|
|
||||||||
Division of Breast Surgery, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
(Requests for offprints should be addressed to K L Cheung; Email: kl.cheung{at}nottingham.ac.uk)
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
6 months unless the disease progressed before; and (iii) with disease assessable for response according to International Union Against Cancer criteria. Eleven patients had received an aromatase inhibitor prior to fulvestrant, which resulted in five CBs (clinical benefit = objective remission/stable disease (SD)) for
6 months). Twenty-eight patients achieved CB on fulvestrant. They went on subsequent endocrine therapy with two partial responses, 11 SDs and 15 PDs (progressive disease) at 6 months. The median survival from starting fulvestrant and subsequent endocrine therapy was respectively 46.6 and 18.2 months. Among the remaining 26 patients who progressed at 6 months on fulvestrant, there were three SDs and 23 PDs at 6 months on subsequent endocrine therapy. The median survival from starting fulvestrant and subsequent endocrine therapy was respectively 12.5 and 9.3 months. Of all these 54 patients, 30% (n = 16) therefore achieved CB using another (second- to tenth-line) endocrine agent (anastrozole = 26; tamoxifen = 12; megestrol acetate = 11; others = 5). It would thus appear that further endocrine response can be induced in a reasonable proportion of patients after failing fulvestrant.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In our centre we have participated in five phase II/ III clinical trials which have examined the activity of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (Table 1
). Here we report a retrospective analysis of subsequent therapy data from these trials to evaluate the effects of further endocrine therapies in patients who received fulvestrant in our centre.
|
| Patients and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
All trials recruited postmenopausal women (defined as fulfilling any of the following criteria: aged
60 years; aged
45 years with amenorrhoea >12 months and an intact uterus; follicle-stimulating hormone levels within postmenopausal range; having undergone a bilateral oophorectomy) with breast cancer not considered amenable to curative treatment, a life expectancy of
3 months and a WHO performance status of
2.
Patients had to fulfil the following inclusion criteria in this retrospective analysis: (i) have a positive or unknown oestrogen receptor (ER) status; (ii) be in receipt of endocrine therapy following prior fulvestrant for
6 months (British Breast Group 1974) except for those who progressed within 6 months; and (iii) have disease assessable for response according to criteria laid down by the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) (Hayward et al. 1977).
All patients received fulvestrant (AstraZeneca) 250 mg i.m. every 28±3 days, given predominantly by one breast-care research nurse (R O). All patients in this study continued treatment until disease progression. Upon disease progression they undertook further therapy as determined by one of the two clinicians (K L C and J F R R). Patients were followed up in the same breast cancer clinic and monitored for progression and survival until death. The responses to treatment with fulvestrant and subsequent treatment were assessed according to UICC criteria. Objective response (OR) was defined as complete response (CR) or partial response (PR). CB was defined as OR, or stable disease (SD)
24 weeks (Robertson et al. 1997).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Eleven patients had received an aromatase inhibitor prior to fulvestrant and five patients subsequently derived CB with fulvestrant (Table 2
).
|
The 28 patients who had derived CB from fulvestrant subsequently received different endocrine agents resulting in 13 CBs (46%) (Table 3
). The median survival of these 28 patients calculated from starting fulvestrant and from starting the subsequent endocrine therapy was respectively 46.6 and 18.2 months.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
While the randomised trials showed efficacy of fulvestrant following tamoxifen, another important question relating to optimal sequencing is whether fulvestrant and other endocrine agents remain effective following an aromatase inhibitor. This is especially important given the recent data showing superiority of the third-generation aromatase inhibitors over tamoxifen as an adjuvant endocrine therapy. It can therefore be envisaged that fulvestrant, and other endocrine agents, will need to be used following progression on an aromatase inhibitor. The results from the study reported here have also shed some light on this question, confirming that fulvestrant remains effective following prior treatment with an aromatase inhibitor (Table 2
).
In the randomised trials using fulvestrant as second-line endocrine therapy following tamoxifen, a questionnaire survey to investigators from different participating centres demonstrated responsiveness to further endocrine therapy (predominantly aromatase inhibitors) (Vergote et al. 2003). Among the 54 patients who derived CB from fulvestrant, subsequent endocrine therapy resulted in four PRs, 21 SDs and 29 PDs at 6 months (CB rate = 46%). Data were also available from 51 patients who progressed on fulvestrant and who received further endocrine therapy, achieving one PR, 17 SDs and 33 PDs (CB rate = 35%). Since the early 1990s, we have been taking part in most of the clinical trials (phase II/III) involving fulvestrant. Therefore, data from this paper support findings in the above study. It has the additional strength of obtaining trial data from a single centre. Furthermore, it has also demonstrated the responsiveness of further endocrine therapy after fulvestrant had been used, not only as second-line agent as described by Vergote et al., but as a first- to ninth-line agent, showing CB rates of 46 and 12% respectively in the groups who derived or did not derive CB on fulvestrant. The result certainly adds to the knowledge in sequencing endocrine therapies.
Furthermore, the prolonged survival following the use of fulvestrant and subsequent endocrine therapy is impressive, especially in the group who derived CB from fulvestrant (median being 46.6 and 18.2 months respectively).
