An open randomised trial of second-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer. comparison of the aromatase inhibitors letrozole and anastrozole. Estrogen-receptor-directed neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer: results of a randomised trial using formestane and methotrexate, mitozantrone and mitomycin C (MMM) chemotherapy. Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. Megestrol acetate and aminoglutethimide/hydrocortisone in sequence or in combination as second-line endocrine therapy of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group phase III trial. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. Efficacy of sequential cyclical hormonal therapy in endometrial cancer and its correlation with steroid hormone receptor status. Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, for advanced breast cancer versus megestrol acetate. Randomized double-blind trial of estrogen replacement therapy versus placebo in stage I or II endometrial cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Phase III, double-blind, controlled trial of atamestane plus toremifene compared with letrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced receptor-positive breast cancer.
It was previously shown that letrozole (Femara) was significantly more potent than anastrozole (Arimidex) in inhibiting aromatase activity in vitro and in inhibiting total body aromatisation in patients with breast cancer. The objective of this study was to compare letrozole (2.5 mg per day) and anastrozole (1 mg per day) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anti-oestrogen. This randomised, multicentre and multinational open-label phase IIIb/IV study enrolled 713 patients. Treatment was for advanced breast cancer that had progressed either during anti-oestrogen therapy or within 12 months of completing that therapy. Patients had tumours that were either positive for oestrogen and/or progesterone receptors (48%) or of unknown receptor status (52%). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints included objective response, duration of response, rate and duration of overall clinical benefit (responses and long-term stable disease), time to treatment failure, and overall survival, as well as general safety. There was no difference between the treatment arms in TTP; median times were the same for both treatments. Letrozole was significantly superior to anastrozole in the overall response rate (ORR) (19.1% versus 12.3%, P=0.013), including in predefined subgroups (receptor status-unknown, and soft-tissue- and viscera-dominant site of disease). There were no significant differences between the treatment arms in the rate of clinical benefit, median duration of response, duration of clinical benefit, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Both agents were well tolerated and there were no significant differences in safety. These results support previous data documenting the greater aromatase-inhibiting activity of letrozole and indicate that advanced breast cancer is more responsive to letrozole than to anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy. We wanted to determine whether neoadjuvant systemic chemoendocrine therapy guided by the estrogen receptor (ER) status of the primary breast cancer, followed by conventional surgery and/or radiotherapy, reduces local and distant recurrence and improves survival compared with adjuvant treatment given conventionally postoperatively.
                Two hundred ten patients with primary breast cancer (T1-T4, N0, N1-2) were randomised to receive treatment with neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy or conventional post-operative chemoendocrine therapy. Systemic therapy was based on the estrogen receptor (ER) status of the primary tumour obtained by trucut core biopsy. ER-negative patients received MMM chemotherapy (methotrexate (30 mg/m2), mitozantrone (7 mg/m2) and mitomycin (7 mg/m2) three-weekly for three months and ER-positive patients who were premenopausal received goserelin (3.75 mg monthly), and post menopausal women formestane (250 mg every two weeks) over three months.
                With a minimum of five years follow-up, there is no evidence of any survival benefit from the pretreatment neoadjuvant therapy regimen, with five year overall survival being 79% +/- 4.7% (neoadjuvant) and 87% +/- 3.4% (adjuvant). Similarly, there was no apparent benefit in terms of disease-free survival. There was, however, a significant reduction in the incidence of distant metastases in responders (4 of 51; 8%) compared with non-responders (17 of 49; 35%) (P < 0.01). There was a reduction in the need for surgery in responding patients with T1 and T2 tumours, since 10 of 74 (14%) had no detectable residual tumour, without any apparent increase in the risk of local or distant recurrence.
                In this study neoadjuvant treatment with endocrine or chemotherapy provided no obvious survival benefit to women with breast cancer. However, it does allow avoidance of surgery in some cases. Also, the patients whose tumours respond to neoadjuvant systemic therapy have a lower incidence of distant metastases after five year follow-up compared to those whose tumours fail to respond. The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure.
                Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily.
                A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant.
                Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI. A phase III randomized trial was performed to determine whether combination hormonal therapy with aminoglutethimide (AG) and hydrocortisone (HC) plus megestrol acetate (MA) improved response rates, response duration, or increased survival over the sequential use of each hormone in women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had maintained stable disease for at least 6 months or responded to tamoxifen.
