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.

Evaluation of tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival, and time to progression as potential surrogate end points in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Overall survival (OS) can be observed only after prolonged follow-up, and any potential effect of first-line therapies on OS may be confounded by the effects of subsequent therapy. We investigated whether tumor response, disease control, progression-free survival (PFS), or time to progression (TTP) could be considered a valid surrogate for OS to assess the benefits of first-line therapies for patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on 3,953 patients in 11 randomized trials that compared an anthracycline (alone or in combination) with a taxane (alone or in combination with an anthracycline). Surrogacy was assessed through the correlation between the end points as well as through the correlation between the treatment effects on the end points. RESULTS: Tumor response (survival odds ratio [OR], 6.2; 95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0) and disease control (survival OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 4.8 to 6.3) were strongly associated with OS. PFS (rank correlation coefficient, 0.688; 95% CI, 0.686 to 0.690) and TTP (rank correlation coefficient, 0.682; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.684) were moderately associated with OS. Response log ORs were strongly correlated with PFS log hazard ratios (linear coefficient [rho], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.19). Response and disease control log ORs and PFS and TTP log hazard ratios were poorly correlated with log hazard ratios for OS, but the confidence limits of rho were too wide to be informative. CONCLUSION: No end point could be demonstrated as a good surrogate for OS in these trials. Tumor response may be an acceptable surrogate for PFS.