PURPOSE:Preoperative aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment promotes breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. To study this treatment option, responses to three AIs were compared in a randomized phase II neoadjuvant trial designed to select agents for phase III investigations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-seven postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III ER-positive (Allred score 6-8) breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included BCS, Ki67 proliferation marker changes, the Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI), and PAM50-based intrinsic subtype analysis. RESULTS: On the basis of clinical response rates, letrozole and anastrozole were selected for further investigation; however, no other differences in surgical outcome, PEPI score, or Ki67 suppression were detected. The BCS rate for mastectomy-only patients at presentation was 51%. PAM50 analysis identified AI-unresponsive nonluminal subtypes (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 enriched or basal-like) in 3.3% of patients. Clinical response and surgical outcomes were similar in luminal A (LumA) versus luminal B tumors; however, a PEPI of 0 (best prognostic group) was highest in the LumA subset (27.1% v 10.7%; P = .004). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant AI treatment markedly improved surgical outcomes. Ki67 and PEPI data demonstrated that the three agents tested are biologically equivalent and therefore likely to have similar adjuvant activities. LumA tumors were more likely to have favorable biomarker characteristics after treatment; however, occasional paradoxical increases in Ki67 (12% of tumors with > 5% increase after therapy) suggest treatment-resistant cells, present in some LumA tumors, can be detected by post-treatment profiling.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Preoperative aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment promotes breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. To study this treatment option, responses to three AIs were compared in a randomized phase II neoadjuvant trial designed to select agents for phase III investigations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-seven postmenopausal women with clinical stage II to III ER-positive (Allred score 6-8) breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant exemestane, letrozole, or anastrozole. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included BCS, Ki67 proliferation marker changes, the Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI), and PAM50-based intrinsic subtype analysis. RESULTS: On the basis of clinical response rates, letrozole and anastrozole were selected for further investigation; however, no other differences in surgical outcome, PEPI score, or Ki67 suppression were detected. The BCS rate for mastectomy-only patients at presentation was 51%. PAM50 analysis identified AI-unresponsive nonluminal subtypes (humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 enriched or basal-like) in 3.3% of patients. Clinical response and surgical outcomes were similar in luminal A (LumA) versus luminal B tumors; however, a PEPI of 0 (best prognostic group) was highest in the LumA subset (27.1% v 10.7%; P = .004). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant AI treatment markedly improved surgical outcomes. Ki67 and PEPI data demonstrated that the three agents tested are biologically equivalent and therefore likely to have similar adjuvant activities. LumAtumors were more likely to have favorable biomarker characteristics after treatment; however, occasional paradoxical increases in Ki67 (12% of tumors with > 5% increase after therapy) suggest treatment-resistant cells, present in some LumAtumors, can be detected by post-treatment profiling.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Joel S Parker; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Mark Ebbert; Tammi Vickery; Sherri R Davies; Jacqueline Snider; Inge J Stijleman; Jerry Reed; Maggie C U Cheang; Elaine R Mardis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard; Matthew J Ellis Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Robert B Livingston; I-Tien Yeh; Peter Ravdin; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Kathleen I Pritchard; Lois Shepherd; Julie R Gralow; Carl Yoshizawa; D Craig Allred; C Kent Osborne; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: John A Olson; G Thomas Budd; Lisa A Carey; Lyndsay A Harris; Laura J Esserman; Gini F Fleming; Paul K Marcom; George S Leight; Therese Giuntoli; Paul Commean; Kyongtae Bae; Jingqin Luo; Matthew J Ellis Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Marcus C Tan; Fatema Al Mushawah; Feng Gao; Rebecca L Aft; William E Gillanders; Timothy J Eberlein; Julie A Margenthaler Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Britta Weigelt; Alan Mackay; Roger A'hern; Rachael Natrajan; David S P Tan; Mitch Dowsett; Alan Ashworth; Jorge S Reis-Filho Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Matthew J Ellis; Yu Tao; Jingqin Luo; Roger A'Hern; Dean B Evans; Ajay S Bhatnagar; Hilary A Chaudri Ross; Alexander von Kameke; William R Miller; Ian Smith; Wolfgang Eiermann; Mitch Dowsett Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lale Kostakoglu; Fenghai Duan; Michael O Idowu; Paul R Jolles; Harry D Bear; Mark Muzi; Jean Cormack; John P Muzi; Daniel A Pryma; Jennifer M Specht; Linda Hovanessian-Larsen; John Miliziano; Sharon Mallett; Anthony F Shields; David A Mankoff Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Harry D Bear; Wen Wan; André Robidoux; Peter Rubin; Steven Limentani; Richard L White; James Granfortuna; Judith O Hopkins; Dwight Oldham; Angel Rodriguez; Amy P Sing Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Akiko Chiba; Tanya L Hoskin; Courtney N Heins; Kelly K Hunt; Elizabeth B Habermann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 5.344