                Two hundred eighty-eight postmenopausal women with progressive estrogen receptor-positive MBC were randomly selected to receive MA 40 mg four times daily (arm I), AG 250 mg four times daily with HC 40 mg daily in divided doses (arm II), versus the combination of MA plus AG given at the same dosages (arm III). Patients on arms I and II who progressed after an adequate trial were crossed over to the other treatment arm.
                Two hundred thirty-five eligible patients were evaluated for response, time to treatment failure, and survival. Response was only reported for patients with measurable disease and was not statistically different among the three arms. There were two partial responses (PRs) on MA (6%), four complete responses (CRs) and six PRs on AG (24%), and eight PRs and three CRs on MA plus AG (23%) in 32, 42, and 48 measurable patients, respectively. Median times to treatment failure were also similar at 5, 4, and 7 months. Survival was also not statistically different among the three arms at 26, 27, and 26 months for arms I, II, and III, respectively. Toxicity was greater in the two AG arms with respect to fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and rash.
                With the exception of toxicity, there is no response, time to treatment failure, or survival benefit for any one group when comparing MA, AG, or the combination at their stated doses in women with estrogen receptor-positive MBC who had previously responded to or stabilized with tamoxifen. Ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen is a standard adjuvant treatment in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors are superior to tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients, and preclinical data suggest that zoledronic acid has antitumor properties.
                We examined the effect of adding zoledronic acid to a combination of either goserelin and tamoxifen or goserelin and anastrozole in premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. We randomly assigned 1803 patients to receive goserelin (3.6 mg given subcutaneously every 28 days) plus tamoxifen (20 mg per day given orally) or anastrozole (1 mg per day given orally) with or without zoledronic acid (4 mg given intravenously every 6 months) for 3 years. The primary end point was disease-free survival; recurrence-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points.
                After a median follow-up of 47.8 months, 137 events had occurred, with disease-free survival rates of 92.8% in the tamoxifen group, 92.0% in the anastrozole group, 90.8% in the group that received endocrine therapy alone, and 94.0% in the group that received endocrine therapy with zoledronic acid. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival between the anastrozole and tamoxifen groups (hazard ratio for disease progression in the anastrozole group, 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.53; P=0.59). The addition of zoledronic acid to endocrine therapy, as compared with endocrine therapy without zoledronic acid, resulted in an absolute reduction of 3.2 percentage points and a relative reduction of 36% in the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91; P=0.01); the addition of zoledronic acid did not significantly reduce the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.11; P=0.11). Adverse events were consistent with known drug-safety profiles.
                The addition of zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy improves disease-free survival in premenopausal patients with estrogen-responsive early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00295646.)
                2009 Massachusetts Medical Society Forty-six eligible women with metastatic endometrial cancer were randomly allocated to receive monthly cycles of either CAF (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, 5-fluorouracil) or CAF plus Provera 200 mg daily for 3 weeks followed cyclically by Tamoxifen 20 mg daily for 3 weeks. Overall response rates of 15 and 43% were seen with CAF and CAF plus hormonal therapy. Using a multivariate analysis of the results, this difference is significant (P value 0.05). In 8 patients with operable endometrial cancer, negative estrogen receptor concentration (ER less than 15 fmole/mg protein) and Grade 3 disease, the clinical course was aggressive in 4 patients with systemic and local relapse. In 10 other similar patients (negative ER and Grade 3) who received adjuvant cyclical hormonal therapy only 1 relapsed and the other 9 are disease-free for an average of more than 31 months. Sequential cyclical hormonal therapy with ER and progesterone receptor analysis has a place in the management of endometrial carcinoma. To compare two doses of letrozole (0.5 mg and 2.5 mg every day) and megestrol acetate (40 mg qid) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with antiestrogens.
                This double-blind, randomized, multicenter, multinational study enrolled 602 patients, all of whom were included in the primary analysis in the protocol. Patients had advanced or metastatic breast cancer with evidence of disease progression while receiving continuous adjuvant antiestrogen therapy, had experienced relapse within 12 months of stopping adjuvant antiestrogen therapy given for at least 6 months, or had experienced disease progression while receiving antiestrogen therapy for advanced disease. Tumors were required to be estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive or of unknown status. Confirmed objective response rate was the primary efficacy variable. Karnofsky Performance Status and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life assessments were collected for 1 year.
                There were no statistically significant differences among the three treatment groups for overall objective tumor response. Patients treated with letrozole 0.5 mg had improvements in disease progression (P =.044) and a decreased risk of treatment failure (P =.018), compared with patients treated with megestrol acetate. Letrozole 0.5 mg showed a trend (P =.053) for survival benefit when compared with megestrol acetate. Megestrol acetate was more likely to produce weight gain, dyspnea, and vaginal bleeding, and the letrozole groups were more likely to experience headache, hair thinning, and diarrhea.
                Given a favorable tolerability profile, once-daily dosing, and evidence of clinically relevant benefit, letrozole is equivalent to megestrol acetate and should be considered for use as an alternative treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women after treatment failure with antiestrogens. To determine the effect of estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) on recurrence rate and survival in women who have undergone surgery for stage I or II endometrial cancer.
                After surgery, eligible patients were allocated to therapy with ERT or placebo after undergoing hysterectomy with or without pelvic and aortic nodal sampling. Planned duration of hormonal versus placebo treatment was 3 years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up.
                The median follow-up time for all 1,236 eligible and assessable patients was 35.7 months. Stage, grade, histologic subtype, and percentage of patients receiving adjuvant therapy were similarly distributed between the groups. The median age at diagnosis for the 618 patients randomly assigned to ERT was 57 years (range, 26 to 91 years). Two hundred fifty-one patients (41.1%) were compliant with ERT for the entire treatment period. Disease recurrence was experienced in 14 patients (2.3%). Eight patients (1.3%) developed a new malignancy. There were 26 deaths (4.2%), and five deaths (0.8%) were a result of endometrial cancer. The median age at diagnosis for the 618 patients in the placebo group was 57 years (range, 30 to 88 years). Twelve patients (1.9%) experienced disease recurrence. Ten patients (1.6%) developed a new malignancy. There were 9 deaths (3.1%) in the placebo group, and four deaths (0.6%) were a result of endometrial cancer.
                Although this incomplete study cannot conclusively refute or support the safety of exogenous estrogen with regard to risk of endometrial recurrence, it is noteworthy that the absolute recurrence rate (2.1%) and the incidence of new malignancy were low. To compare time to progression (TTP) with a steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) atamestane (ATA) combined with toremifene (TOR; complete estrogen blockade) versus letrozole (LET) in receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC).
                Eligibility included postmenopausal receptor-positive ABC and adjuvant hormonal therapy completed more than 12 months prior to study entry. Participants received daily ATA 500 mg with TOR 60 mg (ATA + TOR), or letrozole 2.5 mg (LET). The primary end point was TTP, whereas secondary objectives included objective response (OR), overall survival (OS), and time to treatment failure (TTF). The study had 80% power to detect a 25% increase in TTP assuming a TTP of 9.4 months in the LET population.
                A total of 865 patients were randomly assigned (434 to ATA + TOR and 431 to LET) in 60 centers in the United States, Canada, Russia, and Ukraine. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median TTP was identical in the two arms at 11.2 months (P < .92). Median TTF was similar at 9.24 months (ATA + TOR) versus 10.44 months (LET). The hazard ratios (LET/ATA + TOR) were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08) for TTP, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.06) for TTF, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11) for OS. OR occurred in 30% of patients receiving ATA + TOR and in 36% of patients receiving LET (P < .1). Adverse events (AEs) were similar for patients receiving ATA + TOR versus LET, and serious AEs were 10% v 11%, respectively.
                TTP for patients receiving ATA + TOR was identical to that for patients receiving LET, representing the first endocrine therapy comparable to LET in ABC. Unlike in the Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, and Combined trial, addition of an antiestrogen did not decrease efficacy of the AI. Future studies of AIs in combination with more effective selective estrogen receptor modulators or selective receptor downregulators is warranted.
Primary endocrine therapy should only be offered to women with oestrogen receptor (ER) positive tumours who are unfit for or who refuse surgery. In a cohort of women with significant co-morbid disease and ER-positive tumours it is possible that primary endocrine therapy may be a superior option to surgery. Trials are needed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of aromatase inhibitors as primary therapy for an infirm older population with ER-positive tumours.