Megestrol acetate and aminoglutethimide/hydrocortisone in sequence or in combination as second-line endocrine therapy of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group phase III trial.

University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, USA.
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 17.88). 08/1997; 15(7):2494-501.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A phase III randomized trial was performed to determine whether combination hormonal therapy with aminoglutethimide (AG) and hydrocortisone (HC) plus megestrol acetate (MA) improved response rates, response duration, or increased survival over the sequential use of each hormone in women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had maintained stable disease for at least 6 months or responded to tamoxifen.
Two hundred eighty-eight postmenopausal women with progressive estrogen receptor-positive MBC were randomly selected to receive MA 40 mg four times daily (arm I), AG 250 mg four times daily with HC 40 mg daily in divided doses (arm II), versus the combination of MA plus AG given at the same dosages (arm III). Patients on arms I and II who progressed after an adequate trial were crossed over to the other treatment arm.
Two hundred thirty-five eligible patients were evaluated for response, time to treatment failure, and survival. Response was only reported for patients with measurable disease and was not statistically different among the three arms. There were two partial responses (PRs) on MA (6%), four complete responses (CRs) and six PRs on AG (24%), and eight PRs and three CRs on MA plus AG (23%) in 32, 42, and 48 measurable patients, respectively. Median times to treatment failure were also similar at 5, 4, and 7 months. Survival was also not statistically different among the three arms at 26, 27, and 26 months for arms I, II, and III, respectively. Toxicity was greater in the two AG arms with respect to fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and rash.
With the exception of toxicity, there is no response, time to treatment failure, or survival benefit for any one group when comparing MA, AG, or the combination at their stated doses in women with estrogen receptor-positive MBC who had previously responded to or stabilized with tamoxifen.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aminoglutethimide and testololactone may be considered the first generation aromatase inhibitors for the endocrine treatment of breast carcinoma. Initially, both of these agents were designed and used clinically based on different concepts of their mechanisms of action. Only later were they both demonstrated to inhibit aromatase. Curiously, testololactone was earlier and more widely used than aminoglutethimide in treating advanced breast carcinoma. The discovery of the peripheral aromatase inhibition as the proper mechanism of action was delayed for both the agents but was relatively more timely for aminoglutethimide. Paradoxically, the clinical use of testololactone has become already obsolete since its true mechanism of action was discovered. Aminoglutethimide is still the most widely used aromatase inhibitor in treating advanced breast carcinoma. Due to the initial misinterpretation of its mechanism of action, aminoglutethimide was used for a long time at a relative high daily dose, always combined with hydrocortisone. Subsequent phase II and then randomized phase III studies demonstrated an equivalent efficacy using half (500 mg) of the previous conventional daily dose (1000 mg), with hydrocortisone. Very recently, a randomized clinical trial demonstrated that administering this lower dose without hydrocortisone did not significantly decrease the clinical efficacy. By decreasing the dose of aminoglutethimide, the incidence of side effects has been reduced. So, the last paradoxical aspect of the aminoglutethimide story is that this agent seemed initially very toxic but finally, with the new schedules, shows a very low toxicity profile, especially after the first few weeks of treatment.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 02/1994; 30(1):57-80. DOI:10.1007/BF00682741 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In order to evaluate the efficacy of two different sequences of second and third line hormonotherapy in advanced post-menopausal breast cancer, 257 women aged 36-91 years (mean age: 63.6 years) who had become resistant to tamoxifen (TAM), entered into a multicenter randomized trial comparing two different regimens: 1) Aminoglutethimide (Ag) 500 mg/day with hydrocortisone supplementation from 30 to 60 mg/day; and 2) oral medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 500 mg twice a day. 250 patients were evaluated following second line hormone therapy and, after cross-over, 128 following third line hormonotherapy. No significant difference was observed, during either second or third line therapies, for toxicity, survival, or response rate; however, in both second and third line therapies the median time to progression was significantly longer with Ag therapy.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 02/1992; 24(2):139-45. DOI:10.1007/BF01961246 · 4.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole inhibits estrogen synthesis. Fulvestrant binds and accelerates degradation of estrogen receptors. We hypothesized that these two agents in combination might be more effective than anastrozole alone in patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer. Postmenopausal women with previously untreated metastatic disease were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either 1 mg of anastrozole orally every day (group 1), with crossover to fulvestrant alone strongly encouraged if the disease progressed, or anastrozole and fulvestrant in combination (group 2). Patients were stratified according to prior or no prior receipt of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Fulvestrant was administered intramuscularly at a dose of 500 mg on day 1 and 250 mg on days 14 and 28 and monthly thereafter. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with overall survival designated as a prespecified secondary outcome. The median progression-free survival was 13.5 months in group 1 and 15.0 months in group 2 (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 0.94; P=0.007 by the log-rank test). The combination therapy was generally more effective than anastrozole alone in all subgroups, with no significant interactions. Overall survival was also longer with combination therapy (median, 41.3 months in group 1 and 47.7 months in group 2; hazard ratio for death, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00; P=0.05 by the log-rank test), despite the fact that 41% of the patients in group 1 crossed over to fulvestrant after progression. Three deaths that were possibly associated with treatment occurred in group 2. The rates of grade 3 to 5 toxic effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. The combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant was superior to anastrozole alone or sequential anastrozole and fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive metastatic breast cancer, despite the use of a dose of fulvestrant that was below the current standard. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca; SWOG number, NCT00075764.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 08/2012; 367(5):435-44. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1201622 · 54.42 Impact Factor