Update on the use of aromatase inhibitors in early-stage breast cancer
© BioMed Central Ltd 2009
Published: 28 October 2009
Aromatase inhibitors are currently included in the 'optimal' management of early-stage breast cancer. Uncertainty remains, however, as to the most appropriate treatment strategy, particularly for newly diagnosed women as they seek to trade off the cost, toxicities and efficacy of the treatment options. Recent publications provide conflicting advice on the role of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. This review provides updates on the clinical trials of aromatase inhibitors in early breast cancer and tries to provide practical clinical guidance on their optimal use.
Adjuvant hormonal therapy yields significant improvements in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in women whose tumours express hormone receptors. Until recently, the selective oestrogen receptor (ER) modulator tamoxifen was regarded as the standard of care for women with such disease, yielding reductions in risk of relapse of 39% and reduction in risk of death of 24% attributable to the use of tamoxifen for about 5 years .
The superiority of the potent 'third-generation' aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in advanced-stage breast cancer (BC) underscored the need to test their efficacy in the adjuvant setting in postmenopausal women with early-stage disease [2–7]. In the past decade, several trials have been performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the AIs with tamoxifen. There are two types of trial: those that have randomly assigned newly diagnosed women and those that have randomly assigned women currently taking tamoxifen.
Of the trials involving newly diagnosed women, there are two main trial structures:
5 years of an AI versus 5 years of tamoxifen
A planned switch (that is, sequence) involving 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of an AI versus 2 years of an AI followed by 3 years of tamoxifen versus 5 years of tamoxifen.
Of the trials involving women currently taking tamoxifen, there are two main trial structures:
An unplanned switch from tamoxifen to an AI following 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen versus 5 years of tamoxifen
An unplanned switch after 5 years of tamoxifen to an AI or placebo for a further 5 years.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Technology Assessment of AIs states that optimal adjuvant hormonal therapy for a postmenopausal woman with hormone receptor-positive BC should include an AI . The National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (NICE) has also recommended AIs, within their licensed indications, as options for the adjuvant treatment of early-stage ER+ invasive BC in postmenopausal women who are newly diagnosed and those women currently on tamoxifen . However, due to a lack of results from directly comparative trials, neither guideline was able to recommend one particular treatment strategy over another.
Uncertainty remains as to the most appropriate treatment strategy, particularly for newly diagnosed women, as they seek to trade off the cost, toxicities and efficacy of the treatment options. Recent publications provide conflicting advice on the role of AI in the treatment of postmenopausal patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive BC. On one hand, Chlebowski  recommends up-front AI for the majority of patients, whereas Seruga and Tannock  suggest that tamoxifen remains the endocrine treatment of choice for most patients.
Newly diagnosed postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer
Trials comparing 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen
The ATAC trial
The Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) study, involving 9,366 patients, was the first of these trials to report and remains a 'landmark' trial in the treatment of early BC. The initial report in The Lancet, with a median follow-up of 33.3 months, demonstrated the superiority of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen with 3-year DFS rates of 91.2% for anastrozole versus 89.3% for tamoxifen in hormone receptor-positive patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.65 to 0.93, P = 0.005) . Results with the combination were not significantly better than tamoxifen alone (HR 1.02, 95% CI of 0.87 to 1.21, P = 0.8). The combination arm has not been analysed subsequently, and it is unlikely that other trials of combinations of AIs and tamoxifen will be undertaken. In the latest update of this trial, with a median follow-up of 100 months, anastrozole significantly increased DFS in the hormone receptor-positive population by 74.2% versus 70.1% for tamoxifen (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94, P = 0.003) . In anastrozole-treated patients, risk of recurrence was reduced by 24% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87, P = 0.0001) compared with tamoxifen. Risk of contralateral BC was significantly reduced in the anastrozole arm by 40% (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.85, P = 0.004) compared with tamoxifen. OS was similar with anastrozole and tamoxifen (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11, P = 0.7).
The BIG 1-98 Collaborative Group study
This four-arm trial compared 5 years of tamoxifen versus 5 years of letrozole, versus 2 years of tamoxifen plus 3 years of letrozole, versus 2 years of letrozole and 3 years of tamoxifen. This key study was designed to evaluate whether a planned sequence of tamoxifen and letrozole (and vice versa) provides benefits compared with 5 years of letrozole. A total of 8,010 women with hormone receptor-positive BC were randomly assigned. In the head-to-head comparison of letrozole versus tamoxifen for 5 years, at a median follow-up of 25.8 months, 351 events were noted in the letrozole arm and 428 with tamoxifen, with estimated 5-year DFS rates of 84.0% for letrozole and 81.4% for tamoxifen . The risk of distant recurrence was also significantly reduced (HR 0.73, 95% CI of 0.60 to 0.88, P = 0.001).
More data from this trial were recently published . This involved 4,922 patients (only those patients who continued in the monotherapy arms following the crossover of the trial) with a median follow-up of 51 months. Three hundred fifty-two events were recorded in the letrozole arm compared with 418 with tamoxifen, with estimated 5-year DFS rates of 84.0% versus 81.1% with tamoxifen (HR 0.82, 95% CI of 0.71 to 0.95, P = 0.007).
The results published in 2005 in favour of letrozole led to the unblinding of the tamoxifen-alone arm, and 25.2% of the patients selectively switched to letrozole for a median duration of receiving letrozole of 18 months. As a result, the analysis recently reported with 76 months of follow-up was divided as either intention to treat (ITT) or by censoring patients who switched. In this latest update , there is a statistically significant difference in DFS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99, P = 0.03) for both ITT and censored populations and a trend for OS benefit in the ITT population (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, P = 0.8) which reached significance in the censored population (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.94).
A meta-analysis of AIs versus tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting was presented by Dr Ingle at the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium . The analysis was divided in two cohorts. The first was a direct comparison of monotherapy strategies and included data from the ATAC and Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 trials. It included 9,856 patients with 50,000 woman-years of follow-up. At 5 years, AI therapy was associated with an absolute 2.7% (standard error [SE] 0.7%) decrease in BC recurrence (10.7% versus 13.4%, relative decrease 20% [SE 5%], P = 0.00004). There appeared to be greater proportional decreases in isolated local recurrence (30% [SE 10%], P = 0.003) and in contralateral disease (38% [SE 12%], P = 0.003) than in distant recurrence (12% [SE 6%], P = 0.04). There was, however, no significant improvement in BC mortality (5.5% versus 6.5%, relative decrease 7% [SE 7%], P = 0.28).
Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer currently receiving adjuvant tamoxifen
Sequencing endocrine treatments
The fundamental difference in the design of the following trials is the time point of random assignment. The switch trials randomly assign patients after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment, whereas the sequencing trials randomly assign patients from the start of treatment. As a consequence, the former (switch) trial design selects a patient population who have not already relapsed and may therefore have a better prognosis and may potentially have tumours that are more endocrine-responsive.
The IES trial
In the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES) trial, 4,742 patients who had received 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen were randomly assigned to receive exemestane or continue tamoxifen to a total of 5 years of hormonal therapy. After a median follow-up of 30.6 months, the results favoured exemestane. Of a total of 449 events (local or metastatic recurrence, contralateral BC or death), 183 were in the exemestane group and 266 in the tamoxifen group . The unadjusted HR in the exemestane group was 0.68 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.82, P < 0.001), representing a 32% reduction in risk and an absolute benefit in terms of DFS of 4.7% compared with tamoxifen 3 years following random assignment. DFS rates 3 years after random assignment (following 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen treatment) were 91.5% in the exemestane group versus 86.8% in the tamoxifen group. There was no significant difference in OS, with 93 deaths in the exemestane group and 106 in the tamoxifen group. A more recent analysis was published, with a median follow-up of 55.7 months . There were 354 events in patients switched to exemestane versus 455 in the tamoxifen group (ITT population, HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88, P = 0.0001). In patients with hormone receptor-positive or unknown disease, 339 events were noted in the exemestane group compared with 438 in those continuing tamoxifen (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, P = 0.0001). These latest IES data estimated absolute differences in 5-year DFS of 3.4% in the ITT population and 3.5% in the hormone receptor-positive and unknown group compared with tamoxifen.
This analysis also showed an improvement in OS in the group treated with exemestane versus tamoxifen. In the ITT population, the result failed to reach conventional levels of statistical significance, with 222 deaths versus 261 deaths in the exemestane and tamoxifen arms, respectively (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02, P = 0.08). Considering the hormone receptor-positive and unknown group, the difference was barely statistically significant, with 210 deaths in the exemestane arm versus 251 with tamoxifen (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, P = 0.05).
The ARNO 95 trial
Analysis of the Arimidex-Nolvadex (ARNO) 95 trial at a median of 30.1 months, published in 2007, demonstrated estimated DFS rates at 3 years of 93.5% for anastrozole versus 89.3% for tamoxifen, with an absolute difference of 4.2% . An OS benefit was seen in patients who switched to anastrozole versus those who continued to receive tamoxifen (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.045).
Meta-analysis of the ABCSG 8, the ARNO 95 and the ITA trials
In the unplanned switching meta-analysis, including the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) 8, ARNO 95 and Italian Tamoxifen Arimidex (ITA) trials, involving 4,006 patients at a median follow-up of 30 months, there were significantly fewer recurrences (92 events [4.6%] versus 159 events [8.0%]) and significantly fewer deaths (66 [3.3%] versus 90 [4.5%]) in the group switched to anastrozole versus those remaining on tamoxifen . A 29% reduction in risk of death in the anastrozole arm (HR 0.71, 95% CI of 0.52 to 0.98, P = 0.04) versus the tamoxifen arm was seen. The anastrozole arm also demonstrated a 45% improvement in event-free survival (HR 0.55, 95% CI of 0.42 to 0.71, P < 0.0001) and a 39% improvement in distant recurrence-free survival (HR 0.61, 95% CI of 0.45 to 0.83, P = 0.0015).
The ABSCG Trial 8
The ABSCG Trial 8 explored the tamoxifen-AI sequencing strategy in postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive early BC. The ABSCG Trial 8 compared 5 years of tamoxifen versus 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of anastrozole . A recent update of this trial at a median of 72 months of follow-up showed that sequencing tamoxifen to anastrozole significantly improved relapse-free survival (RFS) in the ITT population by 21% (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.95, P = 0.038). Patients treated with sequential endocrine treatment showed significantly improved OS, with a 23% reduction in the number of deaths (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.97, P = 0.025).
The BIG 1-98 trial
Results of the sequencing arms of the trial as described previously were recently presented , with a median follow-up of 71 months. Two pairwise comparisons were presented: letrozole versus sequencing 2 years of letrozole followed by 3 years of tamoxifen (Let x2 → Tam x3) or sequencing 2 years of tamoxifen followed by 3 years of letrozole (Tam x2 → Let x3). Although no statistically significant differences in DFS were demonstrated (5-year DFS rates of 87.9% for Let, 87.6% for Let x2 → Tam x3 and 86.2% for Tam x2 → Let x3), subset analysis revealed an increased risk of recurrence in the first 2 years of treatment in the Tam x2 → Let x3 group, especially for the node-positive population. There was no apparent benefit of the letrozolealone versus the [Let x2 → Tam x3] strategy at this stage of follow-up.
The TEAM trial
The Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial was originally designed as a monotherapy comparison of 5 years of examestane versus tamoxifen. However, the results of the IES trial led to the amendment of the protocol and all patients on tamoxifen switched to examestane. The median time patients on the tamoxifen arm took tamoxifen was 2.75 years. At a median of 2.75 years of follow-up , the trial failed to reach its primary endpoint, DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03, P = 0.12), but was associated with improvements in RFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00, P = 0.05) and time to distant metastases (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, P < 0.03).
Meta-analysis of the switch strategy
A meta-analysis reviewed the switch strategy  using data from the GABG (German Adjuvant Breast Study Group)/ARNO, IES/BIG 2-97, ITA and ABCSG 8 trials. The analysis included 9,015 patients with 33,000 woman-years of follow-up. At 6 years from treatment divergence (that is, 8 to 9 years from allocation to endocrine treatment), AI therapy was associated with an absolute 3.5% (SE 1.1%) decrease in BC recurrence (12.6% versus 16.1%, relative decrease 29% [SE 6%], P < 0.00001). There appeared to be greater proportional reductions in isolated local recurrence (40% [SE 13%], P = 0.002) and in contralateral disease (35% [SE 16%], P = 0.03) than in distant recurrence (24% [SE 7%], P = 0.001). AIs yielded an absolute 1.6% (SE 0.8%) decrease in BC mortality (6.3% versus 8.0%, relative decrease 22% [SE 9%], P = 0.02). The benefit was irrespective of progesterone receptor (PR) status, age, grade and lymph node status. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increase in overall mortality or non-BC deaths with the use of the AI, causing no concern about safety issues.
Trial comparing 5 years of 'extended' treatment with an aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of placebo following 5 years of adjuvant treatment with tamoxifen
The MA-17 trial
Due to the early termination of the National Cancer Institute of Canada MA-17 (MA-17) trial, its aims will never be answered. The trial involved 5,187 patients who had already received tamoxifen for 5 years and then were randomly assigned to a further 5 years' therapy with either letrozole or placebo. At a median follow-up of 2.4 years, the independent data and safety monitoring committee recommended termination of the trial as a significant difference in favour of letrozole was seen. The estimated 4-year DFS rates were 93% and 87% for letrozole and placebo, respectively (P < 0.001) . More recent analysis of the MA-17 trial now indicates a survival benefit for extended adjuvant therapy with letrozole in lymph node-positive patients (HR 0.61, P = 0.04) .
In the MA-17 trial, patients were randomly assigned within 3 months of stopping tamoxifen. The effect of 'delayed' extended adjuvant therapy with letrozole has been evaluated in those women who, after unblinding of the trial, opted for an unplanned switch from placebo to letrozole. Compared with the hormone receptor-positive women who chose not to do so and despite having worse prognostic features, those who switched had significantly improved DFS (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.55, P < 0.0001) .
Comparison of toxicity of AIs versus tamoxifen in newly diagnosed patients and those patients currently taking tamoxifen switched to an AI
Venous thromboembolic events
Trials of AIs versus tamoxifen show a lower risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) with AIs. The exact mechanism that potentiates thrombotic events is unclear but possibly involves, among other mechanisms, tamoxifen-induced decrease in antithrombin III and protein C levels [27, 28]. Previous trials of tamoxifen versus placebo have shown a significant increase in the risk of VTEs, which may be related to its partial agonist oestrogenic actions. In the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) P1 trial, the risk ratios for stroke (1.59), pulmonary embolism (3.01) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (1.60) were all raised with tamoxifen treatment compared with placebo .
After 68 months of follow-up in the ATAC trial, the incidence of any thromboembolic event was lower with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen (2.1% versus 3.5%, P = 0.0006) and also for VTEs (3% versus 5%, P = 0.0004) . Similarly, in the BIG 1-98 trial, letrozole was associated with fewer thromboembolic events compared with tamoxifen (1.5% versus 3.5%, P < 0.001). The switching trials have also shown a reduction in VTEs: The IES trial showed incidences of VTEs of 1.0% for exemestane and 1.9% for tamoxifen (P = 0.003). The combined analysis of ABCSG 8 and ARNO 95 showed 21 VTEs with tamoxifen and only 5 with anastrozole . In the MA-17 trial, VTEs were rare and not significantly different from the placebo. From the above, it is clear that patients with a previous VTE should receive an AI rather than tamoxifen, irrespectively of recurrence risk.
Gynaecological side effects
The oestrogen agonist activity of tamoxifen on endometrium can be associated with vaginal bleeding and discharge, menstrual irregularities and endometrial changes (hyperplasia, polyps, endometriosis and uterine fibroids), and an increased incidence of endometrial cancer is recognised. In the NSABP P1 prevention study, there was a 2.5-fold increase in endometrial cancer with tamoxifen treatment . Most studies involving AIs in the adjuvant setting report a reduced incidence of vaginal bleeding, with a reduced need for interventions such as hysterectomy (5.1% versus 1.3%) in the 68-month follow-up ATAC data  and endometrial biopsy (7.2% versus 1.9%) being reported in the 25.8-month follow-up BIG 1-98 data . Given the absence of agonist activity of the AIs, the incidence of vaginal discharge is usually reported as being less with this class of agents. In the two available AI quality-of-life studies carried out, decreased libido, vaginal dryness and dyspareunia were reported more frequently with anastrozole and exemestane than tamoxifen [32, 33].
Hot flashes, either de novo or exacerbation of pre-existing symptoms, are a recognised feature of endocrine therapies, reported in up to 46% of patients . They are attributed to the sudden decrease in circulating oestrogen levels, and due to their abrupt onset, they are more bothersome than the symptoms developed during natural menopause. Hot flashes are reported with slightly less frequency in the two studies in newly diagnosed women: 36% for anastrozole versus 41% for tamoxifen after 68 months of follow-up  and 34% for letrozole versus 38% for tamoxifen after 25.8 months of follow-up . In studies exploring unplanned switching strategies, the reported incidence of hot flashes is broadly similar to that of other studies [18, 31]. Unsurprisingly, in the MA-17 study of extended adjuvant therapy, use of letrozole led to a higher frequency of hot flashes compared with placebo (47% versus 41%, respectively) . Interestingly, in one study, women who reported hot flashes at baseline were less likely to develop recurrent BC than those who did not report hot flashes (12.9% versus 21%, P = 0.01) .
Bone mineral density
Trials of AIs versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women have shown an increased risk of fractures with the use of all AIs [12, 14, 18]. Comparisons between AIs and tamoxifen are complicated by the fact that the effect of tamoxifen on bone mineral density (BMD) is not neutral but agonistic . Previous trials of tamoxifen compared with placebo in postmenopausal women have shown an increase in BMD from tamoxifen use and a 19% reduction (nonsignificant) in the incidence of fractures .
In the ATAC trial at 68 months, the incidences of fractures were 11% with anastrozole versus 7.7% with tamoxifen. The 5-year bone subprotocol of the ATAC trial showed that the loss of BMD from baseline was an average of 6.1% in the lumbar spine and 7.2% in the hip with anastrozole compared with a 2.8% gain in the lumbar spine and 0.7% gain in the hip with tamoxifen (P < 0.0001) . However, no patient with normal bone at baseline became osteoporotic after 5 years of treatment; to develop osteoporosis, a woman would need to lose 15% to 20% of normal peak bone mass. In the BIG 1-98 study, fractures were significantly more frequent in the letrozole group than in the tamoxifen group at 25.8 months (5.7% versus 4%, P < 0.001) .
In the IES trial at 55.7 months of follow-up, rates of osteoporosis (of any grade) were 7.0% with exemestane and 4.9% with tamoxifen (P = 0.003) . In the MA-17 trial at 2.4 years, rates of osteoporosis (of any grade) were 5.8% with letrozole and 4.5% with placebo (P = 0.07) .
Although claims of superiority have been made for particular AIs with respect to bone loss , the LEAP (Letrozole, Exemestane, and Anastrozole Pharmacodynamics) trial involving 90 patients at 24 weeks of treatment showed that the steroidal and nonsteroidal AIs appear to have similar effects on bone biochemical measurements and presumably bone turnover. All three licensed AIs result in increases in bone turnover. With the exception of parathyroid hormone (PTH), in which there is a greater decrease in PTH with exemestane than with anastrozole (P = 0.04), there were no statistically significant differences between the AIs .
AIs have been associated with a broad range of musculoskeletal adverse events (in addition to the effects on bone health described in the preceding paragraph) that have been loosely categorised under the term of AI-related arthralgias. In the trials of adjuvant AI therapy such as ATAC, IES, BIG 1-98 and MA-17, bone and joint symptoms were categorised in a variety of ways, and estimates for the incidence of musculoskeletal problems in these trials range from 5% to 36% . However, this may be an underestimate in view of the inconsistency of reporting these symptoms. Crew and colleagues  reported a cross-sectional survey of 200 consecutive women receiving adjuvant AI therapy, with a higher prevalence of these symptoms. Ninety-four (47%) reported having AI-related joint pains, and 88 (44%) reported joint stiffness. Patients who had received taxanes were four times more likely to report symptoms. The pathophysiology of AI-related arthralgias is not well understood, but it is thought to be related to oestrogen deprivation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have suggested that tenosynovial changes are seen on MRI with AIs but not with tamoxifen, and these correlate with a significant decrease in hand grip strength .
Cardiac side effects
The cardiovascular consequences of tamoxifen remain the subject of much debate. Tamoxifen has been shown to reduce lipid levels , coronary plaques and C-reactive protein and modulate nitric oxide production . However, the clinical consequences of these changes are uncertain and trials of tamoxifen versus placebo in the preventive setting have not indicated differences in cardiac events .
At 28 months of follow-up, the BIG 1-98 trial reported a significant excess of cardiac (2.1% versus 1.1%, P = 0.0003) grade 3 to 5 events for the letrozole-containing arm . However, at a median follow-up of 51 months, no significant differences in cardiovascular events in the two arms of the study were seen .
In the ATAC trial, no statistically significant differences in cardiac events were reported. Ischaemic cardiovascular disease occurred in 4.1% of patients receiving anastrozole versus 3.4% in the tamoxifen arm, and deaths due to ischaemic heart disease occurred in 49 and 46 patients, respectively. The ABCSG 8, ARNO 95 and ITA trials have not reported an excess of cardiovascular disease or myocardial infarctions (MIs) with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen .
In the most recent update of the IES trial , deaths from cardiac events were similar in exemestane and tamoxifen groups (22.1% versus 20.9%, P = 0.34). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in MIs (1.3 versus 0.8, P = 0.08), angina (7.1% versus 6.5%, P = 0.44) or cerebrovascular accidents (2.5% versus 2.4%, P = 0.89) observed. In the extended adjuvant setting, letrozole was not associated with more cardiovascular events than placebo at a median follow-up of 2.4 years .
At present, it is not clear whether the early concerns with cardiac morbidity in the BIG 1-98 trial are specific to letrozole or are a class effect of AIs. Inconsistency in cardiac event reporting in the major AI trials makes cross-trial interpretation difficult. Further follow-up of existing trials is needed, and head-to-head trials of AIs will help to answer these important questions. Current data suggest that AIs are not associated with an excess risk of cardiovascular events.
The first published results from a longitudinal follow-up of the impact of 5 years of adjuvant AI therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) involved anastrozole and showed that the efficacy and tolerability benefits of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen over the full 5-year recommended adjuvant treatment period are not at the expense of HRQoL . The switch from tamoxifen to exemestane did not influence endocrine symptoms present after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen, nor did the switch lead to significant reports of new symptoms. Results indicate that the clinical benefits of exemestane over tamoxifen are achieved without significant detrimental effect on quality of life . Data from the MA-17 trial indicate no overall adverse effect of letrozole in quality of life but small, though significant, worse outcomes in body pain and vasomotor symptoms .
Efficacy results of major aromatase inhibitor trials
AI versus tamoxifen
While follow-up of these studies is relatively short compared with the wealth of data on tamoxifen, the studies demonstrate that AIs significantly improve DFS, event-free survival and distant recurrence compared with tamoxifen. More recent data now show an OS benefit in patients switched to anastrozole and exemestane compared with continuation of tamoxifen [18, 20, 21]. Also, OS has been shown to improve in node-positive patients treated with letrozole in the extended adjuvant trial after 5 years of tamoxifen versus placebo .
In speculating what the longer-term benefits of AIs might be, it is important to recognise that a carryover effect of adjuvant therapies is well recognised with differences in RFS and OS increasing beyond the treatment period. For example, the difference in mortality attributable to tamoxifen at 5 years was only 3.6% compared with 9.2% at 15 years, and this for a comparison of active treatment versus none . Similarly, it is interesting to consider an early Swedish trial comparing use of tamoxifen for 2 years versus 5 years . No benefits of the more prolonged treatment were noted before 5 years following random assignment. With the benefit of more prolonged follow-up and the Oxford overviews, 5 years of tamoxifen has, until recently at least, been regarded as the standard of care in early-stage BC. In adjuvant endocrine therapy, prolonged follow-up to truly evaluate long-term benefits is clearly required.
AIs have also demonstrated significant improvements in tolerability compared with tamoxifen. Whilst these benefits should be balanced with the increased risk of fracture and arthralgia posed by AIs, patients considered to be low risk in terms of recurrence could benefit from the altered toxicity profile of AIs compared with tamoxifen. Overall, efficacy benefits have been established without an apparent detrimental effect on quality of life in the anastrozole and exemestane studies [32, 33].
The ASCO guidelines and the NICE technology appraisal on the use of AIs concur that optimal adjuvant hormonal therapy for a postmenopausal woman with receptor-positive BC includes an AI, either as initial therapy or after treatment with tamoxifen [8, 9]. However, the practical questions remain: when to initiate an AI and in which patients.
Tamoxifen has relatively low affinity for its target, the ER, but its metabolites 4-OH-tamoxifen and endoxifen (N-desmethyl-4-hydroxytamoxifen) are 10 to 100 times more potent. In the liver, tamoxifen is converted to N-desmethyl-tamoxifen by CYP3A4/5 and subsequently to endoxifen by CYP2D6. An alternate route of endoxifen production is mediated by CYP2D6, converting tamoxifen to 4-hydroxy-tamoxifen, which is further metabolized to endoxifen via CYP3A4/5. Serum levels of endoxifen are 5 to 10 times higher than that of 4-OH-tamoxifen and 100 times more than that of tamoxifen, and therefore endoxifen is considered the main active metabolite [56–58]. The enzyme CYP2D6 (as well as CYP3A4/5) is a member of the cytochrome P450 system and is involved in the oxidation of a wide range of substrates. Besides being involved in tamoxifen metabolism, it metabolizes codeine to morphine. About 7% of Caucasians carry null alleles, which are homozygous polymorphisms that encode for an inactive allele .
Interest in tamoxifen metabolites started with a report by Goetz and colleagues  which correlated response to tamoxifen with CYP2D6 polymorphisms. Until now, the evidence has been mixed, with the majority of the studies suggesting that patients with defective tamoxifen metabolism (as a consequence of either genetic polymorphisms or the concomitant use of drugs that inhibit CYP2D6) have an inferior clinical outcome. However, there are also clinical studies indicating the opposite, or no detrimental effect . Another two clinical studies presented in ASCO 2009 reported contradictory results [62, 63]. In 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a label warning in the tamoxifen package, and several companies now offer genotyping tests to assess CYP2D6 status. At present, one cannot draw definite conclusions regarding the appropriateness of full-scale genotype testing, although most practitioners would avoid the concomitant use of strong pharmacologic inhibitors of CYP2D6 with tamoxifen and some may even provocatively consider that the small increase in efficacy with the modern AIs over tamoxifen would be lost  if poor metabolizers were excluded from the clinical trials.
Biomarkers to guide the use of adjuvant endocrine therapy
Patients with hormone-responsive disease represent a spectrum with differing degrees of clinical benefit derived from adjuvant endocrine treatments. The level of expression of ERs correlates with the degree of response to endocrine therapies  but does not differ between tamoxifen and AIs.
Similarly for PRs , the benefit correlates with the level of expression. Initially, it was suggested that ER+ PR- tumours gain even more benefit with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen than the rest of the hormone-responsive tumours ; however, subsequent studies failed to confirm this . Preclinical studies have suggested that overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in hormone receptor-positive tumours is associated with endogenous resistance to tamoxifen . Retrospective clinical data indicate that HER2 overexpression in advanced BC is associated with relative resistance to treatment with tamoxifen  and greater benefits from the use of an AI . Similar results have been shown in the neoadjuvant setting , but not in the adjuvant setting [66, 72]. Finally, the presence of high levels of Ki-67 indicates aggressive disease and can be used as a predictive marker for choosing an AI over tamoxifen in the adjuvant setting , with significant benefits in DFS (HR [Let:Tam] 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.72). Current data indicate that biomarkers may define a group with some resistance to endocrine therapy but do not justify the use of these biomarkers in routine clinical practice in selecting treatment with AIs over tamoxifen.
Newly diagnosed patients
For newly diagnosed patients, those at high risk of early recurrence (including patients with nodal involvement and/or high-grade tumours, PR+tumours or HER2+ tumours) are more likely to benefit from the introduction of an AI up front. Some patients considered to be low risk in terms of recurrence may also be considered for an up-front AI on the basis of the improved tolerability that AIs offer versus tamoxifen.
Initial reports from the ATAC trial generated the hypothesis of an increased benefit in the PR- tumours , but subsequent reports refuted this hypothesis . To date, there are no data to support elective use of an AI in a particular endocrine-responsive subset. High expression of HER2 has been suggested to confer resistance to tamoxifen , and there are data from the neoadjuvant setting that letrozole is more effective than tamoxifen in women with HER2+ tumours . However, there are no robust data from the major adjuvant trials to establish this practice. Despite this, women overexpressing HER2 are at higher risk of early relapse and could be candidates for an AI on this basis. Prospectively sequencing newly diagnosed patients to 2 years of tamoxifen, followed by 3 years of an AI, may be appealing with respect to toxicity, with adverse effects of each agent lessened with reduced exposure.
Patients currently on tamoxifen
For these patients, the unplanned switch approach appears appealing if reduction in risk of relapse is considered, and compared with 'up-front' comparisons, this approach appears to be associated with a survival benefit. Patients randomly assigned in these switching studies, however, were those who had not recurred already and probably represent a more endocrine therapy-sensitive group. For patients who have received 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen, completion of 5 years of endocrine therapy that includes an AI should be considered.
While the optimal duration of endocrine therapy was generally regarded as being about 5 years, the results of the extended adjuvant therapy trial (MA-17) challenge this view. Patients with node-positive disease who have received 5 years of tamoxifen benefit from the introduction of an AI . The optimal duration remains unclear following the early discontinuation of the study as mandated by the trial design. Recent follow-up data of the MA-17 trial suggest that benefits of an AI are seen versus placebo in patients even following its late introduction .
Licensed indications of different aromatase inhibitors
Newly diagnosed patients
Patients currently treated with tamoxifen
Unplanned switch following 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen
Unplanned switch following 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen
Unplanned switch following 5 years of tamoxifen (extended adjuvant)
Is there a role for tamoxifen alone?
For women at low risk of relapse (ER+, PR+, grade I/II, node-negative), the benefit of AIs in terms of DFS is likely to be small. None of the trials has reported the benefit for low-risk patients in absolute terms. Given the wealth of data in terms of long-term toxicity with tamoxifen, its use may be considered appropriate for such patients. However, even for these patients, AIs may be appropriate if patients have contraindications for tamoxifen (for example, DVT/pulmonary embolism) or may be intolerant to the side effects of tamoxifen (for example, hot flashes and night sweats).
Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group
American Society of Clinical Oncology
Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination
Breast International Group
bone mineral density
deep vein thrombosis
human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
health-related quality of life
Intergroup Exemestane Study
Italian Tamoxifen Arimidex
intention to treat
magnetic resonance imaging
National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence
National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project
venous thromboembolic event.
- Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG): Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1687-1717. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bonneterre J, Thürlimann B, Robertson JF, Krzakowski M, Mauriac L, Koralewski P, Vergote I, Webster A, Steinberg M, von Euler M: 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. J Clin Oncol. 2000, 18: 3748-3757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nabholtz JM, Buzdar A, Pollak M, Harwin W, Burton G, Mangalik A, Steinberg M, Webster A, von Euler M: Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: results of a North American multicentre randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2000, 18: 3758-3767.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bonneterre J, Buzdar A, Nabholtz JM, Robertson JF, Thürlimann B, von Euler M, Sahmoud T, Webster A, Steinberg M, Arimidex Writing Committee; Investigators Committee Members: Anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen as first-line therapy in hormone receptor positive advanced breast carcinoma: results of two randomized trials designed for combined analysis. Cancer. 2001, 92: 2247-2258. 10.1002/1097-0142(20011101)92:9<2247::AID-CNCR1570>3.0.CO;2-Y.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y, Perez-Carrion R, Boni C, Monnier A, Apffelstaedt J, Smith R, Sleeboom HP, Jaenicke F, Pluzanska A, Dank M, Becquart D, Bapsy PP, Salminen E, Snyder R, Chaudri-Ross H, Lang R, Wyld P, Bhatnagar A: Phase III Study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21: 2101-2109. 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.194.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Johannessen DC, Engan T, Di Salle E, Zurlo MG, Paolini J, Ornati G, Piscitelli G, Kvinnsland S, Lonning PE: Endocrine and clinical effects of exemestane (PNU 155971), a novel steroidal aromatase inhibitor, in postmenopausal breast cancer patients: a phase I study. Clin Cancer Res. 1997, 3: 1101-1108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- di Salle E, Ornati G, Giudici D, Lassus M, Evans TR, Coombes RC: Exemestane (FCE 24304), a new steroidal aromatase inhibitor. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1992, 43: 137-143. 10.1016/0960-0760(92)90198-R.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Winer EP, Hudis C, Burstein HJ, Wolff AC, Pritchard KI, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT, Gelber R, Edge SB, Gralow J, Cobleigh MA, Mamounas EP, Goldstein LJ, Whelan TJ, Powles TJ, Bryant J, Perkins C, Perotti J, Braun S, Langer AS, Browman GP, Somerfield MR: American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2004. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 619-629. 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.121.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- NICE Final Appraisal Determination - Hormonal therapies for the adjuvant treatment of early oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, August 2006. [http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/breast_cancer_hormonal_FAD.pdf]
- Chlebowski RT: Optimizing aromatase inhibitor integration into initial treatment strategies in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, 112: 25-34. 10.1007/s10549-008-0237-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Seruga B, Tannock IF: Up-front use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: the emperor has no clothes. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 840-842. 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.5594.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baum M, Budzar AU, Cuzick J, Forbes J, Houghton JH, Klijn JG, Sahmoud T, ATAC Trialists' Group: Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet. 2002, 359: 2131-2139. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09088-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists' Group, Forbes JF, Cuzick J, Buzdar A, Howell A, Tobias JS, Baum M: Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9: 45-53. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70385-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 Collaborative Group, Thürlimann B, Keshaviah A, Coates AS, Mouridsen H, Mauriac L, Forbes JF, Paridaens R, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, Rabaglio M, Smith I, Wardley A, Price KN, Goldhirsch A: A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353: 2747-2757. 10.1056/NEJMoa052258.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Coates AS, Keshaviah A, Thürlimann B, Mouridsen H, Mauriac L, Forbes JF, Paridaens R, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, Colleoni M, Láng I, Del Mastro L, Smith I, Chirgwin J, Nogaret JM, Pienkowski T, Wardley A, Jakobsen EH, Price KN, Goldhirsch A: 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. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 486-492. 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8617.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mouridsen HT, Giobbie-Hurder A, Mauriac L, Paridaens R, Colleoni M, Thuerlimann B, Forbes JF, Gelber RD, Wardley A, Smith I, Price KN, Coates A, Goldhirsch A, BIG I-98 Collaborative and the International Breast Cancer Study Group: BIG 1-98: a randomized double-blind phase III study evaluating letrozole and tamoxifen given in sequence as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive breast cancer [abstract 13]. Paper presented at: 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 10-14. 2008, [http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs/view.php?nu=SABCS08L_553&terms=]December ; San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- Ingle JN, Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Davies C: Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer: meta-analyses of randomized trials of monotherapy and switching strategies. Paper presented at: 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 10-14. 2008, [http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs/view.php?nu=SABCS08L_465&terms=]December ; San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ, Paridaens R, Jassem J, Delozier T, Jones SE, Alvarez I, Bertelli G, Ortmann O, Coates AS, Bajetta E, Dodwell D, Coleman RE, Fallowfield LJ, Mickiewicz E, Andersen J, Lønning PE, Cocconi G, Stewart A, Stuart N, Snowdon CF, Carpentieri M, Massimini G, Bliss JM, Velde van de C, Intergroup Exemestane Study: A randomized trial of examestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004, 350: 1081-1092. 10.1056/NEJMoa040331.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Coombes RC, Kilburn LS, Snowdon CF, Paridaens R, Coleman RE, Jones SE, Jassem J, Velde Van de CJ, Delozier T, Alvarez I, Del Mastro L, Ortmann O, Diedrich K, Coates AS, Bajetta E, Holmberg SB, Dodwell D, Mickiewicz E, Andersen J, Lønning PE, Cocconi G, Forbes J, Castiglione M, Stuart N, Stewart A, Fallowfield LJ, Bertelli G, Hall E, Bogle RG, Carpentieri M, Colajori E, et al: Survival and safety of exemestane versus tamoxifen after 2-3 years' tamoxifen treatment (Intergroup Exemestane Study): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2007, 369: 559-570. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60200-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kaufmann M, Jonat W, Hilfrich J, Eidtmann H, Gademann G, Zuna I, von Minckwitz G: Improved overall survival in post-menopausal women with early breast cancer after anastrozole initiated after treatment with tamoxifen compared with continued tamoxifen: the ARNO 95 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 2664-2670. 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8054.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jonat W, Gnant M, Boccardo F, Kaufmann M, Rubagotti A, Zuna I, Greenwood M, Jakesz R: Effectiveness of switching from adjuvant tamoxifen to anastrozole in postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early-stage breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7: 991-996. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70948-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jakesz R, Gnant M, Griel R, Tausch C, Samonigg H, Kwasny W, Kubista E, Stierer M, Luschin G, Rüecklinger E, Mittlböck M: Tamoxifen and anastrozole as a sequencing strategy in post-menopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer: updated data from the Austrian breast and colorectal cancer study group trial 8. Paper presented at: 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 10-14. 2008, [http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs/view.php?nu=SABCS08L_759&terms=]December ; San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- Jones SE, Seynaeve C, Hasenburg A, Rae D, Vannetzel J-M, Paridaens R, Markopoulos C, Hozumi Y, Putter H, Hille E, Kieback D, Asmar L, Smeets J, Urbanski R, Bartlett JMS, Velde van de CJH: Results of the first planned analysis of the TEAM (tamoxifen exemestane adjuvant multinational) prospective randomized phase III trial in hormone sensitive postmenopausal early breast cancer [abstract 15]. Paper presented at: 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 10-14. 2008, [http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs/view.php?nu=SABCS08L_55&terms=]December ; San Antonio, TXGoogle Scholar
- Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, Castiglione M, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Pritchard KI, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Norton L, Perez EA, Abrams JS, Therasse P, Palmer MJ, Pater JL: A randomized trial of letrozole in post-menopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003, 349: 1793-1802. 10.1056/NEJMoa032312.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, Castiglione M, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Pritchard KI, Livingston RB, Davidson NE, Norton L, Perez EA, Abrams JS, Cameron DA, Palmer MJ, Pater JL: Randomised trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA17. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97: 1262-1271.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goss PE, Ingle JN, Palmer MJ, Shepherd LE: Updated analysis of NCIC MA17 (letrozole versus placebo to letrozole versus placebo) post unblinding [abstract 16]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 94: S1-10.1007/s10549-005-1234-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pemberton KD, Melissari E, Kakkar VV: The influence of tamoxifen in vivo on the main natural anticoagulants and fibrinolysis. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 1993, 4: 935-942.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Love RR, Surawicz TS, Williams EC: Antithrombin III level, fibrinogen level, and platelet count changes with adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Arch Intern Med. 1992, 152: 317-320. 10.1001/archinte.152.2.317.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Vogel V, Robidoux A, Dimitrov N, Atkins J, Daly M, Wieand S, Tan-Chiu E, Ford L, Wolmark N: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90: 1371-1388. 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination Trialists' Group, Buzdar A, Howell A, Cuzick J, Wale C, Distler W, Hoctin-Boes G, Houghton J, Locker GY, Nabholtz JM: Comprehensive side-effect profile of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: long-term safety analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006, 7: 633-643. 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70767-7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jakesz R, Jonat W, Gnant M, Mittlboeck M, Greil R, Tausch C, Hilfrich J, Kwasny W, Menzel C, Samonigg H, Seifert M, Gademann G, Kaufmann M, Wolfgang J, ABCSG and the GABG: Switching of postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer to anastrozole after 2 years' adjuvant tamoxifen: combined results of ABCSG trial 8 and ARNO 95 trial. Lancet. 2005, 366: 455-462. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67059-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cella D, Fallowfield L, Barker P, Cuzick J, Locker G, Howell A, ATAC Trialists' Group: Quality of life of postmenopausal women in the ATAC ('Arimidex', Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006, 100: 273-284. 10.1007/s10549-006-9260-6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fallowfield LJ, Bliss JM, Porter LS, Price MH, Snowdon CF, Jones SE, Coombes RC, Hall E: Quality of life in the intergroup exemestane study: a randomized trial of exemestane versus continued tamoxifen after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen in post-menopausal women with primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 910-917. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3654.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Leining MG, Gelber S, Rosenberg R, Przypyszny M, Winer EP, Partridge AH: Menopausal symptoms in young breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol. 2006, 17: 1777-1782. 10.1093/annonc/mdl299.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mortimer JE, Flatt SW, Parker BA, Gold EB, Wasserman L, Natarajan L, Pierce JP, WHEL Study Group: Tamoxifen, hot flashes and recurrence in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008, 108: 421-426. 10.1007/s10549-007-9612-x.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Love RR, Mazess RB, Barden HS, Epstein S, Newcomb PA, Jordan VC, Carbone PP, DeMets DL: Effects of tamoxifen on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1992, 326: 852-856.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Coleman RE, on behalf of the ATAC Trialists' Group: Effect of anastrozole on bone mineral density: 5-year results from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial. 2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24 (June 20 Suppl): 511-Google Scholar
- Lønning PE, Geisler J, Krag LE, Erikstein B, Bremnes Y, Hagen AI, Schlichting E, Lien EA, Ofjord ES, Paolini J, Polli A, Massimini G: Effects of exemestane administered for 2 years versus placebo on bone mineral density, bone biomarkers, and plasma lipids in patients with surgically resected early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 5126-5137. 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.097.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McCloskey EV, Hannon RA, Lakner G, Fraser WD, Clack G, Miyamoto A, Finkelman RD, Eastell R: Effects of third generation aromatase inhibitors on bone health and other safety parameters: results of an open, randomised, multi-centre study of letrozole, exemestane and anastrozole in healthy postmenopausal women. Eur J Cancer. 2007, 43: 2523-2531. 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.08.029.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Howell A, Cuzick J, Baum M, Buzdar A, Dowsett M, Forbes JF, Hoctin-Boes G, Houghton J, Locker GY, Tobias JS, ATAC Trialists' Group: Results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination) trial after completion of 5 years' adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Lancet. 2005, 365: 60-62. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74803-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baum M, Buzdar A, Cuzick J, Forbes J, Houghton J, Howell A, Sahmoud T, ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) Trialists' Group: Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: results of the ATAC (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination) trial efficacy and safety update analyses. Cancer. 2003, 98: 1802-1810. 10.1002/cncr.11745.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brufsky A, Harker WG, Beck JT, Carroll R, Tan-Chiu E, Seidler C, Hohneker J, Lacerna L, Petrone S, Perez EA: Zoledronic acid inhibits adjuvant letrozole-induced bone loss in post-menopausal women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 829-836. 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.3744.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gnant MF, Mlineritsch B, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Grampp S, Kaessmann H, Schmid M, Menzel C, Piswanger-Soelkner JC, Galid A, Mittlboeck M, Hausmaninger H, Jakesz R, Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group: Zoledronic acid prevents cancer treatment-induced bone loss in pre-menopausal women receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone-responsive breast cancer: a report from the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 820-828. 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.7102.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bundred NJ, Campbell ID, Davidson N, DeBoer RH, Eidtmann H, Monnier A, Neven P, von Minckwitz G, Miller JC, Schenk NL, Coleman RE: Effective inhibition of aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss by zoledronic acid in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole: ZO-FAST study results. Cancer. 2008, 112: 1001-1010. 10.1002/cncr.23259.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Burstein HJ, Winer EP: Aromatase inhibitors and arthralgias: a new frontier in symptom management for breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 3797-3799. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9529.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crew KD, Greenlee H, Capodice J, Raptis G, Brafman L, Fuentes D, Sierra A, Hershman DL: Prevalence of joint symptoms in postmenopausal women taking aromatase inhibitors for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 3877-3883. 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.7573.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Morales L, Pans S, Verschueren K, Van Calster B, Paridaens R, Westhovens R, Timmerman D, De Smet L, Vergote I, Christiaens MR, Neven P: Prospective study to assess short-term intra-articular and tenosynovial changes in the aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 3147-3152. 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.4005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Herrington DM, Klein KP: Effects of SERMs on important indicators of cardiovascular health: lipoproteins, hemostatic factors, and endothelial function. Womens Health Issues. 2001, 11: 95-102. 10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00075-5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bradbury BD, Lash TL, Kaye JA, Jick SS: Tamoxifen-treated breast carcinoma patients and the risk of acute myocardial infarction and newly-diagnosed angina. Cancer. 2005, 103: 1114-1121. 10.1002/cncr.20900.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McDonald CC, Alexander FE, Whyte BW, Forrest AP, Stewart HJ: Cardiac and vascular morbidity in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen for breast cancer in a randomised trial. BMJ. 1995, 311: 977-980.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nabholtz J-M, Gligorov J: Comparison of cardiovascular safety profiles of aromatase inhibitors. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2005, 3: 96-Google Scholar
- Jonat W, Gnant M, Boccardo F, Kaufmann M, Rubagotti A, Jakesz R: Switching from adjuvant tamoxifen to anastrozole in post-menopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of the ARNO 95 trial, ABCSG Trial 8 and the ITA trial [abstract 18]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 94: S1-10.1007/s10549-005-1234-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fallowfield L, Cella D, Cuzick J, Francis S, Locker G, Howell A: Quality of life of postmenopausal women in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004, 22: 4261-4271. 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.029.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Whelan TJ, Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pater JL, Tu D, Pritchard K, Liu S, Shepherd LE, Palmer M, Robert NJ, Martino S, Muss HB: Assessment of quality of life in MA.17: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of letrozole after 5 years of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 6931-6940. 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.181.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Swedish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group: Randomized trial of two versus five years of adjuvant tamoxifen for post-menopausal early stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996, 88: 1543-1549. 10.1093/jnci/88.21.1543.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Garber K: Tamoxifen pharmacogenetics moves closer to reality. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97: 412-413.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jin Y, Desta Z, Stearns V, Ward B, Ho H, Lee KH, Skaar T, Storniolo AM, Li L, Araba A, Blanchard R, Nguyen A, Ullmer L, Hayden J, Lemler S, Weinshilboum RM, Rae JM, Hayes DF, Flockhart DA: CYP2D6 genotype, antidepressant use, and tamoxifen metabolism during adjuvant breast cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005, 97: 30-39.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stearns V, Johnson MD, Rae JM, Morocho A, Novielli A, Bhargava P, Hayes DF, Desta Z, Flockhart DA: Active tamoxifen metabolite plasma concentrations after coadministration of tamoxifen and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003, 95: 1758-1764.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ingelman-Sundberg M: Genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 2d6 (CYP2D6): clinical consequences, evolutionary aspects and functional diversity. Pharmacogenomics J. 2005, 5: 6-13. 10.1038/sj.tpj.6500285.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, Safgren SL, Ames MM, Visscher DW, Reynolds C, Couch FJ, Lingle WL, Flockhart DA, Desta Z, Perez EA, Ingle JN: Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotrans-formation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 9312-9318. 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3266.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoskins JM, Carey LA, McLeod HL: CYP2D6 and tamoxifen: DNA matters in breast cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009, 9: 576-586. 10.1038/nrc2683.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aubert RE, Stanek EJ, Yao J, Teagarden JR, Subar M, Epstein RS, Skaar TC, Desta Z, Flockhart DA: Risk of breast cancer recurrence in women initiating tamoxifen with CYP2D6 inhibitors. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 18s-10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4626. [http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/18S/CRA508]View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dezentje V, Van Blijderveen NJ, Gelderblom H: Concomitant CYP2D6 inhibitor use and tamoxifen adherence in early-stage breast cancer: a pharmacoepidemiologic study. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 18s-10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4626.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Punglia RS, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Weeks JC: Pharmacogenomic variation of CYP2D6 and the choice of optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer: a modeling analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008, 100: 642-648. 10.1093/jnci/djn100.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, Dixon JM, Skene A, Blohmer JU, Ashley SE, Francis S, Boeddinghaus I, Walsh G, IMPACT Trialists Group: Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: the Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined with Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 5108-5116. 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.005.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowsett M, Allred C, Knox J, Quinn E, Salter J, Wale C, Cuzick J, Houghton J, Williams N, Mallon E, Bishop H, Ellis I, Larsimont D, Sasano H, Carder P, Cussac AL, Knox F, Speirs V, Forbes J, Buzdar A: Relationship between quantitative estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status with recurrence in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 1059-1065. 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.9437.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, Howell T, Houghton J, Baum M: Retrospective analysis of time to recurrence in the ATAC trial according to hormone receptor status: an hypothesis-generating study. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 7512-7517. 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.4829.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Benz CC, Scott GK, Sarup JC, Johnson RM, Tripathy D, Coronado E, Shepard HM, Osborne CK: Estrogen-dependent, tamoxifenresistant tumorigenic growth of MCF-7 cells transfected with HER2/neu. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992, 24: 85-95. 10.1007/BF01961241.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Houston SJ, Plunkett TA, Barnes DM, Smith P, Rubens RD, Miles DW: Overexpression of c-erbB2 is an independent marker of resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1999, 79: 1220-1226. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690196.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lipton A, Ali SM, Leitzel K, Demers L, Harvey HA, Chaudri-Ross HA, Brady C, Wyld P, Carney W: Serum HER-2/neu and response to the aromatase inhibitor letrozole versus tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21: 1967-1972. 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.098.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Young O, White S, Proia AD, Murray J, Renshaw L, Faratian D, Thomas J, Dowsett M, Krause A, Evans DB, Miller WR, Dixon JM: Estrogen-independent proliferation is present in estrogen-receptor HER2-positive primary breast cancer after neoadjuvant letrozole. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 3019-3025. 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.3034.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rasmussen BB, Regan MM, Lykkesfeldt AE, Dell'Orto P, Del Curto B, Henriksen KL, Mastropasqua MG, Price KN, Méry E, Lacroix-Triki M, Braye S, Altermatt HJ, Gelber RD, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Goldhirsch A, Gusterson BA, Thürlimann B, Coates AS, Viale G, BIG 1-98 Collaborative and International Breast Cancer Study Groups: BIG 1-98 Collaborative and International Breast Cancer Study Groups. Adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen according to centrally-assessed ERBB2 status for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: supplementary results from the BIG 1-98 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008, 9: 23-28. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70386-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, Dell'Orto P, Maiorano E, MacGrogan G, Braye SG, Ohlschlegel C, Neven P, Orosz Z, Olszewski WP, Knox F, Thürlimann B, Price KN, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gelber RD, Gusterson BA, Goldhirsch A, Breast International Group Trial 1-98: Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 5569-5575. 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.0829.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dowsett M, Houghton J, Iden C, Salter J, Farndon J, A'Hern R, Sainsbury R, Baum M: Benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in primary breast cancer patients according oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, EGF receptor and HER2 status. Ann Oncol. 2006, 17: 818-826. 10.1093/annonc/mdl016.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, Tao Y, Llombart-Cussac A, Jänicke F, Mauriac L, Quebe-Fehling E, Chaudri-Ross HA, Evans DB, Miller WR: 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. J Clin Oncol. 2001, 19: 3808-3816.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, Wolmark N: Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen for node-negative breast cancer: updated findings. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001, 93: 684-690. 10.1093/jnci/93.9.684.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stewart JH, Prescott RJ, Forrest AP: Scottish adjuvant tamoxifen trial: a randomized study updated to 15 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001, 93: 456-462. 10.1093/jnci/93.6.456.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tormey DC, Gray R, Falkson HC: Postchemotherapy adjuvant tamoxifen therapy beyond five years in patients with lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996, 88: 1828-1833. 10.1093/jnci/88.24.1828.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Peto R, Davies C, on Behalf of the ATLAS Collaboration: ATLAS (adjuvant tamoxifen, longer against shorter): international randomized trial of 10 versus 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen among 11500 women -- preliminary results. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007, 106 (Suppl 1): [http://www.abstracts2view.com/sabcs07/view.php?nu=SABCS07L_1167&terms=]Google Scholar
- Gray G, Rea DW, Handley K, Marshall A, Pritchard MG, Perry P, Earl HM, Poole CJ, Salman A, Lee M, aTTom Collaborators: aTTom (adjuvant Tamoxifen--To offer more?): randomized trial of 10 versus 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen among 6,934 women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) or ER untested breast cancer--Preliminary results. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: [http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/15_suppl/513]Google Scholar
- Reid DM, Doughty J, Eastell R, Heys SD, Howell A, McCloskey EV, Powles T, Selby P, Coleman RE: Guidance for the management of breast cancer treatment-induced bone loss: a consensus position statement from a UK Expert Group. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008, 34 (Suppl 1): S3-18. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.03.007.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar