A randomised study of the effects of letrozole and anastrozole on oestrogen receptor positive breast cancers in postmenopausal women

The newer generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) as a class show efficacy and tolerability benefits over previously established treatments in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. At clinically administered doses, the plasma half-lives of anastrozole (1 mg once daily), letrozole (2.5 mg once daily), and exemestane (25 mg once daily) are 41-48 h, 2-4 days, and 27 h, respectively. Time to steady-state plasma levels is 7 days for both anastrozole and exemestane and 60 days for letrozole. Androgenic side effects have only been reported with exemestane. Anastrozole treatment has no impact on plasma lipid levels, whereas both letrozole and exemestane have an unfavorable effect. From indirect comparisons, anastrozole shows the highest degree of selectivity compared with letrozole and exemestane, in terms of a lack of effect on adrenosteroidogenesis. To date, there are no data suggesting any major differences in clinical efficacy between the newer generation AIs anastrozole and letrozole. Based on the observed pharmacological profiles, however, it cannot be assumed that the AIs will display the same tolerability and safety profiles when given for extended periods of time in the adjuvant setting. The effects of anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane are being investigated in the adjuvant setting, and these data will elucidate the possible long-term consequences of the pharmacological effects reported after short-term exposure.

Exemestane

Anastrozole

Letrozole

Tolerability

Aromatase inhibitor

Source

Cite

Citations (53)

The effect of combining aromatase inhibitors with antiestrogens on tumor growth in a nude mouse model for breast cancer

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (1999)

Qing Lü Yang Liu Brian J. Long Dmitry N. Grigoryev Mark Gimbel

Letrozole

Anastrozole

Antiestrogen

Aromatase inhibitor

10.1023/a:1006225601046

Cite

Citations (87)

Additive Antitumor Effect of Aromatase Inhibitor Letrozole and Antiestrogen Fulvestrant in a Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Model

Cancer Research (2005)

Danijela Jelovac Luciana F. Macedo Olga Goloubeva Venkatesh Handratta Angela Brodie

Abstract Blocking estrogen receptors with antiestrogens and blocking estrogen synthesis with aromatase inhibitors are two strategies currently being used for reducing the effect of estrogen in postmenopausal estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer patients. To optimize these treatment strategies, we have investigated whether tumor progression can be delayed by combining the pure antiestrogen fulvestrant with the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor letrozole. These studies were done in ovariectomized, athymic mice bearing tumors of estrogen receptor–positive human breast cancer cells stably transfected with the aromatase gene (MCF-7Ca). Groups of mice with equivalent tumor volumes were injected s.c. daily with vehicle (control; n = 6), fulvestrant (1 mg/d; n = 7), letrozole (10 μg/d; n = 18), or letrozole (10 μg/d) plus fulvestrant (1 mg/d; n = 5). All treatments were effective in suppressing tumor growth compared with controls (P < 0.001). Tumor volumes of the fulvestrant-treated group had doubled in 10 weeks. After 19 weeks of letrozole (10 μg/d) treatment when tumors had nearly doubled in volume, mice (n = 18) were assigned to second-line therapy with letrozole (100 μg/d; n = 6), tamoxifen (100 μg/d; n = 6), or remained on letrozole treatment (10 μg/d; n = 6). However, tumors continued to increase in volume in these groups. Tumors of animals treated with the combination of letrozole plus Faslodex regressed over 29 weeks of treatment by 45%. Thus, the combination of letrozole plus fulvestrant was more effective in suppressing tumor growth than either letrozole or fulvestrant alone or sequential therapies with tamoxifen or a higher dose of letrozole (100 μg/d).

Fulvestrant

Letrozole

Antiestrogen

Aromatase inhibitor

Anastrozole

10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-2782

Cite

Citations (124)

Aromatase inhibitors in advanced breast cancer: there are efficacy differences

British Journal of Cancer (2005)

A.S. Bhatnagar

Sir, In the recently published review, ‘Aromatase inhibition in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: is there a relationship between potency and clinical efficacy?' (Sainsbury, 2004), the author claims that differences in the potency of aromatase inhibition and oestrogen suppression among the modern aromatase inhibitors do not translate into differences in efficacy benefits. The clinical trial results listed within the article, however, contradict the author's conclusion. Furthermore, some of the more general statements within this review must be challenged. Dr Sainsbury claims to see no efficacy differences between letrozole and anastrozole, despite the former being associated with higher potency in aromatase inhibition and oestrogen suppression (Geisler et al, 2002). The author makes a number of indirect comparisons of different trials to support his point: the first-line advanced breast cancer trials of anastrozole or letrozole vs tamoxifen demonstrated ‘anastrozole to be at least as effective as tamoxifen' (Bonneterre et al, 2001; Nabholtz et al, 2003), whereas ‘letrozole was found to be superior to tamoxifen' in all end points including a prospectively planned survival analysis at 1- and 2-year follow-up, which is not mentioned in this review (Mouridsen et al, 2003). In a head-to-head comparison of anastrozole vs letrozole in second-line advanced breast cancer, results were comparable in all end points except overall response rate (ORR), which was more than 50% higher in patients treated with letrozole (Rose et al, 2003). While ORR was a secondary rather than primary end point of the trial, the higher likelihood of responding to endocrine therapy is inarguably highly relevant for women with advanced stage breast cancer, as response implies both personal relief as well as delay of more aggressive, usually cytotoxic, therapies. Dr Sainsbury uses a subgroup analysis to challenge the results of this 713-patient trial, citing a significant superiority for letrozole only in the group of patients with undetermined hormone receptor status. Letrozole response rates in this group of patients were similar to those in the overall trial collective, not surprisingly so, as at least two-thirds of these patients are likely to bear oestrogen receptor (ER)- and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive tumours. In view of the size of the ER/PgR-unknown subgroup (n=340), the well-balanced demographics in the two trial arms overall, and the high chance of a tumour of undetermined hormone receptor status being positive renders statistical imbalance of ER/PgR status in favour of letrozole, a very unlikely explanation for the 2.5-fold increased response rate achieved with letrozole. In fact, the high efficacy of letrozole in ER/PgR-unknown tumours in this second-line study is consistent with results of the phase III first-line comparison of letrozole vs tamoxifen, in which the superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen was consistent among both ER/PgR-positive and -unknown patients – in contrast to the anastrozole trials that demonstrated superiority only in the ER/PgR-positive subgroup. While hard to explain, it seems that while letrozole may be effectively used in both hormone receptor-positive and -unknown patients, the efficacy of anastrozole appears limited to only those patients with a distinct expression of ER/PgR. The efficacy of an endocrine agent in ER/PgR-unknown patients remains clinically relevant, as even today there is a pool of patients with advanced breast cancer of undetermined ER/PgR status. While Dr Sainsbury maintains that ‘…they [AIs] are used in this [hormone receptor-positive] group of patients', this is, in fact, not entirely true for advanced breast cancer: endocrine therapy is still widely recommended for these women with receptor-unknown advanced breast cancer, based on the fact that the majority will be endocrine responsive and a response to endocrine therapy would delay chemotherapy (National Cancer Institute, 2004). Within the summary of this review, the author introduces the notion that while the degree of oestrogen suppression beyond a certain threshold does not translate into increased antitumour efficacy, it might well result in different toxicity profiles. This statement is purely speculative and is not supported by any data available so far. We are not aware of any research demonstrating that endocrine-sensitive normal tissues, such as bone, would be more sensitive to small changes in oestrogen levels than breast cancer cells, which are well recognised for their ability to develop a pronounced hypersensitivity to small levels of oestrogen (Masamura et al, 1995). Using bone metabolism as an example, we may point out that the less potent aromatase inhibitor anastrozole has been associated with a marked increase in fracture rates when used in early breast cancer (Baum et al, 2002, 2003), whereas letrozole has not (Goss et al, 2003). The author of this letter is a consultant to Novartis Oncology. It would seem advisable that future reviews of the kind published by Dr Sainsbury include disclosure of the author's potential conflicts of interest as well.

Letrozole

Anastrozole

Aromatase inhibitor

Antiestrogen

Exemestane

Clinical endpoint

10.1038/sj.bjc.6602434

Cite

Citations (1)

Giving patients a choice improves quality of life: a multi-centre, investigator-blind, randomised, crossover study comparing letrozole with anastrozole

Clinical Oncology (2004)

Robert Thomas Sara Godward Andreas Makris David Bloomfield A.M. Moody