|
Position
in Endocrine Therapy
-
SERD
A new anti-estrogen, fulvestrant (Faslodex),
the first and currently the only member in a new class
of endocrine agents, the class of selective estrogen
receptor downregulators (SERDs), has been
recently approved: fulvestrant operates as an estrogen
receptor (ER) antagonist lacking partial agonist activity
(thus a pure antiestrogen). It has poor oral
bioavailability, being given in monthly intramuscular
injections. In activity, fulvestrant binds,
blocks and degrades the estrogen receptor; significant
downregulation of the estrogen receptor was noted
after 4-6 weeks and was maintained over long-term
fulvestrant treatment (Robertson et al., SABCS (2004):
Clinical
efficacy of fulvestrant and effects on estrogen receptor
levels during first-line endocrine treatment of patients
with advanced breast cancer).
Fulvestrant is now being assessed in patients
who do not respond to aromatase inhibitors. Fulvestrant
may also be explored (off-label / off-protocol) in
premenopausal ER-positive patients where aromatase
inhibitors cannot be used, or for prevention of breast
cancer in high-risk patients. However, at the time
of writing, fulvestrant is approved for the treatment
of postmenopausal women with ER-positive and either
LABC (locally advanced breast cancer) or MBC (metastatic
breast cancer) who have either relapsed on prior adjuvant
estrogen antagonist therapy or progressed on prior
estrogen antagonist therapies (second-line settings
after tamoxifen, or potentially after AIs).
-
The Patterns and Principles
of Fulvestrant Response
(1) Greater benefit is derived when fulvestrant is
used early in the treatment sequence (),
(2) Increased benefit is found in patients who are
both ER+ and PR+, compared with other combinations,
although good benefit incurs in receptor-singlet patients
(expressing either ER+ or PR+),
(3) As well as in HER2-expressing tumors (Stegera
et al., Cancer Treat Rev (2005): Fulvestrant
(Faslodex): Clinical experience from the
Compassionate Use Programme), and Abram et
al. (Cancer Treat Rev (2005): Case
studies of fulvestrant (Faslodex) in postmenopausal
women with advanced breast cancer).
This latter fact is especially important, as Breast
Cancer Watch has demonstrated elsewhere
that tamoxifen endocrine therapy is minimally effective
if at all in HER2+ settings, regardless of ER and
PR receptor status, yet the current findings show
fulvestrant active in the same context, a distinct
clinical advantage.
(4) Given that fulvestrant takes between 3 to 6 months
to reach steady-state levels, in contrast to some
therapies that take only a few days; the question
is raised whether this pharmacokinetic difference
equates to a delayed time to response (TTR), especially
as compared with aromatase inhibitor therapy; this
issue was decisively addressed and answered in a recent
poster represented SABCS 2005 by J Pippen (SABCS (2005):
Similar
time to response between fulvestrant and anastrozole:
comparison from two phase III trials) where
it was found that median time to response (TTR) was
similar between fulvestrant and anastrozole, despite
differences in their mode of administration and subsequent
pharmacokinetics, suggesting that patients without
rapidly progressive disease should be kept on endocrine
treatment for at least 3 months to allow a response
to be achieved prior to considering changing treatments,
and that objective responses may occur following a
long period of stable disease during fulvestrant treatment.
In addition, fulvestrant induced a fall in ER expression
significantly greater than that for the aromatase
inhibitor anastrozole, just as the review of Nigel
Bunfred (Cancer Invest (2005): Preclinical
and Clinical Experience with Fulvestrant (Faslodex)
in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive
Advanced Breast Cancer) similarly found that
the decrease in receptor positivity with fulvestrant
treatment was greater than that with tamoxifen, as
did also Young et al. (28th Annual San Antonio Breast
Cancer Symposium (SABCS, 2005):
Randomized pre-operative study of 750mg of fulvestrant
and 20mg tamoxifen in premenopausal women with estrogen
receptor-positive breast cancer).
(5) Fulvestrant induces long-term stability of bone
turnover markers over a period of 18 months in postmenopausal
women with LAPC (ASCO (2006): Bone
turnover markers in postmenopausal breast cancer patients
treated with fulvestrant).
(6) Fulvestrant is not associated with the androgenic
side effects sometimes seen with steroidal aromatase
inhibitor exemestane (Aromasin) (Vergote & Abram
(2005): Fulvestrant,
a new treatment option for advanced breast cancer:
tolerability versus existing agents).
-
Fulvestrant versus Tamoxifen
The study of Howell et al. (J Clin Oncol (2004): Comparison
of fulvestrant versus tamoxifen for the treatment
of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women
previously untreated with endocrine therapy: a multinational,
double-blind, randomized trial) was the first
RCT comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant
with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with advanced
predominantly ER/PR-positive, breast cancer and who
had not received prior hormonal or cytotoxic therapy.
Overall tolerability was similar in both groups (fulvestrant
as a single monthly gluteal intramuscular injection),
with however hot flush incidence significantly lower
in the fulvestrant group. Time to tumor progression,
the primary endpoint, was not significantly different
between the two treatment groups and the general finding
of the study showed no superiority of fulvestrant
over tamoxifen. The use of fulvestrant in metastatic
breast cancer is discussed separately in our MBC coverage.
In addition, the review of Nigel Bunfred (Cancer Invest
(2005): Preclinical
and Clinical Experience with Fulvestrant (Faslodex)
in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive
Advanced Breast Cancer) concluded that the
decrease in receptor positivity with fulvestrant treatment
was greater than that with tamoxifen.
-
Fulvestrant versus Aromatase
Inhibitors (AIs)
However, fulvestrant, already known to be non-inferior
to tamoxifen (see above), compares quite favorably
with aromatase inhibitors: it is at least as effective,
as anastrozole (Arimidex) when administered as 250
mg in a once-monthly intramuscular (IM) injection
(Howell et al., J Clin Oncol (2002): Fulvestrant,
Formerly ICI 182,780, Is as Effective as Anastrozole
in Postmenopausal Women With Advanced Breast Cancer
Progressing After Prior Endocrine Treatment),
and with comparable tolerability, safety and quality-of-life
characteristics; indeed, DOR (time from onset of response
to disease progression) was significantly greater
in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group,
and although not statistically significant, there
was a numerical increase in OR (overall survival),
with the odds of attaining an OR being 38% higher
in the fulvestrant group, suggesting that fulvestrant
has at least some efficacy benefits over anastrozole,
and fulvestrant is the first antiestrogen confirmed
in a prospective randomized trial to have significant
clinical activity in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer.
The same team pushed these findings further in a more
recent combined multicenter trials survival analysis
(Howell et al., Cancer (2005): Fulvestrant
versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast
carcinoma: A prospectively planned combined survival
analysis of two multicenter trials), finding
that fulvestrant was at least as effective as anastrozole
with respect to overall survival in the second-line
treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast
carcinoma, but was associated with a significantly
lower incidence of joint disorders compared with anastrozole.
This is cross-confirmed in another combined analysis
of two multicenter trials conducted by Mauriac et
al. (Eur J Cancer (2003): Fulvestrant
(Faslodex) versus anastrozole for the second-line
treatment of advanced breast cancer in subgroups of
postmenopausal women with visceral and non-visceral
metastases: combined results from two multicentre
trials ) which found that fulvestrant was
at least as effective as anastrozole as a valuable
treatment option for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal
women with visceral metastases who have failed on
prior endocrine therapy. And there is evidence that
fulvesrant induces a more prolonged duration of response
than anastrozole: numerically greater proportion of
patients receiving fulvestrant achieved objective
response (OR) and clinical benefit (CB) for 1, 1.5
and 2 years compared with those receiving anastrozole
(Jones et al., SABCS (2004): A
retrospective analysis of the proportion of patients
responding for 1, 1.5 and 2 years in two phase III
studies of fulvestrant vs anastrozole).
The direct comparison studies cited above clearly
establish fulvestrant as non-inferior to anastrozole
(Arimidex) in terms of TTP (time to progression),
clinical benefit (CB), and survival, and Indirect
comparisons with other second-line treatment trials
suggest that fulvestrant is also equi-efficacious
on these outcomes to letrozole (Femara) and exemestane
(Aromasin), with a superior tolerability profile (review
of Dodwell et al., SABCS (2004): Additive
antitumor effect of aromatase inhibitor letrozole
and antiestrogen fulvestrant in a postmenopausal breast
cancer model); the indirect comparisons further
establish that serious adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals
due to AEs are less frequent with fulvestrant than
with the various third-generation AIs.
Furthermore, fulvestrant is associated with a lower
incidence of joint disorders (see also Robertson et
al., Cancer (2003): Fulvestrant
versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast
carcinoma in postmenopausal women - A prospective
combined analysis of two multicenter trials)
compared with the non-steroidal AIs (anastrozole (Arimidex)
and letrozole (Femara)) and none of the potential
androgenic side-effects (such as viralization (e.g.,
deepening of the voice and acne), weight gain (greater
than on anastrozole or letrozole), alopecia, hypertrichosis
(body hair), hoarseness) that are sometimes seen with
the steroidal AI exemestane (Aromasin), as noted by
Vergote & Abrams (Ann Oncol (2005); Fulvestrant,
a new treatment option for advanced breast cancer:
tolerability versus existing agents; see also
Normanno et al., Endocr Relat Cancer (2005): Mechanisms
of endocrine resistance and novel therapeutic strategies
in breast cancer; WJ Gradishar, Oncologist
(2004):
TamoxifenWhat Next?. JA Ingle, Clin
Cancer Res (2004): Sequencing
of Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women with
Advanced Breast Cancer; Howell & Wardley,
Endocr Relat Cancer (2005): Overview
of the impact of conventional systemic therapies on
breast cancer; Rau et al., Endocr Relat Cancer
(2005): The
mechanisms and managements of hormone-therapy resistance
in breast and prostate cancers. Also the survival
analysis of Anthony Howell at Oncology Research UK
and his coresearchers (Howell et al., Cancer (2005):
Fulvestrant
versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast
carcinoma - A prospectively planned combined survival
analysis of two multicenter trials) reconfirmed
that fulvestrant was comparable to anastrozole in
terms of overall survival in the second-line treatment
of postmenopausal women with ABC (advanced breast
carcinoma), with fulvestrant being associated with
a significantly lower incidence of joint disorders.
And the review of Nigel Bunfred (Cancer Invest (2005):
Preclinical
and Clinical Experience with Fulvestrant (Faslodex)
in Postmenopausal Women with Hormone Receptor-Positive
Advanced Breast Cancer) concluded that fulvestrant
therapy has also demonstrated clinical efficacy among
patients who progressed following treatment with tamoxifen
followed by nonsteroidal AIs (aromatase inhibitors)
anastrozole (Arimidex) and letrozole (Femara).
- Summary
These studies established fulvestrant as a viable and
effective option for hormone receptor-positive women
with advanced breast cancer following prior anti-estrogen
therapy, and as first-line therapy, it is of similar
efficacy to tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive
tumors, and early data shows fulvestrant to exhibit
good efficacy in patients with metastatic disease, with
those patients receiving fulvestrant earlier in the
treatment sequence achieving better responses (JS Tobias,
Ann Oncol (2004); Recent
advances in endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women
with early breast cancer: implications for treatment
and prevention). And fulvestrant has established
efficacy in tamoxifen-resistant disease, with a growing
body of evidence demonstrating its efficacy in patients
with AI-resistant disease (Johnston et al., Breast Cancer
Res Treat (2005): Life
following aromatase inhibitors where now for
endocrine sequencing?); Steger et al., Eur J
Cancer (2005): Fulvestrant
(Faslodex) in pre-treated patients with
advanced breast cancer: A single-centre experience);
Abram et al. (Cancer Treat Rev (2005): Case
studies of fulvestrant ("Faslodex") in postmenopausal
women with advanced breast cancer) who noted
that fulvestrant is a valuable new treatment for postmenopausal
women with advanced breast cancer, including those with
visceral metastases and HER2+ disease; Steger et al.
(Cancer Treat Rev (2005): Fulvestrant
("Faslodex"): clinical experience from the
Compassionate Use Programme); A Howell, Cancer
Treat Rev (2005): The
future of fulvestrant ("Faslodex");
WA Gradishar, Expert Rev Anticancer Ther (2005): Fulvestrant
in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced
breast cancer.
New Findings on Fulvestrant
- Fulvestrant Effective in
Premenopausal Women
A randomized preoperative study (Young et al., 28th
Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS, 2005):
Randomized preoperative study of 750mg of fulvestrant
and 20mg tamoxifen in premenopausal women with estrogen
receptor-positive breast cancer) was reported
at the 28th Annual SABCS, in which 750 mg of fulvestrant
was compared with 20 mg of tamoxifen in 60 premenopausal
women with ER-positive breast cancer, finding that that
both ER and PR expression fell significantly further
with fulvestrant than with tamoxifen, with all fulvestrant-treated
women, both HER2-positive and HER2-negative, achieving
a reduction in tumor cell proliferation, establishing
that fulvestrant is biologically
active in premenopausal women, including those with
HER-2-overexpressing disease, a result not been previously
reported (see also the KI Pritchard,
Medscape (2005): Evolving
Role of Hormonal Therapy for Patients With Advanced
Breast Cancer). This agrees with John Robertson's
findings (Robertson et al., Eur J Cancer (2006): Effects
of fulvestrant 250 mg in premenopausal women with oestrogen
receptor-positive primary breast cancer) from
a Phase II double-blind, randomized, multicenter study
comparing the effects of standard dose fulvestrant and
placebo 1421 days prior to surgery of curative
intent in premenopausal women with ER+ primary breast
cancer where no effects on markers of hormone-sensitivity
and proliferation (KI-67) were observed on fulvestrant
at this low-dose level.
- Fulvestrant in Tamoxifen-Resistant
Women
Tamoxifen resistance is a widely observed and attested
phenomenon in breast cancer therapy, but we know that
tamoxifen-resistant breast tumors are still responsive
to other endocrine (hormonal) therapies. One hint of
how to overcome TAM-resistance comes from animal models
of tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells where tumor
regression is inducible via physiological levels of
estrogen, and it has been established in this connection
that continuous exposure of tamoxifen-resistant cells
to physiological levels of estrogen leads to cell death,
as demonstrated by the research of Planas-Silva and
colleagues at the Penn State College of Medicine (Planas-Silva
et al., J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol (2006): Estrogen
induces death of tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 cells: contrasting
effect of the estrogen receptor downregulator fulvestrant),
which suggests that the failure of fulvestrant to inhibit
tumor growth in some tamoxifen-resistant patients may
be due to endogenous estrogen levels.
- [new]
Fulvestrant Overcoming Endocrine Resistance:
Fulvestrant On Progression
Another study examined the efficacy and toxicity of
fulvestrant in patients with disease progression on
an aromatase inhibitor, finding that fulvestrant exhibited
significant antitumor activity in postmenopausal women
with MBC that had progressed on prior AI therapy, with
a clinical benefit rate of 35.1% (Ingle et al., J Clin
Oncol (2006): Fulvestrant
in Women With Advanced Breast Cancer After Progression
on Prior Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: North Central
Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0032 [pdf]); they
researchers also found that the level of benefit with
fulvestrant apperaed to be at least as good as that
reported for exemestane (Aromasin) after nonsteroidal
AI therapy. And Steger and colleagues, reporting on
a single-center experience at the University of Vienna
found that fulvestrant was an effective and well-tolerated
treatment for patients with advanced, hormone receptor-positive
breast cancer who have progressed following prior endocrine
therapy, with fulvestrant's novel mechanism of action
resulting in a lack of cross-resistance with other hormonal
therapies including tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors;
they concluded that patients with both ER+ and PR+ status
in particular may gain benefit from fulvestrant treatment,
with an observed clinical benefit rate of 56.8% in patients
receiving fulvestrant as first-, second-, third- or
fourth-line hormonal therapy for advanced disease (Steger
et al., Breast Cancer Treat Res (2003): Fulvestrant
(Faslodex) in metastatic breast cancer [pdf]).
This is cross-confirmed by Cardoso et al. (SABCS (2004):
Fulvestrant
after aromatase inhibitor failure: results from the
expanded access program in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
who found (1) that fulvestrant was an active treatment
for postmenopausal women with MBC (metastatic breast
cancer) after AI failure, and (2) that fulvestrant represents
a major advance in the hormonal therapy of advanced
breast cancer, especially for those patients with soft
tissue and bone metastases. And Bauerschlag et al. (ASCO
(2006): Clinical
experience using fulvestrant in hormone responsive metastatic
breast cancer) found that patients with tamoxifen-resistant
tumors could benefit from fulvestrant.
Clinical data on fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer
following resistance to AIs from the final results of
a phase 2 study (Perey et al., Ann Oncol (2007): Clinical
benefit of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with
advanced breast cancer and primary or acquired resistance
to aromatase inhibitors: final results of phase II Swiss
Group for Clinical Cancer Research Trial (SAKK 21/00))
found that fulvestrant produced clinical benefit (CB
= complete + partial response + stable disease of 24
weeks) in 30% patients who had progressed on prior endocrine
treatment (tamoxifen and a nonsteroidal AI), thereby
allowing the delay of initiation of chemotherapy. And
Petruzelka and colleagues reported results from a compassionate
use program in which postmenopausal women with metastatic
breast cancer progressing on at least two prior endocrine
therapies were treated with fulvestrant, and found that
52% of patients gained clinical benefit from fulvestrant
treatment despite most having received 23 prior
endocrine therapies, with some having also received
prior chemotherapy (Petruzelka et al., ASCO Annual Meeting
(2004): Fulvestrant
in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer
progressing on prior endocrine therapy results
from a compassionate use program). This has
been further confirmed by the UK teram of Jayson Wang
and colleagues recently reported at ASCO 2007 who found
that fulvestrant was effective for advanced breast cancer
patients who failed on tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor
therapy (Wang et al., ASCO Annual Meeting (2007): Fulvestrant
in advanced breast cancer following following failure
of tamoxifen and a third generation aromatase inhibitor),
and by Chiara Catania's team at the European Institute
of Oncology who tested fulvestrant in heavily pre-treated
patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC), either after
disease progression (PD) on a previous endocrine treatment
or as maintenance treatment after chemotherapy, with
fulvestrant treatment being associated with prolonged
clinical benefit (C Catania et al, Breast Cancer Res
Treat (2007: Fulvestrant
in heavily pre-treated patients with advanced breast
cancer: results from a single compassionate use programme
centre).
And it's value in metastatic disease is further confirmed
by Belgian researcher Patrick Neven and colleagues who
found fulvestrant active in ases of multiple metastasic
sites, visceral metastases, HER2-positive disease, and
also after heavy endocrine pre-treatment, with efficay
well-balanced with tolerability, with only 1.5% of patients
discontinuing treatment due to adverse events (P Neven
et al., Breast Cancer Res Treat (2007: Fulvestrant
(Faslodex) in advanced breast cancer: clinical experience
from a Belgian cooperative study).
- [new]
Fulvestrant Advantage over TAM and AI in a HER-2+ Context
HER-2+ tumor cells exhibit a ligand-independent activation
of the estrogen receptor in which the crosstalk between
the receptor and HER-2 signaling can activate estrogen-dependent
genes in the absence of estradiol and this predicts
an estradiol absence with AIs (for ER ligand) but with
the ER still activatable via HER-2 signaling, and this
crosstalk can also make tamoxifen more agonistic (Massarweh
et al., Cancer Res (2006): Mechanisms
of Tumor Regression and Resistance to Estrogen Deprivation
and Fulvestrant in a Model of Estrogen ReceptorPositive,
HER-2/neu-Positive Breast Cancer; RJ Pietras,
Oncologist (2006): Biologic
Basis of Sequential and Combination Therapies for Hormone-Responsive
Breast Cancer; Schiff et al., Clin Cancer Res
(2004): Cross-Talk
between Estrogen Receptor and Growth Factor Pathways
as a Molecular Target for Overcoming Endocrine Resistance;
Xiangrong Li, [Dissertation, Texas A&M University]
(2006): Hormonal
activation of genes through nongenomic pathways by estrogen
and structurally diverse estrogenic compounds
[pdf]); Donald McDonnell, Clin Cancer Res (2005): The
Molecular Pharmacology of Estrogen Receptor Modulators:
Implications for the Treatment of Breast Cancer;
Rau et al, Endocr Relat Cancer (2005): The
mechanisms and managements of hormone-therapy resistance
in breast and prostate cancers; Cui et al, J
Clin Oncol (2005): Biology
of Progesterone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer and Its
Implications for Endocrine Therapy and the responding
correspondence of Neven et al., J Clin Oncol (2006):
Progesterone Receptor in Estrogen ReceptorPositive
Breast Cancer: The Association Between HER-2 and Lymph
Node Involvement Is Age Related).
See also the observations in this connection by Mark
Pegram, Director of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer
Center Women's Program, UCLA (Medscape Hematology-Oncology
(2006): Rationale
for Use of Biologics in Breast Cancer Treatment: An
Expert Interview With Dr. Mark Pegram);
" . . . Dr. Richard Pietras at UCLA has
been doing a lot of work with fulvestrant.
This might be an ideal way to undermine this
receptor cross-talk mechanism by getting rid of
the estrogen receptor (ER) completely. Using
aromatase inhibitors eliminates the membrane ER
interaction with signal transduction pathways. However,
the ER is still there. You've lost the ligand with
an aromatase inhibitor but the estrogen receptor
is still there and it can still be altered by posttranslational
modification by activation of receptor tyrosine
kinase signaling pathways. If that is the case,
you can still have a ligand-independent ER activation
by HER-2. This is what Dr. Pietras' data show,
even in the absence of estradiol. So fulvestrant
might be the ideal agent to perturb this system."
- Fulvestrant: The Problem
of Tumor Markers
Humor markers are frequently recoursed to detect recurrence
after primary oncotherapy, and to monitor response to
treatment in advanced cancers, with the assumption that
increased metrics while on active therapy signals that
a change in therapy may be motivated. Although widely
used, Breast Cancer Watch
concludes on the balance of the evidence that the true
prognostic value of serial marker level metric remains
largely unproven. In the more specific fulvestrant endocrine,
Bartsch et al. (BMC Cancer (2006): Prognostic
value of monitoring tumour markers CA 15-3 and CEA during
fulvestrant treatment) evaluated the prognostic
value of tumour markers for predicting response in patients
receiving standard dose fulvestrant (Faslodex) for MBC
(metastatic breast cancer). (partial response [PR],
stable disease [SD] = 6 months), de novo disease progression
(PD) and secondary PD in patients receiving fulvestrant
('Faslodex') 250 mg/month for the treatment of metastatic
breast cancer; see also Bartsch et al. (ASCO (2005):
Prognostic value of tumor markers CA 15-3 and CEA
during fulvestrant treatment) The evidence demonstrates
that:
(1) the CA (cancer antigen) 15-3 tumor marker may increase
in patients experiencing clinical benefit indifferently
from those progressing on fulvestrant, and that therefore,
increase in this tumor marker cannot be reliably taken
as a indication of disease progression without radiological
verification(RV) through CT scans, and possibly also
MRI and bone scans; and
(2) both the cancer antigen CA 15-3 and the carcinoembryonic
antigen (CEA) tumor markers are poor prognostic indicators
for determining or declaring clinical progression in
patients on fulvestrant (indeed CA 15-3 levels increased
CA 15-3 during the first 3 months in patients who were
actually responding to the fulvestrant therapy, confirmed
by RV; furthermore, in patients experiencing disease
stabilization, there was again counterfactually a significant
increase in CA 15-3 levels at both 3 and 6 months. This
phenomenon of tumour markers elevation may stem from
increased tumour degradation in response to fulvestrant
treatment.
(3) Therefore, in the absence of radiological verification
of disease progression, fulvestrant treatment should
be continued beyond 3 months before response to treatment
is assessed, given that tumour marker levels may rise
in both responding and nonresponding patients during
the first few months of fulvestrant treatment and that
consequently increased CA 15-3 levels observed after
the first 3 months of fulvestrant treatment should not
be taken as a definite sign of de novo progression without
radiological verification: on the contrary, these increases
are observable in patients gaining objective clinical
benefit from treatment.
(4)The transient initial spikes in tumor marker CA15.3
reported during oncotherapies with tamoxifen and chemotherapy
may be secondary to the partial agonistic and cytotoxic
effects of these agents, also seen with fulvestrant,
and such spike phenomenon is seen in more MBC than LABC
patients, suggesting again that fulvestrant therapy
should not be stopped during the initial months of treatment
solely on the basis of a rising tumor marker, given
that a spike is observed in one-third of advanced breast
cancer patients who actually achieve clinical benefit
with fulvestrant (Robertson et al., ASCO (2006): Correlation
of CA15.3 levels with clinical response in advanced
breast cancer (ABC) patients receiving fulvestrant).
In sum, these tumor marker studies are decisive in demonstrating
the inappropriateness of changing fulvestrant therapy
solely based on increased tumour marker levels.
The Inefficiency and Unreliability
of Tumor Markers in General in Breast Cancer Therapy
Assessment
Finally, Breast Cancer Watch
notes that this distortive aspect of tumor metrics in
initial therapy phase may be general and not restricted
to fulvestrant, as increases in CEA and CA 15-3 have
also been observed in patients experiencing objective
clinical benefit from other breast cancer oncotherapies:
Sonoo and Kurebayashi (Surg Today (1996): Serum
tumor marker kinetics and the clinical course of patients
with advanced breast cancer) found that the
serial levels of carcinoembryonic antigens (CEA), CA
15-3, and tissue polypeptide antigens (TPA) markers
during therapy do not always correlate with the response
to therapy; similarly, Loprinzi et al. (J Clin Oncol
(1986): Prospective
evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen levels and alternating
chemotherapeutic regimens in metastatic breast cancer)
found with respect to the DAVTH (dibromodulcitol, doxorubicin,
vincristine, tamoxifen, and fluoxymesterone) and CMFP
(cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, and
prednisone) regimens that routine pretreatment and monthly
serial CEA levels in MBC (metastatic breast cancer)
patients have minimal use in clinical practice. And
the prospective study of CEA of Guadagni et al. (Clin
Cancer Res (2001): A
Re-Evaluation of Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) as a
Serum Marker for Breast Cancer - A Prospective Longitudinal
Study) lead them to a stronger conclusion: "CEA
monitoring should be considered an expensive and inefficient
method of follow-up evaluation for breast cancer patients".
Kiang et al. (Cancer (2006): Tumor
marker kinetics in the monitoring of breast cancer)
assessed the kinetics of the tumor markers CEA and CA15-3
immediately after the initiation of chemotherapy in
patients with advanced breast cancer, finding two distinct
patterns fitting the expected relationship of marker
increase during tumor progression in less than one-third
of the patients, and that in some of the remaining patients
a paradoxical pattern was witnessed of objective tumor
regression associated with an acute surge of these markers
followed by a steady decline. Finally, Sjöström
et al. (Scandinavian J Clin Labor Invest (2001): Serum
tumour markers CA 15-3, TPA, TPS, hCG ß and TATI
in the monitoring of chemotherapy response in metastatic
breast cancer) concluded that given observed
discordances of increase in marker levels in patients
with clinical responses, CA 15-3 should not be used
as sole indicator of response to chemotherapy in advanced
breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Watch on the
balance of the evidence assessed advises against the
use of serial readings of CEA and CA 15-3 tumor markers,
given their poor prognostic value rendering them of
no significant reliable value in clinical practice,
independent of the specific endocrine or chemotherapy
regimen deployed.
- Fulvestrant and Dual-Endocrine
Therapy
Finally, an emerging option is dual endocrine therapy
(dual-ET) combining fulvestrant with an aromatase inhibitor:
it appears that fulvestrant may work better in a continued
low estrogen environment in combination with an AI,
rather than separately sequentially after the withdrawal
of the AI because that withdrawal would restore postmenopausal
estrogen levels; and Brodie et al. (Clin Cancer Res
(2005): Recent
Advances and Future Directions in Endocrine Manipulation
of Breast Cancer: Therapeutic Observations in MCF-7
Aromatase Xenografts) found in a preclinical
model that an AI + Fulvestrant (Faslodex) gives remarkable
suppression, with destruction and disappearance of the
estrogen receptor, and highly impressive responses (treatment
with the combination of letrozole plus fulvestrant was
able to maintain tumor growth inhibition by 45% over
29 weeks of treatment). This is cross-confirmed by the
recently reported animal study of Jelovac et al., SABCS
(2004): (Additive
antitumor effect of aromatase inhibitor letrozole and
antiestrogen fulvestrant in a postmenopausal breast
cancer model, and Cancer Res (2005): Additive
Antitumor Effect of Aromatase Inhibitor Letrozole and
Antiestrogen Fulvestrant in a Postmenopausal Breast
Cancer Model) who found that the combination
of letrozole plus fulvestrant was more effective than
either endocrine agent alone in suppressing tumor growth,
and sequential therapies with a higher dose of letrozole
(100g/day) or tamoxifen failed to yield better outcome
than the dual endocrine therapy deployed from the beginning;
showing decisively that dual endocrine letrozole + fulvestrant
therapy has additive effects in suppressing tumor growth,
resulting in tumor regression maintained over 29 weeks
of treatment.
And the cell study of Pietras et al. (ASCO (2006): Improved
antitumor therapy by dual targeting of estrogen and
growth factor receptor signaling in human breast cancer
cells) explored an endocrine + biological therapy
approach using the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Omnitarg),
finding that pertuzumab promoted the antitumor efficacy
of the fulvestrant, suggesting that dual disruption
of ER and HER signaling may be a new way to optimize
endocrine therapy and overcome antiestrogen resistance.
- Fulvestrant Field Notes:
What the Experts Say
In addition, Dr. William Gradishar in a recent interview
cites indirect data suggesting that the sequence of
a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (anastrozole (Arimidex)
and letrozole (Femara)) to fulvestrant may benefit 25%
to 30% percent of patients (Patterns of Care in Medical
Oncology (2005): Endocrine
Therapy for Metastatic Disease). And Dr. Gabriel
N Hortobagyi in the same interview notes that not only
is fulvestrant is financially favorable over and equi-efficacious
with aromatase inhibitors, but also that trials of fulvestrant
underestimate the efficacy of this agent, given that
the dosing schedule used was probably too low (as witness
that by the time steady state was reached, many patients
were off study); he states his own clinical practice
of administering loading doses of 500 mg of fulvestrant
followed by 500 mg two weeks later and then 250 mg monthly,
and believes that given such more optimal dosing, fulvestrant
is likely to be superior to aromatase inhibitors.
Dr. Adam M Brufsky (same interview, above) cites his
own clinical practice of using fulvestrant not only
as third-line, but also use it first line treatment
particularly in women who cant afford an aromatase
inhibitor. And Dr. Gerson Locker noted that although
studies have shown no significant difference between
anastrozole and fulvestrant, differences occur in subset
analyses: (1) the duration of response seemed to be
longer in patients who responded to fulvestrant, and
(2) patients who had visceral disease seemed to respond
better than those who did not, concluding that the takeaway
message is that fulvestrant and AIs are equally efficacious,
but there may be subsets of patients in whom use of
fulvestrant might be preferable, particularly those
for whom compliance may be an issue or those with visceral
disease, and that third-line aromatase inhibitors are
efficacious after fulvestrant and vice versa so that
switching is flexible.
Dr. Stephen E Jones (same interview, above) observes
that evidence exists that a proportion of women have
a longer response to fulvestrant than to anastrozole
when given right after tamoxifen. His own clinical practice
prefers fulvestrant to an aromatase inhibitor after
tamoxifen because approximately 20 percent of patients
have long responses with it in this setting. Dr Jones
adds an intriguing observation, namely that we are just
beginning to see patients who have been treated with
two or three years of adjuvant anastrozole and then
relapsed, and there are multiple options including fulvestrant,
exemestane and even tamoxifen (if the patient is tamoxifen-naive),
still a useful drug in this context.
And in another interview (Breast Cancer Update (2005):
Clinical experience with fulvestrant), Dr.
Charles L Vogel noted that fulvestrant is a very good
drug with minimal toxicity, and not much buttock pain
even with a five-cc injection, and with less degree
of joint discomfort that seen with the aromatase inhibitors,
so that it is certainly a viable alternative to aromatase
inhibitors in patients who have disease progression
on tamoxifen. The pain of the intramuscular site injection
can be effectively mitigates either by Emla Cream (lidocaine
2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%) by patch applied one-hour
before injection, or somewhat more effectively, by vapocoolant
(Fluori-Methane) which unlike Emla Cream is immediate
in onset of action and relatively inexpensive (Mawhorter
et al., J Travel Med (2004): Topical
vapocoolant quickly and effectively reduces vaccine-associated
pain: results of a randomized, single-blinded, placebo-controlled
study).
[added]
Dual Endocrine (Concurrent AI + Fulvestrant)
In discussing the case of a patient who relapsed while
receiving adjuvant anastrozole, John Robertson at the
University of Nottingham proposed: "Another
option would be to continue the anastrozole and start
fulvestrant. The basis for that is preclinical data
that were published in The Journal of Biological Chemistry
by DR Martin (Martin 2003). If you grow cells in estrogen-deprived
media, they become more sensitive to low levels of estrogen.
People assume that perhaps, in patients whove
been treated with an aromatase inhibitor over a long
period of time, this is what happens. Its one
of the potential mechanisms of resistance to aromatase
inhibitors. If you take cells that have been estrogen
deprived for a long time and administer increasing doses
of fulvestrant, then you can inhibit cell growth. The
hypothesis is that when you have relapse on an aromatase
inhibitor and the tumor becomes sensitive to these very
low levels of estradiol, if you simply use fulvestrant
and stop the aromatase inhibitor, then you increase
estradiol again, which might compete with fulvestrant.
Therefore, perhaps it may be better to keep the estradiol
level low and bring in fulvestrant" (Breast
Cancer Update (2006): V. 5, Issue 6: Conversations
with Oncology Investigators - Bridging the Gap between
Research and Patient Care). The foundational
preclinical research was done by Lesley-Ann Martin at
Royal Marsden Hospital and her coresearchers (Martin
et al., J Biol Chem (2003): Enhanced
Estrogen Receptor (ER) , ERBB2, and MAPK Signal Transduction
Pathways Operate during the Adaptation of MCF-7 Cells
to Long Term Estrogen Deprivation) who found
that fulvestrant (aka, ICI 182780) might be more effective
in the treatment of breast cancers that acquire resistance
to estrogen deprivation rather than in de novo hormone
responsive disease, given the super-sensitivity of tumor
cells to the effects of estrogen during long term estrogen
deprivation (LTED), requiring ER for both proliferation
and ER-directed transcription. The strategy of adding
fulvestrant to existing aromatase inhibitor therapy
- was also espoused by Ian Smith of Royal Marsden Hospital
when queried on the optimal sequencing of endocrine
(hormonal) agents: "I would be inclined to
use fulvestrant with estrogen deprivation. In other
words, I would continue an aromatase inhibitor because
I cant see any reason why it would be worse than
fulvestrant alone" (Breast Cancer Update
(2006): V. 5, Issue 6: Conversations
with Oncology Investigators - Bridging the Gap between
Research and Patient Care).
Note that these field experiences not only argue for
superior efficacy of dual endocrine therapy per se,
but also motivate such therapy by virtue of addressing
the potentially clinically adverse upswing in estrogen
levels following discontinuation of the estrogen deprivation
induced by an aromatase inhibitor (AI), given that tumor
cells grown in such estrogen deprived environments are
highly sensitized to even very low levels of estrogen
and so may compromise subsequent fulvestrant monotherapy
unless the aromatase inhibitory activity is continued
concurrently with fulvestrant to manage the induced
increased estradiol levels (see also the supporting
research of the SAKK trial (Perey et al., Ann Oncol
(2006): Clinical
benefit of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with
advanced breast cancer and primary or acquired resistance
to aromatase inhibitors: final results of phase II Swiss
Group for Clinical Cancer Research Trial (SAKK 21/00)).
This viewpoint is also that of the Fox Chase team of
Eric Ariazi and colleagues in their evaluation of antihormonal
resistance using endocrine-resistant xenografts in mice,
noting that fulvestrant plus estradiol in Phase II antihormone-resistant
tumors reversed the estradiol-induced inhibition and
instead resulted in growth stimulation, a scenario that
arises clinically in the context fulvestrant deployment
after the termination of aromatase inhibitor therapy
(Ariazi et al., J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol (2006): Emerging
principles for the development of resistance to antihormonal
therapy: Implications for the clinical utility of fulvestrant).
Fulvestrant: Breast Cancer Watch
Summary
- A selective estrogen receptor downregulator (SERD)
- A pure antiestrogen (no agonist activity on
endometrium, lipids, bone)
- Monthly intramuscular injection
- At least as effective as tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors
- Active in tamoxifen-resistant patients
- High tolerability, minimal toxicity
- Lower incidence of joint/bone disorders
- Time from onset of response to disease progression
significantly greater than anastrozole
- Non-statistically significant but trend / umerical
increase in overall survival over anastrozole
- Possibly longer duration of response than AIs
- Patients with visceral disease are more fulvestrant-responsive
- No androgenic side-effects (viralization, weight gain,
alopecia, hypertrichosis, hoarseness) unlike steroidal
AI exemestane (Aromasin)
- Switchable from, or to, tamoxifen and AIs
- More affordable than AIs
Breast Cancer Watch
notes in agreement with other investigators,
that on these findings, fulvestrant is unjustifiably underutilized.
|