Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression.

Methods

Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured.

Results

Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: −0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: −0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover.

Conclusions

Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnston SRD, Dowsett M (2003) Aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer: lessons from the laboratory. Nat Rev Cancer 3:821–831. doi:10.1038/nrc1211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rugo HS, Rumble RB, Macrae E et al (2016) Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline. J Clin Oncol 34:3069–3103. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burstein HJ, Lacchetti C, Anderson H et al (2016) Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on ovarian suppression. J Clin Oncol 34:1689–1701. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.9573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Henry NL, Azzouz F, Desta Z et al (2012) Predictors of aromatase inhibitor discontinuation as a result of treatment-emergent symptoms in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:936–942. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.0261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Crew KD, Greenlee H, Capodice J et al (2007) Prevalence of joint symptoms in postmenopausal women taking aromatase inhibitors for early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3877–3883. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.10.7573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Makubate B, Donnan PT, Dewar JA et al (2013) Cohort study of adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy, breast cancer recurrence and mortality. Br J Cancer 108:1515–1524. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yardley D, Green NB, Papish S, et al (2009) Rheumatologic Evaluation of Adjuvant Letrozole in Post-Menopausal Breast Cancer Patients Discontinuing Anastrozole Due to Grade 2-3 Arthralgia—Myalgia. In: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symp. p Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 805

  8. Renshaw L, McHugh R, Williams L (2007) Comparison of joint problems reported by patients in a randomized adjuvant trial of anastrozole and letrozole. In: Breast Can Res Treat. p 106(Suppl 1):S108–S109. Abstract 2072

  9. Henry NL, Chan H-P, Dantzer J et al (2013) Aromatase inhibitor-induced modulation of breast density: clinical and genetic effects. Br J Cancer 109:2331–2339. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Santen RJ, Demers L, Ohorodnik S et al (2007) Superiority of gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry assay (GC/MS/MS) for estradiol for monitoring of aromatase inhibitor therapy. Steroids 72:666–671. doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2007.05.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hertz DL, Kidwell KM, Seewald NJ et al (2016) Polymorphisms in drug-metabolizing enzymes and steady-state exemestane concentration in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. Pharmacogenomics J. doi:10.1038/tpj.2016.60

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Robarge JD, Desta Z, Nguyen AT et al (2017) Effects of exemestane and letrozole therapy on plasma concentrations of estrogens in a randomized trial of postmenopausal women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 161:453–461. doi:10.1007/s10549-016-4077-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Desta Z, Kreutz Y, Nguyen AT et al (2011) Plasma letrozole concentrations in postmenopausal women with breast cancer are associated with CYP2A6 genetic variants, body mass index, and age. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90:693–700. doi:10.1038/clpt.2011.174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruce B, Fries JF (2003) The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: a review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 30:167–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin H-W, Lloyd A (2007) Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 25:365–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carpenter JS, Andrykowski MA, Wilson J, et al Psychometrics for two short forms of the center for epidemiologic studies-depression scale. Issues Ment Health Nurs 19:481–94

  17. Stafford L, Judd F, Gibson P et al (2014) Comparison of the hospital anxiety and depression scale and the center for epidemiological studies depression scale for detecting depression in women with breast or gynecologic cancer. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 36:74–80. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ganz PA, Day R, Ware JE et al (1995) Base-line quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1372–1382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Farrar JT, Pritchett YL, Robinson M et al (2010) The clinical importance of changes in the 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for worst, least, and average pain intensity: analyses of data from clinical trials of duloxetine in pain disorders. J Pain 11:109–118. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wolfe F, Michaud K, Strand V (2005) Expanding the definition of clinical differences: from minimally clinically important differences to really important differences. Analyses in 8931 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32:583–589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kadakia KC, Snyder CF, Kidwell KM et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes and early discontinuation in aromatase inhibitor-treated postmenopausal women with early stage breast cancer. Oncologist. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0349

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Henry NL, Skaar TC, Dantzer J et al (2013) Genetic associations with toxicity-related discontinuation of aromatase inhibitor therapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138:807–816. doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2504-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Briot K, Tubiana-Hulin M, Bastit L et al (2010) Effect of a switch of aromatase inhibitors on musculoskeletal symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer: the ATOLL (articular tolerance of letrozole) study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120:127–134. doi:10.1007/s10549-009-0692-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Duric VM, Fallowfield LJ, Saunders C et al (2005) Patients’ preferences for adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer: what makes it worthwhile? Br J Cancer 93:1319–1323. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602874

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Ravdin PM, Siminoff IA, Harvey JA (1998) Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 16:515–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by U01-GM61373 and 5T32-GM08425 (DAF), M01-RR00042 (UM), M01-RR00750 (IU), and M01-RR00052 (JHU). NJS was supported (in part) by Cancer Center Biostatistics Training Grant 5T32-CA083654 (to J. Taylor). NLH was a Damon Runyon-Lilly Clinical Investigator supported (in part) by the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (Grant number CI-53-10) and by an American Cancer Society Research Scholar Grant. Additional support was provided by Fashion Footwear Association of New York/QVC Presents Shoes on Sale (DFH). In addition, the ELPh trial was supported by grants from Pfizer, Inc. and Novartis Pharma AG, who provided study medication.

Funding

Abbvie, Merck, Pfizer, MedImmune, Celgene, Puma Biotechnology, and Novartis (VS); Pfizer and Novartis (AMS); AstraZeneca, Janssen Research and Development, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Eli Lilly Company (DFH); WellPoint and Genentech (CFS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Kunal C. Kadakia

  2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Kelley M. Kidwell

  3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Nicholas J. Seewald

  4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Claire F. Snyder

  5. Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Anna Maria Storniolo

  6. School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Julie L. Otte

  7. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    David A. Flockhart

  8. Breast Oncology Program, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Daniel F. Hayes

  9. Breast Cancer Program, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Vered Stearns

  10. Division of Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, 2000 Circle of Hope Dr. #3362, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA

    N. Lynn Henry

Authors
  1. Kunal C. Kadakia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelley M. Kidwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas J. Seewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claire F. Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Maria Storniolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julie L. Otte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David A. Flockhart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniel F. Hayes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Vered Stearns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. N. Lynn Henry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Lynn Henry.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Employment or Leadership Position: None, Consultant or Advisory Role: Walgreens and Pfizer (CFS); Pfizer (DFH), Stock Ownership: Immunomedics (CFS) Oncoimmune and InBiomotion (DFH), Honoraria: Pfizer (AMS); Lilly (DFH), All other authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

David A. Flockhart was Deceased.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10549_2017_4260_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 73 kb) Online Supplement 1—Diagram of the primary patient reported outcome analysis. PRO patient reported outcomes, AI aromatase inhibitor; Δ change

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kadakia, K.C., Kidwell, K.M., Seewald, N.J. et al. Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164, 411–419 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4260-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4260-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation