Upload
santam-chakraborty
View
12.717
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Hormonal Treatment of Breast Cancer
Citation preview
Hormonal treatment of Breast Cancer
Moderator: Dr. S C SharmaHOD, Department of Radiotherapy, PGIMER
Background Henri François Le Dran (1685–1770) gave the hypothesis
that breast cancer spread was in a orderly fashion. The concept was carried to it’s logical conclusion by Halsted.
The Halstedian theory was based upon: Local and regional nodes were the first echelon of
metastatic spread They were effective barriers against further spread.
The concept was challenged by the Fisher brothers (Edward and Bernard), who showed in a series of trials conducted by the NSABP that:
Lymph nodes were not effective as barriers against systemic spread
Hematogenous dissemination was as important as lymphatic dissemination
Systemic therapy is therefore believed to be effective in this disease.
History
Schinzinger was the first person to propose that oophorectomy might be of benefit in breast cancer:
Post menopausal breast atrophy More virulent tumor growth in premenopausal
The first reported series of surgical oophorectomy for breast cancer was reported by Thomas Beatson (1896)
Showed significant tumor regression by castration Better sense of well being Regression of cutaneous metastasis Best above age of 40 No effect on osseous metastatsis
Time Line
1870
1st description of surgical oophorectomy
1940’s
Full range of ablative hormonal therapy developed
1950’s
Era of Additive hormonal therapy
1980’s
ER/PR detection and resurgence in interest in endocrine Rx
1990’s
Demonstration of the therapeutic efficacy of Tamoxifen
1970’s
Development of Tamoxifen
Endocrine pathways in cancer
Estrogen and Progesterone receptors
Several authors demonstrated the relationship of the cytosolic form ER to the efficacy of endocrine therapy.
The nuclear translocation and subsequent transcription are dependent on several co-repressors and activators.
The SRC co activator action is particularly important in this regard.
Recently ER-β has been identified.
Rationale for receptor based Rx Response rates to endocrine
manipulation in ER +ve patients was as high as 53% ( only 6% in ER –ve) – Whitliff et al.
Receptors correlate with other prognostic markers:
Cellular turnover rates, Nuclear grade, and Degree of histologic
differentiation Receptor positivity also
correlates with: Disease-free interval Decreasing tumor size
Prolongation of DFS is independent of menopausal status, tumor size, and nodal status.
78%
45%
34%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ER+/PR+
ER-/PR+
ER+/PR-
ER-/PR-
Endocrine therapies
Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators:
Tamoxifen Torimefene
Androgens Fluoxymesterone
Progestins Megestrol acetate Medroxyprogesterone
acetate High dose
Estrogens
Aromatase inhibitors: Letrozole Anastrazole Exemestane
Steroidal Antiestrogens: Fulvestrant
LHRH agonists Leuprolide Goserelin
Gland ablation Ovary Pituitary Adrenals
Mechanism of action
All endocrine therapies target the estrogen receptor at one level or other.
While the PR receptor doesn't act as a target directly it does indicate a functional ER pathway as it is a ER induced gene.
SERM The SERMs are chemically diverse compounds
that lack the steroid structure of estrogens but possess a tertiary structure that allows them to bind to the estrogen receptor.
Examples: Tamoxifen Raloxifen Tormifen
Selective modulation explained by: Differential estrogen-receptor expression in a given
target tissue Differential estrogen-receptor conformation on ligand
binding Differential expression and binding to the estrogen
receptor of coregulator proteins
Tamoxifen Chemically a triphenylethylene. The trans isomer is used as a citrate salt. MOA: Competitive binding to the estrogen
receptor resulting in reduction of transcription of estrogen regulated genes.
Dimethylaminoethoxy side chain and the trans configuration are crucial for the antiestrogenic activity of tamoxifen
The net result is a block in the G1 phase of the cell cycle and a slowing of cell proliferation.
Tamoxifen is thus, a cytostatic drug.
Pharmacokinetics
Long t1/2 : 7 -14 days. OD dose can be used Reduced bioavailability is not a cause for resistance. False negative receptor assays for several months
after stopping Rx in tumor tissue. Metabolism in liver and excretion in feces ►
Renal dysfunction not a contraindication. Metabolized by CYP 450 3A4 enzyme:
Can reduce warfarin metabolism. Careful INR monitoring needed in patients receiving
warfarin with tamoxifen.
Mechanisms of action Binding and inactivation of estrogen receptor in
cancerous cell : Predominant mode of action Other postulated mechanisms:
Initiation of apoptosis in malignant cells Reduction of serum IGF-1 and increase in IGF-1 binding
proteins are another potential mechanism of action. Other actions:
Increased sex hormone binding globulin ( ? Reduced estrogen bioavailability)
Increased TGF β ( ? Increased pulm fibrosis / breast fibrosis if used concurrently with RT)
Selective activation / inactivation of corepessors and coactivators responsible for selective agonist / antagonist activity
Toremifene Structure identical to that of
tamoxifen, except for a chorine atom
Less likely to form DNA adducts or induce liver tumors in animals
Prospective randomized clinical trials demonstrate that response rates, TTPs, OS, and toxicities of toremifene are equivalent to those of tamoxifen
One reported adjuvant trial did not indicate that toremifene is associated with a lower risk of endometrial cancer
Toremifene displays cross-resistance with tamoxifen and should not be used in tamoxifen-resistant disease
Aromatase Inhibitors Include a class of drugs which prevent peripheral
conversion of androgens to estrogen. Also cause selective impairment of gonadal
steroidogenesis. Thus are capable of selective estrogen
deprivation without impairment of adrenal androgen synthesis.
Two types exist: Type I : Enzyme inactivators (Steroidal) Type II : Competitive antagonists ( Non steroidal)
3 generations exist: 1st generation: Aminoglutethemide 2nd generation: Formestane (Type I) , Fadrazole 3rd generation: Exemestane (Type I) , Anastrazole ,
Letrozole, Vorozole
3rd generation AI
These drugs inhibit the Aromatase enzyme selectively by blocking the heme moiety of the enzyme.
Active sites of other steroidogenic enzymes remain free.
3rd generation AIs are 3 times more potent than aminoglutethemide.
Dose: Letrozole (Femara) – 2.5 mg OD Anastrazole (Arimidex) – 1 mg OD Exemestane (Aromasin) – 25 mg OD Letrozole
Anastrazole
Special Properties Anastrazole:
Less than 10% of the drug is cleared as unchanged drug because of its extensive metabolism.
Letrozole: Only 5% is excreted in the urine, letrozole can be
safely used in patients with renal insufficiency. Used with caution when patients have severe liver
impairment. Produces the greatest suppression of estrogen
synthesis Exemestane:
Weakly androgenic metabolite (17-hydroexemestane) that may ameliorate bone loss associated with estrogen deprivation
Fulvestrant Classified as a steroidal antiestrogen. Considerably higher affinity for ER
than tamoxifen Promotes accelerated ER turnover, Suppression of ER protein levels, Inhibition of ER dimerization, Reduced shuttling of the ER from the
cytoplasm to the nucleus Developed for clinical use as a 250-
mg intramuscular monthly depot injection
Developed to counter the estrogenic effects of Tamoxifen on uterus and the bone related effects of AIs.
Ovarian Ablation/ Suppression Ovarian ablation classically includes techniques
that cause permanent cessation of menstruation. Techniques:
Surgical oophorectomy Radiation induced oophorectomy
Ovarian suppression on the other hand refers to the suppression of ovarian function through the use of LHRH analogues.
Uses: Treatment of breast cancer:
Adjuvant setting Metastatic cancer
Prevention of hereditary breast cancer syndromes
Radiation oophorectomy
First series reported by Foveau de Courmelles in 1922
Radiation oophorectomy: Non invasive and cheap procedure. Low dose carries little additional morbidity. However takes time for effect to appear
usually 2-3 months For such reason best avoided when prompt
relief is needed. Also best reserved for the patient with slow
progression of disease.
Technique Position: Supine Field selection: Parallel opposing two field
technique Energy : Co60 or 6 MV LINAC Dose Schedules:
In a younger women 10 – 12 Gy in 5 -6 divided fractions is preferred.
In older women shorter course of radiation can give equivalent ovarian ablation.
Field borders: The volume of interest is the entire true pelvis 10 x 15 cm field is opened. Lower border is placed just below the superior border
of pubic symphysis.
Results
Treves in 1957 showed that following ovarian irradiation 10 yrs survival improved from 33.8% to 42.3%.
Benefit was greater in patients who had node negative disease as compared to patients with node positive disease.
Paterson and Russel (1959) also found that survival improved from 54.9% to 62.6% after addition of ovarian irradiation.
Endocrine therapy in the adjuvant setting
Background The gold standard of treatment in the adjuvant
setup is tamoxifen. Adjuvant Tamoxifen has been used for treating
breast cancer since 1970s Some authors have attributed the 25% reduction
in breast cancer mortality in western countries over the past decade to tamoxifen use.
Issues that need to be answered are:? Optimal duration and dose? Patient selection criteria? Combination with chemotherapy? Risks of tamoxifen therapy? Additional benefits of tamoxifen therapy? Place of the newer agents like AIs
Guidelines 5 yrs of tamoxifen is the standard therapy in all hormone
receptor +ve patients. 5 yrs of tamoxifen therapy is also standard in post
menopausal females. In females with unknown receptor status tamoxifen is
usually added specially if patient is post menopausal. Adjuvant endocrine Rx is of little benefit in ER -ve females. Except selected stage I patients without significant risk
factors all most all can be considered for adjuvant hormone therapy.
Present evidence doesn't support 1st line use of AI in adjuvant setting.
However it can be used after 3 -5 yrs of Tmx therapy after careful consideration of the cost benefit ratio.
Ca Breast for adjuvant therapy
Low risk*, node -ve High risk, node -ve Node +ve
Receptor - ve
Chemotherapy
Receptor - ve
No Rx
Receptor + ve Receptor + ve
Premenopausal PostmenopausalTamoxifen only
CCT + Tamoxifen CCT + Tamoxifen#
* Low risk defined as -ve axillary lymph nodes and tumor size ±1 cm, nuclear grade 1, special histologic type or 1-2 cm tumor with positive steroid receptor and special histologic type.
# Ovarian suppression may be considered in those who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy.
Adjuvant Tamoxifen alone
Several trials have demonstrated that tamoxifen adds significantly to the DFS in the adjuvant setting.
Two major trials have also demonstrated a OS benefit
Trial Dose Duration DFS OS
NATO 20 2 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
Christie 20 1 P < 0.05 NS
Stockholm 30 2 P < 0.05 NS
CRC 20 2 P < 0.01 NS
Scottish 20 5 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
Overall benefits of tamoxifen Rx
Reduction in Annual Odds ± SE
Years Recurrence Death
0–1 53 ± 5 22 ± 10
2–4 42 ± 5 29 ± 6
5–9 31 ± 6 29 ± 5
While the patients are on tamoxifen:
1 of every 2 recurrences and
1 of every 3 deaths are avoided by the tamoxifen therapy.
Tamoxifen continues to demonstrate further reductions in the odds of recurrence and death in years 5 through 9.
This is called the “carryover effect”
Optimal Duration of Tamoxifen Rx
Reduction in recurrences Reduction in deaths
Tamoxifen ~ 1 yr 18% ± 3 11% ± 3
Tamoxifen ~ 2 yr 24% ± 2 14% ± 2
Tamoxifen ~ 5 yr 43% ± 3 23% ± 4
In the EBCTSG meta-analysis 5 yr tamoxifen reduced the risk of recurrence and death twice as much as 2 yr tamoxifen therapy.
In two large European trials from Britain and Sweden, women treated with tamoxifen for 5 years, had fewer recurrences and deaths than those treated for only 2 years.
Longer Tamoxifen Rx 3 trials including one large NSABP trial have compared 5yrs
of Tamoxifen treatment with longer treatment: There is no convincing evidence that treatment lasting longer
than 5 years is beneficial. In two of these trials there was a trend, (statistically
significant in one), toward a detrimental effect with treatment for more than 5 years
Problems evaluating longer tamoxifen therapy: Significant carryover effect of tamoxifen beyond 5 yrs. A 1% increase in risk of endometrial cancer expected is
counterbalanced by 1% decrease in risk of contralateral breast cancer.
Trials evaluating these question now: ATLAS trial (Adjuvant Tamoxifen—Longer Against Shorter) aTTom trial (Adjuvant Tamoxifen Treatment Offer More?)
Dose of tamoxifen
20 mg once daily dose of tamoxifen is the standard dose.
Higher doses are not more effective Also lead to greater incidence of side
effects.
Tamoxifen & ER status ER receptor –ve tumors in tissue cultures are non
responsive to tamoxifen therapy. However problems interpreting the results of
tamoxifen therapy in ER –ve tumors are: Variable assay quality and reference values Variable assay sensitivity Possible paracrine loop action of tamoxifen (Few ER
+ve tumors affecting surrounding ER –ve tumors) Systemic effects of Tamoxifen (e.g. IGF -1
concentrations) The low response rates observed with tamoxifen
in ER -ve metastatic disease (5% to 10%) argue that these ancillary effects of tamoxifen are clinically unimportant
Tamoxifen & ER status
Reduction (SE) in Annual Odds
ER Level Recurrence Cancer Death Any Death
Poor (<10 fmol/mg) <4 (7%) <4 (8%) <3 (7%)
Positive (≥10, <100 fmol/mg) 36 (4%) 27 (5%) 22 (5%)
Positive (≥100 fmol/mg) 49 (5%) 45 (6%) 33 (5%)
Unknown 31 (7%) 20 (9%) 14 (8%)
Results of tamoxifen therapy for 5 years in patients with ER +ve or –ve tumors. Adapted from Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials Early Breast
Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group Lancet 1998; 351: 1451–67
Tamoxifen & ER status Most of the trials and meta-analyses have
demonstrated no benefit of adjuvant tamoxifen in ER poor / -ve tumors.
Three trials however showed some benefit: NATO study:
When 5 fmol/mg was taken as a cut off point beneficial effect of tamoxifen was equal in both ER +ve and –ve tumors.
Scottish trial: Showed that even in ER –ve tumors there was a increase in DFS over control group.
NSABP B-09 trial: some women aged 60 to 70 years received benefit from tamoxifen even if their tumor had an ER content of 0 to 9 fmol per mg protein
However in two recent prospective trials which compared tamoxifen alone in ER-ve, node negative patients no survival benefit could be demonstrated for 5 yrs tamoxifen therapy.
Tamoxifen & PR status
Effect of PR status: It is believed that in ER –ve patients PR +ve patients
may be more responsive to tamoxifen therapy. Results are interpolated from results in metastatic
disease. In a recent retrospective analysis patients who were
both ER and PR +ve, fared better than patients who were ER +ve and PR –ve
53% reduction* in risk of recurrence for patients who were ER & PR +ve.
In patients who were ER +ve only the risk was reduced* by 23% only.
The lesser benefit of Tamoxifen in patients with ER +ve but PR –ve tumors has also been confirmed in the ATAC trial recently.
Tamoxifen & Receptor status
Unresolved questions: Does addition of tamoxifen to ER –ve older
woman improve their outcome ? Impact of PR in patients who are ER –ve
tumors ? Is the reduction in contralateral breast cancer
in patients with ER –ve tumor worthwhile ? Impact of newer immunohistochemical
analytic techniques in the measurement of receptor levels – specially impact of false negative results.
Tamoxifen & Menopausal status
Initially believed to have lesser efficacy in premenopausal women.
Many trials gave tamoxifen for 2 years.
Greater proportion of premenopausal women have ER –ve tumors.
Recent trials have revealed a substantial benefit in terms of:
Long term survival Recurrence rates
Reduction of odds of
recurrence
Absolute reduction at 10 yrs
Age 0-4 yrs 5-9 yrs
<50 42% 22% 10.7%
50+ 49% 33% 14.6%
Reduction of odds of deaths
Absolute reduction at 10 yrsAge 0-4 yrs 5-9 yrs
<50 31% 28% 6.8%
50+ 32% 36% 8.2%
Tamoxifen in Elderly patients All meta-analyses have demonstrated a
stastically significant benefit for addition of Tamoxifen in patients aged > 70 yrs.
ECOG evaluated the role of 2yr tamoxifen therapy vs placebo in 180 women aged > 65yrs
Drug was well tolerated Significant reduction in recurrences Borderline significant reduction in risk of death Tamoxifen also reduced the incidence of contralateral
breast cancers Problems with adjuvant tamoxifen in elderly
population: High risk of death for unrelated cancer (22% in ECOG
trial) Poor adherence to prescribed treatment Risk of thromboembolism increases with age.
Tamoxifen & nodal status The NSABP – B14 protocol
outlined the following benefits of adjuvant tamoxifen in node –ve patients:
Fewer ipsilateral breast, local-regional, and distant recurrences.
Substantial reduction (~ 50%) in contralateral breast cancer.
