Louis Mauriac

Randomized Phase II Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Combined With Docetaxel in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Administered As First-Line Treatment: The M77001 Study Group

PURPOSE This randomized, multicenter trial compared first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, with or without trastuzumab 4 mg/kg loading dose followed by 2 mg/kg weekly until disease progression. RESULTS A total of 186 patients received at least one dose of the study drug. Trastuzumab plus docetaxel was significantly superior to docetaxel alone in terms of overall response rate (61% v 34%; P = .0002), overall survival (median, 31.2 v 22.7 months; P = .0325), time to disease progression (median, 11.7 v 6.1 months; P = .0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9.8 v 5.3 months; P = .0001), and duration of response (median, 11.7 v 5.7 months; P = .009). There was little difference in the number and severity of adverse events between the arms. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was seen more commonly with the combination (32%) than with docetaxel alone (22%), and there was a slightly higher incidence of febrile neutropenia in the combination arm (23% v 17%). One patient in the combination arm experienced symptomatic heart failure (1%). Another patient experienced symptomatic heart failure 5 months after discontinuation of trastuzumab because of disease progression, while being treated with an investigational anthracycline for 4 months. CONCLUSION Trastuzumab combined with docetaxel is superior to docetaxel alone as first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive MBC in terms of overall survival, response rate, response duration, time to progression, and time to treatment failure, with little additional toxicity.

Letrozole Is More Effective Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy Than Tamoxifen for ErbB-1– and/or ErbB-2–Positive, Estrogen Receptor–Positive Primary Breast Cancer: Evidence From a Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE Expression of ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 (epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2/neu) in breast cancer may cause tamoxifen resistance, but not all studies concur. Additionally, the relationship between ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 expression and response to selective aromatase inhibitors is unknown. A neoadjuvant study for primary breast cancer that randomized treatment between letrozole and tamoxifen provided a context within which these issues could be addressed prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS Postmenopausal patients with estrogen- and/or progesterone receptor-positive (ER+ and/or PgR+) primary breast cancer ineligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned to 4 months of neoadjuvant letrozole 2.5 mg daily or tamoxifen 20 mg daily in a double-blinded study. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ER and PgR was conducted on pretreatment biopsies and assessed by the Allred score. ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 IHC were assessed by intensity and completeness of membranous staining according to published criteria. RESULTS For study biopsy-confirmed ER+ and/or PgR+ cases that received letrozole, 60% responded and 48% underwent successful breast-conserving surgery. The response to tamoxifen was inferior (41%, P =.004), and fewer patients underwent breast conservation (36%, P =.036). Differences in response rates between letrozole and tamoxifen were most marked for tumors that were positive for ErbB-1 and/or ErbB-2 and ER (88% v 21%, P =.0004). CONCLUSION ER+, ErbB-1+, and/or ErbB-2+ primary breast cancer responded well to letrozole, but responses to tamoxifen were infrequent. This suggests that ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 signaling through ER is ligand-dependent and that the growth-promoting effects of these receptor tyrosine kinases on ER+ breast cancer can be inhibited by potent estrogen deprivation therapy.

Superior Survival With Capecitabine Plus Docetaxel Combination Therapy in Anthracycline-Pretreated Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: Phase III Trial Results

PURPOSE Docetaxel and capecitabine, a tumor-activated oral fluoropyrimidine, show high single-agent efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and synergy in preclinical studies. This international phase III trial compared efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine/docetaxel therapy with single-agent docetaxel in anthracycline-pretreated patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to 21-day cycles of oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 255) or to docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 256). RESULTS Capecitabine/docetaxel resulted in significantly superior efficacy in time to disease progression (TTP) (hazard ratio, 0.652; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.545 to 0.780; P =.0001; median, 6.1 v 4.2 months), overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.634 to 0.947; P =.0126; median, 14.5 v 11.5 months), and objective tumor response rate (42% v 30%, P =.006) compared with docetaxel. Gastrointestinal side effects and hand-foot syndrome were more common with combination therapy, whereas myalgia, arthralgia, and neutropenic fever/sepsis were more common with single-agent docetaxel. More grade 3 adverse events occurred with combination therapy (71% v 49%, respectively), whereas grade 4 events were slightly more common with docetaxel (31% v 25% with combination). CONCLUSION The significantly superior TTP and survival achieved with the addition of capecitabine to docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), with the manageable toxicity profile, indicate that this combination provides clear benefits over single-agent docetaxel 100 mg/m(2). Docetaxel/capecitabine therapy is an important treatment option for women with anthracycline-pretreated MBC.

Five years of letrozole compared with tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: update of study BIG 1-98

PURPOSE Previous analyses of the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 four-arm study compared initial therapy with letrozole or tamoxifen including patients randomly assigned to sequential treatment whose information was censored at the time of therapy change. Because this presentation may unduly reflect early events, the present analysis is limited to patients randomly assigned to the continuous therapy arms and includes protocol-defined updated results. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four thousand nine hundred twenty-two of the 8,028 postmenopausal women with receptor-positive early breast cancer randomly assigned (double-blind) to the BIG 1-98 trial were assigned to 5 years of continuous adjuvant therapy with either letrozole or tamoxifen; the remainder of women were assigned to receive the agents in sequence. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point. RESULTS At a median follow-up time of 51 months, we observed 352 DFS events among 2,463 women receiving letrozole and 418 events among 2,459 women receiving tamoxifen. This reflected an 18% reduction in the risk of an event (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.95; P = .007). No predefined subsets showed differential benefit. Adverse events were similar to previous reports. Patients on tamoxifen experienced more thromboembolic events, endometrial pathology, hot flashes, night sweats, and vaginal bleeding. Patients on letrozole experienced more bone fractures, arthralgia, low-grade hypercholesterolemia, and cardiovascular events other than ischemia and cardiac failure. CONCLUSION The present updated analysis, which was limited to patients on monotherapy arms in BIG 1-98, yields results similar to those from the previous primary analysis but more directly comparable with results from other trials of continuous therapy using a single endocrine agent.

Anastrozole Versus Tamoxifen as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Breast Cancer in 668 Postmenopausal Women: Results of the Tamoxifen or Arimidex Randomized Group Efficacy and Tolerability Study

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole (Arimidex; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, and Macclesfield, United Kingdom) with that of tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy of anastrozole 1 mg once daily relative to tamoxifen 20 mg once daily in patients with tumors that were hormone receptor-positive or of unknown receptor status who were eligible for endocrine therapy. The primary end points were time to progression (TTP), objective response (OR), and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 668 patients (340 in the anastrozole arm and 328 in the tamoxifen arm) were randomized to treatment and followed-up for a median of 19 months. Median TTP was similar for both treatments (8.2 months in patients who received anastrozole and 8.3 months in patients who received tamoxifen). The tamoxifen:anastrozole hazards ratio was 0.99 (lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 0.86), demonstrating that anastrozole was at least equivalent to tamoxifen. Anastrozole was also as effective as tamoxifen in terms of OR (32.9% of anastrozole and 32.6% of tamoxifen patients achieved a complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Clinical benefit (CR + PR + stabilization of > or = 24 weeks) rates were 56.2% and 55.5% for patients receiving anastrozole and tamoxifen, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated. However, incidences of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding were reported in fewer patients treated with anastrozole than with tamoxifen (4.8% v 7.3% [thromboembolic events] and 1.2% v 2.4% [vaginal bleeding], respectively). CONCLUSION Anastrozole satisfied the predefined criteria for equivalence to tamoxifen. Together with the lower observed incidence of thromboembolic events and vaginal bleeding, these findings indicate that anastrozole should be considered as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with ABC.

Preoperative treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with letrozole: A randomized double-blind multicenter study

BACKGROUND A randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted to compare the anti-tumor activity of letrozole vs. tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ER and/or PgR positive primary untreated breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred thirty-seven postmenopausal women with ER and/or PgR positive primary untreated breast cancer were randomly assigned once daily treatment with either letrozole 2.5 mg or tamoxifen 20 mg for four months. At baseline none of the patients were considered to be candidates for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and 14% of the patients were considered inoperable. The primary endpoint was to compare overall objective response (CR + PR) determined by clinical palpation. Secondary endpoints included overall objective response on ultrasound and mammography and the number of patients who qualified for BCS. RESULTS Overall objective response rate (clinical palpation) was statistically significantly superior in the letrozole group, 55% compared to tamoxifen, 36% (P < 0.001). Secondary endpoints of ultrasound response, 35% vs. 25% (P = 0.042), mammographic response, 34% vs. 16% (P < 0.001), and BCS, 45% vs. 35% (P = 0.022) between the letrozole and tamoxifen groups, respectively, showed letrozole to be significantly superior. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that letrozole is more effective than tamoxifen as preoperative therapy in postmenopausal patients with ER and/or PgR positive primary untreated breast cancer and is at least as well tolerated.

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.)

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: A unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up

BACKGROUND Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves overall survival and renders possible breast-conserving treatment in locally advanced breast cancer. It was necessary for this method to be evaluated in operable breast tumors too large to be treated immediately by conserving surgery. Initial results of this randomized trial were published in Annals of Oncology (1991). PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with T2 > 3 cm or T3 N0-1 M0 breast tumors were treated by either initial mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjusted locoregional treatment. Chemotherapy was the same in the two arms. The prognostic and predictive factors of response to chemotherapy were analyzed. RESULTS Conserving treatments were performed in 63% at the end of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and this rate had decreased to 45% at the median follow-up of 124 months. Survivals are identical in the two treatment groups. Initial clinical tumor size < 40 mm, IHC-ER < 10% and Mib1 > 40% are predictive of tumor response to chemotherapy by uni- and multivariate analyses. For outcome prediction, c-erb-B2 > 0% is the independent prognostic factor for overall and metastasis-free survivals. CONCLUSION Breast-conserving therapy can be performed in more than half of all cases without alteration of survival, despite a non-negligible rate of local recurrences.

Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT

PURPOSE The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. RESULTS A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. CONCLUSION Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.

Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women: A prospective combined analysis of two multicenter trials

Fulvestrant (ICI 182,780) is a new type of estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that down‐regulates the ER and has no known agonist effects. The authors report the prospectively planned combined analysis of data from 2 Phase III trials comparing fulvestrant 250 mg monthly (n = 428) and anastrozole 1 mg daily (n = 423) in postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma (ABC) who previously had progressed after receiving endocrine treatment.