Formestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor after failure of non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole): Is a clinical benefit still achievable?

P. Carlini, A. Frassoldati, S. De Marco, A. Casali, E. M. Ruggeri, M. Nardi, P. Papaldo, A. Fabi, F. Paoloni, F. Cognetti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: There are few clinical data on the sequential use of aromatase inhibitors (AI). This paper focuses on the relevance of clinical benefit CB (CR + PR + SD ≥ 6 months) in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients treated with the steroidal aromatase inhibitor (SAI) formestane (FOR), who had already received non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (nSAI): letrozole (LTZ) or anastrozole (ANZ). Patients and methods: Twenty postmenopausal women with MBC were analysed in this retrospective two-centre study with the sequence nSAI-FOR. When receiving ANZ, 1 of 11 achieved a complete response and 9 of 11 a stable disease ≥ 6 months, and receiving LTZ 1 of 9 achieved a partial response and 4 of 9 a stable disease ≥ 6 months. The analysis of the entire population treated with FOR showed an overall CB of 55% (11 of 20) with a median duration of 15 months and median time to progression (TTP) of 6 months. Conclusions: Formestane 250 mg once bi-weekly seems to be an attractive alternative third-line hormonal therapy for the treatment of patients with MBC, previously treated with nSAI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1539-1543
Number of pages5
JournalAnnals of Oncology
Volume12
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001

Keywords

  • Advanced/metastatic
  • Anastrozole
  • Aromatase inhibitors
  • Breast cancer
  • Formestane
  • Hormone therapy
  • Letrozole

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Formestane, a steroidal aromatase inhibitor after failure of non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole): Is a clinical benefit still achievable?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this