Faculty Opinions recommendation of Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant (Faslodex; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE), a new estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that downregulates ER and has no agonist effects, versus tamoxifen, an antiestrogen with agonist and antagonist effects, for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, patients with metastatic/locally advanced breast cancer previously untreated for advanced disease were randomly assigned to receive either fulvestrant (250 mg, via intramuscular injection, once monthly; n = 313) or tamoxifen (20 mg, orally, once daily; n = 274). Patients' tumors were positive for ER (ER+) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR+), or had an unknown receptor status. Results At a median follow-up of 14.5 months, there was no significant difference between fulvestrant and tamoxifen for the primary end point of time to progression (TTP; median TTP, 6.8 months and 8.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.44; P = .088). In a prospectively planned subset analysis of patients with known ER+ and/or PgR+ tumors (∼78%), median TTP was 8.2 months for fulvestrant and 8.3 months for tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.36; P = .39). The objective response rate for the overall population was 31.6% with fulvestrant and 33.9% with tamoxifen, and 33.2% and 31.1%, respectively, in the known hormone receptor–positive subgroup. Both treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion In the overall population, between-group differences in efficacy end points favored tamoxifen, and statistical noninferiority of fulvestrant could not be demonstrated. However, in patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors, fulvestrant had similar efficacy to tamoxifen and was well tolerated.

Download Full-text

Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2007.13.5822 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 26 (10) ◽

pp. 1664-1670 ◽

Cited By ~ 350

Author(s):

Stephen Chia ◽

William Gradishar ◽

Louis Mauriac ◽

Jose Bines ◽

Frederic Amant ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Advanced Breast Cancer ◽

Postmenopausal Women ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Hormone Receptor ◽

Advanced Breast ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Pharmacokinetic Data ◽

Double Blind ◽

Hormone Receptor Positive

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.

Download Full-text