Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp 237–246 | Cite as

Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study

  • Irene Kuter
  • Julia M. W. Gee
  • Roberto Hegg
  • Christian F. Singer
  • Rajendra A. Badwe
  • Elizabeth S. Lowe
  • Ugochi A. Emeribe
  • Elizabeth Anderson
  • Francisco Sapunar
  • Pauline Finlay
  • Robert I. Nicholson
  • José Bines
  • Nadia Harbeck
Clinical trial

Abstract

NEWEST (Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors) is the first study to compare biological and clinical activity of fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in the neoadjuvant breast cancer setting. We hypothesized that fulvestrant 500 mg may be superior to 250 mg in blocking estrogen receptor (ER) signaling and growth. A multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase II study was performed to compare fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg/month plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) versus fulvestrant 250 mg/month for 16 weeks prior to surgery in postmenopausal women with ER+ locally advanced breast cancer. Core biopsies at baseline, week 4, and surgery were assessed for biomarker changes. Primary endpoint: change in Ki67 labeling index (LI) from baseline to week 4 determined by automated computer imaging system (ACIS). Secondary endpoints: ER protein expression and function; progesterone receptor (PgR) expression; tumor response; tolerability. ER and PgR were examined retrospectively using the H score method. A total of 211 patients were randomized (fulvestrant 500 mg: n = 109; 250 mg: n = 102). At week 4, fulvestrant 500 mg resulted in greater reduction of Ki67 LI and ER expression versus 250 mg (−78.8 vs. −47.4% [p < 0.0001] and −25.0 vs. −13.5% [p = 0.0002], respectively [ACIS]); PgR suppression was not significantly different (−22.7 vs. −17.6; p = 0.5677). However, H score detected even greater suppression of ER (−50.3 vs. −13.7%; p < 0.0001) and greater PgR suppression (−80.5 vs. −46.3%; p = 0.0018) for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg. At week 16, tumor response rates were 22.9 and 20.6% for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, respectively, with considerable decline in all markers by both ACIS and H score. No detrimental effects on endometrial thickness or bone markers and no new safety concerns were identified. This provides the first evidence of greater biological activity for fulvestrant 500 versus 250 mg in depleting ER expression, function, and growth.

Keywords

Estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer Fulvestrant 500 mg Faslodex® Neoadjuvant Biomarkers 

Supplementary material

10549_2011_1947_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1183 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer KD, de la Torre-Bueno J, Diel IJ, Hawes D, Decker WJ, Priddy C, Bossy B, Ludmann S, Yamamoto K, Masih AS, Espinoza FP, Harrington DS (2000) Reliable and sensitive analysis of occult bone marrow metastases using automated cellular imaging. Clin Cancer Res 6:3552–3559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheung KL, Robertson JF (2001) Preoperative hormone therapy trials for breast cancer. Breast 10:1–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chia S, Gradishar W, Mauriac L, Bines J, Amant F, Federico M, Fein L, Romieu G, Buzdar A, Robertson JFR, Brufsky A, Possinger K, Rennie P, Sapunar F, Lowe E, Piccart M (2008) Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT. J Clin Oncol 26:1664–1670PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeFriend DJ, Howell A, Nicholson RI, Anderson E, Dowsett M, Mansel RE, Blamey RW, Bundred NJ, Robertson JF, Saunders C, Baum H, Walton P, Sutcliffe FA, Wakeling AE (1994) Investigation of a new pure antiestrogen (ICI 182780) in women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 54:408–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, Bondarenko I, Khasanov R, Verhoeven D, Pedrini J, Smirnova I, Lichinitser M, Pendergrass K, Garnett S, Lindemann JPO, Sapunar F, Martin M, on behalf of the CONFIRM investigators (2010) Results of the CONFIRM Phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:4594–4600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiermann W, Paepke S, Appfelstaedt J, Llombart-Cussac A, Eremin J, Vinholes J, Mauriac L, Ellis M, Lassus M, Chaudri-Ross HA, Dugan M, Borgs M, Letrozole Neo-Adjuvant Breast Cancer Study Group (2001) Preoperative treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with letrozole: a randomized double-blind multicenter study. Ann Oncol 12:1527–1532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S (2010) American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 6:195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jasani B, Douglas-Jones A, Rhodes A, Wozniak S, Barrett-Lee PJ, Gee J, Nicholson R (2006) Measurement of estrogen receptor status. In: Brooks SA, Harris A (eds) Methods in molecular medicine: breast cancer research protocols, 1st edn. Humana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Messersmith W, Oppenheimer D, Peralba J, Sebastiani V, Amador M, Jimeno A, Embuscado E, Hidalgo M, Iacobuzio-Donahue C (2005) Assessment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling in paired colorectal cancer and normal colon tissue samples using computer-aided immunohistochemical analysis. Cancer Biol Ther 4:1381–1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robertson JF, Erikstein B, Osborne KC, Pippen J, Come SE, Parker LM, Gertler S, Harrison MP, Clarke DA (2004) Pharmacokinetic profile of intramuscular fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet 43:529–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Robertson JF, Llombart-Cussac A, Rolski J, Feltl D, Dewar J, Macpherson E, Lindemann J, Ellis MJ (2009) Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study. J Clin Oncol 27:4530–4535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robertson JF, Nicholson RI, Bundred NJ, Anderson E, Rayter Z, Dowsett M, Fox JN, Gee JM, Webster A, Wakeling AE, Morris C, Dixon M (2001) Comparison of the short-term biological effects of 7alpha-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)-nonyl]estra-1,3,5 (10)-triene-3,17beta-diol (Faslodex) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 61:6739–6746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robertson JFR, Lindemann J, Llombart-Cussac A, Rolski J, Feltl D, Dewar J, Emerson L, Dean A, Ellis MJ (2010) A comparison of fulvestrant 500 mg with anastrozole as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: follow-up analysis from the ‘FIRST’ study. Cancer Res 70: abstract S1–S3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson JFR, Llombart A, Rolski J, Feltl D, Dewar J, Macpherson E, Lindemann J, Ellis MJ (2009) Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study. J Clin Oncol 27:4530–4535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson JFR, Osborne CK, Howell A, Jones SE, Mauriac L, Ellis M, Kleeberg UR, Come SE, Vergote I, Gertler S, Buzdar A, Webster A, Morris C (2003) Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women: a prospective combined analysis of two multicenter trials. Cancer 98:229–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, Dixon JM, Skene A, Blohmer JU, Ashley SE, Francis S, Boeddinghaus I, Walsh G, IMPACT Trialists’ Group (2005) Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: the Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined With Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 23:5108–5116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC, Gwyther SG (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang S, Saboorian MH, Frenkel EP, Haley BB, Siddiqui MT, Gokaslan S, Wians FH Jr, Hynan L, Ashfaq R (2001) Assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer. Automated Cellular Imaging System (ACIS)-assisted quantitation of immunohistochemical assay achieves high accuracy in comparison with fluorescence in situ hybridization assay as the standard. Am J Clin Pathol 116:495–503PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Kuter
    • 1
  • Julia M. W. Gee
    • 2
  • Roberto Hegg
    • 3
  • Christian F. Singer
    • 4
  • Rajendra A. Badwe
    • 5
  • Elizabeth S. Lowe
    • 6
  • Ugochi A. Emeribe
    • 6
  • Elizabeth Anderson
    • 7
  • Francisco Sapunar
    • 7
  • Pauline Finlay
    • 2
  • Robert I. Nicholson
    • 2
  • José Bines
    • 8
  • Nadia Harbeck
    • 9
    • 10
  1. 1.Massachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Tenovus Centre for Cancer Research, Welsh School of PharmacyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  3. 3.School of MedicineUniversity of Sao Paulo and Hospital Pérola ByingtonSao PauloBrazil
  4. 4.Division of Special GynaecologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  5. 5.Tata Memorial HospitalMumbaiIndia
  6. 6.AstraZenecaWilmingtonUSA
  7. 7.Formerly AstraZeneca PharmaceuticalsMacclesfieldUK
  8. 8.Instituto de CâncerRio de JaneiroBrazil
  9. 9.Frauenklinik der Technischen Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  10. 10.Breast Centre, Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of CologneCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations