Are aromatase inhibitors superior to antiestrogens?

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been in use to treat metastatic breast cancer for over 25 years. Recently potent and specific AIs have been introduced, which, because of their low toxicity profile, are being used in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant situation and also for the prevention of breast cancer. The two non-steroidal AIs, anastrozole and letrozole, and the steroidal AI, exemestane, have all shown superiority to tamoxifen as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer. Interestingly, the oestrogen receptor downregulator, fulvestrant, was shown to be equivalent to anastrozole when compared as second-line therapy after the failure of tamoxifen. The first adjuvant AI trial began in 1996 and recruited over 9000 patients (ATAC trial). Anastrozole was compared with tamoxifen and a combination of the two drugs. There were no significant differences between tamoxifen and the combination. However, anastrozole showed about a 20% improvement in disease-free survival in ER+ disease compared with the other treatments. An overall survival analysis will be reported later this year. Two trials have compared 5 years of tamoxifen with 2–3 years of tamoxifen, followed by 2–3 years of AI (one trial (ITA) used anastrozole and another (intergroup) exemestane). Both trials show a disease-free advantage for the switch to AI. In another study (MA17) 5 years of tamoxifen was followed by a randomisation to letrozole or placebo and showed a significant disease-free advantage to the AI. Both letrozole and anastrozole show superiority to tamoxifen when used as a neoadjuvant therapy. Anastrozole significantly reduced contralateral breast cancer compared with tamoxifen, and this has led to two prevention trials: one in women at risk comparing anastrozole with placebo and the other after excision of DCIS comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen (IBIS II). The NCI Canada has also just initiated a trial of exemestane for prevention. Nearly all data available indicate that AIs are superior to tamoxifen. The important question is whether survival is improved when they are used as adjuvant therapy?     

Aromatase inhibitors for therapy of advanced breast cancer

In postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, numerous phase III trials have been performed comparing the third-generation non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NS-AIs) anastrozole and letrozole and the steroidal AI (S-AI) exemestane in the “first-line” setting against tamoxifen and in the “second-line” setting against megestrol acetate. In both settings, the AIs were at least as efficacious or superior in some endpoints with a preferable toxicity profile including a lower incidence of thrombotic events. Relatively small differences in potency between the three AIs have been identified and it has not been demonstrated that these differences have clinical implications. The recent establishment of the value of AIs in the adjuvant setting for postmenopausal women will impact on their utilization in advanced disease. In premenopausal women the third-generation AIs have not been studied as monotherapy and there is a paucity of data in combination with ovarian function suppression in the advanced disease setting. The main area of future investigations for the AIs in premenopausal women will be in the adjuvant therapy setting in combination with suppression of ovarian function.     

Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen for management of postmenopausal breast cancer in the advanced disease and neoadjuvant settings

The third-generation aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane and letrozole have become firmly established as the agents of choice in patients with tamoxifen-resistant tumors. Large, well-conducted, double-blind clinical trials directly comparing the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole with tamoxifen in the advanced disease setting have matured. Based on these trials, there is sufficient evidence to choose one of these agents over tamoxifen because of a superior time to disease progression and acceptable toxicity which includes a lower incidence of thromboembolic complications. Information for the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane will be forthcoming from a phase III trial which has completed accrual. Consistent with the findings in the advanced disease setting, a double-blind trial comparing letrozole with tamoxifen in the neoadjuvant setting revealed superiority for letrozole in terms of clinical response rate. This provides a strong impetus for further study of the aromatase inhibitors in the preoperative setting.     

The pharmacology of letrozole

Recent clinical trials indicate that the third-generation aromatase inhibitors may be more effective than tamoxifen as first line endocrine therapy in ER+ metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women. This review will focus exclusively on the pharmacology of the non-steroidal inhibitor letrozole. Aromatase derived from a variety of sources is inhibited at low nM concentrations of the drug. In non-cellular systems, letrozole is 2-5 times more potent than anastrozole and exemestane in its inhibition of aromatase, whilst in cellular systems it is 10-20 times more potent. Anti-tumour effects of letrozole have been demonstrated in several animal models. In postmenopausal women, letrozole commonly suppresses circulating concentrations of estrone and estradiol to below the sensitivity limit of the assays used to measure them. In a recent randomized cross-over study, letrozole (2.5mg daily) achieved a significantly greater suppression of the plasma concentrations of both estrone and estrone sulphate than anastrozole (1mg daily) and a greater inhibition of in vivo aromatization. Letrozole appears to have a small effect on adrenal steroidogenesis such that a small number of patients exhibit an abnormal response to synthetic ACTH during letrozole therapy. This is unlikely to have any clinical significance. In short-term studies letrozole has been shown to increase markers of bone resorption indicating the need to monitor bone integrity when the drug is used for extended periods of time. A consistent effect of letrozole on serum lipids has not been demonstrated.     

New experimental models for aromatase inhibitor resistance

Clinical trials have demonstrated the importance of aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in the effective treatment of hormone-dependent breast cancers. In contrast to tamoxifen, an antagonist of the estrogen receptor (ER), AIs have shown to be better tolerated along with decreased recurrence rates of the disease. Currently, three third-generation AIs are being used: exemestane, letrozole, and anastrozole. Our laboratory is attempting to understand several aspects of AI functionality. In this paper, we first review recent findings from our structure–function studies of aromatase as well as the molecular characterization of the interaction between AIs and aromatase. Based on these studies, we propose new evidence for the interaction of letrozole and exemestane with aromatase. In addition, we will discuss recent results generated from our AI-resistant cell lines. Our laboratory has generated MCF-7aro cells that are resistant to letrozole, anastrozole, exemestane, and tamoxifen. Basic functional characterization of aromatase and ER in these resistant cell lines has been done and microarray analysis has been employed in order to better understand the mechanism responsible for AI resistance on a genome-wide scale. The results generated so far suggest the presence of at least four types of resistant cell lines. Overall, the information presented in this paper supplements our understanding of AI function, and such information can be valuable for the development of treatment strategies against AI resistant breast cancers.     

A summary of second-line randomized studies of aromatase inhibitors

The new generation of selective aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane) offer a significant efficacy and safety advantage over both older agents in this class (aminoglutethimide) and the progestins (megestrol acetate (MA)), as second-line treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-dependent breast cancer who have failed on tamoxifen therapy. Exemestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor, has been shown to have activity after failure with the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole and letrozole, and could be used as third-line treatment. Although the newer aromatase inhibitors belong to the same class and appear, from indirect comparisons, to have similar efficacy compared with the older therapies, they have different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles, suggesting the potential for clinical differences. Compared with exemestane and letrozole, anastrozole shows greater selectivity for aromatase, as it lacks any evidence of an effect on adrenal steroidogenesis and has no androgenic effects. Therefore, it is clear that these agents should not be considered to be similar in all respects. In summary, the introduction of the aromatase inhibitors represents a significant step forward in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Studies in the adjuvant setting will ultimately determine whether the differences in pharmacokinetics and phamacodynamics will be of clinical relevance.     

Binding features of steroidal and nonsteroidal inhibitors

Aromatase is the rate-limiting enzyme in estrogen biosynthesis. As a cytochrome P450, it utilizes electrons from NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase (CPR) to produce estrogen from androgen. Estrogen is a key factor in the promotion of hormone-dependent breast cancer growth. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are drugs that block estrogen synthesis, and are widely used to treat estrogen-dependent breast cancer. Structure-function experiments have been performed to study how CPR and AIs interact with aromatase to further the understanding of how these drugs elicit their effects. Our studies have revealed a strong interaction between aromatase and CPR, and that the residue K108 is situated in a region important to the interaction of aromatase with CPR. The published X-ray structure of aromatase indicates that the F221, W224 and M374 residues are located in the active site. Our site-directed mutagenesis experiments confirm their importance in the binding of the androgen substrate as well as AIs, but these residues interact differently with steroidal inhibitors (exemestane) and non-steroidal inhibitors (letrozole and anastrozole). Furthermore, our results predict that the residue W224 also participates in the mechanism-based inhibition of exemestane, as time-dependent inhibition is eliminated with mutation on this residue. Together with previous research from our laboratory, this study confirms that W224, E302, D309 and S478 are important active site residues involved in the suicide mechanism of exemestane against aromatase.     

Where do selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) now fit into breast cancer treatment algorithms?

The agents used for endocrine therapy in patients with breast cancer have changed markedly over the past decade. Tamoxifen remains the anti-oestrogen of choice, but could be replaced by the oestrogen receptor down-regulator ICI 182780 or by the fixed ring triphenylethylene arzoxifene (previously SERM III) soon. Whilst aminoglutethimide and 4-OH androstenedione were the aromatase inhibitors of choice, they have been replaced by non-steroidal (anastrozole and letrozole) and steroidal (exemestane) inhibitors of high potency and low side effect profile. Previously, often used treatments such as progestogens (megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate) and androgens are now rarely used or confined to fourth or fifth line treatments. The LHRH agonist, goserelin, remains the treatment of choice for pre-menopausal patients with advanced breast cancer although recent randomised trials indicate a response, time to progression and survival advantage for the combination of goserelin and tamoxifen compared with goserelin alone.

The newer treatments have led to questions concerning the optimum sequence of agents to use in advanced breast cancer and as neo-adjuvant and adjuvant therapy in relation to surgery. Two trials of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen and one trial of letrozole compared with tamoxifen indicate that the new triazole aromatase inhibitors have a significant advantage over the anti-oestrogen with respect to time to progression and survival. Similarly, triazole aromatase inhibitors give faster and more complete responses compared with tamoxifen when used in post-menopausal women before surgery.

Major research questions remain with respect to the aromatase inhibitors used as adjuvant therapy. Anastrozole is being tested alone or in combination with tamoxifen compared with tamoxifen in the ‘so-called’ ATAC trial. Over 9000 patients have been randomised to this important study: the results will be available late-2001. A similar study comparing letrozole and tamoxifen started recently under the auspices of the Breast International Group. Importantly, this trial is also comparing the sequence of tamoxifen followed by letrozole (or vice versa). A similar trial of exemestane given after 2–3 years of tamoxifen compared with 5 years of tamoxifen is recruiting well as is a study comparing letrozole (or placebo) for 5 years after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. These studies may show that aromatase inhibitors are superior to tamoxifen or that a sequence is preferable.

ICI 182780 causes complete oestrogen receptor down-regulation leading to a the lack of agonist activity of the drug. Two trials of ICI 182780 compared with anastrozole for advanced disease will report later this year and a comparison with tamoxifen next year. Arzoxifene (SERM III) is being tested against tamoxifen. These studies are likely to result in new anti-oestrogens being introduced into the clinic.

Most of our endocrine treatments deprived the tumour cell of oestradiol. In vitro experiments with MCF-7 cells indicate that tumour cells can adapt and then grow in response to low oestrogen concentrations in the tissue—culture medium. Importantly, the cells were shown to apoptose in response to high oestrogen concentrations. A recent clinical trial has demonstrated a high response rate to stilboestrol given after a median of four previous oestrogen depriving endocrine therapies. These data and the newer treatments available indicate a need to re-think our general approach to endocrine therapy and endocrine prevention.     

Benefit with aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting for postmenopausal women with breast cancer

The third-generation aromatase inhibitors, letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane, have been shown to be effective both as alternatives to tamoxifen in first-line treatment of hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women and following failure of first-line tamoxifen for endocrine therapy. These 3 agents are now being investigated as adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer, as alternative or complementary treatments to the standard, tamoxifen. Three treatment strategies are under investigation: replacement of tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy for 5 years (early adjuvant therapy), sequencing of tamoxifen before or after an aromatase inhibitor during the first 5 years (early sequential adjuvant therapy), or following 5 years of tamoxifen (extended adjuvant therapy). In the first adjuvant trial (Arimidex, Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination [ATAC]), anastrozole was significantly superior to tamoxifen in reducing risk of disease recurrence, and recently, the Breast International Group (BIG) trial BIG 1-98 demonstrated the significant superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen in improving disease-free survival. A large trial (International Collaborative Cancer Group [ICCG] trial 96) investigated sequencing of 2 to 3 years of exemestane after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen and found that switching to exemestane was significantly superior in disease-free survival compared with continuing on tamoxifen. The Arimidex or Nolvadex (ARNO) and the small ITA (Italian Tamoxifen Arimidex) trials similarly sequenced anastrozole after tamoxifen and also found that sequencing reduced the hazard of recurrence compared with remaining on tamoxifen. Trial MA.17 evaluated extended adjuvant therapy with letrozole vs placebo following 5 years of tamoxifen. Disease-free survival was significantly improved with letrozole vs placebo, irrespective of whether patients had lymph node-positive or node-negative tumors. All 3 aromatase inhibitors were generally well tolerated. Results of these trials indicate that aromatase inhibitors provide important benefits relative to tamoxifen in each of these adjuvant treatment settings, but the optimal approach still needs to be defined. Other trials continue to investigate some of these adjuvant treatment strategies.     

Adjuvant trials of aromatase inhibitors: determining the future landscape of adjuvant endocrine therapy

This review will discuss the role of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in the adjuvant setting, and will summarize major strategies behind individual adjuvant trials using aromatase inhibitors. Studies with the third generation AIs including anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane, have shown better outcome and improved therapeutic ratio over second line hormonal approaches (i.e. progestins or aminoglutethimide) and, more recently, over tamoxifen also. These promising results have led recently to testing of AIs in the adjuvant setting for postmenopausal patients. Most trials now in progress are evaluating the role of new AIs versus tamoxifen (T) given×5 years, which in most institutions is currently the standard hormonal adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Three adjuvant approaches are being tested. First is the use of AI+T×5 years in combination versus each agent alone, as reflected in the recently completed ATAC trial. Second is a sequential approach T first×2–3 years followed by AIs×2–3 years, or the other way round; and third, T×5 years followed by AIs for additional 5 years (i.e. total duration of adjuvant hormones of 10 years). Many patients in the above trials will survive their first cancer. Hence, the non-oncological outcomes known to be affected by hormones are of rising importance. Therefore, the assessment of lipids as surrogates for cardiovascular morbidity, and of bone mineral status, as a marker for osteoporosis/bone fractures, is an important component of these trials. Also discussed in this review are proposals for future studies of AIs with focus on hormone resistance, such as early alteration of multiple hormonal agents or their intermittent use, the impact of the new generation of SERMs or ‘pure’ antiestrogens on activity of AIs, and the rising importance of AIs interacting with biologicals, cytokines or hormone modulators.     

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer in the era of aromatase inhibitors: an update

There is overwhelming evidence that optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy for hormone sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women should include a third generation aromatase inhibitor (AI). On current evidence, adjuvant anstrozole or letrozole should be used upfront in such patients especially in those with high risk disease (node positive and/or tumours > 2 cm). The sequential approach of tamoxifen for 2–3 years followed by exemestane or anastrozole for 2–3 years is a reasonable alternative to 5 years of AI monotherapy in patients with low risk disease (node negative and tumour smaller than 2 cm) especially if the tumour is positive for estrogen and progesterone receptors.Node-positive patients completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen should be offered letrozole for up 48 months. Further research is required to establish the long-term cardiovascular safety of AIs especially that of letrozole and exmestane, the optimal AI to use, duration of AI therapy and whether monotherapy with an AI for 5 years is superior to sequencing an AI after 2–3 years of tamoxifen.The bone mineral density (BMD) should be measured at baseline and monitored during therapy in women being treated with AIs. Anti-osteoporosis agents should such as bisphosphonates should be considered in patients at high risk of bone fractures.     

Aromatase inhibitors and inactivators in the treatment of advanced breast cancer

Advanced breast cancer remains incurable. For these patients, durable response and minimal toxicity are the main goals of current therapy. The antiestrogen tamoxifen has proved to be a significant advance in the treatment of breast cancer. Due to its partial estrogen activity, long term medication with tamoxifen has been found to cause endometrium proliferation wich can result in cancer in some patients. Reduction of estrogen production identified the aromatase inhibitors. Both steroidal substrate analog, type I inactivator, wich inactivate the enzyme and non-steroidal competitive reversible, type II inhibitors, are now avaiable. Two new 3(rd) generation aromatase inactivators have recently completed phase III evaluation (anastrozole and letrozole) and we have some results investigating one of the new 3(rd) generation aromatase inhibitors (exemestane). The 3(rd) generation aromatase inhibitors and inactivators are better tolerated and more effective than each of our current standard 2(nd) line endocrin therapies. These agents are being directly compared with standard adjuvant medication, tamoxifen, or are being evaluated in different sequences.     

An "omics" approach to determine the mechanisms of acquired aromatase inhibitor resistance

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the major types of drugs to treat hormone-dependent breast cancer. Although these drugs work effectively, cancer still recurs in many patients after treatment as a result of acquired resistance to the AIs. To characterize the resistant mechanisms, a set of MCF-7aro cell lines that acquired resistance to the AIs was generated. Through an "Omics" approach, we found that the resistance mechanisms of the three AIs (anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane) differ and activation of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) is critical for acquired AI resistance. Our results reveal that growth factor/signal transduction pathways are upregulated after ERα-dependent pathways are suppressed by AIs, and ERα can then be activated through different crosstalk mechanisms.     

Growth inhibition of estrogen receptor-positive and aromatase-positive human breast cancer cells in monolayer and spheroid cultures by letrozole, anastrozole, and tamoxifen

Two third-generation aromatase inhibitors, letrozole and anastrozole, and the antiestrogen tamoxifen, were compared for growth-inhibiting activity in two estrogen receptor (ER)-positive aromatase-overexpressing human breast cancer cell lines, MCF-7aro and T-47Daro. Inhibition of hormone (1 nM testosterone)-stimulated proliferation was evaluated in both monolayer cultures and in three-dimensional spheroid cultures. Letrozole and anastrozole were also compared for effectiveness of aromatase inhibition, and relative affinity for aromatase, under both monolayer and spheroid growth conditions. Letrozole was an effective inhibitor of MCF-7aro monolayer cell proliferation, with an estimated 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of 50-100 nM, whereas an IC50 was not reached with anastrozole at any concentration tested (100-500 nM). An IC50 of tamoxifen was 1000 nM. Proliferation of T-47Daro monolayer cells was more sensitive to inhibition by all three agents; as with MCF-7aro cells, letrozole was the most effective inhibitor. MCF-7aro spheroids were slightly less sensitive than monolayer cells proliferation-inhibiting effects of letrozole (IC50 about 200 nM), and there was no significant inhibition with 100-200 nM anastrozole or 200-1000 nM tamoxifen. Letrozole and anastrozole significantly inhibited T-47Daro spheroid cell proliferation, at 15-25 and 50 nM, respectively, consistent with the greater sensitivity of T-47Daro monolayer cells to inhibition of proliferation by these agents. Tamoxifen failed to significantly inhibit T-47Daro spheroid cell proliferation over a 100-500 nM concentration range. Determination of aromatase inhibition in monolayers of both cell lines by a direct-access microsomal assay and an intact-cell assay revealed that letrozole was more active than anastrozole in monolayers of both cell lines and in both assays. In MCF-7aro spheroids following cell lysis, only letrozole significantly inhibited aromatase activity, supporting the conclusion that letrozole binds stronger to aromatase than anastrozole does. Our results demonstrate that MCF-7aro and T-47Daro spheroids could be a suitable model for evaluation of growth-inhibitory effects of agents used in hormonal therapy of breast cancer.     

The development, application and limitations of breast cancer cell lines to study tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor resistance

Estrogen plays important roles in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Endocrine therapies, such as the antiestrogen tamoxifen, antagonize the binding of estrogen to estrogen receptor (ER), whereas aromatase inhibitors (AIs) directly inhibit the production of estrogen. Understanding the mechanisms of endocrine resistance and the ways in which we may better treat these types of resistance has been aided by the development of cellular models for resistant breast cancers. In this review, we will discuss what is known thus far regarding both de novo and acquired resistance to tamoxifen or AIs. Our laboratory has generated a collection of AI- and tamoxifen-resistant cell lines in order to comprehensively study the individual types of resistance mechanisms. Through the use of microarray analysis, we have determined that our cell lines resistant to a particular AI (anastrozole, letrozole, or exemestane) or tamoxifen are distinct from each other, indicating that these mechanisms can be quite complex. Furthermore, we will describe two novel de novo AI-resistant cell lines that were generated from our laboratory. Initial characterization of these cells reveals that they are distinct from our acquired AI-resistant cell models. In addition, we will review potential therapies which may be useful for overcoming resistant breast cancers through studies using endocrine resistant cell lines. Finally, we will discuss the benefits and shortcomings of cell models. Together, the information presented in this review will provide us a better understanding of acquired and de novo resistance to tamoxifen and AI therapies, the use of appropriate cell models to better study these types of breast cancer, which are valuable for identifying novel treatments and strategies for overcoming both tamoxifen and AI-resistant breast cancers.     

Current medical treatment of estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

Approximately 80% of breast cancers(BC) are estrogen receptor(ER)-positive and thus endocrine therapy(ET) should be considered complementary to surgery in the majority of patients. The advantages of oophorectomy, adrenalectomy and hypophysectomy in women with advanced BC have been demonstrated many years ago, and currently ET consist of(1) ovarian function suppression(OFS), usually obtained using gonadotropinreleasing hormone agonists(Gn RHa);(2) selective estrogen receptor modulators or down-regulators(SERMs or SERDs); and(3) aromatase inhibitors(AIs), or a combination of two or more drugs. For patients aged less than 50 years and ER+ BC, there is no conclusive evidence that the combination of OFS and SERMs(i.e., tamoxifen) or chemotherapy is superior to OFS alone. Tamoxifen users exhibit a reduced risk of BC, both invasive and in situ, especially during the first 5 years of therapy, and extending the treatment to 10 years further reduced the risk of recurrences. SERDs(i.e., fulvestrant) are especially useful in the neoadjuvant treatment of advanced BC, alone or in combination with either cytotoxic agents or AIs. There are two types of AIs: type Ⅰ are permanent steroidal inhibitors of aromatase, while type Ⅱ are reversible nonsteroidal inhibitors. Several studies demonstrated the superiority of the third-generation AIs(i.e., anastrozole and letrozole) compared with tamoxifen, and adjuvant therapy with AIs reduces the recurrence risk especially in patients with advanced BC. Unfortunately, some cancers are or became ET-resistant, and thus other drugs have been suggested in combination with SERMs or AIs, including cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors(palbociclib) and mammalian target of rapamycin(m TOR) inhibitors, such as everolimus. Further studies are required to confirm their real usefulness.     

Is there a benefit by the sequence anastrozole-formestane for postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer women?