These benefits persisted beyond 14 years of follow-up
Data from Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group
Tamoxifen & nodal status
Reduction in Annual Odds*Recurrence Cancer Deaths Any Deaths
Node negative
0 – 4 yrs 48% 33% 25%
5 + yrs 35% 30% 21%
Node Positive
0 – 4 yrs 41% 40% 29%
5 + yrs 20% 38% 36%
At 10 yrs: The recurrence rates were reduced by 14% and 11%
in node –ve and +ve patients respectively. Similarly, mortality reduced by 14.8% and 12%
respectively.
Tamoxifen alone vs XRT + Tmx Fisher et al (NSABP B21)
evaluated whether tamoxifen alone is as good as XRT followed by tamoxifen in node-negative women with invasive breast cancers of < 1 cm.
Overall 49% reduction in the hazard ratio for ipsilateral recurrence was seen when XRT was added w.r.t. tamoxifen alone.
Fyles et al also demonstrated that addition of XRT after lumpectomy significantly reduces the breast and axillary recurrences in women > 60yrs with early T1 / T2 leisons.
NSABP B 21 data ( N = 1009)
Tamoxifen and chemotherapy Advantages of combining
CCT with Tmx include: Elimination of both
chemoresistant and tamoxifen resistant cell populations.
Tamoxifen and progestins inhibit p-glycoprotein, an effect that could enhance sensitivity to drugs such as doxorubicin.
The apoptosis inhibitor Bcl-2 is down-regulated by tamoxifen, possibly enhancing sensitivity to drugs using this cell death pathway.
Disadvantages of combined approach:
Cytostatic nature of tamoxifen may interfere with chemotherapy by locking cells in chemoresistant phases of cell cycle.
It also antagonizes calmodulin and is an effective Ca2+ channel antagonist—effects that could alter drug uptake.
Chemoendocrine Rx - Premenopausal
Tmx has been evaluated against Tmx + CCT in a NSABP trial in ER +ve, node negative tumor
Women < 50 yrs who received concurrent CCT and tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen alone had a 35% reduction in annual odds of recurrence.
Initial trials had failed to show a benefit for addition of tamoxifen to chemotherapy in premenopausal women.
Addition of different CCT may explain the variable results as it is now known Tmx may inhibit the action of some CCT agents e.g. Melphalan (Used in NSABP B09 where premenopausal women had a poorer DFS and OS)
Chemoendocrine Rx - Premenopausal
The 1995 Oxford meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in recurrence rates and deaths.
Similar findings were seen in the 2000 overview also in premenopausal patients with ER +ve tumors.
Reduction in Annual Odds in % (SE)
Recurrence Cancer Mortality Any Death
CCT+tamoxifen 35 (± 7) 34 (± 9) 31 (± 9)
CCT alone 38 (± 4) 29 (± 5) 27 (± 4)
Chemoendocrine Rx - Postmenopausal
Benefits are less certain in this group. Apparently greatest benefit in:
Postmenopausal node positive disease patients who receive an anthracycline based CCT
Women in the age group of 50 - 60 yrs benefit greatest.
3 main trials have evaluated the impact of addition of CCT to tamoxifen in postmenopausal age group:
NSABP B20: Benefit greatest in women below 60 yrs age and DFS prolonged longest in women aged < 50 yr
SWOG 8814: 9% improvement in DFS after 5 yrs of Tmx after anthracycline (FAC) based CCT ( ER +ve , postmenopausal females)
IBCSG Trial IX: Improvement in outcome of postmenopausal females with ER –ve disease only (? Suboptimal CCT regimen – CMF x 3)
Chemoendocrine Rx - Postmenopausal
The findings of meta analysis are less clear as far as post menopausal females are concerned as:
Less number of females in the trials. Patients likely to receive less toxic combinations in less
dose intense fashion. Likely to experience more toxicity. Likely to die of unrelated causes in F/U period.
Reduction in Annual Odds in % (SE)
Recurrence Cancer Mortality Any Death
CCT+tamoxifen 16 ± 3 10 ± 3 10 ± 3
CCT alone 22 ± 4 13 ± 4 11 ± 4
Sequence of Tmx and CCT
Concurrent administration considered by some western observers as harmful due to cytostatic action of tamoxifen
Sequential vs Concurrent administration has been evaluated in a single trial till date.
Intergroup trail 0100: 8 yr DFS was 67% in patients receiving sequential vs 62% in patients receiving concurrent Tmx.
In the 2000 Oxford overview patients who had received sequential Tmx vs concurrent had a 7% reduction in the annual odds of recurrence.
AI in adjuvant setting 7 trials have been reported all of which involve post
menopausal females with HR +ve disease. A theoretical priming benefit initial tamoxifen made many
trials use tamoxifen in initial 2-3 yrs prior to witching over to tamoxifen.
Trial Yrs Tmx N FU (mo) DFS OS
MA 17 (Let)* 5 5157 30 2.4% NA
ATAC (Ana) 0 6186 68 2.4% 0.3%
BIG 01-98 (Let) 0 8010 26 1.9% 0.7%
ABCSG/ARNO (Ana) 2 3224 28 2.4% NA
ITA (Ana) 2 426 24 7.1% NA
IES (Exe) 2-3 4742 31 3.5% 0.6%
* Placebo controlled
AI in adjuvant setting Data about the use of AI as 1st line adjuvant therapy is not
mature enough to support routine use of AI. Results have shown that:
No advantage in use of AI over tamoxifen in first 2-3 yrs No survival benefit over Tmx in first 5 yrs Clinical impact of long term AI toxicity not known Tamoxifen “priming” may be important for control of disease
as well as prevention of bone damage due to Tmx However timing and duration of switch remain to be
established. Use in premenopausal women not recommended
(hypophyseal feedback is presumably strong enough to overcome AI induced ovarian estrogen blockade).
Data for specific subgroups not available. Use of Tmx with AI may impair the efficacy of AI as seen in
the ATAC trial.
Adjuvant Ovarian ablation 60% of premenopausal women are receptor +ve at
diagnosis. Poorer prognosis of premenopausal women < 35 yrs age:
More poorly diff. & higher grade Greater vascular invasion ~ 10% reduction in 10 yr DFS & OS (Aebi et al) Paradoxically poorer survival in ER +ve patients compared to
ER –ve patients who received CCT only. Greater proportional benefits of CCT in the
premenopausal (vis a vis postmenopausal) may be secondary to the endocrine effects of CCT in this population.
Despite drug induced amenorrhea in 30% women CCT induced hormonal effects not sufficient to prolong DFS/OS in hormone sensitive patients.
Results : 2004 EBCTSG review
Reduction (SE) in annual odds
Age group Recurrence % Cancer death % Any death %
Ovarian ablation vs nil
<40 30 ± 17 29 ± 16 22 ± 16
40–49 33 ± 8 32 ± 9 30 ± 8
LHRH agonist vs nil
<40 33 ± 12 45 ± 17 35 ± 17
40–49 16 ± 9 15 ± 13 13 ± 13
Ablation or LHRH agonist vs nil
<40 42 ± 10 32 ± 12 28 ± 12
40–49 25 ± 6 26 ± 7 25 ± 7
Ovarian ablation + CCT vs CCT alone
<40 7 ± 10 <1 ± 11 <1 ± 11
40–49 7 ± 7 <2 ± 8 <3 ± 8
Ovarian ablation vs CCT
Two trials have evaluated ovarian suppression vs ablation:
Scottish trial: Ovarian ablation was equally effective as adjuvant CCT
with CMF In ER +ve women a trend towards better survival was
found with ovarian ablation ZEBRA trial:
Goserelin ( x 2yrs) was as effective as CMF ( x 6 cycles) in ER +ve, stage II & node +ve patients.
In the ER –ve subgroup CMF had better OS and DFS.
Thus at best, ovarian ablation is as good as CMF based CCT ( but not better) in the ER +ve premenopausal females with early stage disease.
Tamoxifen with ovarian ablation
Author Design Comments
ABCSG Jakesz
CMF x 6 CMF < G +Tam for DFS [HR = 1.40; P = .017]G x 3 years + Tam x 5 years
ZIPP Rutqvist
G x 2 yrs G > no G ( HR 0.9; p= 0.001)Tam x 2 yrs
G + Tam x 2yrs
INT - 0101 Davidson
FAC FAC + G = FAC alone (HR = 0.93 , p = 0.25)FAC + G x 5 yrsFAC + G + Tam > FAC + G (HR = 0.73 , p = 0.01)
FAC + G + Tam x 5 yrs
A recent SOFT trial is evaluating the question whether the addition of ovarian ablation to tamoxifen is better than tamoxifen in premenopausal females after CCT who are hormone receptor +ve.
Conclusions Ovarian ablation or suppression by LHRH agonists are
equally good at preventing cancer related deaths. In the premenopausal age group a significant reduction in
the mortality and recurrence seen with either modality compared to no adjuvant therapy.
Ovarian irradiation or surgery are equally effective as ablative modalities.
Addition of tamoxifen provides an additional benefit in terms of DFS.
Caveat: The duration of treatment with LHRH agonists is not well
defined (most trial use 2 -3 yrs treatment). The impact of resumption of ovarian function after stoppage
of these agents on risk of recurrence remains to be seen. The exact benefit of addition of ovarian ablation in receptor
+ve females already receiving tamoxifen after CCT remains to be ascertained.
Ancillary benefits of Tamoxifen
Cardiovascular: Fewer non cancer related deaths due to
cardiovascular events. Fewer hospitalizations for cardiac events Serum LDL / cholesterol reduced. Actual magnitude of benefit still unclear.
Skeletal: Significant reduction in incidence of fractures
of weight bearing bones. Estrogen agonist action on BMD
Prevention of contralateral breast cancer
Toxicity Menopausal symptoms:
50% - 60% ( N.B. 40% - 50% in placebo)
MC in premenopausal Vaginal dryness and
discharge may occur in excess.
Depression: Maybe seen in as high as
10% of patients. But no randomized
comparisons available. Ocular toxicity:
Keratopathy, maculopathy & cataract
Reported with high doses However NSABP studies
have found no increase in vision threatening ocular toxicity.
Thromboembolism: Severe thromboembolism
seen in ~ 1% patients in the preventive setting.
Risk up to 10 times that experienced by healthy women
Complication more common in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer and who are receiving CCT
Carcinogenesis: Increased risk of
endometrial cancers (hazard rate of 1.7 per 1000 – NSABP B 14 data)
Mostly low grade & stage I tumors.
Other tumors: Hepatomas Clear cell sarcomas of ovary
Tamoxifen toxicity
The excess incidence of serious adverse events for patients receiving tamoxifen therapy was approximately 5 per 1000 woman years in NSABP P1 trial.
Serious side effects occur in approximately 1 in 200 patients annually
In large randomized trial ~ 5% patients withdrew from therapy due to toxicity.
Relative to the toxicities of chemotherapy, these side effects are tolerable.
Contraindications to Tmx Rx Absolute:
Retinal macular edema or degeneration History of benign or malignant liver tumor secondary
to oral contraceptives Pregnancy Other hormonal therapy (estrogens, oral
contraceptives) Relative:
History of thrombophlebitis, particularly hormone related
History of depression, particularly hormone related Cataract Drugs: Chlorpromazine, chloroquine, thioridazine,
amiodarone, other Severe vasomotor symptoms Polycystic ovaries
Toxicity of AIs vs Tamoxifen
MA -17 ATAC BIG IES
Vaginal Complications - 1.7% - 14% - 3.3% - 1.5% Tmx poorerEndometrial Cancer NA - 0.6% - 0.4% NA
Thromboembolic events NA - 1.7% - 1.2% - .9%
Cardiac complications 0.5% 0% 0.4% NA AI poorerArthalgia /Myalgia 23% 7% NA 6%
Osteoporotic fractures 2.3% 2.2% 1.7& 2%
Hot flushes 6% 5% 4% 2%
Since the absolute benefit of using a AI in adjuvant setting over tamoxifen is ~ 2% reduction in recurrence rates and 1.5% reduction in mortality this excess
toxicity needs to be balanced against the bone damage produced by AIs in this setting.
Toxicity management Hot Flushes:
Usually self limiting and respond well to placebos. HRT/ SSRIs are not recommended Best managed by life style changes.
Vaginal Bleeding: Routine work up indicated. Watch out for an endometrial CA in post menopausal
females. Myalgia / Arthalgia:
More common with AI Switching to Tmx may be required.
Osteoporosis: Calcium supplements, Vitamin D and bisphosphonates HRT / Raloxifen not recommended (Raloxifen with AI –
may limit efficacy)
Endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant setup
Background Limited experience Data derived from trials comparing endocrine therapy vs
surgery in older women ( >70 yrs) stage I/ II disease with ER +ve status
A multicenter Italian trial (GRETA) compared surgery followed by tamoxifen with tamoxifen alone in 473 patients
No difference was seen in disease-free or overall survival Local control was inferior in the tamoxifen arm, with a 25%
chance of local recurrence (vs. 6% in Sx arm) Response rates (CR & PR) = 43% to 78% in patients not
selected for hormone receptor status. Now a days in absence of serious comorbidities &/or limited
life expectancy endocrine therapy should not be used solely in the treatment of such patients.
Use of hormone therapy
Best suited for a hormone receptor positive, postmenopausal woman
Presence of +ve HR strongly influences response to preoperative endocrine therapy
Complete and partial response rates of the order of 40 - 70%
Majority of patients will have evidence of tumor shrinkage by 3 months.
Progression of disease is uncommon in hormone-sensitive patients receiving preoperative therapy (<5%)
Studies Eirmann et al conducted a RCT comparing 4 months of
Tmx vs Letrozole: 337 postmenopausal woman with ER/PR +ve, T2 to T4a-c
breast cancer Overall clinical response rates are 36% for tamoxifen and
55% for letrozole (p < .001) Conservative surgery was possible in 45% of patients treated
with letrozole versus 35% with tamoxifen (P=0.022) Both treatments well tolerated
PROACT trial: Preoperative Tmx vs. Anastrazole vs. the combination in ER
+ve, postmenopausal patients with tumors >2 cm No difference in clinical response between the treatment
arms (36%-T, 37%-A, 39%-C) Women who were initially thought to require a mastectomy
were more likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery if they were randomized to the Anastrazole alone arm (46%-A vs. 22%-C, p = .03)
Summary
The strategy of preoperative endocrine therapy will require more studies.
Exciting area for further translational research: The therapeutic target is known and can, therefore, be
measured The biologic pathways arising from the therapeutic
target have been extensively studied Slower response to therapy gives a greater window of
opportunity for assessing changes in tumor tissue. Caution: 2nd generation taxane based CCT
regimes have clinical response rates ranging from 80 -90%.
Endocrine therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer
Guidelines Endocrine therapy should be started in all hormone
receptor positive females with metastatic breast cancer. Hormone therapy may be suitable as a sole therapy in
patients with severe comorbid conditions or very old age. AI are standard 2nd line agents after tamoxifen therapy. Recently evidence has emerged which highlights the
superiority of AI in the 1st line setting too. In premenopausal females ovarian ablation may be another
alternative. It also allows use of AI in this population. Selection of the appropriate initial management depends
on: Tempo of the disease (Slower progress, fewer symptoms) Vital organ involvement ( Bone & Soft tissue) General condition of the patient (Older age, poorer GC) Socio economic conditions.
Selection of patient & Rx
Site % OR
Local recurrence 12%
Opposite breast 10%
Opposite axilla 10%
Bone (osteolytic) 40%
Bone (osteoblastic) 30%
Lung 15%
Liver 11%
Brain 2%
Soft tissue 15%
Neck nodes 13%
Premenopausal
Ovarian Ablation
Postmenopausal
Tamoxifen AIs
Resistance
Fulvestrant / Progestins
High dose Estrogen
??
Overall effect of endocrine Rx Bone Mets:
Significant and quick relief of pain Increased bone calcification and sclerosis Reduced hypercalcemia and calcium loss. Better benefit in osteolytic (osteoclastic) leisons.
Skin / soft tissue mets: Nodular leisons respond better than lymphangitic leisons. Edema is rarely reduced.
Choroidal metastasis: Regression and vision recovery may be seen in 10 - 20%
Pleuropulmonary leisons: Significant number of patients have reduction in size of leisons and
effusions. Systemic effects:
Increased feeling of well being Reduced incapacitation due to pain
Metastatic leisons that don’t respond: Hepatic Cerebral
Endocrine Rx in Metastatic CA
Tamoxifen remains the gold standard. Been in use since 1970s Began to be used instead of high dose estrogens
which were due to highly favourable side effect profile.
Response rates range from 16% to 56% (Median 30%) – same as ovarian ablative techniques.
Overall mean TTP for patients with metastatic disease treated with tamoxifen is about 6 months
Duration of response is between 12 and 18 months
Tamoxifen resistance
Mechanism: Tamoxifen agonism: AI still produce effects on
breast cancer through estrogen deprivation. ER β phenotype and ER βα hetrodimer
formation ER mutations. HER -2 receptor mediated ER downregualtion
(through MAP kinase pathway)
Tumor Flare
Tumor Flare: Incidence:
4% to 7% with high-dose estrogen 3% to 13% with tamoxifen
Dramatic in bone pain, an in size & number of metastatic skin nodules, and erythema.
Within days to several weeks after starting treatment Hypercalcemia in 5% Tumor regression may occur as the flare reaction
subsides Look for objective evidence of disease progression if
the patient's symptoms have not resolved by 4 to 6 weeks as flare is transient
Withdrawal response Secondary response after discontinuation of
treatment resulting from disease progression 25% to 35% of patients on high-dose estrogen
therapy Seen in patients who experience an initial
response, followed by subsequent recurrence of tumor
Patients may experience disease stability for more than 6 months
Withdrawal therapy trial is therefore appropriate for patients who responded well to prior tamoxifen therapy and whose symptoms are minimal at the time of disease progression
AI : 2nd Line therapy
Initially used instead of high dose steroid in tamoxifen resistant patients.
Showed a small but significant benefit in 5 RCTs in terms of survival and better side effect profile
However overall the response rates were in the 10% to 20% range
Significant clinical benefit from Aromatase inhibitors often occurs in the absence of dramatic disease regression.
Therefore now the standard 2nd line endocrine therapy in tamoxifen resistant metastatic breast cancer.
Results: AIs as 2nd line Rx
Trial Drug N RR TTP (mo) OS (mo)
Anastrazole vs Megestrol acetate
Ana (10 mg) 764 8.9 < 21 25.5
Ana (1 mg) 10.3 26.7 *
Meg (40 mg) 7.9 22.5
Letrozole vs Megestrol acetate
Let (2.5 mg) 551 24 5.6* 25.3*
Let (0.5 mg) 13 5.1 21.5
Meg (40 mg) 16 5.5 21.5
Letrozole vs Megestrol acetate
Let (2.5 mg) 602 16 3 29
Let (0.5 mg) 21 6* 33*
Meg (40 mg) 15 3 26
AI : 1st line therapy 3 major pahse III trials have directly compared tamoxifen
against AI. All have shown an improvement in time to progression
(TTP) The study by the International Letrozole Breast Cancer
Group is the largest in the series.
Trial Drug N RR TTP (mo) Comment
Nabholtz et al1
Ana 353 21% 11.1* Retrospective analysis revealed longer TTP with Anastrazole after combining these
two trials3,4
Tmx 17.7% 5.6
TARGET trail2 Ana 668 32.9% 8.2
Tmx 32.6% 8.3
Mouridsen et al5
Let 907 30% 9.4
Tmx 20% 6.0
AI : 1st line therapy Several trials have shown that the TTP is
significantly improved in metastatic breast cancer when AI are used as 1st line therapy instead of tamoxifen.
The impact on OS not clear however. In the trail comparing Letrozole to Tamoxifen it
was shown that OS improved in the first 2 yrs. However no benefit exists at 5yrs. However due to crossing over a significant impact
on OS may have been lost. Crossing over to Tamoxifen after initial AI therapy
may be theoretically unwise as: Estrogen deprived cancer cells may be become
paradoxically sensitive to tamoxifen.
AI : 1st line therapy
Toxicity: Patients on AI therapy have experienced significantly
lesser thromboembolic phenomenon. However the incidence of hot flashes is increased.
There have been no trials which showed a benefit of one AI over another.
One trial comparing Letrozole vs Anastrozole failed to show a difference in TTP or other parameters.
Because intratumoral Aromatase inhibition is most important so it s unlikely any particular AI will be more beneficial over the other.
Treatment after progression on AI
Progression after 1st line AI therapy is difficult to tackle.
A retrospective analysis has shown that objective response after tamoxifen therapy is of the order of 10% after AI failure.
Another phase II trial has shown that Exemestane may be associated with a response rate of 6.6% after Letrozole / Anastrazole therapy.
No endocrine therapy is thus available that can give promising results after AI failure.
Fulvestrant A potent inhibitor of estrogen-dependent transcription. In preclinical models, Fulvestrant was found to be effective
against tamoxifen-resistant MCF7 cell xenografts. In a trial comparing 1st line tamoxifen vs fulvestrant, no
advantage was obtained in TTP or overall response over tamoxifen.
Given easier use of AI / Tamoxifen place in therapy remains questionable.
Trial NResponse Rates (%)
Stable Disease ≥ 24
wk (%)
Time to Progression
(mo)
Osborne et al
An400
17.5 18.6 3.4
Ful 17.5 24.8 5.4
Howell et al
Ana451
15.7 45 5.1
Ful 20.7 44.6 5.4
Ovarian Ablation In a 2001 meta analysis by Klijn
et al comparing adjuvant Tamoxifen + LHRH agonist vs LHRH agonist alone in advanced breast cancer:
22% reduction in the hazard of death for the combined treatment group
30% reduction in the hazard of progression/death for the combined treatment group.
Median duration of response in patients receiving combined treatment was 602 days, compared with a median of 350 days in those receiving LHRH agonist alone Klijn, J. G. M. et al. J Natl Cancer Inst
2000;92:903-911
LHRH alone
LHRH +
Tmx
TMX alone
High Dose Estrogens Considered only in postmenopausal women as ineffective
before the menopause Activation of the FAS cell death receptor therapeutic
response Estrogen deprivation upregulation of FAS receptor Estrogen FAS ligand expression
Reduction in serum IGF -1 and 2 levels. Reasonable alternative to chemotherapy in setting of failure
to initial hormonal therapy (old age / poor GC) Doses:
DES – 5 mg TDS Ethinyl Estradiaol: 30 mg in 3 – 4 divided doses
Contraindication: DVT Cardiac problems
Can produce objective responses in ~ 30 – 40% patients who have received endocrine therapy.
Progestins
Useful in some selected patients who have developed resistance to SERM and AIs
Megestrol acetate is used (160 mg /d) C/I include:
Thromboembolic events Diabetes
Needs evaluation in phase II trials for usefulness as 3rd line agent.
MOA: ? Aromatase inhibition ? Estrogen turnover increased (Estrogen deprivation) ? Separate action through PRs.
Other ablative procedures
Adrenalectomy: Adrenals are source of estrogen in PM female. In large series ( 1950s – 60s) objective response rates
varied from 28% - 59% (Mean 42%) Duration of benefit varied from 12 – 36 months. Necessity for life long hormone replacement and high
operative mortality obsolescence. Hypophysectomy:
Another ablative procedure associated with response rates ranging from 40% - 50%
Response duration ~ 18 months Better tolerance than adrenalectomy made this
procedure a better choice.
Radiation Hypophysectomy
Modalities: Interstitial Brachytherapy Proton Rx
Need to deliver doses in range of 100 Gy – 200 Gy to bring pituitary ablation.
Investigators in the Berkley university have used proton beam therapy ( 50 Gy x 6 # = 300 Gy)
This dose ablated 90% of the pituitary glands with minimal morbidity.
Growth Hormone Thyroid hormones Gonadotropin Estrogen and Progesterone Corticosteroid.
Interstitial Brachytherapy
Yttrium 90 most commonly used. Pure β emitter with one of the highest energies
( 0.9 MeV) A circumscribed ring of necrosis is produced – 4.0
mm in diameters. Short t1/2 61 hrs. (Using Sr90 can overcome the
problems of handling due to this short t1/2) Easily packed in small spherules. Objective:
Deliver 1000 Gy to pituitary Deliver 50 Gy or less to neighboring nervous tissue.
Technique and results
Circumscribed necrosis
Methods to overcome Tmx resistance
HER 2 targeted therapy (Trastuzumab) Franesyl Transferase inhibitors Rapamycin analogues COX 2 inhibitors.
Endocrine therapy in Preventive & other settings
Rationale: Preventive setting
Prevention : Reduction in cancer mortality via reduction in incidence.
There is a discreet, multistep progression of leisons that lead to cancer over a long period of time.
Premalignant change progresses via this route:Ductal Hyperplasia Atypical ductal hyperplasia
Ductal carcinoma in situ Invasive cancer Chemoprevention based strategies are now being
tried to interrupt this process.
Hypothesis generation Women with early disease benefit more from adjuvant
therapy Benefit in DFS and OS in most trials with adjuvant
tamoxifen Several trials have demonstrated a reduction in the
incidence of contralateral breast cancer in women receiving tamoxifen.
Preclinical studies have demonstrated a preventive effect in animal populations.
Trial Tamoxifen Placebo Comment
ECOG (1993) 1 (90) 3(91) Post meno
Stockholm (1989) 18 (711) 32 (696) Post meno
Scottish (1987) 8 (661) 14 (651 ) Pre / post meno
NSABP (1989) 13 (1318) 29 (1326) Pre / post meno
Results The BCPT trial (NSABP P1) was designed to
evaluate the efficacy of tamoxifen given for 5yrs in high risk population
49% reduction in invasive breast cancer 50% reduction in non invasive cancers ER +ve tumors were much less frequent in women
receiving tamoxifen Incidence of ER –ve tumors remained same Reduction in rates of occurrence of tumors of all sizes
The FDA has now approved the use of tamoxifen in high risk women to reduce breast cancer incidence.
Ongoing STAR trial evaluating role of Raloxifen in prevention.
Criticisms Validated approach for only selected high risk females:
Women more than 35 yrs, who have completed family with high risk as defined by the Gail model (5 yr risk > 1.66%)
Age > 60 yrs ( intrinsic risk > 1.66%) Presence of LCIS
Application in face of other high risk factors not validated Duration of follow up is too limited (5 yrs) Duration of tamoxifen therapy not known Duration of beneficial effect not known Optimal time at which to start tamoxifen in high risk patients is
not known Questions remain on the long term effect on cancer related
mortality. The benefits have not been reciprocated in two European trials. Finally who all should be screened for high risk factors not known Without proper public health backup chemoprevention not suited
in the Indian setup.
Hereditary Breast Cancer Prevention
Kauff et al showed a statistically significant reduction in 5 yr breast cancer free rates in patients who are BRCA 1 or 2 +ve ( ~ 24% improvement) after prophylactic oophorectomy.
Further reduction in risk of ovarian cancers and diagnosis of some ovarian cancers during surgery itself.
Rebbeck et al found in a series of 241 women, a 53% breast cancer risk reduction.
Most benefit in breast cancer risk reduction was observed in women who had prophylactic oophorectomy by age 50 years.
Other uses of Endocrine Rx
Risk reduction in LCIS: NSABP P1 trial: Risk reduction for invasive breast
cancer was 56% in those receiving tamoxifen. Use in DCIS:
NSABP B24 and UK DCIS trial ( n = 3374) Significant reduction in Local recurrence and incidence
of contralateral breast cancers. Systemic Rx may be a safe, well tolerated option in
these females. Male Breast Cancer:
Prognosis poorer Treatment same as that for females – tamoxifen is DOC
for endocrine therapy.
Conclusions
Endocrine therapy is a safe and well tolerated targeted treatment modality in majority of patients with breast cancer.
In the adjuvant setting primary treatment with Tamoxifen should be considered in all receptor positive females.
Ovarian ablation may have additive benefits with tamoxifen in premenopausal females.
While AIs are a better option in metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal females, use in adjuvant setting should be tempered with caution as long term F/U data is lacking.
Thank You