The effect of exemestane on serum lipid profile in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: a companion study to EORTC Trial 10951, 'Randomized phase II study in first line hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer with exemestane or tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients'.

BACKGROUND: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase II trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B or Lip a levels at 8, 24 and 48 weeks of treatment. Exemestane and tamoxifen had opposite effects on TRG levels: exemestane lowered while tamoxifen increased TRG levels over time. There were too few patients with normal baseline TC and abnormal TRG, HDL, Apo A1, Apo B and Lip a levels to allow for assessment of E's impact on these subsets. The atherogenic risk determined by Apo A1:Apo B and TC:HDL ratios remained unchanged throughout the treatment period in both the E and T arms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, exemestane has no detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices, which are well-known risk factors for coronary artery disease. In addition, it has a beneficial effect on TRG levels. These data, coupled with E's excellent efficacy and tolerability, support further exploration of its potential in the metastatic, adjuvant and chemopreventive setting.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.