Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen