48 resultados para Letrozole
Resumo:
Objectives: Studies have shown that women previously treated for breast cancer present fewer cardiovascular events, indicating a possible protective effect of tamoxifen treatment. The effects of these aromatase inhibitors on cardiovascular protection remain controversial. The aim of this study was to compare some cardiovascular risk markers among breast cancer survivors following treatment with tamoxifen group (TMXg), letrozole group (LTZg) or no endocrine treatment group (NETg). Methods: A total of 103 breast cancer survivors: 35 using TMXg, 34 using letrozole group (LTZg) and 34 using no endocrine treatment group (NETg) were evaluated. Ultrasonographic evaluation of brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and stiffness index (beta); blood total cholesterol, HDL and triglycerides were assessed. Results: All three groups presented similar values of HDL and IMT. TMXg showed the lowest total cholesterol (219.29 +/- 36.31 mg/dL vs. 250.59 +/- 38.37 mg/dL vs. 245.09 +/- 35.35 mg/dL; TMXg vs. LTZg vs. NETg, respectively; p < 0.01-ANOVA), the highest triglycerides (139.34 +/- 41.82 mg/dL vs. 111.35 +/- 28.22 mg/dL vs.122.09 +/- 33.42 mg/dL; p < 0.01), the highest FMD (6.32 +/- 2.33% vs. 4.10 +/- 2.06% vs. 4.66 +/- 2.52%; p < 0.01) and the lowest stiffness index (beta) (5.08 +/- 1.68 vs. 6.28 +/- 1.75 vs. 5.99 +/- 1.86; p=0.01). LTZg did not differ significantly from NETg on any evaluated parameter. Conclusions: We did not observe any effect of LTZg on the evaluated cardiovascular risk parameters compared to NETg. As such, the observed difference on lipid values, stiffness index (beta) and FMD between women receiving tamoxifen anti letrozole might be best attributed to the beneficial effect of tamoxifen than to a detrimental effect of letrozole. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.)
Resumo:
A sequential treatment design was chosen in this trial to ensure complete resistance to single-agent non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) and trastuzumab both given as monotherapy before receiving the combination of a non-steroidal AI and trastuzumab. Key eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with advanced, measurable, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2)-positive disease (assessed by FISH, ratio (≥2)), hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease, and progression on prior treatment with a non-steroidal AI, e.g. letrozole or anastrozole, either in the adjuvant or in the advanced setting. Patients received standard dose trastuzumab monotherapy in step 1 and upon disease progression continued trastuzumab in combination with letrozole in step 2. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) in step 2. Totally, 13 patients were enrolled. In step 1, six patients (46%) achieved CBR. Median time to progression (TTP) was 161 days (95% confidence interval (CI): 82-281). In step 2, CBR was observed in eight out of the 11 evaluable patients (73%), including one patient with partial response. Median TTP for all the 11 patients was 188 days (95% CI: 77-not reached). Results of this proof-of-concept trial suggest that complete resistance to both AI and trastuzumab can be overcome in a proportion of patients by combined treatment of AI and trastuzumab, as all patients served as their own control. Our results appear promising for a new treatment strategy that offers a chemotherapy-free option for at least a subset of patients with HR-positive, HER-2-positive breast cancer over a clinically relevant time period.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Vascular thrombotic events are common in patients with cancer and chemotherapy is considered a contributing factor. Venous thrombotic events are more common than arterial ones which are less documented. In this report, we describe a patient with right homonymous hemianopsia following treatment with cisplatin for small cell lung carcinoma while also taking letrozole. A brief review of the literature on arterial thrombotic events after chemotherapy follows.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: The risk of osteoporosis and fracture influences the selection of adjuvant endocrine therapy. We analyzed bone mineral density (BMD) in Swiss patients of the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trial [treatment arms: A, tamoxifen (T) for 5 years; B, letrozole (L) for 5 years; C, 2 years of T followed by 3 years of L; D, 2 years of L followed by 3 years of T]. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) results were retrospectively collected. Patients without DXA served as control group. Repeated measures models using covariance structures allowing for different times between DXA were used to estimate changes in BMD. Prospectively defined covariates were considered as fixed effects in the multivariable models. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-one of 546 patients had one or more DXA with 577 lumbar and 550 hip measurements. Weight, height, prior hormone replacement therapy, and hysterectomy were positively correlated with BMD; the correlation was negative for letrozole arms (B/C/D versus A), known osteoporosis, time on trial, age, chemotherapy, and smoking. Treatment did not influence the occurrence of osteoporosis (T score < -2.5 standard deviation). CONCLUSIONS: All aromatase inhibitor regimens reduced BMD. The sequential schedules were as detrimental for bone density as L monotherapy.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of Ki-67 labeling index (LI) in a trial comparing letrozole (Let) with tamoxifen (Tam) as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast International Group (BIG) trial 1-98 randomly assigned 8,010 patients to four treatment arms comparing Let and Tam with sequences of each agent. Of 4,922 patients randomly assigned to receive 5 years of monotherapy with either agent, 2,685 had primary tumor material available for central pathology assessment of Ki-67 LI by immunohistochemistry and had tumors confirmed to express estrogen receptors after central review. The prognostic and predictive value of centrally measured Ki-67 LI on disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed among these patients using proportional hazards modeling, with Ki-67 LI values dichotomized at the median value of 11%. RESULTS: Higher values of Ki-67 LI were associated with adverse prognostic factors and with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR; high:low] = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.3). The magnitude of the treatment benefit for Let versus Tam was greater among patients with high tumor Ki-67 LI (HR [Let:Tam] = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.72) than among patients with low tumor Ki-67 LI (HR [Let:Tam] = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.15; interaction P = .09). CONCLUSION: Ki-67 LI is confirmed as a prognostic factor in this study. High Ki-67 LI levels may identify a patient group that particularly benefits from initial Let adjuvant therapy.
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Letrozole radiosensitises breast cancer cells in vitro. In clinical settings, no data exist for the combination of letrozole and radiotherapy. We assessed concurrent and sequential radiotherapy and letrozole in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: This phase 2 randomised trial was undertaken in two centres in France and one in Switzerland between Jan 12, 2005, and Feb 21, 2007. 150 postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer were randomly assigned after conserving surgery to either concurrent radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75) or sequential radiotherapy and letrozole (n=75). Randomisation was open label with a minimisation technique, stratified by investigational centres, chemotherapy (yes vs no), radiation boost (yes vs no), and value of radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (< or = 16% vs >16%). Whole breast was irradiated to a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. In the case of supraclavicular and internal mammary node irradiation, the dose was 44-50 Gy. Letrozole was administered orally once daily at a dose of 2.5 mg for 5 years (beginning 3 weeks pre-radiotherapy in the concomitant group, and 3 weeks post-radiotherapy in the sequential group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of acute (during and within 6 weeks of radiotherapy) and late (within 2 years) radiation-induced grade 2 or worse toxic effects of the skin. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00208273. FINDINGS: All patients were analysed apart from one in the concurrent group who withdrew consent before any treatment. During radiotherapy and within the first 12 weeks after radiotherapy, 31 patients in the concurrent group and 31 in the sequential group had any grade 2 or worse skin-related toxicity. The most common skin-related adverse event was dermatitis: four patients in the concurrent group and six in the sequential group had grade 3 acute skin dermatitis during radiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 26 months (range 3-40), two patients in each group had grade 2 or worse late effects (both radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis). INTERPRETATION: Letrozole can be safely delivered shortly after surgery and concomitantly with radiotherapy. Long-term follow-up is needed to investigate cardiac side-effects and cancer-specific outcomes. FUNDING: Novartis Oncology France.