Clinical benefit of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer and primary or acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors: final results of phase II Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research Trial (SAKK 21/00).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant, an estrogen receptor antagonist, in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive tumors progressing after aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a phase II, open, multicenter, noncomparative study. Two patient groups were prospectively considered: group A (n=70) with AI-responsive disease and group B (n=20) with AI-resistant disease. Fulvestrant 250 mg was administered as intramuscular injection every 28 (+/-3) days. RESULTS: All patients were pretreated with AI and 84% also with tamoxifen or toremifene; 67% had bone metastases and 45% liver metastases. Fulvestrant administration was well tolerated and yielded a clinical benefit (CB; defined as objective response or stable disease [SD] for >or=24 weeks) in 28% (90% confidence interval [CI] 19% to 39%) of patients in group A and 37% (90% CI 19% to 58%) of patients in group B. Median time to progression (TTP) was 3.6 (95% CI 3.0 to 4.8) months in group A and 3.4 (95% CI 2.5 to 6.7) months in group B. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 30% of patients who had progressed following prior AI treatment gained CB with fulvestrant, thereby delaying indication to start chemotherapy. Prior response to an AI did not appear to be predictive for benefit with fulvestrant.

Cancer du sein: inhibiteurs de l'aromatase en situation adjuvante, un peu, beaucoup ou pas du tout [Aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer: a little, a lot or no way?]

Several large randomized trials showed that tamoxifen alone is no more the standard adjuvant hormonal therapy for menopausal patients. Aromatase inhibitors, given upfront or sequentially after tamoxifen, confirmed their efficacy by improving disease free survival, risk of distant metastasis and overall survival in some situations or subgroups of patients. These drugs are usually well tolerated, but they clearly increase bone mineral density loss as well as the risk of fractures and their long term safety on the cardio-vascular system needs to be followed. Thus, even if the role of the aromatase inhibitors is now evident in the adjuvant therapy of postmenopausal women the benefice/risk ratio should be carefully evaluated for each patient.

Endogenous steroid profiling in the athlete biological passport.

The Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) is an individual electronic document that collects data regarding a specific athlete that is useful in differentiating between natural physiologic variations of selected biomarkers and deviations caused by artificial manipulations. A subsidiary of the endocrine module of the ABP, that which here is called Athlete Steroidal Passport (ASP), collects data on markers of an altered metabolism of endogenous steroidal hormones measured in urine samples. The ASP aims to identify not only doping with anabolic-androgenic steroids, but also most indirect steroid doping strategies such as doping with estrogen receptor antagonists and aromatase inhibitors. Development of specific markers of steroid doping, use of the athlete's previous measurements to define individual limits, with the athlete becoming his or her own reference, the inclusion of heterogeneous factors such as the UDPglucuronosyltransferase B17 genotype of the athlete, the knowledge of potentially confounding effects such as heavy alcohol consumption, the development of an external quality control system to control analytical uncertainty, and finally the use of Bayesian inferential methods to evaluate the value of indirect evidence have made the ASP a valuable alternative to deter steroid doping in elite sports. The ASP can be used to target athletes for gas chromatography/combustion/ isotope ratio mass spectrometry (GC/C/IRMS) testing, to withdraw temporarily the athlete from competing when an abnormality has been detected, and ultimately to lead to an antidoping infraction if that abnormality cannot be explained by a medical condition. Although the ASP has been developed primarily to ensure fairness in elite sports, its application in endocrinology for clinical purposes is straightforward in an evidence-based medicine paradigm.

The advantage of letrozole over tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial is consistent in younger postmenopausal women and in those with chemotherapy-induced menopause.

Letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, is ineffective in the presence of ovarian estrogen production. Two subpopulations of apparently postmenopausal women might derive reduced benefit from letrozole due to residual or returning ovarian activity: younger women (who have the potential for residual subclinical ovarian estrogen production), and those with chemotherapy-induced menopause who may experience return of ovarian function. In these situations tamoxifen may be preferable to an aromatase inhibitor. Among 4,922 patients allocated to the monotherapy arms (5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen) in the BIG 1-98 trial we identified two relevant subpopulations: patients with potential residual ovarian function, defined as having natural menopause, treated without adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and age ≤ 55 years (n = 641); and those with chemotherapy-induced menopause (n = 105). Neither of the subpopulations examined showed treatment effects differing from the trial population as a whole (interaction P values are 0.23 and 0.62, respectively). Indeed, both among the 641 patients aged ≤ 55 years with natural menopause and no chemotherapy (HR 0.77 [0.51, 1.16]) and among the 105 patients with chemotherapy-induced menopause (HR 0.51 [0.19, 1.39]), the disease-free survival (DFS) point estimate favoring letrozole was marginally more beneficial than in the trial as a whole (HR 0.84 [0.74, 0.95]). Contrary to our initial concern, DFS results for young postmenopausal patients who did not receive chemotherapy and patients with chemotherapy-induced menopause parallel the letrozole benefit seen in the BIG 1-98 population as a whole. These data support the use of letrozole even in such patients.

Letrozole therapy alone or in sequence with tamoxifen in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aromatase inhibitor letrozole, as compared with tamoxifen, improves disease-free survival among postmenopausal women with receptor-positive early breast cancer. It is unknown whether sequential treatment with tamoxifen and letrozole is superior to letrozole therapy alone. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3, double-blind trial of the treatment of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women, we randomly assigned women to receive 5 years of tamoxifen monotherapy, 5 years of letrozole monotherapy, or 2 years of treatment with one agent followed by 3 years of treatment with the other. We compared the sequential treatments with letrozole monotherapy among 6182 women and also report a protocol-specified updated analysis of letrozole versus tamoxifen monotherapy in 4922 women. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 71 months after randomization, disease-free survival was not significantly improved with either sequential treatment as compared with letrozole alone (hazard ratio for tamoxifen followed by letrozole, 1.05; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.32; hazard ratio for letrozole followed by tamoxifen, 0.96; 99% CI, 0.76 to 1.21). There were more early relapses among women who were assigned to tamoxifen followed by letrozole than among those who were assigned to letrozole alone. The updated analysis of monotherapy showed that there was a nonsignificant difference in overall survival between women assigned to treatment with letrozole and those assigned to treatment with tamoxifen (hazard ratio for letrozole, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; P=0.08). The rate of adverse events was as expected on the basis of previous reports of letrozole and tamoxifen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, sequential treatment with letrozole and tamoxifen, as compared with letrozole monotherapy, did not improve disease-free survival. The difference in overall survival with letrozole monotherapy and tamoxifen monotherapy was not statistically significant. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004205.)

Cancers du sein : comment associer l'hormonothérapie et la radiothérapie en situation adjuvante [How to combine hormonotherapy and radiation treatment in adjuvant breast cancer?]

Combined radiation and hormone therapies have become common clinical practice in recent years for locally-advanced prostate cancers. The use of such concomitant therapy in the treatment of breast disease has been infrequently reported in the literature, but seems justified given the common hormonal dependence of breast cancer and the potential synergistic effect of these two treatment modalities. As adjuvant therapy, two strategies are used in daily clinical practice: upfront aromatase inhibitors or sequentially after a variable delay of tamoxifen. These molecules may, thus, interact with radiotherapy. Retrospectives studies recently published did not show any differences in terms of locoregional recurrences between concurrent or sequential radiohormonotherapy. Lung and skin fibroses due to concurrent treatment are still under debate. Nevertheless, late side effects appeared to be increased by such a treatment, particularly in hypersensitive patients identified at risk by the lymphocyte predictive test. Concurrent radiohormonotherapy should, thus, be delivered cautiously at least for these patients. This article details the potent advantages and risks of concurrent use of adjuvant hormonotherapy and radiotherapy in localized breast cancers.

Cancers du sein : comment associer l'hormonothérapie et la radiothérapie en situation adjuvante ? [How to combine hormonotherapy and radiation treatment in adjuvant breast cancer ?]

L'hormonoradiothérapie concomitante est utilisée depuis plusieurs années en pratique clinique quotidienne dans les cancers localement évolués de la prostate. Le transfert de ce concept en pathologie mammaire a été très peu rapporté dans la littérature, mais semble pourtant licite devant l'hormonodépendance fréquente des cancers du sein et la synergie potentielle de ces deux armes thérapeutiques. En situation adjuvante, deux stratégies sont actuellement utilisées : la prescription d'un inhibiteur de l'aromatase d'emblée ou après un délai plus ou moins long de tamoxifène. En pratique, ces molécules peuvent donc interagir avec la radiothérapie adjuvante. Les études rétrospectives récemment publiées n'ont pas mis en évidence de différence significative sur l'incidence des évènements, notamment locorégionaux, de l'association concomitante ou séquentielle du tamoxifène à la radiothérapie. La toxicité de l'association reste discutable en termes de fibroses sous-cutanée et pulmonaire. Il semble que le tamoxifène aggraverait les séquelles postradiques uniquement chez les patientes prédisposées à souffrir d'effets tardifs de la radiothérapie et identifiées par un test prédictif biologique. La prudence reste donc encore de mise du moins pour ces patientes. Cet article détaille les avantages et les risques de l'utilisation concomitante de la radiothérapie et de l'hormonothérapie adjuvantes des cancers localisés du sein. Combined radiation and hormone therapies have become common clinical practice in recent years for locally-advanced prostate cancers. The use of such concomitant therapy in the treatment of breast disease has been infrequently reported in the literature, but seems justified given the common hormonal dependence of breast cancer and the potential synergistic effect of these two treatment modalities. As adjuvant therapy, two strategies are used in daily clinical practice: upfront aromatase inhibitors or sequentially after a variable delay of tamoxifen. These molecules may, thus, interact with radiotherapy. Retrospectives studies recently published did not show any differences in terms of locoregional recurrences between concurrent or sequential radiohormonotherapy. Lung and skin fibroses due to concurrent treatment are still under debate. Nevertheless, late side effects appeared to be increased by such a treatment, particularly in hypersensitive patients identified at risk by the lymphocyte predictive test. Concurrent radiohormonotherapy should, thus, be delivered cautiously at least for these patients. This article details the potent advantages and risks of concurrent use of adjuvant hormonotherapy and radiotherapy in localized breast cancers.

Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer have persistent, long-term risk of breast-cancer recurrence and death. Therefore, trials assessing endocrine therapies for this patient population need extended follow-up. We present an update of efficacy outcomes in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study at 8·1 years median follow-up. METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a randomised, phase 3, double-blind trial of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer that compares 5 years of tamoxifen or letrozole monotherapy, or sequential treatment with 2 years of one of these drugs followed by 3 years of the other. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks, and stratified according to the two-arm or four-arm randomisation option, participating institution, and chemotherapy use. Patients, investigators, data managers, and medical reviewers were masked. The primary efficacy endpoint was disease-free survival (events were invasive breast cancer relapse, second primaries [contralateral breast and non-breast], or death without previous cancer event). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). The monotherapy comparison included patients randomly assigned to tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years. In 2005, after a significant disease-free survival benefit was reported for letrozole as compared with tamoxifen, a protocol amendment facilitated the crossover to letrozole of patients who were still receiving tamoxifen alone; Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates with inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) are used to account for selective crossover to letrozole of patients (n=619) in the tamoxifen arm. Comparison of sequential treatments to letrozole monotherapy included patients enrolled and randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, or tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. Treatment has ended for all patients and detailed safety results for adverse events that occurred during the 5 years of treatment have been reported elsewhere. Follow-up is continuing for those enrolled in the four-arm option. BIG 1-98 is registered at clinicaltrials.govNCT00004205. FINDINGS: 8010 patients were included in the trial, with a median follow-up of 8·1 years (range 0-12·4). 2459 were randomly assigned to monotherapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and 2463 to monotherapy with letrozole for 5 years. In the four-arm option of the trial, 1546 were randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, 1548 to tamoxifen for 5 years, 1540 to letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, and 1548 to tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. At a median follow-up of 8·7 years from randomisation (range 0-12·4), letrozole monotherapy was significantly better than tamoxifen, whether by IPCW or intention-to-treat analysis (IPCW disease-free survival HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·74-0·92], overall survival HR 0·79 [0·69-0·90], DRFI HR 0·79 [0·68-0·92], BCFI HR 0·80 [0·70-0·92]; intention-to-treat disease-free survival HR 0·86 [0·78-0·96], overall survival HR 0·87 [0·77-0·999], DRFI HR 0·86 [0·74-0·998], BCFI HR 0·86 [0·76-0·98]). At a median follow-up of 8·0 years from randomisation (range 0-11·2) for the comparison of the sequential groups with letrozole monotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the four endpoints for either sequence. 8-year intention-to-treat estimates (each with SE ≤1·1%) for letrozole monotherapy, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole were 78·6%, 77·8%, 77·3% for disease-free survival; 87·5%, 87·7%, 85·9% for overall survival; 89·9%, 88·7%, 88·1% for DRFI; and 86·1%, 85·3%, 84·3% for BCFI. INTERPRETATION: For postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, a reduction in breast cancer recurrence and mortality is obtained by letrozole monotherapy when compared with tamoxifen montherapy. Sequential treatments involving tamoxifen and letrozole do not improve outcome compared with letrozole monotherapy, but might be useful strategies when considering an individual patient's risk of recurrence and treatment tolerability. FUNDING: Novartis, United States National Cancer Institute, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Bone fractures among postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer treated with 5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial.

BACKGROUND: To compare the incidence and timing of bone fractures in postmenopausal women treated with 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or letrozole for endocrine-responsive early breast cancer in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial. METHODS: We evaluated 4895 patients allocated to 5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial who received at least some study medication (median follow-up 60.3 months). Bone fracture information (grade, cause, site) was collected every 6 months during trial treatment. RESULTS: The incidence of bone fractures was higher among patients treated with letrozole [228 of 2448 women (9.3%)] versus tamoxifen [160 of 2447 women (6.5%)]. The wrist was the most common site of fracture in both treatment groups. Statistically significant risk factors for bone fractures during treatment included age, smoking history, osteoporosis at baseline, previous bone fracture, and previous hormone replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other trials comparing aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen, letrozole was associated with an increase in bone fractures. Benefits of superior disease control associated with letrozole and lower incidence of fracture with tamoxifen should be considered with the risk profile for individual patients.

Design, conduct, and analyses of Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive, early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors provide superior disease control when compared with tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. PURPOSE: To present the design, history, and analytic challenges of the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial: an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase-III study comparing the aromatase inhibitor letrozole with tamoxifen in this clinical setting. METHODS: From 1998-2003, BIG 1-98 enrolled 8028 women to receive monotherapy with either tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years, or sequential therapy of 2 years of one agent followed by 3 years of the other. Randomization to one of four treatment groups permitted two complementary analyses to be conducted several years apart. The first, reported in 2005, provided a head-to-head comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen. Statistical power was increased by an enriched design, which included patients who were assigned sequential treatments until the time of the treatment switch. The second, reported in late 2008, used a conditional landmark approach to test the hypothesis that switching endocrine agents at approximately 2 years from randomization for patients who are disease-free is superior to continuing with the original agent. RESULTS: The 2005 analysis showed the superiority of letrozole compared with tamoxifen. The patients who were assigned tamoxifen alone were unblinded and offered the opportunity to switch to letrozole. Results from other trials increased the clinical relevance about whether or not to start treatment with letrozole or tamoxifen, and analysis plans were expanded to evaluate sequential versus single-agent strategies from randomization. LIMITATIONS: Due to the unblinding of patients assigned tamoxifen alone, analysis of updated data will require ascertainment of the influence of selective crossover from tamoxifen to letrozole. CONCLUSIONS: BIG 1-98 is an example of an enriched design, involving complementary analyses addressing different questions several years apart, and subject to evolving analytic plans influenced by new data that emerge over time.

Hormonothérapie dans le cancer du sein: efficacité et effets adverses [Endocrine therapy in breast cancer: efficacy and adverse events].

Endocrine therapy remains a mainstay in the treatment of endocrine-sensitive breast cancer. In the adjuvant setting, 5 years of endocrine therapy significantly reduces recurrence rate and mortality. Tamoxifen is the molecule of choice for premenopausal women, whereas for postmenopausal women aromatase inhibitors are currently part of the standard treatment. Endocrine therapy can induce side effects, which can affect patient's quality of life and lead to premature treatment interruption. Identification and adequately addressing these side effects is fundamental to maintain good treatment compliance and therefore improve breast cancer specific outcome.

Modelling Bone Mineral Density in Swiss Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Letrozole, Tamoxifen and Sequences of Letrozole and Tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 Study (SAKK 21/07).

Background: Bone health is a concern when treating early stage breast cancer patients with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. Early detection of patients (pts) at risk of osteoporosis and fractures may be helpful for starting preventive therapies and selecting the most appropriate endocrine therapy schedule. We present statistical models describing the evolution of lumbar and hip bone mineral density (BMD) in pts treated with tamoxifen (T), letrozole (L) and sequences of T and L. Methods: Available dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry exams (DXA) of pts treated in trial BIG 1-98 were retrospectively collected from Swiss centers. Treatment arms: A) T for 5 years, B) L for 5 years, C) 2 years of T followed by 3 years of L and, D) 2 years of L followed by 3 years of T. Pts without DXA were used as a control for detecting selection biases. Patients randomized to arm A were subsequently allowed an unplanned switch from T to L. Allowing for variations between DXA machines and centres, two repeated measures models, using a covariance structure that allow for different times between DXA, were used to estimate changes in hip and lumbar BMD (g/cm2) from trial randomization. Prospectively defined covariates, considered as fixed effects in the multivariable models in an intention to treat analysis, at the time of trial randomization were: age, height, weight, hysterectomy, race, known osteoporosis, tobacco use, prior bone fracture, prior hormone replacement therapy (HRT), bisphosphonate use and previous neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy (ChT). Similarly, the T-scores for lumbar and hip BMD measurements were modeled using a per-protocol approach (allowing for treatment switch in arm A), specifically studying the effect of each therapy upon T-score percentage. Results: A total of 247 out of 546 pts had between 1 and 5 DXA; a total of 576 DXA were collected. Number of DXA measurements per arm were; arm A 133, B 137, C 141 and D 135. The median follow-up time was 5.8 years. Significant factors positively correlated with lumbar and hip BMD in the multivariate analysis were weight, previous HRT use, neo-/adjuvant ChT, hysterectomy and height. Significant negatively correlated factors in the models were osteoporosis, treatment arm (B/C/D vs. A), time since endocrine therapy start, age and smoking (current vs. never).Modeling the T-score percentage, differences from T to L were -4.199% (p = 0.036) and -4.907% (p = 0.025) for the hip and lumbar measurements respectively, before any treatment switch occurred. Conclusions: Our statistical models describe the lumbar and hip BMD evolution for pts treated with L and/or T. The results of both localisations confirm that, contrary to expectation, the sequential schedules do not seem less detrimental for the BMD than L monotherapy. The estimated difference in BMD T-score percent is at least 4% from T to L.

Cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis associated with letrozole.

Aromatase inhibitors are increasingly used in the treatment of early and metastatic breast cancer. They can produce various skin adverse effects but are only rarely associated with cutaneous vasculitis. We report the first case of cutaneous vasculitis clearly associated with the use of aromatase inhibitor letrozole.