R.W. Blamey

PURPOSE: The logic behind the application of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists in combination with tamoxifen in premenopausal women is that LHRH agonists on the one hand suppress the tamoxifen-induced stimulation of the pituitary-ovarian function and, on the other hand, seem as effective as surgical castration. This meta-analysis combines all randomized evidence to compare the combined treatment with LHRH agonist alone with respect to overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four clinical trials randomizing a total of 506 premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer to LHRH agonist alone or to the combined treatment of LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen were identified. Meta-analytic techniques were used to analyze individual patient data from these trials. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 6.8 years, there was a significant survival benefit (stratified log-rank test, P = .02; hazards ratio [HR] = 0.78) and progression-free survival benefit (stratified log-rank test, P = .0003; HR = 0.70) in favor of the combined treatment. The overall response rate was significantly higher on combined endocrine treatment (stratified Mantel Haenszel test, P = .03; odds ratio = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The combination of LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen is superior to LHRH agonist alone in premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Therefore, if a premenopausal woman with advanced breast cancer is thought to be suitable for endocrine treatment, it is proposed that the combination of a LHRH agonist plus tamoxifen be considered as the new standard treatment.

We have conducted a clinical trial of a novel pure antiestrogen, 7 alpha-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)nonyl]estra-1,3,5,(1 0)-triene-3,17 beta-diol (ICI 182780), to assess its tolerance, pharmacokinetics, and short term biological effects in women with primary breast cancer. Fifty-six patients were randomized to either a control group (n = 19), in which they received no preoperative treatment, or a treatment group (n = 37), in which they received daily i.m. injections of ICI 182780 at doses of 6 mg (n = 21) or 18 mg (n = 16) for 7 days prior to primary breast surgery. Serum drug concentrations, gonadotropin levels, and sex hormone-binding globulin levels were measured during the study period by radioimmunoassay. Expression of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors, the estrogen-induced protein pS2, and the cell proliferation-related antigen Ki67 was determined immunocytochemically in pre- and poststudy tumor samples. Treatment with ICI 182780 caused no serious drug-related adverse events and had no effect on serum gonadotropin or sex hormone-binding globulin levels. Minor adverse events occurred in 5 patients receiving the 6-mg dose and 3 patients receiving the 18-mg dose. The serum concentration of ICI 182780 was dose dependent but showed variation between individuals. There was evidence of an approximately 3-fold drug accumulation over the short treatment period but steady state levels were not reached by the end of the 7 days. In patients with ER-positive tumors, treatment with ICI 182780 was associated with significant reductions in the tumor expression of ER (median ER index, 0.72 before versus 0.02 after treatment; P < 0.001), progesterone receptor (median progesterone receptor index, 0.50 before versus 0.01 after treatment; P < 0.05), and Ki67 (median Ki67 labeling index, 3.2 before versus 1.1 after treatment; P < 0.05). Treatment with ICI 182780 also resulted in a significant reduction in pS2 expression (P < 0.05) but this appeared unrelated to tumor ER status. In conclusion, ICI 182780 was well tolerated after short term administration and produced demonstrable antiestrogenic effects in human breast tumors in vivo, without showing evidence of agonist activity. These properties identify ICI 182780 as a candidate agent with which to evaluate whether a pure estrogen antagonist offers any additional benefit in the treatment of human breast cancer over conventional nonsteroidal antiestrogens, typified by tamoxifen, which exhibit variable degrees of agonist activity.

PURPOSE: To review the mammographic features of screening interval breast cancers and to compare the tumor size, histologic grade, and lymph node involvement with those in screening-detected and unscreened symptomatic cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screening mammography was performed in 72,773 women aged 50-64 years. Ninety interval cancers were identified in 89 women. The mammographic and histopathologic features of these cancers were analyzed. RESULTS: At review of the screening mammograms, interval cancers were classified into four groups: 51 true-positive, 20 false-negative, seven mammographically occult, and 12 unclassified. The most common missed abnormality in the false-negative cases was architectural distortion. Interval cancers were larger, of higher grade, and more likely to have lymph node involvement than screening-detected tumors and were of similar size, histologic grade, and stage of lymph node involvement as symptomatic tumors. CONCLUSION: Prognosis in interval cancers is similar to that in symptomatic, unscreened tumors and statistically significantly worse than that in screening-detected cancers.