BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators have been extensively tested in patients with advanced breast cancer, but it is unclear whether they offer any survival benefits compared with standard hormonal treatment with tamoxifen or progestagens. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared several generations of aromatase inhibitors and inactivators with standard hormonal treatment in patients with advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The endpoint that we assessed was survival. Trials were located through searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library (last update March 2006). Relative hazards (RHs) were summarized across trials through fixed- and random-effects analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed with the Q and I2 statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Twenty-five different comparisons, with a total of 8504 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. We found statistically significant survival benefits with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators (vorozole, letrozole, examestane, and anastrazole) (RH = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.93; P<.001) but not with first-generation (aminoglutethimide) or second-generation (formestane and fadrozole) agents. The difference in the summary effects between these two groups of trials was statistically significant (P = .04). The survival benefit with third-generation agents in first-line trials, in which these agents were compared with tamoxifen (11% RH reduction, 95% CI = 1% to 19%; P = .03), was identical to their benefit in second- and subsequent-line trials in which these agents were compared with other treatments (14% RH reduction, 95% CI = 6% to 21%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of the aromatase system, in particular with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators, appears to be associated with statistically significant improved survival of patients with advanced breast cancer compared with standard hormonal treatments.
BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators have been extensively tested in patients with advanced breast cancer, but it is unclear whether they offer any survival benefits compared with standard hormonal treatment with tamoxifen or progestagens. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared several generations of aromatase inhibitors and inactivators with standard hormonal treatment in patients with advanced breast cancer. METHODS: The endpoint that we assessed was survival. Trials were located through searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library (last update March 2006). Relative hazards (RHs) were summarized across trials through fixed- and random-effects analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed with the Q and I2 statistics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Twenty-five different comparisons, with a total of 8504 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. We found statistically significant survival benefits with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators (vorozole, letrozole, examestane, and anastrazole) (RH = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 0.93; P<.001) but not with first-generation (aminoglutethimide) or second-generation (formestane and fadrozole) agents. The difference in the summary effects between these two groups of trials was statistically significant (P = .04). The survival benefit with third-generation agents in first-line trials, in which these agents were compared with tamoxifen (11% RH reduction, 95% CI = 1% to 19%; P = .03), was identical to their benefit in second- and subsequent-line trials in which these agents were compared with other treatments (14% RH reduction, 95% CI = 6% to 21%; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of the aromatase system, in particular with third-generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators, appears to be associated with statistically significant improved survival of patients with advanced breast cancer compared with standard hormonal treatments.
Authors: José Baselga; Mario Campone; Martine Piccart; Howard A Burris; Hope S Rugo; Tarek Sahmoud; Shinzaburo Noguchi; Michael Gnant; Kathleen I Pritchard; Fabienne Lebrun; J Thaddeus Beck; Yoshinori Ito; Denise Yardley; Ines Deleu; Alejandra Perez; Thomas Bachelot; Luc Vittori; Zhiying Xu; Pabak Mukhopadhyay; David Lebwohl; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Rizzoli; J J Body; A DeCensi; A De Censi; J Y Reginster; P Piscitelli; M L Brandi Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Neil E Bhola; Valerie M Jansen; Sangeeta Bafna; Jennifer M Giltnane; Justin M Balko; Mónica V Estrada; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid Mayer; Vandana Abramson; Fei Ye; Melinda Sanders; Teresa C Dugger; Eliezer V Allen; Carlos L Arteaga Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 12.701