Exemestane versus anastrozole as front-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: final results from the Spanish Breast Cancer Group 2001-03 phase 2 randomized trial

Role of Exemestane in the Treatment of Estrogen-Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: A Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer diagnosed among women worldwide with an estimated 2.3 million new cases every year. Almost two-thirds of all patients with BC have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) tumors. In this review, the clinical evidence of exemestane in different treatment settings in ER+ BC is presented and summarized.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search strategy with the keywords "breast cancer [MeSH Terms]" AND "exemestane [Title/Abstract]" was devised and a search was performed in PubMed.

RESULTS

The efficacy of exemestane in different treatment settings has been established by numerous clinical studies. Exemestane is recommended as an adjuvant treatment in postmenopausal women previously treated with tamoxifen in trials comparing 5 years of tamoxifen with 2-3 years of tamoxifen combined with 2-3 years of exemestane, which proved that treatment with exemestane provided better survival outcomes. Similarly, exemestane could be considered as a safe treatment option for neoadjuvant treatment, prevention of chemotherapy, and treatment of advanced BC either alone or in combination with other targeted therapy drugs in both pre- and postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSION

Exemestane could be considered as a reasonable therapeutic option in the treatment of ER+ BC at any stage in pre- and postmenopausal women.

Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies

In the era of rapid development of new, expensive cancer therapies, value frameworks have been developed to quantify clinical benefit (CB). We assessed the evolution of CB since the 2015 introduction of The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The European Society of Medical Oncology value frameworks. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing systemic therapies for solid malignancies from 2010 to 2020 were evaluated and CB (Δ) in 2010–2014 (pre-value frameworks (PRE)) were compared to 2015–2020 (POST) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QoL). In the 485 studies analyzed (12% PRE and 88% POST), the most common primary endpoint was PFS (49%), followed by OS (20%), RR (12%), and QoL (6%), with a significant increase in OS and decrease in RR as primary endpoints in the POST era (p = 0.011). Multivariable analyses revealed significant improvement in ΔOS POST (OR 2.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.26, p = 0.02) while controlling for other variables. After the development of value frameworks, median ΔOS improved minimally. The impact of value frameworks has yet to be fully realized in RCTs. Efforts to include endpoints shown to impact value, such as QoL, into clinical trials are warranted.

ACT-FASTER, a Prospective Cohort Study Exploring Treatment Patterns with Fulvestrant and Exemestane in Postmenopausal Patients with Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer under Real-Life Conditions in Germany

Background

Endocrine therapy is recommended for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC).

Methods

ACT-FASTER was a German prospective non-interventional cohort study in postmenopausal women with HR+ ABC receiving fulvestrant 500 mg as first line (1 L), second line (2 L) or third line (3 L), or exemestane (any line) in the real-world palliative setting. Primary study objectives included the effectiveness of fulvestrant according to line of palliative treatment measured by time to progression (TTP), and real-life data on the epidemiology and management of these patients.

Results

Of 498 evaluable patients (mean age 67.5 years), 99% were estrogen receptor-positive. On study, 86.7% of patients received fulvestrant 500 mg and 13.3% exemestane. Median TTP was 9.7 months in patients receiving fulvestrant 1 L; 6.8 months for 2 L; and 6.7 months for 3 L. The comparison between fulvestrant 1 L palliative treatment and 2 L or 3 L showed that early initiation of treatment prolonged TTP (hazard ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.48). Treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion

Fulvestrant 500 mg was administered successfully to patients under daily practice conditions, and both medications were well tolerated. TTP was longest in patients treated with fulvestrant 500 mg 1 L compared with 2 L and 3 L in the palliative care setting.

Surrogate threshold effect based on a meta-analysis for the predictive value of progression-free survival for overall survival in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical trials investigating therapies for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) generally use progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoint, which is not accepted as patient-relevant outcome within the German benefit assessment. Hence a validation of PFS as surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) is needed, e.g., in the indication of HR+, HER2-negative mBC.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted. RCT were included if at least one study arm investigated fulvestrant, letrozole, tamoxifen, exemestane, or anastrozole. Additionally, hazard ratios reported for OS/PFS including confidence interval or standard error were mandatory. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to estimate the relation of surrogate endpoint PFS and patient-relevant outcome OS as well as the surrogate threshold effect (STE) which is used to determine thresholds for the estimate of the surrogate endpoint.

RESULTS

16 studies with 5324 patients in total were included in the analyses. The correlation between hazard ratios of PFS and OS was statistically significant (r = 0.72, 95% CI 0.35-0.90) representing a positive linear relationship. STE analysis was applied. The meta-regression model revealed a STE for HR_PFS of 0.60 and sensitivity analyses underlined robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the derived STE, it is possible to draw conclusions on a significant effect in OS for a hypothetical trial demonstrating an upper confidence limit of HR_PFS < 0.60 in PFS. However, only final OS results are able to confirm if a clinical relevant difference in survival time can be achieved.

Progression-free survival with endocrine-based therapies following progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the comparative efficacy of currently available endocrine-based therapies (ETs) for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) progression.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials of ETs for HR+/HER2- mBC were identified via a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and key conference proceedings. All trials met the following inclusion criteria: (1) included women with HR+/HER2- mBC; (2) previous treatment with ETs or chemotherapy as first-line therapy; (3) treatment with ET as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy; (4) progression-free survival (PFS) was reported; and (5) published in 2007 (when HER2 testing became standardized) or later. Regimens were compared using pairwise hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) of PFS obtained from a Bayesian NMA. Treatments with different approved dosages were pooled into the same arm; anastrozole and exemestane were pooled as aromatase inhibitors (AIs) due to clinical similarities.

RESULTS

A total of 4 trials and 6 regimens (palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI, fulvestrant + AI, fulvestrant and AI) were eligible for inclusion. Palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 50% and 55% reduced hazard of progression or death vs. AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively. Palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI and everolimus + fulvestrant had 54%, 58% and 40% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), while palbociclib + fulvestrant and everolimus + AI had 52% and 55% reduced hazard vs. fulvestrant + AI (95% CrI upper bound ≤1), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- mBC who had previously failed an NSAI and received palbociclib + fulvestrant, everolimus + AI or everolimus + fulvestrant had longer PFS compared to those who received fulvestrant or AI alone.

Effect of first-line endocrine therapy in patients with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

Background

Endocrine therapy is the cornerstone treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of various first-line endocrine monotherapies or combinations to determine the optimal sequence in a network meta-analysis.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception up to November 21, 2017. We included only RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of the following treatments as a monotherapy or in combination as the first-line treatment: tamoxifen, anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant, palbociclib, and ribociclib. The results were presented with pooled odds ratio or hazard ratio (HR), and 95% credible interval (CrI). The primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival/time to progression.

Results

A total of 16 eligible articles (14 RCTs) involving 6,602 patients treated with 10 different first-line endocrine therapies were assessed in our network meta-analysis. Palbociclib plus letrozole was superior to anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant 500 mg, and anastrozole plus fulvestrant (loading dose) (HR=0.44, 95% CrI: 0.33–0.58; HR=0.56, 95% CrI: 0.45–0.68; HR=0.45, 95% CrI: 0.32–0.61; HR=0.58, 95% CrI: 0.42–0.81; HR=0.50, 95% CrI: 0.37–0.68; respectively). However, there is no significant advantage compared with ribociclib plus letrozole (HR=1.00, 95% CrI: 0.72–1.39). In terms of ORR, ribociclib plus letrozole is more effective than palbociclib plus letrozole (odds ratio=1.30, 95% CrI: 0.83–2.02).

Conclusion

Palbociclib plus letrozole and ribociclib plus letrozole might be the optimal first-line endocrine therapeutic choices for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer due to a longer progression-free survival/time to progression and a more efficacious ORR.

Trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) over time within first-line aromatase inhibitors trials in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Over the last 20 years, aromatase inhibitors (AI) have been tested in clinical trials as first-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) advanced breast cancer (ABC), firstly as experimental arms, when they proved to be effective, and recently as control arms. This analysis aims to evaluate trends in progression-free survival (PFS) and time to progression (TTP) over time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE database to identify randomized controlled phase II or III trials which reported PFS or TTP of at least one arm using first-line AI HR-positive ABC patients. A linear correlation was used to access the association between the year of the first patient enrolled and the observed PFS/TTP.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 19 trials, accounting for 4552 postmenopausal patients divided into 21 separate AI treatment arms. The PFS/TTP increased from 6 to 9 months in the earlier trials to 13-16 months in the current era, representing an absolute gain of approximately 7 months, without the addition of any other drug. Our analysis showed a positive correlation between the year of the first patient enrolled in these trials and median PFS/TTP reported (R ² = 0.34; p < 0.01). No correlation was found between the year of the first patient included in these trials and other potential prognostic factors such as visceral metastasis at baseline (R ² = 0.26; p = 0.20) or exposure to adjuvant therapy (R ² = 0.05; p = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with first-line AIs in the more recently conducted trials have longer PFS/TTP when compared to their counterparts treated with the same drugs in older studies. These findings have important implications for the estimation of sample size and follow-up periods for the planning of future trials as well as in the translation of the results into clinical practice decisions.

