Search

Purpose: We compared fulvestrant 500 mg regimen with the approved dose of fulvestrant 250 mg per month for treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who experienced progression after prior endocrine therapy., Patients and Methods: Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) is a double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study. Patients were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg intramuscularly [IM] on day 0, then 500 mg IM on days 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter) or 250 mg every 28 days. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QOL)., Results: PFS was significantly longer for fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) than 250 mg (n = 374) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.94; P = .006), corresponding to a 20% reduction in risk of progression. Objective response rate was similar for fulvestrant 500 mg and 250 mg (9.1% v 10.2%, respectively). CBR was 45.6% for fulvestrant 500 mg and 39.6% for fulvestrant 250 mg. DoCB and OS were 16.6 and 25.1 months, respectively, for the 500-mg group, whereas DoCB and OS were 13.9 and 22.8 months, respectively, in the 250-mg group. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated with no dose-dependent adverse events. QOL was similar for both arms., Conclusion: Fulvestrant 500 mg was associated with a statistically significant increase in PFS and not associated with increased toxicity, corresponding to a clinically meaningful improvement in benefit versus risk compared with fulvestrant 250 mg.

Purpose: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a condition in which the median nerve is compressed, leading to pain and muscle weakness in the fingers and hand. Aromatase inhibitors lead to profound estrogen suppression and may be expected to increase the risk of CTS in postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: The current analyses were based on the 100-month median follow-up data in postmenopausal women in the two monotherapy arms (anastrozole, n = 3,092; tamoxifen, n = 3,094). Here, we investigate the natural history of patients who presented with CTS during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer and the relative importance of a range of known risk factors for CTS., Results: After 100 months of follow-up, 80 cases (2.6%) of CTS were reported in the anastrozole arm, compared with 23 cases (0.7%) in the tamoxifen arm (P < .0001). The majority of CTS cases were reported as mild to moderate intensity and occurred early. None of the women stopped treatment medication as a result of CTS. CTS was significantly increased for women who used prior hormone replacement therapy (P = .007) or received prior chemotherapy (P = .01). Those who were 60 years of age or older at entry were at lower risk of CTS compared with their counterparts (P = .002)., Conclusion: Although the use of anastrozole is associated with a greater incidence of CTS, it is rare, and most cases were of mild to moderate intensity and short duration. CTS has little impact on the overall risk-to-benefit ratio for the use of anastrozole in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

Purpose: The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure., Materials and Methods: Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily., Results: A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant., Conclusion: Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.