PURPOSE:To evaluate the influence of adjuvant tamoxifen and exemestane on cognitive functioning in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer (BC).PATIENTS AND METHODS:Neuropsychological assessments were performed before the start (T1) and after 1 year of adjuvant endocrine treatment (T2) in Dutch postmenopausal patients with BC, who did not receive chemotherapy. Patients participated in the international Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial, a prospective randomized study investigating tamoxifen versus exemestane as adjuvant therapy for hormone-sensitive BC.RESULTS:Participants included 80 tamoxifen users (mean age, 68.7 years; range 51 to 84), 99 exemestane users (mean age, 68.3 years; range, 50 to 82), and 120 healthy controls (mean age, 66.2 years; range, 49 to 86). At T2, after adjustment for T1 performance, exemestane users did not perform statistically significantly worse than healthy controls on any cognitive domain. In contrast, tamoxifen users performed statistically significantly worse than healthy controls on verbal memory (P < .01; Cohen's d = .43) and executive functioning (P = .01; Cohen's d = .40), and statistically significantly worse than exemestane users on information processing speed (P = .02; Cohen's d = .36). With respect to visual memory, working memory, verbal fluency, reaction speed, and motor speed, no significant differences between the three groups were found.CONCLUSION:After 1 year of adjuvant therapy, tamoxifen use is associated with statistically significant lower functioning in verbal memory and executive functioning, whereas exemestane use is not associated with statistically significant lower cognitive functioning in postmenopausal patients with BC. Our results accentuate the need to include assessments of cognitive effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment in long-term safety studies.

Background: Continuous ligand depletion of endocrine responsive tumours may enhance resistance to therapy. Intermittent treatment with tamoxifen (T) was considered to mimic (incomplete) ligand depletion and reintroduction. Furthermore it was postulated that alternating tamoxifen with a non-cross resistant endocrine modality could (further) postpone hormone resistance. Patients and methods: Postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer who did not progress after 4 months of first line T therapy were randomised to continue T (40 mg daily) or to 2 monthly intermittent T or intermittent/alternated T and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA, 300 mg daily). At progression during break or during MPA, T should be reintroduced. Endpoints of the study were progression free survival (PFS), time to resistance to tamoxifen and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 593 registered patients, 276 were randomised. After 8 years follow-up the median PFS for continuous T, intermittent T and intermittent/alternated T and MPA was 11.0 (8.1-15.2), 8.0 (6.2-12.4) and 10.8 (7.1-16.7) months, respectively (NS). Resistance to tamoxifen was established only in 84%, 70% and 55% of patients in the three treatment arms, respectively The median times from randomisation to resistance to tamoxifen were 12.5 (9.1-21.1), 13.2 (8.8-19.8) and 24.0 (16.9-60.9) months, respectively (p < 0.001), without translation in differences in survival times.

Women at risk of breast and ovarian cancer due to a genetic predisposition may opt for preventive surgery or surveillance. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of surveillance in families with a BRCA mutation. Sixty-eight BRCA-families underwent surveillance using annual mammography, transvaginal ultrasound, and estimation of CA125. Two hundred and two women had at least one breast examination, and 138 at least one examination of the ovaries. After a mean follow-up of 33 months, breast cancer was detected in 21 women, four with lymph node metastases. After a mean follow-up of 37 months, six advanced ovarian cancers were detected. The percentage of metastatic breast cancers in the current study appeared to be acceptable. However, because these women have a high-risk of developing breast cancer, they still have a substantial risk of developing metastatic disease under surveillance. Surveillance for ovarian cancer was not effective.

For many years, tamoxifen has been the ‘gold standard’ amongst anti-oestrogen therapies for breast cancer. However, the selective aromatase inhibitors (AIs), anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane, have demonstrated advantages over tamoxifen as first-line treatments for advanced disease. Anastrozole is also more effective as an adjuvant treatment in early, operable breast cancer and is being increasingly used in the adjuvant setting. Generally, the selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as toremifene, droloxifene, idoxifene, raloxifene, and arzoxifene, show minimal activity in tamoxifen-resistant disease and show no superiority over tamoxifen as first-line treatments. In addition to these agents, other treatment options for advanced disease include high-dose oestrogens and progestins. Response rates for high-dose oestrogens and tamoxifen are similar, but the use of oestrogens is limited by their toxicity profile. Consequently, there is a need for new endocrine treatment options for breast cancer, particularly for use in disease that is resistant to tamoxifen or AIs. Fulvestrant (‘Faslodex’) is a new type of steroidal oestrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that downregulates cellular levels of the ER and progesterone receptor and has no agonist activity. This paper reviews the key efficacy and tolerability data for fulvestrant in postmenopausal women in the context of other endocrine therapies and explores the potential role of fulvestrant within the sequencing of endocrine therapies for advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND In this study, the potential impact of a new national guideline for adjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer (introduced in The Netherlands in 1998) was assessed, as well as the modifications of this guideline, issued in 2001. Both the change in total number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the changed clinical management of these patients were analysed. PATIENTS AND METHODS Percentages of patients who would be eligible for adjuvant therapy in 1994, 1998 and 2001 were estimated, based on clinical data from 127 patients, who were operated on in 1994. Ten-year overall survival rates were used as a measure of effectiveness, based on the two most recent EBCTCG meta-analyses. Actual resource costs were calculated. With a decision analytic model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (1998 versus 1994, and 2001 versus 1998) were calculated. RESULTS The introduction of the 1998 guideline resulted in a relative increase of 80% in the total number of patients eligible for adjuvant therapy, compared with 1994 (from 40% to 72% of all patients with primary breast cancer). With an estimated absolute increase of 10-year overall survival of 2%, the 1998 guideline was found to have an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of about 4837 per life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS Introduction of the new guideline considerably affected the number of patients eligible for adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer. The associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is well within the range of values that are generally considered acceptable.

515 Background: E is an aromatase inactivator, with demonstrated efficacy in MBC progressing under T, which remained standard 1st line HT over decades. The randomized EORTC phase II trial of E vs T, which showed promising activity in 1st line MBC (Ann. Oncol. 2003, 14: 1391–8) was extended in a phase III reported here, aiming at a true comparison of efficacy and tolerability of both drugs. Methods: Postmenopausal MBC pts with ECOG PS ≤2 and measurable, hormone responsive disease (ER &/or PgR + or unknown with disease free interval >2y) previously untreated with HT for MBC, were randomized to receive open label E 25mg or T 20mg daily. One prior chemotherapy (CT) for MBC was permitted. Prior adjuvant T was allowed if treatment free interval exceeded 6 mo. The trial was powered to detect an increase in median progression free survival (PFS, primary endpoint) of 3 mo in favor of E. Secondary endpoints were survival and tolerability. All analyses were intent to treat. Results: 382 pts accrued by 81 centers received E (190 pts) or T (192 pts). Both groups were balanced for median age (62.5), prior adjuvant CT (E 28%, T 29%) or CT for MBC (E 8%, T 7%), hormone receptor status, PS, prior adjuvant T (21% both) and dominant metastatic site (visceral E 48%, T 47%; bone E 35%, T 36%; soft tissue E 17%, T 17%). On 15/12/2003, 286 events (progression or death under treatment) and 136 deaths were reported. The median PFS is significantly longer under E than T (10.9 vs 6.7 months, p 0.04) with an HR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 - 0.99) in favor of E. Best response rates (%) under E were CR 7.4, PR 36.8, SD 27.4, PD 18.4, NE (not evaluable) 10.0; under T, CR 2.6, PR 26.6, SD 37.0, PD 27.6, NE 6.2). No pt withdrew due to toxicity. Grade 2–3 toxicities observed in ≥10% were bone pain (E 12%, T 18%), other pain (E 7%, T 14%) and hot flashes (E 5%, T 12%). Conclusions: E is a safe and highly active steroidal aromatase inactivator, superior to T in MBC. In view of its efficacy and excellent tolerance, E represents a good choice as first line therapy in hormone responsive MBC. Its safety profile makes E also attractive for use in the adjuvant and preventive settings. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration AstraZeneca; Pfizer; Schering-Plough Pfizer

Background: The impact of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) on non-cancer-related outcomes, which are known to be affected by oestrogens, has become increasingly important in postmenopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer. So far, data related to the effect of AIs on lipid profile in postmenopausal women is scarce. This study, as a companion substudy of an EORTC phase II trial (10951), evaluated the impact of exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inactivator, on the lipid profile of postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients.Patients and methods: The EORTC trial 10951 randomised 122 postmenopausal breast cancer patients to exemestane (E) 25 mg (n = 62) or tamoxifen (T) 20 mg (n = 60) once daily as a first-line treatment in the metastatic setting. Exemestane showed promising results in all the primary efficacy end points of the trial (response rate, clinical benefit rate and response duration), and it was well tolerated with low incidence of serious toxicity. As a secondary end point of this phase 11 trial, serum triglycerides (TRG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). total cholesterol (TC), lipoprotein a (Lip a), and apolipoproteins (Apo) B and A1 were measured at baseline and while on therapy (at 8, 24 and 48 weeks) to assess the impact of exemestane and tamoxifen on serum lipid profiles. Of the 122 randomised patients, those who had baseline and at least one other lipid assessment are included in the present analysis. The patients who received concomitant drugs that could affect lipid profile are included only if these drugs were administered throughout the study treatment. Increase or decrease in lipid parameters within 20% of baseline were considered as non-significant and thus unchanged.Results: Seventy-two patients (36 in both arms) were included in the statistical analysis. The majority of patients had abnormal TC and normal TRG, HDL, Apo A 1, Apo B and Lip a levels at baseline. Neither exemestane nor tamoxifen had adverse effects on TC, HDL, Apo A], Apo B or Lip a levels at 8, 24 and 48 weeks of treatment. Exemestane and tamoxifen had opposite effects on TRG levels: exemestane lowered while tamoxifen increased TRG levels over time. There were too few patients with normal baseline TC and abnormal TRG, HDL, Apo Al, Apo B and Lip a levels to allow for assessment of E's impact on these subsets. The atherocnic risk determined by Apo A I:Apo B and TC:HDL ratios remained unchanged throughout the treatment period in both the E and T arms.Conclusions: Overall, exemestane has no detrimental effect on cholesterol levels and the atherogenic indices, which are well-known risk factors for coronary artery disease. In addition, it has a beneficial effect on TRG levels. These data, coupled with E's excellent efficacy and tolerability, support further exploration of its potential in the metastatic, adjuvant and chemopreventive setting.

A 2-factor factorial array with three replicates (N = 280) was used to simultaneously assess the effects on ovulation rate of two alternative doses of medroxy-progesterone acetate (MPA) (10 or 60 mg), applied during a 6-day priming period, and the effect of a single dosage of a glucogenic formulation, administered immediately before ram exposure to groups of adult seasonally anovular Corriedale ewes. The glucogenic formulation contained 1,2,3-propanetriol (glycerol; 70% vv), 1,2-propanediol (propylene glycol; 20% vv) and distilled water (10% vv). At sponge withdrawal, a single oral dose of 100 ml of this formulation or the same volume of distilled water was administered to treated and control groups, respectively, and ewes were immediately exposed to rams and hormonally-induced oestrous ewes. Data from an ancillary experiment (n = 10) showed significantly (P < 0.005) above normal plasma glucose levels in treated animals at 3 and 6 h after dosage. A significant interaction (P = 0.0006) between MPA priming doses and glucogenic supplementation was detected. Supplemented ewes, among those exposed to the lower dose of MPA, exhibited a higher (P = 0.0098) mean ovulation rate (1.56 ± 0.076) than ewes that did not receive glucogenic treatment (1.31 ± 0.060). In contrast, ovulation rate was significantly decreased (P = 0.021) from 1.30 ± 0.058 to 1.13 ± 0.042 after glucogenic treatment in ewes that were primed with sponges containing 60 mg of MPA. Ewes exposed to 60 mg of MPA were marked by the rams at a significantly later (P < 0.00001) mean time (54.8 ± 1.44 h) than ewes receiving 10 mg sponges (43.6 ± 1.08 h). These results reveal the potential for modifying ovulation rate through short-term glucogenic manipulations, at least during the compressed follicular phase typical of ram-induced ovulations.

30 patients with advanced ovarian cancer, all platinum pretreated, were treated with an induction cycle of fotemustine. Maintenance therapy was given to 6 patients. No objective response was observed among the 21 evaluable patients. The main toxicities were gastrointestinal, with grade 3 nausea and vomiting reported in 40% of the patients, and haematological, with grade 4 leucopenia reported in 2 patients and grade 4 thrombocytopenia in 5 patients. Therefore, no role has been demonstrated in our cohort for the use of fotemustine, a nitrosourea, in pretreated ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND:Combination chemotherapy yields better response rates which do not always lead to a survival advantage. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the reported differences in the efficacy and toxicity of monotherapy with doxorubicin (DOX) versus combination therapy with cisplatin (CDDP) in endometrial adenocarcinoma lead to significant advantage in favour of the combination.PATIENTS AND METHODS:Eligible patients had histologically-proven advanced and/or recurrent endometrial adenocarcinoma and were chemo-naïve. Treatment consisted of either DOX 60 mg/m(2) alone or CDDP 50 mg/m2 added to DOX 60 mg/m2, every 4 weeks.RESULTS:A total of 177 patients were entered and median follow-up is 7.1 years. The combination DOX-CDDP was more toxic than DOX alone. Haematological toxicity consisted mainly of white blood cell toxicity grade 3 and 4 (55% versus 30%). Non-haematological toxicity consisted mainly of grade 3 and 4 alopecia (72% versus 65%) and nausea/vomiting (36 % versus 12%). The combination DOX-CDDP provided a significantly higher response rate than single agent DOX (P <0.001). Thirty-nine patients (43%) responded on DOX-CDDP [13 complete responses (CRs) and 26 partial responses (PRs)], versus 15 patients (17%) on DOX alone (8 CR and 7 PR). The median overall survival (OS) was 9 months in the DOX-CDDP arm versus 7 months in the DOX alone arm (Wilcoxon P = 0.0654). Regression analysis showed that WHO performance status was statistically significant as a prognostic factor for survival, and stratifying for this factor, treatment effect reaches significance (hazard ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.03, P = 0.024).CONCLUSIONS:In comparison to single agent DOX, the combination of DOX-CDDP results in higher but acceptable toxicity. The response rate produced is significantly higher, and a modest survival benefit is achieved with this combination regimen, especially in patients with a good performance status.

Background: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women.Patients and methods: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study.Results: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea.Conclusions: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.

In this report we present an extension of the pooled analysis of the prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-I in breast cancer patients. We analyzed a different endpoint, metastasis-free survival (MFS). We checked the consistency of the estimates for uPA and PAI-1 for relapse-free survival (RFS) and MFS exploring possible sources of heterogeneity. Nodal status, the most important prognostic factor for breast cancer, introduced heterogeneity in the uPA/PAI-1 survival analyses, reflecting the interaction between nodal status and uPA/PAI-1. The estimates for uPA and PAI-1 were found to be consistent, even when a different transformation of their values was used. The heterogeneity of the separate data sets decreased if the levels of uPA and PAI-1 were ranked, data sets were pooled, and the analyses corrected for the base model that included all traditional prognostic factors, and stratified by data set. We conclude that uPA and PAI-1 are ready to be used in the clinic to help classify breast cancer patients into high and low risk groups.

The aim of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and potential activity of combined gemcitabine and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients that are resistant to anthracyclines or have been pretreated with both anthracyclines and taxanes. 15 patients with MBC were studied at three European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer centres. 13 patients had received both anthracylines and taxanes. Gemcitabine was given intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8, and 5-FU as a continuous i.v. infusion on days 1 through to 14, both drugs given in a 21-day schedule at four different dose levels. Both were given at doses commonly used for the single agents for the last dose level (dose level 4). One of 6 patients at level 4 (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m2 and 5-FU 250 mg/m2/day) had a DLT, a grade 3 stomatitis and skin toxicity. One DLT, a grade 3 transaminase rise and thrombosis, occurred in a patient at level 2 (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and 5-FU 200 mg/m2/day). Thus, the MTD was not reached. One partial response and four disease stabilisations were observed. Only 1 patient withdrew from the treatment due to toxicity. The MTD was not reached in the phase I study. The combination of gemcitabine and 5-FU is well tolerated at doses up to 1200 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 8 and 250 mg/m2/day given on days 1 through to 14, respectively, every 21 days. The clinical benefit rate (responses plus no change of at least 6 months) was 33% with one partial response, suggesting that MBC patients with prior anthracycline and taxane therapy may derive significant benefit from this combination with minimal toxicity.

Background: We performed a phase I study of polyethylene glycol (pegylated, Stealth(R)) liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx(R), Doxil(R)) using a prolonged (6-week) dose interval to reduce the incidence of skin toxicity that was dose-limiting at more conventional dose intervals, and which appeared to be schedule dependent.Patients and methods: Eligible for the study were metastatic breast cancer patients who had received a maximum of one prior therapy for metastatic disease. The defined dose levels were 60, 70, 80 and 90 mg/m(2).Results: Twenty patients were assessed at starting doses of 60 mg/m(2) (n = 9) or 70 mg/m(2) 2 (n = 11). The dose-limiting toxicity was mucositis. Severe skin toxicity was not observed at the 60 mg/m2 dose level, and occurred n only one patient treated at 70 mg/m(2). Significant neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea and vomiting were rare events. No clinical cardiac events occurred, despite a median cumulative doxorubicin dose of 323 mg/m(2) (range 5-630 mg/m(2)). Partial responses were documented in five patients, Pharmacokinetics were assessed in 15 patients, and confirmed the long terminal half-life of the agent (median 77 h) demonstrated in earlier studies.Conclusions: The recommended dose of Caelyx(R)/Doxil(R) using this schedule is 60 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks, This is a safe and effective regimen that permits prolonged administration of anthracycline to patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Liarozole is an imidazole compound that inhibits enzymes involved in steroid hormone aromatisation and retinoid metabolism. The IDBBC branch of the EORTC has performed a series of phase II studies of the agent in four groups of postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. This paper reports the results of the first two groups: ‘Chemotherapy Resistant’ (unrestricted ER status, 1 or 2 prior chemotherapy regimens, 0–2 prior hormonal therapies) and ‘Potentially Hormone Sensitive’ (ER positive or unknown, 1 or 2 prior hormonal therapies with a substantial disease free interval or progression free survival, and no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease). Liarozole was administered at 150–300 mg orally bid. The objective response rate was 12% in the ‘Chemotherapy Resistant’ group ( n =34), and 22% in the ‘Potentially Hormone Sensitive’ group ( n =37), with median response durations of 9 and 14 months, respectively. Median time to treatment failure was only 2 months in both groups, due largely to the significant percentage (24%) of patients who ceased treatment following excessive mucocutaneous and gastrointestinal toxicity. This adverse event profile will limit its use in breast cancer. Results of the ‘ER negative’ and ‘Tamoxifen Refractory’ groups will be reported in a future paper.

In this book Anne M. Bowcock, from the McDermott Center of Human Growth and Development at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, brought in together the work of 56 scientists from the US, Scandinavia, Italy and Australia.