Overall survival and progression-free survival with endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: review

We reviewed randomized phase II/III trials comparing first- or second-line endocrine therapy as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapies for treatment of postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. First-line was defined as treatment for endocrine therapy-naïve advanced breast cancer or advanced disease treated with endocrine therapy in the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting. Second-line was defined as endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer following disease progression on endocrine therapy for advanced disease. Publications reporting progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) or overall survival (OS) for FDA-approved agents anastrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant 250 mg, fulvestrant 500 mg, letrozole (0.5 and 2.5 mg), megestrol acetate, and tamoxifen as monotherapy, or in combination with everolimus, palbociclib or ribociclib, were assessed. First-line monotherapy with anastrozole, fulvestrant 500 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS/TTP versus comparator endocrine therapy; however, only fulvestrant 500 mg improved OS. For endocrine therapy in combination with targeted therapies, palbociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg, and ribociclib plus letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS versus letrozole 2.5 mg alone first-line. For second-line monotherapies, exemestane, fulvestrant 500 mg and letrozole 2.5 mg significantly improved PFS/TTP versus comparator endocrine therapy; only fulvestrant 500 mg and letrozole 2.5 mg improved OS. For second-line combination therapies, everolimus plus exemestane, and palbociclib plus fulvestrant 500 mg, improved PFS versus endocrine therapy alone. In both first- and second-line settings, aromatase inhibitors demonstrated PFS benefits versus comparator endocrine therapy; however, fulvestrant 500 mg was the only endocrine therapy included in our review to show both PFS and OS advantages compared with other endocrine therapies. Targeted agents in combination with endocrine therapy have demonstrated PFS improvements both first- and second-line; OS data are awaited.

Efficacy and safety of endocrine monotherapy as first-line treatment for hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endocrine therapy was recommended as the preferred first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive (HR+, i.e., ER+ and/or PgR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) postmenopausal advanced breast cancer (ABC), but which endocrine monotherapy is optimal lacks consensus. We aimed to identify the optimal endocrine monotherapy with a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis for a comprehensive analysis of 6 first-line endocrine monotherapies (letrozole, anastrozole, exemestane, tamoxifen, fulvestrant 250 mg and 500 mg) for HR+ HER2- metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal patients. The main outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were adverse events.

RESULTS

We identified 27 articles of 8 randomized controlled trials including 3492 patients in the network meta-analysis. For ORR, the treatments ranked in descending order of effectiveness were letrozole > exemestane > anastrozole > fulvestrant 500 mg > tamoxifen > fulvestrant 250 mg. For TTP/PFS, the order was fulvestrant 500 mg > letrozole > anastrozole > exemestane > tamoxifen > fulvestrant 250 mg. We directly compared adverse events and found that tamoxifen produced more hot flash events than fulvestrant 250 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Fulvestrant 500 mg and letrozole might be optimal first-line endocrine monotherapy choices for HR+ HER2- ABC because of efficacious ORR and TTP/PFS, with a favorable tolerability profile. However, direct comparisons among endocrine monotherapies in the first-line therapy setting are still required to robustly demonstrate any differences among these endocrine agents. Clinical choices should also depend on the specific disease situation and duration of endocrine therapy.

Unravelling exemestane: From biology to clinical prospects

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are anti-tumor agents used in clinic to treat hormone-dependent breast cancer. AIs block estrogens biosynthesis by inhibiting the enzyme aromatase, preventing tumor progression. Exemestane, a third-generation steroidal AI, belongs to this class of drugs and is currently used in clinic to treat postmenopausal women, due to its high efficacy and good tolerability. Here, its pharmacological and biological aspects as well as its clinical applications and comparison to other endocrine therapeutic agents, are reviewed. It is also focused the benefits and risks of exemestane, drawbacks to be overcome and aspects to be explored.

Review of hormone-based treatments in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer focusing on aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant

Background

Endocrine therapy constitutes a central modality in the treatment of oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive advanced breast cancer.

Purpose

To evaluate the evidence for endocrine treatment in postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer focusing on the aromatase inhibitors, letrozole, anastrozole, exemestane and fulvestrant.

Methods

A review was carried out using PubMed. Randomised phase II and III trials reporting on ≥100 patients were included.

Results

35 trials met the inclusion criteria. If not used in the adjuvant setting, a non-steroid aromatase inhibitor was the optimal first-line option. In general, the efficacy of the different aromatase inhibitors and fulvestrant was similar in tamoxifen-refractory patients. A randomised phase II trial of palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole alone showed significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) when compared with endocrine therapy alone in the first-line setting (20.2 vs 10.2 months). Furthermore, the addition of everolimus to exemestane in the Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) study resulted in an extension of median PFS by 4.5 months after recurrence/progression on a non-steroid aromatase inhibitor. However, overall survival was not significantly increased.

Conclusion

Conventional treatment with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant may be an adequate treatment option for most patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibition might represent substantial advances for selected patients in some specific settings. However, there is an urgent need for prospective biomarker-driven trials to identify patients for whom these treatments are cost-effective.

Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) -positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates.

Anastrozole-Induced Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: Results From the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II Prevention Trial

PURPOSE

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) occurs when the median nerve is compressed at the wrist in the carpal tunnel. It has been suggested that hormonal risk factors may be involved in the pathogenesis of CTS, and a higher incidence of CTS has been reported in randomized clinical trials with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared with tamoxifen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an exploratory analysis of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II, a double-blind randomized clinical trial in which women at increased risk of breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive anastrozole or placebo. This is the first report of risk factors for and characteristics of CTS in women taking an AI in a placebo-controlled trial.

RESULTS

Overall, 96 participants with CTS were observed: 65 (3.4%) in the anastrozole arm and 31 (1.6%) in the placebo arm (odds ratio, 2.16 [1.40 to 3.33]; P < .001). Ten participants were reported as having severe CTS, of which eight were taking anastrozole (P = .08). Eighteen women (0.9%) in the anastrozole arm and six women (0.3%) in the placebo arm reported surgical intervention, which was significantly different (odds ratio, 3.06 [1.21 to 7.72], P = .018). Six women discontinued with the allocated treatment because of the onset of CTS. Apart from treatment allocation, a high body mass index and an a prior report of musculoskeletal symptoms after trial entry were the only other risk factors for CTS identified in these postmenopausal women.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anastrozole was associated with a higher incidence of CTS but few participants required surgery. Further investigations are warranted into the risk factors and treatment of AI-induced CTS.

Delaying Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

Global guidelines for the management of locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative (HER2-negative) breast cancer recommend endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for all patients, regardless of age or postmenopausal status. However, current practice patterns in the United States and Europe suggest that these modes of therapy are not being used as recommended, and many patients with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative disease are being treated first-line with chemotherapy or switched to chemotherapy after a single endocrine therapy. Given that chemotherapy is associated with increased toxicity and reduced quality of life (QOL) compared with endocrine therapy, prolonging the duration of response obtained with endocrine therapy may help delay chemotherapy and its attendant toxicities. Several strategies to delay or overcome endocrine resistance and thereby postpone chemotherapy have been explored, including the use of second-line endocrine agents with different mechanisms of action, adding targeted agents that inhibit specific resistance pathways, and adding agents that act in complementary or synergistic ways to inhibit tumor cell proliferation. This review analyzes the different therapy options available to HR-positive, HER2-negative patients with advanced breast cancer that can be used to delay chemotherapy and enhance QOL.

Clinical utility of exemestane in the treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, causing a significant mortality worldwide. Different endocrine strategies are available for the treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer, including antiestrogen tamoxifen and fulvestrant, as well as third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane. In this review, we will focus on exemestane, its clinical use, and its side effects. Exemestane is a steroidal third-generation AI now used in all treatment settings for breast cancer. In the metastatic disease, it has been extensively investigated as the first-, second-, and further-line treatment and it is now registered for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer whose disease has progressed following antiestrogen therapy. A potential lack of cross-resistance with nonsteroidal AIs has been described, giving additional therapeutic opportunities in sequences of endocrine agents. Exemestane is also approved for the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal early breast cancer, either as upfront monotherapy for 5 years, as a switch following 2–3 years of tamoxifen, or as extended therapy beyond 5 years of adjuvant treatment. New promising data also showed a beneficial effect in young premenopausal early breast cancer patients, when administered together with ovarian suppression. Interesting results have also emerged when exemestane has been investigated as neodjuvant treatment as well as preventive agent in healthy women at high risk for breast cancer. Exemestane is generally well tolerated, with a side effect profile similar to that of other AIs, including menopausal symptoms, arthralgia, and bone loss. In conclusion, exemestane can be considered an effective and well-tolerated endocrine treatment option for all stages of breast cancer.

Aromatase inhibitors in the breast cancer clinic: focus on exemestane

Breast cancer is the most prevalent type of cancer in women and responsible for significant female cancer-related mortality worldwide. In the Western world, over 80% of breast cancers are hormone-receptor positive for which endocrine therapy is administered. The main anti-estrogen treatments in use consist of selective estrogen-receptor modulators, such as tamoxifen, and third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs), such as exemestane, letrozole, and anastrozole. In this review, the focus will lie on exemestane, its clinical use, and its side-effect profile. Exemestane is the only third-generation steroidal AI. Its efficacy as a first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer has been demonstrated. Therefore, exemestane could be considered a valid first-line therapeutic option, but it also can be used in second-line or further situations. Exemestane is mostly used as part of sequential adjuvant treatment following tamoxifen, but in this setting it is also active in monotherapy. Furthermore, this AI has been studied in the neoadjuvant setting as presurgical treatment, and even as chemoprevention in high-risk healthy postmenopausal women. It may reverse side effects of tamoxifen, such as endometrial changes and thromboembolic disease but may also cause some inconvenient side effects itself. Additionally, there is a lack of total cross-resistance between exemestane and nonsteroidal AIs as far as their anti-tumoral efficacy is concerned; moreover the two classes of AIs display a nontotal overlapping toxicity profile. Taking together, exemestane can be considered as a useful treatment option at all stages of breast cancer.

Current status and future perspectives in the endocrine treatment of postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Endocrine therapy is a fundamental component of the therapeutic repertoire for treatment of metastatic, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Inevitably, however, tumors develop resistance to these compounds, and overcoming this phenomenon is a key motivator of research in this field.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes the current status of endocrine therapy for the treatment of metastatic disease, with a main focus on postmenopausal patients. Furthermore, strategies that could potentially sustain endocrine resistance and future perspectives in this direction are also to be described. Relevant references were identified by PubMed searches and from the abstract books of the annual meetings of The European Society of Clinical Oncology (ESMO), The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposia.

EXPERT OPINION

Combinations of endocrine therapy with HER2 targeting agents, as well as with compounds that can interfere with PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling, are two promising strategies for delaying or overcoming endocrine resistance, mediated by these relevant biological pathways. Due to increased costs and the burden of toxicity associated with these combination therapies, compared to endocrine therapy alone, it is imperative to concentrate efforts on establishing biomarkers that can predict efficacy.

Long-term efficacy and safety of exemestane in the treatment of breast cancer

Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, is licensed for postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer as second-line therapy in metastatic disease following antiestrogen failure and as part of sequential adjuvant therapy following initial tamoxifen. This study is a systematic literature review, evaluating exemestane in different clinical settings. The Ovid Medline (1948-2012), Embase (1980-2012), and Web of Science (1899-2012) databases were searched. Forty-two relevant articles covering randomized controlled trials were reviewed for efficacy and safety, and three for adherence. With regard to efficacy in metastatic disease, exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after progression on tamoxifen. There is evidence for noninferiority to fulvestrant (following a prior aromatase inhibitor) and to nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors in the first-line setting. Combined use with everolimus is shown to be more efficacious than exemestane alone following previous aromatase inhibitor use. In the adjuvant setting, a switch to exemestane after 2-3 years of tamoxifen is superior to 5 years of tamoxifen. Exemestane is noninferior to 5 years of tamoxifen as upfront therapy, and may have a role as an extended adjuvant therapy. Used as neoadjuvant therapy, increased breast conservation is achievable. As chemoprevention, exemestane significantly reduces the incidence of breast cancer in "at-risk" postmenopausal women. Exemestane is associated with myalgias and arthralgias, as well as reduced bone mineral density and increased risk of fracture, which do not appear to persist at follow-up, with subsequent return to pretreatment values. Compared with tamoxifen, there is a reduced incidence of endometrial changes, thromboembolic events, and hot flashes. Limited evidence shows nonadherence in 23%-32% of patients. Evidence is growing in support of exemestane in all clinical settings. It is generally more efficacious and has a better safety profile than tamoxifen. How it compares with the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors remains to be established. Further studies are required on adherence to ensure that maximum benefit is obtained.