Genomic characterization of HER2-positive breast cancer and response to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy-results from the ACOSOG Z1041 (Alliance) trial.

Background: HER2 (ERBB2) gene amplification and its corresponding overexpression are present in 15-30% of invasive breast cancers. While HER2-targeted agents are effective treatments, resistance remains a major cause of death. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1041 trial (NCT00513292) was designed to compare the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of distinct regimens of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab, but ultimately identified no difference. Patients and methods: In supplement to tissues from 37 Z1041 cases, 11 similarly treated cases were obtained from a single institution study (NCT00353483). We have extracted genomic DNA from both pre-treatment tumor biopsies and blood of these 48 cases, and performed whole genome (WGS) and exome sequencing. Coincident with these efforts, we have generated RNA-seq profiles from 42 of the tumor biopsies. Among patients in this cohort, 24 (50%) achieved a pCR. Results: We have characterized the genomic landscape of HER2-positive breast cancer and investigated associations between genomic features and pCR. Cases assigned to the HER2-enriched subtype by RNA-seq analysis were more likely to achieve a pCR compared to the luminal, basal-like, or normal-like subtypes (19/27 versus 3/15; P = 0.0032). Mutational events led to the generation of putatively active neoantigens, but were overall not associated with pCR. ERBB2 and GRB7 were the genes most commonly observed in fusion events, and genomic copy number analysis of the ERBB2 locus indicated that cases with either no observable or low-level ERBB2 amplification were less likely to achieve a pCR (7/8 versus 17/40; P = 0.048). Moreover, among cases that achieved a pCR, tumors consistently expressed immune signatures that may contribute to therapeutic response. Conclusion: The identification of these features suggests that it may be possible to predict, at the time of diagnosis, those HER2-positive breast cancer patients who will not respond to treatment with chemotherapy and trastuzumab. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00513292, NCT00353483.

Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome among older women receiving anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer on Modern Cooperative Group Trials (Alliance A151511).

PURPOSE: We examined acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) events among 9679 women treated for breast cancer on four adjuvant Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials with >90 months of follow-up in order to better characterize the risk for AML/MDS in older patients receiving anthracyclines. METHODS: We used multivariable Cox regression to examine factors associated with AML/MDS, adjusting for age (≥65 vs. <65 years; separately for ≥70 vs. <70 years), race/ethnicity, insurance, performance status, and anthracycline receipt. We also examined the effect of cyclophosphamide, the interaction of anthracycline and age, and outcomes for those developing AML/MDS. RESULTS: On Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 40101, 49907, 9344, and 9741, 7290 received anthracyclines; 15% were in the age ≥65 and 7% were ≥70. Overall, 47 patients developed AML/MDS (30 AML [0.3%], 17 MDS [0.2%]); 83% of events occurred within 5 years of study registration. Among those age ≥65 and ≥70, 0.8 and 1.0% developed AML/MDS (vs. 0.4% for age <65), respectively. In adjusted analyses, older age and anthracycline receipt were significantly associated with AML/MDS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for age ≥65 [vs. <65] = 3.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-8.33; HR for anthracycline receipt [vs. no anthracycline] = 5.16, 95% CI 1.47-18.19). There was no interaction between age and anthracycline use. Deaths occurred in 70% of those developing AML/MDS. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased risk for AML/MDS for older patients and those receiving anthracyclines, though these events were rare. Our results help inform discussions surrounding anticipated toxicities of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Which threshold for ER positivity? a retrospective study based on 9639 patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the use of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy recently recommended that estrogen receptor (ER) status be considered positive if ≥1% of tumor cells demonstrate positive nuclear staining by immunohistochemistry. In clinical practice, a range of thresholds are used; a common one is 10% positivity. Data addressing the optimal threshold with regard to the efficacy of endocrine therapy are lacking. In this study, we compared patient, tumor, treatment and survival differences among breast cancer patients using ER-positivity thresholds of 1% and 10%. METHODS: The study population consisted of patients with primary breast carcinoma treated at our center from January 1990 to December 2011 and whose records included complete data on ER status. Patients were separated into three groups: ≥10% positive staining for ER (ER-positive ≥10%), 1%-9% positive staining for ER (ER-positive 1%-9%) and <1% positive staining (ER-negative). RESULTS: Of 9639 patients included, 80.5% had tumors that were ER-positive ≥10%, 2.6% had tumors that were ER-positive 1%-9% and 16.9% had tumors that were ER-negative. Patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors were younger with more advanced disease compared with patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors. At a median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients with ER-positive 1%-9% tumors had worse survival rates than did patients with ER-positive ≥10% tumors, with and without adjustment for clinical stage and grade. Survival rates did not differ significantly between patients with ER-positive 1%-9% and ER-negative tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tumors that are ER-positive 1%-9% have clinical and pathologic characteristics different from those with tumors that are ER-positive ≥10%. Similar to patients with ER-negative tumors, those with ER-positive 1%-9% disease do not appear to benefit from endocrine therapy; further study of its clinical benefit in this group is warranted. Also, there is a need to better define which patients of this group belong to basal or luminal subtypes.

Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab predicts for improved survival in women with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the prognostic value of pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-nine women with HER2/neu (HER2)-overexpressing breast cancer were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab between 2001 and 2008. Patients were grouped based on pathologic complete response (pCR, n = 114) or less than pCR (

The sequential use of endocrine treatment for advanced breast cancer: where are we?

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer is an increasing health burden. Although endocrine therapies are recognised as the most beneficial treatments for patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, the optimal sequence of these agents is currently undetermined. METHODS: We reviewed the available data on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of endocrine therapies in this treatment setting with particular focus on RCTs reported over the last 15 years that were designed based on power calculations on primary end points. RESULTS: In this paper, data are reviewed in postmenopausal patients for the use of tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant. We also consider the available data on endocrine crossover studies and endocrine therapy in combination with chemotherapy or growth factor therapies. Treatment options for premenopausal patients and those with estrogen receptor-/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumours are also evaluated. CONCLUSION: We present the level of evidence available for each endocrine agent based on its efficacy in advanced breast cancer and a diagram of possible treatment pathways.

Randomized phase II non-inferiority study (NO16853) of two different doses of capecitabine in combination with docetaxel for locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study investigated whether a lower-than-approved dose of capecitabine, plus docetaxel (XT), would improve tolerability versus standard-dose XT without compromising efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women aged ≥18 years with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant, first- or second-line metastatic setting were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose XT (capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), day 1 every 3 weeks) or low-dose XT (capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; docetaxel as above). The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of low-dose to standard-dose XT in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 470 patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to standard-dose or low-dose XT. Median PFS was 7.9 versus 5.8 months [hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.43] in the standard-dose and low-dose arms, respectively. The upper limit of the 95% CI was above the predefined non-inferiority margin (1.35, P = 0.078). Secondary efficacy end points were consistent with PFS. The frequency and severity of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of low-dose to standard-dose XT in terms of PFS was not demonstrated; this may be due to regional subgroup effects.

Role of biologic therapy and chemotherapy in hormone receptor- and HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To review the efficacy of chemotherapy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy when used in addition to hormonal therapy for the optimal management of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. DESIGN: Literature published from January 2003 to March 2008 was reviewed to assess the use of chemotherapy and biologic therapy in addition to hormonal agents. RESULTS: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) demonstrated greater effectiveness in the adjuvant setting than tamoxifen for the management of ER+ and HER2+ breast cancer. Evidence of cross talk between HER2- and ER-signaling pathways suggests that combined treatment with HER2 blockade and hormonal therapy may offer clinical advantages beyond those provided by hormonal therapy alone in ER+/HER2+ disease. Combined therapy with trastuzumab plus an aromatase AI significantly improves progression-free survival, response rates, and clinical benefits when compared with AI monotherapy in postmenopausal women. Several large studies demonstrated that trastuzumab significantly improves disease-free and overall survival when given in combination with, or following, chemotherapy, regardless of hormone receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: HER2-targeted therapy maybe combined with AIs for the treatment of ER+/HER2+ metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women. HER2-targeted therapy in combination with AIs for treatment of ER+/HER2+ early breast cancer needs to be prospectively evaluated.

Hormone receptor status and pathologic response of HER2-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the extent of pathologic response in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer treated with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with or without trastuzumab (H), according to hormone receptor (HR) status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 199 patients with HER2+ breast cancer from three successive cohorts of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy on the basis of paclitaxel (Taxol) (P) administered weekly (w) or three weekly (3-w), followed by 5-fluorouracil (F), doxorubicin (A) or epirubicin (E), and cyclophosphamide (C). Residual cancer burden (RCB) was determined from pathologic review of the primary tumor and lymph nodes and was classified as pathologic complete response (pCR) or minimal (RCB-I), moderate (RCB-II), or extensive (RCB-III) residual disease. RESULTS: In HR-positive (HR+) cancers, a higher rate of pathologic response (pCR/RCB-I) was observed with concurrent H + 3-wP/FEC (73%) than with 3-wP/FEC (34%, P = 0.002) or wP/FAC (47%; P = 0.02) chemotherapy alone. In HR-negative (HR-) cancers, there were no significant differences in the rate of pathologic response (pCR/RCB-I) from 3-wP/FAC (50%), wP/FAC (68%), or concurrent H + 3-wP/FEC (72%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HR+/HER2+ breast cancer obtained significant benefit from addition of trastuzumab to P/FEC chemotherapy; pathologic response rate was similar to that seen in HR-/HER2+ breast cancers.

Collagen IV levels are elevated in the serum of patients with primary breast cancer compared to healthy volunteers.

Collagen IV is a major component of the vascular basement membrane and may be a marker of angiogenesis. Serum levels of this protein are elevated in some human cancers. Our objectives were to compare collagen IV levels in the serum of breast cancer patients and healthy women and to examine changes during preoperative chemotherapy. Sera from 51 patients with stage II-III breast cancer and 55 healthy controls were analysed. Collagen IV level was measured by a commercially available sandwich enzyme link immunoassay. Baseline serum levels were compared between cancer patients and healthy women and paired pre- and post-chemotherapy measurements were also performed in 39 patients who received preoperative chemotherapy and were correlated with response to therapy. The median serum collagen IV concentration was significantly higher in cancer patients (166 microg l(-1)) than in healthy women (115 microg l(-1)), P<0.001. Chemotherapy induced a significant further increase in serum collagen IV (167 microg l(-1) prechemo vs 206 microg l(-1) postchemo, P=0.001). There were no correlations between baseline collagen IV levels and response to therapy, age, clinical stage or HER2 status. In conclusion, patients with breast cancer have elevated levels of collagen IV compared to healthy women and collagen IV levels increase further during chemotherapy.

Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006.

Neoadjuvant (primary systemic) treatment has become a standard option for primary operable disease for patients who are candidates for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, irrespective of the size of the tumor. Because of new treatments and new understandings of breast cancer, however, recommendations published in 2006 regarding neoadjuvant treatment for operable disease required updating. Therefore, a third international panel of representatives of a number of breast cancer clinical research groups was convened in September 2006 to update these recommendations. As part of this effort, data published to date were critically reviewed and indications for neoadjuvant treatment were newly defined.

Inclusion of taxanes, particularly weekly paclitaxel, in preoperative chemotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: We examined if inclusion of a taxane and more prolonged preoperative chemotherapy improves pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer compared with three to four courses of 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide (FAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pooled analysis of results from seven consecutive neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials including 1079 patients was carried out. These studies were conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1974 to 2001. Four hundred and twenty-six (39.5%) patients received taxane-based neo-adjuvant therapy. pCR rates and survival times were analyzed as a function of chemotherapy regimen and ER status. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analysis were carried out to identify variables associated with pCR and survival. RESULTS: Patients with ER-negative cancer had higher overall pCR rate than patients with ER-positive tumors (20.1% versus 4.9%, P < 0.001). In ER-negative patients, the pCR rates were 29% and 15% with and without a taxane (P < 0.001). In ER-positive patients, the pCR rates were 8.8% and 2.0% with and without a taxane (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, clinical tumor size (P < 0.001), ER-negative status (P < 0.001) and inclusion of a taxane (P = 0.01) were independently associated with pCR. For patients with pCR, survival was similar regardless of ER status or the type of regimen that induced pCR. CONCLUSION: pCR rates increased for patients with both ER-positive and ER-negative tumors as regimens started to include a taxane and became longer. This indicates that a subset of patients with ER-positive breast cancer benefits from more aggressive chemotherapy, similarly to patients with ER-negative tumors.

Comprehensive side-effect profile of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: long-term safety analysis of the ATAC trial.

BACKGROUND: The Arimidex (anastrozole), Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of anastrozole with tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. After an extended follow-up beyond the 5 years of treatment, we aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and risk-benefit indices of these compounds. METHODS: We analysed postmenopausal women (mean age 64 years [SD 9]) with localised breast cancer randomly assigned to anastrozole (n=3125) or tamoxifen (n=3116). Efficacy measures, including death and risk-benefit indices, were analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were based on treatment first received (n=3092 for anastrozole and n=3094 tamoxifen). We calculated a risk-benefit analysis using the two global indices for the Women's Health Initiative and for Disease-Free Survival and Serious Adverse Events. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN18233230. FINDINGS: At median follow-up of 68 months (range 1-93), treatment-related adverse events occurred significantly less often with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (1884 [61%] vs 2117 [68%]; p<0.0001), as did treatment-related serious adverse events (146 [5%] vs 277 [9%]; p<0.0001) and adverse events leading to withdrawal (344 [11%] vs 442 [14%]; p=0.0002). Patients given anastrozole had significantly fewer overall events for the Global Index of the Women's Health Initiative (744 [24%] vs 851 [27%]; hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.77-0.94], p=0.001) and the Global Index of Disease-Free Survival and Serious Adverse Events (1453 [46%] vs 1594 [51%]; 0.88 [0.82-0.94]; p=0.0004). INTERPRETATION: Anastrozole is tolerated better than tamoxifen by postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer, and results in fewer serious adverse events. Furthermore, it has a more favourable overall risk-benefit profile and lower recurrence rate than tamoxifen.

Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of TAS-108 in normal healthy post-menopausal female subjects: a phase I study on single oral dose.

OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of TAS-108 after ascending single oral doses and to analyse preliminarily the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of TAS-108 in normal healthy post-menopausal female subjects. METHODS: Twelve healthy subjects participated in an open-label, ascending single-dose, alternating group, safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetic study of TAS-108 administered orally to two groups of the subjects, one given alternating doses of 10, 40, 120 mg (group A) and the other of 20, 80, 160 mg (group B), in the fasting state. In addition, six subjects (group A) were administered an additional dose at 120 mg TAS-108 after food consumption. Plasma and urine samples for measurement of TAS-108 were analysed by validated analytical procedures using a liquid chromatographic method with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS). RESULTS: There was no dose-dependent increase in any adverse events (AEs), and there were no serious AEs or deaths. TAS-108 was readily absorbed following oral administration of the 80-, 120- and 160-mg doses. Plasma TAS-108 levels steadily declined, generally in a mono-exponential manner, with overall mean t(1/2) values ranging from 3.04 to 4.43 h in the fasting groups. Administration of TAS-108 after a high-fat meal markedly increased the bioavailability of the drug. The mean C(max) and AUC(0--t) values increased after a high-fat breakfast by 182 and 191% compared with the fasting value respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this escalating dose study of TAS-108, the drug was well tolerated by the participants. The maximum and systemic exposure to TAS-108 tended to increase with increasing dose and its bioavailability markedly increased after high-fat food intake.

Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer.

The standard adjuvant endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive localised breast cancer is 5 years of tamoxifen, but recurrences and side-effects restrict its usefulness. The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole was compared with tamoxifen for 5 years in 9366 postmenopausal women with localised breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 68 months, anastrozole significantly prolonged disease-free survival (575 events with anastrozole vs 651 with tamoxifen, hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97, p=0.01) and time-to-recurrence (402 vs 498, 0.79, 0.70-0.90, p=0.0005), and significantly reduced distant metastases (324 vs 375, 0.86, 0.74-0.99, p=0.04) and contralateral breast cancers (35 vs 59, 42% reduction, 12-62, p=0.01). Almost all patients have completed their scheduled treatment, and fewer withdrawals occurred with anastrozole than with tamoxifen. Anastrozole was also associated with fewer side-effects than tamoxifen, especially gynaecological problems and vascular events, but arthralgia and fractures were increased. Anastrozole should be the preferred initial treatment for postmenopausal women with localised hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer.

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.

Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial efficacy and safety update analyses.

BACKGROUND: The first analysis of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial (median follow-up, 33 months) demonstrated that in adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer, anastrozole was superior to tamoxifen in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), time to recurrence (TTR), and incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CLBC). In the current article, the results of the first efficacy update, based on a median follow-up period of 47 months, are reported along with the results of an updated safety analysis, performed 7 months after the first analysis (median duration of treatment, 36.9 months). METHODS: DFS, TTR, CLBC incidence, and safety were assessed in the same patient group as in the first analysis of the ATAC trial. RESULTS: DFS estimates at 4 years remained significantly more favorable (86.9% vs. 84.5%, respectively) for patients receiving anastrozole compared with those receiving tamoxifen (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.99; P = 0.03). The benefit generated by anastrozole in terms of DFS was even greater in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.014). The HR for TTR also indicated a significant benefit for patients receiving anastrozole compared with those receiving tamoxifen (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.015), with additional benefit for patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.93; P = 0.007). CLBC incidence data also continued to favor anastrozole (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.02; P = 0.062), and statistical significance was achieved in the hormone receptor-positive subgroup (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.98; P = 0.042). The updated safety analysis also confirmed the findings of the first analysis, in that endometrial cancer (P = 0.007), vaginal bleeding and discharge (P < 0.001 for both), cerebrovascular events (P < 0.001), venous thromboembolic events (P < 0.001), and hot flashes (P < 0.001) all occurred less frequently in the anastrozole group, whereas musculoskeletal disorders and fractures (P < 0.001 for both) continued to occur less frequently in the tamoxifen group. These results indicated that the safety profile of anastrozole remained consistent. CONCLUSIONS: After an additional follow-up period, anastrozole continues to show superior efficacy, which is most apparent in the clinically relevant hormone receptor-positive population. Furthermore, anastrozole has numerous noteworthy advantages in terms of tolerability compared with tamoxifen. These findings suggest that the benefits of anastrozole are likely to be maintained in the long term and provide further support for the status of anastrozole as a valid treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early-stage breast cancer.

Anastrozole (Arimidex) versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: survival analysis and updated safety results.

We present an initial survival analysis and an update of the safety data of the North American and Tamoxifen or Arimidex Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability (TARGET) double-blind, randomised, multicentre studies which compared anastrozole with tamoxifen as first-line treatment in postmenopausal patients with oestrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor-positive (ER+/PR+) or receptor-unknown advanced breast cancer (ABC). At a median follow-up of 43.7 months, 56.0% of patients in the anastrozole group and 56.1% of patients in the tamoxifen group had died. The proportion of patients dead at 2 years was 31.1 and 32.0% in the anastrozole and tamoxifen groups, respectively. In the ER+/PR+ subgroup, 55.1 and 55.9% of patients had died and median time to deaths (TTD) were 40.8 and 41.3 months in the anastrozole and tamoxifen groups, respectively. Both agents remained well tolerated, with fewer reports of vaginal bleeding (anastrozole versus tamoxifen, 1.0% versus 2.5%) and thromboembolic events (anastrozole versus tamoxifen, 5.3% versus 9.0%) in the anastrozole group versus the tamoxifen group. Hot flushes and vaginal dryness were reported marginally less in the tamoxifen group compared with the Anastrozole group. Although no improvement in survival was observed, the favourable profile of anastrozole with respect to efficacy (TTP) and tolerability [Cancer 92 (2001) 2247] support the use of anastrozole in advance of tamoxifen as the first-line therapy choice in postmenopausal women with ABC.

Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant (formerly ICI 182,780) with anastrozole in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in patients whose disease progresses on prior endocrine treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, postmenopausal patients were randomized to receive either an intramuscular injection of fulvestrant 250 mg once monthly or a daily oral dose of anastrozole 1 mg. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included objective response (OR) rate, duration of response (DOR), and tolerability. RESULTS: Patients (n = 400) were followed for a median period of 16.8 months. Fulvestrant was as effective as anastrozole in terms of TTP (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95.14% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P =.43); median TTP was 5.4 months with fulvestrant and 3.4 months with anastrozole. OR rates were 17.5% with both treatments. Clinical benefit rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease > or = 24 weeks) were 42.2% for fulvestrant and 36.1% for anastrozole (95% CI, -4.00% to 16.41%; P =.26). In responding patients, median DOR (from randomization to progression) was 19.0 months for fulvestrant and 10.8 months for anastrozole. Using all patients, DOR was significantly greater for fulvestrant compared with anastrozole; the ratio of average response durations was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.67; P < 0.01). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant was at least as effective as anastrozole, with efficacy end points slightly favoring fulvestrant. Fulvestrant represents an additional treatment option for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer whose disease progresses on tamoxifen therapy.

Phase III randomized trial of droloxifene and tamoxifen as first-line endocrine treatment of ER/PgR-positive advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This trial was designed to demonstrate equivalence between droloxifene 40 mg/d and tamoxifen 20 mg/d as first-line treatment in pre- and post-menopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ advanced breast cancer based on time to disease progression and tumor response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand three hundred fifty four women with measurable disease, previously untreated by hormonal or chemotherapy for advanced or recurrent breast cancer, were enrolled by 179 institutions in 35 countries. Patients were stratified at baseline for menopausal status. Patients receiving adjuvant hormonal therapy within I year were excluded. All patients gave written informed consent, were randomized to 40mg droloxifene or 20 mg tamoxifen daily as single-agent therapy and underwent tumor assessment every 3 months. A central committee reviewed digitized images for all cases of tumor progression or objective response. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (droloxifene/tamoxifen) for the primary endpoint, time to disease progression, was 1.287 favoring tamoxifen (95% C.I.: 1.114-1.487; p <.001). The objective response rate (CR+PR) was 22.4% for droloxifene and 28.6% for tamoxifen (p = .02). Tamoxifen was superior to droloxifene overall, among both pre- and postmenopausal patients and among patients < or =65 years; there was no difference among women >65 years. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.871 (95% C.I.: 0.672-1.129; p = .29), favoring droloxifene but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Droloxifene was significantly less effective than tamoxifen overall and particularly among women under 65 years. Tamoxifen and droloxifene were both less effective in pre-menopausal women with receptor-positive disease compared to post-menopausal women. Further clinical development of droloxifene was stopped.