Tamoxifen: the drug that came in from the cold

Despite the perception of many oncologists that tamoxifen is an inferior drug, and should be substituted by an aromatase inhibitor in post-menopausal women, the current evidence strongly supports the view that AIs should be used 2–3 years after tamoxifen to achieve the maximal overall survival (OS) advantage

Aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women: a therapeutic advance but many unresolved questions

Adjuvant hormonal therapy for postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer has become far more complex over the past several years. This commentary reviews the current status of the five major trials evaluating the use of the aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting. The data currently available suggest that the aromatase inhibitors are efficacious either as upfront therapy or after a course of tamoxifen. Ongoing trials will compare these approaches and guide the use of these agents in the years to come

Role of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer

Primarily, the role of the aromatase inhibitors has been investigated in postmenopausal women with breast cancer, although it is also now being assessed in premenopausal patients following ovarian ablation/suppression. Aromatase inhibitors markedly suppress endogenous oestrogens without directly interacting with oestrogen receptors, and thus have a different mechanism of action to the antioestrogen, tamoxifen. The inhibitors may be divided into subgroups according to their structure (steroidal and nonsteroidal), and there appears to be a lack of cross-resistance between the classes of aromatase inhibitors enabling them to be used sequentially and potentially to prolong endocrine hormone therapy. In addition, with increased efficacy and favourable safety and tolerability profiles, the aromatase inhibitors are starting to challenge tamoxifen as first choice endocrine treatment in a number of settings. Potential differences in side-effect profiles may appear between the steroidal and nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors when used in long-term settings. Thus, it has been suggested that the steroidal agents have favourable end organ effects; for example, the steroidal inhibitor, exemestane, has minimal negative effects on bone and lipid metabolism in animal and clinical studies. This paper provides an overview of the current and future roles of aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer treatment

A decade of letrozole: FACE

Third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs), letrozole and anastrozole, are superior to tamoxifen as initial therapy for early breast cancer but have not been directly compared in a head-to-head adjuvant trial. Cumulative evidence suggests that AIs are not equivalent in terms of potency of estrogen suppression and that there may be differences in clinical efficacy. Thus, with no data from head-to-head comparisons of the AIs as adjuvant therapy yet available, the question of whether there are efficacy differences between the AIs remains. To help answer this question, the Femara versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) is a phase IIIb open-label, randomized, multicenter trial designed to test whether letrozole or anastrozole has superior efficacy as adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)- and lymph node-positive breast cancer. Eligible patients (target accrual, N = 4,000) are randomized to receive either letrozole 2.5 mg or anastrozole 1 mg daily for up to 5 years. The primary objective is to compare disease-free survival at 5 years. Secondary end points include safety, overall survival, time to distant metastases, and time to contralateral breast cancer. The FACE trial will determine whether or not letrozole offers a greater clinical benefit to postmenopausal women with HR+ early breast cancer at increased risk of early recurrence compared with anastrozole

Current management of treatment-induced bone loss in women with breast cancer treated in the United Kingdom

New therapeutic options in breast cancer have improved survival but consequently increase the relevance of late complications. Ovarian suppression/ablation and aromatase inhibitors (AI) in the adjuvant setting have improved outcome, but have clinically important adverse effects on bone health. However, investigation and management of cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) is poorly defined with no national guidance. In 2004, a questionnaire was sent to over 500 breast surgeons and oncologists who treat breast cancer within the United Kingdom. The questionnaire evaluated access to bone densitometry and specialist expertise as well as attitudes to investigation of CTIBL and anticipated changes in the use of AI for postmenopausal early breast cancer. A total of 354 completed questionnaires were received, 47 from clinicians not currently treating breast cancer. Of the 307 evaluable questionnaires, 164 (53%) were from breast surgeons, 112 (36%) from clinical oncologists and 31 (10%) from medical oncologists. Although most respondents recognised that CTIBL was the responsibility of the treating breast team, investigations for CTIBL are limited even though most had adequate access to bone densitometry; 98 (32%) had not requested a DXA scan in the last 6 months and 224 (73%) had requested fewer than five scans. In all, 235 (76%) were not routinely investigating patients on AI for bone loss. A total of 277 (90%) felt that their practice would benefit from national guidelines to manage these patients, and the majority (59%) had little or no confidence in interpreting DXA results and advising on treatment. This questionnaire has highlighted clear deficiencies in management of CTIBL in early breast cancer. The development of national guidelines for the management of these patients and educational initiatives for breast teams are urgently required

Minimizing early relapse and maximizing treatment outcomes in hormone-sensitive postmenopausal breast cancer: efficacy review of AI trials

Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in women. Regardless of prognosis, all women with breast cancer are at risk for early recurrence. Nearly 50% of early recurrences occur within 5 years of surgery, and they peak at 2 years after surgery in women treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Most early recurrences are distant metastases, which strongly correlate with increased mortality. Treatments that mitigate the risk of early distant metastases (DM) are, therefore, likely to improve overall survival in women with early breast cancer (EBC). Aromatase inhibitors (AIs)—anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane—have been investigated as alternatives to tamoxifen for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) EBC in postmenopausal women (PMW). AIs are better at minimizing risk of early relapse compared with tamoxifen. However, it is not clear if preferential use of AIs over tamoxifen will benefit all PMW with HR+ EBC. The ability to subtype HR+ breast cancer on the basis of biomarkers predictive of response to AIs and tamoxifen would likely be key to determining the most beneficial hormonal treatment within patient subpopulations, but this process requires thorough investigation. Until then, adjuvant therapies that provide the greatest reduction in risk of DM should be considered for all PMW with HR+ EBC. This article reviews the clinical trials of AI adjuvant therapies for hormone-sensitive breast cancer, particularly in the context of how they compare with tamoxifen in minimizing the risk of relapse, occurrence of DM, and breast cancer-related deaths

General Practitioners involvement in enteral tube feeding at home: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Complex medical treatment is moving from hospital to primary care and General Practitioners (GPs) are increasingly asked to undertake new roles. There are now an estimated 19,500 patients being fed in the UK in the community on enteral tube feeding using a variety of different feeding tubes (Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), Jejunostomy, or nasogastric (NG). The majority of patients are over the age of 65 years when they had artificial feeding initiated and mainly because of dysphagia. The aim of this study was to explore GPs knowledge, attitudes and skills relating to enteral feeding in the community.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured one-to-one interviews with a convenience sample of GPs in Northern Ireland.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-three GPs in three health boards in Northern Ireland participated in the study. Most found dealing with enteral feeding to be a predominantly negative experience. They had little involvement in patient selection for the procedure and poor or no discharge information. GPs felt inadequately trained, there was poor communication between primary and secondary care and little support. There was anger and frustration among GPs about lack of resources (funding and training), and the perception that primary care was used as a dumping ground.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Moving complex medical treatment from secondary to primary care has major implications for GPs who should be included in the patient selection process, have adequate discharge information about their patients, be adequately resourced and have appropriate support and training.</p