prolonged stimulation of breast ductal epithelium by estrogen, however, can contribute to the development and progression of breast cancer, and treatments designed to block estrogen's effects are important options in the clinic. Tamoxifen and other similar drugs are effective in breast cancer prevention and treatment by inhibiting the proliferative effects of estrogen that are mediated through the estrogen receptor (ER). However, these drugs also have many estrogenic effects depending on the tissue and gene, and they are more appropriately called selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs). SERMs bind ER, alter receptor conformation, and facilitate binding of coregulatory proteins that activate or repress transcriptional activation of estrogen target genes. Theoretically, SERMs could be synthesized that would exhibit nearly complete agonist activity on the one hand or pure antiestrogenic activity on the other. Depending on their functional activities, SERMs could then be developed for a variety of clinical uses, including prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, treatment and prevention of estrogen-regulated malignancies, and even for hormone replacement therapy. Tamoxifen is effective in patients with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer and in the adjuvant setting. The promising role for tamoxifen in ductal carcinoma-in-situ or for breast cancer prevention is evolving, and its use can be considered in certain patient groups. Other SERMs are in development, with the goal of reducing toxicity and/or improving efficacy, and future agents have the potential of providing a new paradigm for maintaining the health of women.

ICI 182,780 (Faslodex): development of a novel, "pure" antiestrogen

BACKGROUND

The nonsteroidal antiestrogen tamoxifen is well established as an effective treatment for patients with breast carcinoma, both for the treatment of metastatic disease and as an adjuvant to surgery for patients with primary breast carcinoma. In addition to exerting antagonistic effects on the estrogen receptor, tamoxifen and its derivatives act as partial agonists on certain tissues. These agonistic effects, for example, endometrial stimulation and stimulation of tumor growth after previous response to tamoxifen, may limit their clinical efficacy. ICI 182,780 (Faslodex) from AstraZeneca (Cheshire, United Kingdom) is a novel, steroidal estrogen antagonist that was designed to be devoid of estrogen agonist activity in preclinical models.

METHODS

ICI 182,780 was tested in a large number of in vitro and in vivo preclinical models, and its value was assessed clinically when administered before surgery for breast carcinoma and hysterectomy for benign conditions and after failure of tamoxifen in patients with advanced breast carcinoma.

RESULTS

All data indicated that ICI 182,780 is devoid of agonist activity in preclinical models and in clinical trials. It inhibits growth of the breast and endometrium. In animal models, it does not cross the blood-brain barrier and appears to be neutral with respect to lipids and bone. ICI 182,780 down-regulates the estrogen receptor and is active in tamoxifen-resistant breast carcinoma. In a small, Phase II study, durable responses were seen: Phase III clinical trials are in progress comparing ICI 182,780 with anastrozole and tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with advanced breast carcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

ICI 182,780 specifically down-regulates the estrogen receptor and, thus, represents the first of a new class of therapeutic agents. In this report, the authors present the current evidence that distinguishes ICI 182,780 from tamoxifen and related nonsteroidal compounds and establishes ICI 182,780 as the first in a new class of therapeutic agents.

Selective oestrogen receptor modifiers (SERMs) and breast cancer therapy

Antioestrogen therapy is currently receiving renewed interest for several reasons. Tamoxifen was introduced in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer more than three decades ago. The drug significantly reduces long term mortality and also reduces the risk of contralateral tumours when administered in early breast cancer. Five years of tamoxifen is now standard in adjuvant endocrine therapy, and the drug is currently being evaluated for breast cancer prevention. Despite this, several aspects regarding the pharmacology of the drug are still unclear, and the scientific rationale for dose selection has recently been challenged. Several novel antioestrogen compounds, called selective oestrogen receptor modifiers (SERMs), express selective oestrogen agonistic or antagonistic properties depending on the organ or test system evaluated. Some of these drugs, like raloxifene, do not seem to promote the development of endometrial cancer, although they still have selected oestrogen-like beneficial effects. This paper reviews the pharmacologic and the pharmacokinetic aspects of the different SERMs with particular emphasis on their potential use in therapy and prevention of breast cancer.

Effects of liver disease on pharmacokinetics. An update

Liver disease can modify the kinetics of drugs biotransformed by the liver. This review updates recent developments in this field, with particular emphasis on cytochrome P450 (CYP). CYP is a rapidly expanding area in clinical pharmacology. The information currently available on specific isoforms involved in drug metabolism has increased tremendously over the latest years, but knowledge remains incomplete. Studies on the effects of liver disease on specific isoenzymes of CYP have shown that some isoforms are more susceptible than others to liver disease. A detailed knowledge of the particular isoenzyme involved in the metabolism of a drug and the impact of liver disease on that enzyme can provide a rational basis for dosage adjustment in patients with hepatic impairment. The capacity of the liver to metabolise drugs depends on hepatic blood flow and liver enzyme activity, both of which can be affected by liver disease. In addition, liver failure can influence the binding of a drug to plasma proteins. These changes can occur alone or in combination; when they coexist their effect on drug kinetics is synergistic, not simply additive. The kinetics of drugs with a low hepatic extraction are sensitive to hepatic failure rather than to liver blood flow changes, but drugs having a significant first-pass effect are sensitive to alterations in hepatic blood flow. The drugs examined in this review are: cardiovascular agents (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, calcium antagonists, ketanserin, antiarrhythmics and hypolipidaemics), diuretics (torasemide), psychoactive and anticonvulsant agents (benzodiazepines, flumazenil, antidepressants and tiagabine), antiemetics (metoclopramide and serotonin antagonists), antiulcers (acid pump inhibitors), anti-infectives and antiretroviral agents (grepafloxacin, ornidazole, pefloxacin, stavudine and zidovudine), immunosuppressants (cyclosporin and tacrolimus), naltrexone, tolcapone and toremifene. According to the available data, the kinetics of many drugs are altered by liver disease to an extent that requires dosage adjustment; the problem is to quantify the required changes. Obviously, this requires the evaluation of the degree of hepatic impairment. At present there is no satisfactory test that gives a quantitative measure of liver function and its impairment. A critical evaluation of these methods is provided. Guidelines providing a rational basis for dosage adjustment are illustrated. Finally, it is important to consider that liver disease not only affects pharmacokinetics but also pharmacodynamics. This review also examines drugs with altered pharmacodynamics.

Tamoxifen and toremifene concentrations in plasma are greatly decreased by rifampin

BACKGROUND

Rifampin (INN, rifampicin) is a potent inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes involved in drug metabolism and therefore causes many drug interactions.

METHODS

The effects of rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen (study I) and toremifene (study II) were examined in 2 randomized, placebo-controlled crossover studies. Ten (study I) or 9 (study II) healthy male volunteers took either 600 mg rifampin or placebo orally once a day for 5 days. On the sixth day, 80 mg tamoxifen or 120 mg toremifene was administered orally. Blood samples were collected up to 336 hours after drug administration.

RESULTS

Rifampin reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of tamoxifen by 86% (P < .001), peak plasma concentration (Cmax) by 55% (P < .001), and elimination half-life (t1/2) by 44% (P < .001). The AUC of toremifene was reduced by 87% (P < .001), Cmax by 55% (P < .001), and t1/2 by 44% (P < .01) with rifampin. During the rifampin phase, the AUC of N-demethyltamoxifen was 38% (P < .001) and the AUC of N-demethyltoremifene was 20% (P < .01) of that during the placebo phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Rifampin markedly reduces the plasma concentrations of tamoxifen and toremifene by inducing their CYP3A4-mediated metabolism. Concomitant use of rifampin or other potent inducers of CYP3A4 with tamoxifen and toremifene may reduce the efficacy of these antiestrogens.