2006•Current Medical Research and OpinionRequires access

Initial versus sequential adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: a review of the current data

Matthew J. Ellis, Caron E. Rigden

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: One of the principle unresolved questions in adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer is whether it is more beneficial for women to receive aromatase inhibitor (AI) monotherapy or start with tamoxifen and then switch to AI therapy. This review will compare the current available efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness data for AIs in the initial adjuvant and switch adjuvant settings. METHODS: A search of the Medline database from 1976 through 2006 was performed for the following terms: breast cancer, adjuvant, aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, tamoxifen, sequential, switching. A search for relevant abstracts from the EBCC, ECCO, ASCO, and SABCS conferences was also performed. RESULTS: In the upfront adjuvant setting, anastrozole and letrozole have both demonstrated a significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit over tamoxifen. Upfront therapy with a nonsteroidal AI appears to be most critical for patients at risk of an early relapse, illustrated by the finding that upfront letrozole provided a significant early DFS advantage over tamoxifen only in patients with node-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.71, p < 0.001). With respect to safety, both strategies have similar adverse event profiles. From an economic perspective, AIs, whether used upfront or sequentially, are considered cost-effective compared with tamoxifen due to the cost savings associated with a reduction in the breast cancer event rate. From the efficacy standpoint, modeling studies have produced inconsistent results and do not produce definitive data. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in patient populations, definitions of end points, and prior tamoxifen usage between the trials discussed necessitates a careful interpretation but may provide insights in the treatment decision-making process. The BIG 1-98 trial was designed to compare letrozole monotherapy versus a letrozole-to-tamoxifen or reverse-sequence approach and should provide insights to the question of optimal therapy. Until results are available, for higher-risk patients (i.e., those with positive lymph nodes), initiation of treatment with a non-steroidal AI may be beneficial to avoid tamoxifen-associated early relapses that occur in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVE: One of the principle unresolved questions in adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer is whether it is more beneficial for women to receive aromatase inhibitor (AI) monotherapy or start with tamoxifen and then switch to AI therapy. This review will compare the current available efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness data for AIs in the initial adjuvant and switch adjuvant settings. METHODS: A search of the Medline database from 1976 through 2006 was performed for the following terms: breast cancer, adjuvant, aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, tamoxifen, sequential, switching. A search for relevant abstracts from the EBCC, ECCO, ASCO, and SABCS conferences was also performed. RESULTS: In the upfront adjuvant setting, anastrozole and letrozole have both demonstrated a significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit over tamoxifen. Upfront therapy with a nonsteroidal AI appears to be most critical for patients at risk of an early relapse, illustrated by the finding that upfront letrozole provided a significant early DFS advantage over tamoxifen only in patients with node-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.71, p < 0.001). With respect to safety, both strategies have similar adverse event profiles. From an economic perspective, AIs, whether used upfront or sequentially, are considered cost-effective compared with tamoxifen due to the cost savings associated with a reduction in the breast cancer event rate. From the efficacy standpoint, modeling studies have produced inconsistent results and do not produce definitive data. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in patient populations, definitions of end points, and prior tamoxifen usage between the trials discussed necessitates a careful interpretation but may provide insights in the treatment decision-making process. The BIG 1-98 trial was designed to compare letrozole monotherapy versus a letrozole-to-tamoxifen or reverse-sequence approach and should provide insights to the question of optimal therapy. Until results are available, for higher-risk patients (i.e., those with positive lymph nodes), initiation of treatment with a non-steroidal AI may be beneficial to avoid tamoxifen-associated early relapses that occur in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVE: One of the principle unresolved questions in adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer is whether it is more beneficial for women to receive aromatase inhibitor (AI) monotherapy or start with tamoxifen and then switch to AI therapy. This review will compare the current available efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness data for AIs in the initial adjuvant and switch adjuvant settings. METHODS: A search of the Medline database from 1976 through 2006 was performed for the following terms: breast cancer, adjuvant, aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, tamoxifen, sequential, switching. A search for relevant abstracts from the EBCC, ECCO, ASCO, and SABCS conferences was also performed. RESULTS: In the upfront adjuvant setting, anastrozole and letrozole have both demonstrated a significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit over tamoxifen. Upfront therapy with a nonsteroidal AI appears to be most critical for patients at risk of an early relapse, illustrated by the finding that upfront letrozole provided a significant early DFS advantage over tamoxifen only in patients with node-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.71, p < 0.001). With respect to safety, both strategies have similar adverse event profiles. From an economic perspective, AIs, whether used upfront or sequentially, are considered cost-effective compared with tamoxifen due to the cost savings associated with a reduction in the breast cancer event rate. From the efficacy standpoint, modeling studies have produced inconsistent results and do not produce definitive data. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in patient populations, definitions of end points, and prior tamoxifen usage between the trials discussed necessitates a careful interpretation but may provide insights in the treatment decision-making process. The BIG 1-98 trial was designed to compare letrozole monotherapy versus a letrozole-to-tamoxifen or reverse-sequence approach and should provide insights to the question of optimal therapy. Until results are available, for higher-risk patients (i.e., those with positive lymph nodes), initiation of treatment with a non-steroidal AI may be beneficial to avoid tamoxifen-associated early relapses that occur in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

Key concepts: Medicine, Letrozole, Exemestane, Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, Oncology, Breast cancer, Aromatase inhibitor

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Initial versus sequential adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: a review of the current data — Research Paper | ScholarLens