To explore the different sequence interactions between reversible non-steroidal (anastrozole, ANZ and letrozole, LTZ) and non-reversible steroidal aromatase inhibitors (formestane, FOR and exemestane, EXE), we evaluated the clinical benefit (CB) in postmenopausal breast cancer patients, who had previously received anastrozole and subsequently formestane. In 19 out of 21 patients (90.5%), a clinical benefit response was achieved by anastrozole, with a median duration of 12 months. Out of the 21 women progressing on anastrozole, 12 achieved stable disease (SD)>/=6 months by formestane only. The overall clinical benefit was 66.5%. The median duration of clinical benefit was 11 months with a time to progression of 6.5 months. The median duration of clinical benefit in our series is similar to that reported in two phase II trials with the sequence aminogluthetimide-->formestane and aminogluthetimide-->exemestane as third-line hormonal therapy, suggesting a non-cross-resistance between the two classes of inhibitors.     

What do we know about the mechanisms of aromatase inhibitor resistance?

Clinical trials have demonstrated the importance of aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in the effective treatment of hormone-dependent breast cancers. Yet, as with all prolonged drug therapy, resistance to aromatase inhibitors does develop. To date, the precise mechanism responsible for resistance to aromatase inhibitors is not completely understood. In this paper, several mechanisms of de novo/intrinsic resistance and acquired resistance to AIs are discussed. These mechanisms are hypothesized based on important findings from a number of laboratories.

To better understand this question, our lab has generated, in vitro, breast cancer cell lines that are resistant to aromatase inhibitors. Resistant cell lines were generated over a prolonged period of time using the MCF-7aro (aromatase overexpressed) breast cancer line. These cell lines are resistant to the aromatase inhibitors letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane and the anti-estrogen tamoxifen, for comparison. Two types of resistant cell lines have been generated, those that grow in the presence of testosterone (T) which is needed for cell growth, and resistant lines that are cultured in the presence of inhibitor only (no T). In addition to functional characterization of aromatase and ER in these resistant cell lines, microarray analysis has been employed in order to determine differential gene expression within the aromatase inhibitor resistant cell lines versus tamoxifen, in order to better understand the mechanism responsible for AI resistance on a genome-wide scale. We anticipate that our studies will generate important information on the mechanisms of AI resistance. Such information can be valuable for the development of treatment strategies against AI-resistant breast cancers.     

Local endocrine effects of aromatase inhibitors within the breast

To determine the effects of aromatase inhibitors on oestrogen uptake, in situ aromatase activity and endogenous oestrogens in the breast, postmenopausal women with large primary ER-rich breast cancers have been treated neoadjuvantly for 3 months with either letrozole (2.5 or 10 mg daily) or anastrozole (1 or 10 mg daily) or exemestane (25 mg daily). Patients were given an infusion of ³H-androstenedione and ¹⁴C-oestrone for 18 h before and at the end of the study period. Blood, tumour and non-malignant breast were taken immediately after each infusion; oestrogens were extracted and purified. Tumour volume was measured before and during treatment at monthly intervals so that endocrinological changes could be related to clinical response. Treatment with each of the aromatase inhibitors was associated with a profound reduction in peripheral aromatase (as monitored by the level of plasma ³H-oestrone). There was no consistent effect on uptake of radioactively labelled oestrogen into breast tumours but a tendency for levels to increase after treatment in non-malignant breast. Conversely, therapy was associated with a marked inhibition of in situ oestrogen synthesis in both tumour and non-malignant breast (in occasional tissues, inhibitors appeared to be less effective but the effect was not related to clinical or pathological responses). Similar decreases were apparent in endogenous levels of oestrone and oestradiol. The absence of in situ aromatase activity tended to be associated with lack of clinical response to aromatase inhibition but the relationship was not absolute, limiting the utility of measurements of tumour aromatase as a predictive indices. Ex vivo studies of tissue aromatase indicated that such measurements consistently underestimate the inhibitory potential of reversible non-steroidal agents (and occasionally paradoxical in vitro increases in aromatase activity were seen with treatment). However, in situ assays demonstrate that new aromatase inhibitors such as anastrozole, exemestane and letrozole have profound effects on the local endocrinology within the postmenopausal breast, these being compatible with the clinico-pathological changes which occur with treatment.