Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

A phase 1/pharmacokinetic study of sunitinib in combination with highly active antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients with cancer: AIDS Malignancy Consortium trial AMC 061.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of non-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining cancers may be complicated by drug interactions between highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and chemotherapy. This trial is the first by the AIDS Malignancy Consortium to assess targeted therapies and HAART in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00890747). METHODS: In a modified phase 1 study of sunitinib, patients were stratified into 2 treatment arms based on whether they were receiving therapy with ritonavir, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor. Patients in treatment arm 1 (non-ritonavir HAART) received standard sunitinib dosing (50 mg/day). Treatment arm 2 (ritonavir-based HAART) used a phase 1, 3 + 3 dose escalation design (from 25 mg/day to 50 mg/day). Cycles were comprised of 4 weeks on treatment followed by a 2-week break (6 weeks total). The pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its active metabolite (N-desethyl sunitinib) were assessed. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled and were evaluable. Patients on treatment arm 1 tolerated treatment with no dose-limiting toxicity observed. In treatment arm 2, a dose-limiting toxicity was experienced at a dose of 37.5 mg, and an additional 3 of 5 patients experienced grade 3 neutropenia (toxicity graded as per National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]), an uncommon toxicity of sunitinib. No patient achieved a response, but 10 patients had stable disease, including 8 with prolonged disease stability. Efavirenz, a potent inducer of CYP3A4, resulted in increased exposure of N-desethyl sunitinib, whereas ritonavir caused decreased exposure of the metabolite. Hand-foot syndrome was associated with higher steady-state trough concentrations of sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving non-ritonavir-based HAART regimens tolerated standard dosing of sunitinib. Patients receiving ritonavir-based therapy who were treated with a dose of 37.5 mg/day experienced higher toxicities. Dose reductions of sunitinib to 37.5 mg may be warranted in patients receiving ritonavir.

A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: The main objectives of this phase I and pharmacokinetic, open-label study were to determine the optimally tolerated regimen (OTR), safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of lapatinib in combination with letrozole in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced breast cancer with immunohistochemically detectable estrogen or progesterone receptors or other cancers were eligible. Doses of lapatinib were escalated in cohorts of three subjects from 1,250 to a maximum of 1,500 mg/d based on dose-limiting toxicities in the first treatment cycle. The letrozole dose was fixed at 2.5 mg/d. Additional patients were enrolled at the OTR dose level to further evaluate safety and for pharmacokinetic analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study: 12 in the dose-escalation group, 7 in the OTR safety group, and 20 in the pharmacokinetic group. The OTR dose level was identified as 1,500 mg/d lapatinib and 2.5 mg/d letrozole. The most common (>25% of patients) drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), rash (62%), nausea (46%), and fatigue (26%). No significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetic variables (C(max) and AUC) of lapatinib and letrozole when coadministered compared with single-agent administration. One patient with endometrial cancer had a confirmed partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant doses of lapatinib in combination with letrozole were well tolerated and did not result in a pharmacokinetic interaction, and clinical antitumor activity was observed.

Routine mammography is associated with earlier stage disease and greater eligibility for breast conservation in breast carcinoma patients age 40 years and older.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in breast carcinoma mortality is a major benefit of screening mammography and has been demonstrated in multiple randomized clinical trials and service screening programs. Another benefit from screening is that it allows the patient a wider choice of treatment options, particularly the possibility of conservation surgery. The current study analyzed the impact of mammography in the staging and treatment of breast carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 1591 women aged > or = 40 years were treated for breast carcinoma between July 1995 and October 2001. Three subgroups were defined and compared. Group 1 had 192 patients with no previous mammography, Group 2 was comprised of 695 patients who underwent mammography on average less often than once yearly, and Group 3 was comprised of 704 patients who on average underwent mammography once yearly or more often. RESULTS: The difference in tumor stage was found to be statistically significant between the groups (P < 0.0001). In Group 1, 15% of the patients had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with 21% of patients in Group 2 and 26% of patients in Group 3. In addition, 32% of patients in Group 1 had T1 tumors, whereas 50% of patients in Group 2 and 56% of patients in Group 3 had T1 tumors. The tumor size was < or = 1 cm in 8% of the patients in Group 1 compared with 20-23% of patients in Groups 2 and 3 (P = 0.0092). Breast conservation was an option for 41% of the patients in Group 1 but mastectomy was recommended in another 41% of patients. However, in Groups 2 and 3, 61% of patients were offered breast conservation and mastectomy was recommended to 28% (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, women age > or = 40 years with breast carcinoma who underwent mammography at least once yearly were diagnosed with DCIS more often compared with patients who underwent mammography less frequently or those who had no prior mammography. Women who underwent mammographic screening were found to have smaller tumors, which resulted in a majority of these patients being able to consider breast conservation as an alternative to mastectomy.