In addition to demonstrating efficacy benefits, tolerability is an important factor in sequencing different agents. Fulvestrant, the only pure anti-oestrogen available for clinical use thus far, is unique in that it is the only endocrine agent administered i.m. Parenteral administration may have potential advantages in ensuring compliance and maintaining useful contacts with healthcare personnel, which may be reassuring, although i.m. injections have their limitations in patients with bleeding diathesis. Personal experience (Owers 2004) has not demonstrated significant problems with this route of administration and quality of life has been shown to be equivalent in both arms of patients receiving fulvestrant and anastrozole in the randomised trial mentioned above (Howell et al. 2002).
While fulvestrant is a potent pure anti-oestrogen, it has not yet been shown to down-regulate the ER to a negligible level (Robertson et al. 2001). It therefore remains uncertain as to whether the addition of an aromatase inhibitor (which produces oestrogen deprivation and clinically superior efficacy over tamoxifen) to fulvestrant will further improve efficacy without significantly worsening the side-effect profile. Such a combination approach is currently one of the key research questions being addressed by ongoing clinical trials. These trials compare fulvestrant with one of the third-generation aromatase inhibitors, and with their combination, in the pre-surgical setting for operable primary breast cancer, as a first-line endocrine therapy or after failing a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor for hormone-sensitive postmenopausal advanced breast cancer.
In summary, clinical experience from our centre suggests that patients who respond to fulvestrant and then progress may retain sensitivity to subsequent endocrine therapy. Disease control with subsequent endocrine agents was also seen in some patients who did not respond to fulvestrant therapy. This does not apply only after fulvestrant has been used as first- or second-line therapy, but also after it has been used as a further endocrine agent. Fulvestrant provides an additional treatment option for advanced breast cancer following progression on prior endocrine therapy.
| Acknowledgements |
|---|
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Cheung KL, Owers R, Howell A & Robertson JFR 2001 Survival updates of a phase II study comparing long-acting ICI 182,780 (Faslodex) with megestrol acetate as second-line endocrine therapy for breast cancer. Proceedings of 7th Nottingham International Breast Cancer Conference Page 21.
Hayward JL, Carbone PP, Heuson JC, Kumaoka S, Segaloff A & Rubens RD 1977 Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer. Cancer 39 12891294.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Howell A, DeFriend D, Robertson JFR, Blamey RW & Walton P 1995 Response to a specific pure anti-oestrogen (ICI 182,780) in tamoxifen resistant breast cancer. Lancet 345 2930.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Howell A, DeFriend DJ, Robertson JFR, Blamey RW, Anderson L, Anderson E, Sutcliffe FA & Walton P 1996 Pharmacokinetics, pharmacological and anti-tumour effects of the specific anti-oestrogen ICI 182,780 in women with advanced breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer 74 300308.[ISI][Medline]
Howell A, Robertson JFR, Quaresma Albano J, Aschermannova A, Mauriac L, Kleeberg UR, Vergote I, Erikstein B, Webster A & Morris C 2002 Fulvestrant, formerly ICI 182,780, is as effective as anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 33963403.
Osborne CK, Jarman M, McCague R, Coronado EB, Hilsenbeck SG & Wakeling AE 1994 The importance of tamoxifen metabolism in tamoxifen-stimulated breast tumour growth. Cancer Chemistry and Pharmacology 34 8995.
Osborne CK, Coronado-Heinsohn EB, Hilsenbeck SG, McCue BL, Wakeling AE, McClelland RA, Manning DL & Nicholson RI 1995 Comparison of the effects of a pure steroidal anti-oestrogen with those of tamoxifen in a model of human breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87 746750.
Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE, Parker LM, Ellis M, Come S, Gertler SZ, May JT, Burton G, Dimery I et al. 2002 Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 33863395.
Owers R 2004 Clinical experience with fulvestrant (Faslodex): a nurses perspective. European Journal of Oncological Nursing 8 (Suppl 2) S89S94.[CrossRef]
Robertson JFR, Willsher PC, Cheung KL & Blamey RW 1997 The clinical relevance of static disease (no change) category for 6 months on endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 33 17741779.
Robertson JFR, Nicholson RI, Bundred NJ, Anderson E, Rayter Z, Dowsett M, Fox JN, Gee JM, Webster A, Wakeling AE et al. 2001 Comparison of the short-term biological effects of 7alpha-[9-4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl(-nonyl]estra-1,3,5,(10)-triene-3,17beta-diol (Fulvestrant) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Research 61 67396746.
Robertson JF, Osborne CK, Howell A, Jones SE, Mauriac L, Ellis M, Kleeberg UR, Come SE, Vergote I, Gertler S et al. 2003 Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women: a prospective combined analysis of two multicenter trials. Cancer 98 229238.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Vergote I, Robertson JFR, Kleeberg U, Burton G, Osborne CK & Mauriac L; Trial 0020 Investigators; Trial 0021 Investigators 2003 Postmenopausal women who progress on fulvestrant (Faslodex) remain sensitive to further endocrine therapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 79 207211.
Wakeling AE, Dukes M & Bowler J 1991 A potent specific pure anti-oestrogen with clinical potential. Cancer Research 51 38673873.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Paulmurugan and S. S. Gambhir An intramolecular folding sensor for imaging estrogen receptor-ligand interactions PNAS, October 24, 2006; 103(43): 15883 - 15888. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |