Estrogens, progestins, and risk of breast cancer.

Obesity is associated with a decreased risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women but an increased risk in postmenopausal women, an effect that increases with time since menopause. Analysis of these effects of obesity shows that there is a ceiling to the carcinogenic effect of estrogen on the breast; increases in nonsex hormone-binding globulin-bound estradiol (non-SHBG bound E2) exceeding approximately 10.2 pg/ml have no further effect on breast cancer risk; this ceiling is lower than the lowest level seen during the menstrual cycle. This suggests that the effects of menopausal estrogen therapy (ET) and menopausal estrogen-progestin therapy (EPT) on a woman's breast cancer risk will greatly depend on her body mass index (BMI; weight in kilograms/height in meters squared, kg/m2) with the largest effects being in slender women. Epidemiological studies confirm this prediction. Our best estimates, per 5 years of use, of the effects of ET on breast cancer risk is a 30% increase in a woman with a BMI of 20 kg/m2 decreasing to an 8% increase in a woman with a BMI of 30 kg/m2; the equivalent figures for EPT are 50% and 26%. The analysis of the effects of estrogen also shows that even reducing the dose of estrogen in ET and EPT by as much as a half will have little or no effect on these risks. Reducing the progestin dose is likely to significantly reduce the risk of EPT: this is possible with an endometrial route of administration.

Reversal of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist induced reductions in mammographic densities on stopping treatment.

Previously, we described the reduction in mammographic densities that occurred in premenopausal women after 12 months on a hormonal regimen designed to be chemopreventive for breast (and ovarian) cancer consisting of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHA) plus low-dose add-back estrogen-progestin. We sought to determine whether the density reduction persisted with continuation of the regimen for 24 months, and, if so, whether the densities would return to baseline after the regimen was discontinued. Twenty-one women, 27-40 years of age, with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer, were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the treatment group (14 women) and to a control group (7 women). The percentage of mammographic densities, calculated as the proportion of the breast area on the mammogram containing densities, were assessed blindly using a computer-based threshold method at baseline, after 12 and 24 months of treatment, and at between 6 and 12 months after treatment was stopped. The previously described percentage of mammographic density reductions of 9.7% (P = 0.012) after 12 months of treatment were increased slightly to 11.4% (P = 0.010) after 24 months of treatment, but the additional change was not statistically significant. Ten of 11 treated women assessed at 24 months had reduced percentages of mammographic densities compared with baseline. Six to 12 months after completion of treatment, the mean percentage of mammographic density in the treated group was no different from that at baseline (mean decline of 2.0%; P = 0.73). The women in the control group had no statistically significant changes in densities over the period of the study. Reductions in mammographic densities engendered by the GnRHA plus a low-dose add-back estrogen-progestin regimen persist as long as the women receive treatment. The densities return to baseline when the women resume normal menstrual cycles. These results confirm that mammographic densities are influenced by ovarian function. Improved efficacy of mammographic screening is to be expected as long as a woman continues on such a regimen. Whether such a regimen is chemopreventive for breast cancer remains to be established, but the recent report on a randomized trial of use of GnRHA alone in premenopausal breast cancer cases showing a marked reduction in incidence of contralateral disease provides strong support for the hypothesis.

Mammographic density changes during the menstrual cycle.

The ability to detect small tumors is impaired in dense mammograms. It has been suggested that the sensitivity of mammograms could be lower in mammograms obtained during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. We examined the change in mammographic density from the follicular to the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in 11 women. Although the average increase in densities was quite small (1.2%; P = 0.08), six women had clinically significant increases (1.4-7.8%), suggesting that premenopausal women should undergo mammographic examinations in the follicular part of the menstrual cycle.

Hormonal contraception and chemoprevention of female cancers.

Oral contraceptive (OC) use significantly reduces the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, has only a minimal effect on breast cancer, but may increase the risk of cervical cancer. These effects can be readily explained in terms of the effects of OCs on cell proliferation in these tissues. This analysis suggests how a hormonal contraceptive based on a GnRH agonist plus low-dose add-back sex steroids could be made that would greatly reduce lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Such a hormonal contraceptive is also likely to significantly reduce the lifetime risk of cervical cancer. It is also likely to reduce the risk of endometrial cancer, although not to the same extent as OCs.

Phase I study of AG2034, a targeted GARFT inhibitor, administered once every 3 weeks.

PURPOSE: To identify a recommended phase II dose for the second generation glycinamide ribonucleotide transformylase (GARFT) inhibitor, AG2034, administered by intravenous bolus every 3 weeks without folate supplementation and to describe AG2034 pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Adults with advanced malignancies were enrolled in cohorts of three per dose level with expansion to six upon observation of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined as the dose at which two of up to six patients experienced DLT. Upon identification of an MTD and evidence of cumulative toxicity, a lower intermediate dose was explored as a candidate phase II dose. AG2034 plasma concentrations were measured using an ELISA assay. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase II dose is 5.0 mg/m2. DLTs were anemia, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, diarrhea, hyperbilirubinemia, fatigue, and insomnia. Toxicities were modestly cumulative over three courses. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed a dose-AUC0-24 relationship and a progressive increase in AG2034 AUC0-24 over three courses. Both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors may contribute to the modest cumulative toxicity observed with AG2034.

Weekly lometrexol with daily oral folic acid is appropriate for phase II evaluation.

PURPOSE: Lometrexol [(6R)-5,10-dideaza-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrofolate] is the prototype folate antimetabolite that targets the de novo purine synthesis pathway. Early phase I trials were confounded by cumulative myelosuppression that prevented repetitive administration. Subsequent preclinical and clinical studies suggested that coadministration of folic acid might favorably modulate lometrexol toxicity without eliminating potential antitumor activity. We set out to determine if concurrent folic acid would allow administration of lometrexol on a weekly schedule, and, if so, to identify an appropriate dose combination for phase II trials. Pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies were undertaken in an attempt to improve our understanding of lometrexol pharmacodynamics. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer received daily oral folic acid beginning 7 days before lometrexol and continuing for 7 days beyond the last lometrexol dose. Lometrexol was administered by short i.v. infusion weekly for 8 weeks. Scheduled lometrexol doses were omitted for toxicity of more than grade 2 present on the day of treatment, and dose-limiting toxicity was prospectively defined in terms of frequency of dose omission as well as the occurrence of severe toxic events. Plasma and whole blood total lometrexol contents (lometrexol plus lometrexol polyglutamates) were measured in samples taken just prior to each lometrexol dose. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were treated at five lometrexol dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was identified by frequent dose omission due to thrombocytopenia and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose combination is lometrexol 10.4 mg/m(2) per week i.v. with folic acid 3 mg/m(2) per day orally. One patient with melanoma experienced a partial response, and three patients, two with melanoma and one with renal cell carcinoma, experienced stable disease. Lometrexol was not detectable in any predose plasma sample tested. The total red blood cell content of lometrexol increased over several weeks and then appeared to plateau. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly administration of lometrexol is feasible and well-tolerated when coadministered with daily oral folic acid. The nature of the interaction between natural folates and lometrexol that renders this schedule feasible remains unclear. A definition of dose-limiting toxicity that incorporated attention to dose omissions allowed efficient identification of a recommended phase II dose that reflects the maximum feasible dose intensity for a weekly schedule. Lometrexol is a promising, anticancer agent.

Future possibilities in the prevention of breast cancer: luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists.

The cyclic production of estrogen and progesterone by the premenopausal ovary accounts for the steep rise in breast cancer risk in premenopausal women. These hormones are breast cell mitogens. By reducing exposure to these ovarian hormones, agonists of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) given to suppress ovarian function may prove useful in cancer prevention. To prevent deleterious effects of hypoestrogenemia, the addition of low-dose hormone replacement to the LHRH agonist appears necessary. Pilot data with such an approach indicates it is feasible and reduces mammographic densities.

The detection of changes in mammographic densities.

We previously reported reductions in mammographic densities in women participating in a trial of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHA)-based regimen for breast cancer prevention. In our previous report, we compared (by simultaneous evaluation) three basic elements of mammographic densities. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether a standard (expert) method of measuring mammographic densities would detect such changes in densities and whether a novel nonexpert computer-based threshold method could do so. Mammograms were obtained from 19 women at baseline and 12 months after randomization to the GnRHA-based regimen. The extent of mammographic densities was determined by: (a) a standard expert outlining method developed by Wolfe and his colleagues (Am. J. Roentgenol., 148: 1087-1092, 1987); and (b) a new computer-based threshold method of determining densities. The results from both the expert outlining method and the computer-based threshold method were highly consistent with the results of our original (simultaneous evaluation) method. All three methods yielded statistically significant reductions in densities from baseline to the 12-month follow-up mammogram in women on the contraceptive regimen. The difference between the treated and the control group was statistically significant with the expert outlining method and was of borderline statistical significance with the computer-based threshold method. The computer-based results correlated highly (r > 0.85) with the results from the expert outlining method. Both the standard expert outlining method and the computer-based threshold method detected the reductions we had previously noted in mammographic densities induced by the GnRHA-based regimen.

Oral vinorelbine (Navelbine) in the treatment of advanced breast cancer.

Vinorelbine (Navelbine; Burroughs Wellcome Co, Research Triangle Park, NC; Pierre Fabre Médicament, Paris, France) has been formulated as a liquid-filled, soft gelatin capsule. Pharmacokinetic studies of this agent indicate that it has a large volume of distribution, a long terminal half-life, and a high clearance rate. The pharmacokinetics of vinorelbine are similar whether the drug is administered orally or intravenously. Oral vinorelbine has a low bioavailability, which may be due to a high first-pass effect. Preliminary results from two multicenter phase II trials of oral vinorelbine in patients with advanced breast cancer are presented. In one study of 98 advanced breast cancer patients aged 65 years and older with limited prior therapy, the response rate of oral vinorelbine was 24% (complete response, 5%; partial response, 19%). In a study of 131 heavily pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer, the response rate of oral vinorelbine was 11% (complete response, 0%; partial response, 11%). In both studies, oral vinorelbine was generally well tolerated. As with intravenous administration, neutropenia is common and neuropathy is infrequent. In contrast to intravenous administration, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are common. Based on these preliminary results, further clinical investigation of oral vinorelbine is warranted.

The endocrine prevention of breast cancer.

A clear explanation for the high incidence of breast cancer in modern women is now possible. The risk of breast cancer rises steeply from menarche until menopause. Associated with the reproductive process, the ovary, including the corpus luteum, produces substantial amounts of estrogen and progesterone, both of which induce growth of the breast epithelium. This sex-steroid-driven breast epithelial cell proliferation increases the risk of carcinogenesis by accelerating the occurrence of somatic genetic errors. Postmenopausally, as there is little cell proliferation, the breast epithelium is more "resistant" to mutagenic effects, and breast cancer risk rises at a low rate. Unfortunately, the genetic errors accumulated during the premenopausal period are not lost following menopause, and breast cancer risk remains high. Sex-steroid antagonists, such as tamoxifen, may reduce breast cancer incidence both by blocking breast epithelial cell proliferation and by direct antitumor effects on clinically occult breast cancers. The rationale for a contraceptive designed to reduce breast cell proliferation by decreasing premenopausal sex-steroid exposure is presented.

Phase II clinical trial of carboplatin, ifosfamide, with oral mesna for metastatic breast carcinoma.

Twenty-five women with advanced breast carcinoma refractory to first-line chemotherapy entered a phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of ifosfamide and carboplatin. Additionally the trial assessed the clinical usefulness of oral 2-mercaptoethane sulfonate (mesna) for urothelial protection. Two partial remissions were observed (8%); toxicity was significant but acceptable, with no treatment-related deaths. The combination of ifosfamide and carboplatin had little activity as the second-line treatment in our population of patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Oral mesna was effective for urothelial protection, permitting outpatient administration of ifosfamide.

Changes in mammographic densities induced by a hormonal contraceptive designed to reduce breast cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: It has been known for some time that oral contraceptives substantially reduce the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, but they do not reduce the risk of breast cancer. A hormonal contraceptive regimen has been developed which uses a gonadotropin-releasing hormone against (GnRHA) to suppress ovarian function, and this regimen includes the administration of very low doses of both estrogen and progestogen. This hormonal contraceptive regimen attempts to minimize exposure of the breast epithelium to these steroids and to preserve the maximum beneficial effects of estrogen, while still preventing endometrial hyperplasia. PURPOSE: Our purpose was to determine whether changes occurred in mammographic densities between baseline and 1 year for women on this hormonal contraceptive regimen with reduced estrogen and progestogen levels compared with women in a control group. METHODS: Twenty-one women were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to the GnRHA-based contraceptive group (14 women) or to a control group (seven women). The contraceptive group received the following: 7.5 mg leuprolide acetate depot by intramuscular injection every 28 days; 0.625 mg conjugated estrogen by mouth for 6 days out of 7 every week; and 10 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate orally for 13 days every fourth 28-day cycle. The control group received no medication. Baseline and 1-year follow-up mammograms of contraceptive and control subjects were reviewed in a blinded fashion by two radiologists. RESULTS: Comparison of the changes between the baseline and 1-year mammograms in the two groups of women showed significant (P = .039) reduction in mammographic densities at 1 year for women on the contraceptive regimen. Assessing the reduction in mammographic densities by noting the fineness of fibrous septae showed a highly significant (P = .0048) difference in the contraceptive regimen group. One of the women on the contraceptive regimen was withdrawn from the study because of poor compliance. CONCLUSION: The reduced estrogen and progestogen exposures to the breast that were achieved by the hormonal contraceptive regimen resulted in substantial reductions in follow-up mammographic densities at 1 year compared with baseline. Although there is no direct evidence that such a reduction in densities will lead to a reduced risk of breast cancer, indirect evidence for a protective effect of this regimen is that early menopause reduces breast cancer risk, and that menopause is associated with a reduction in mammographic densities.

PIP: In California, physicians randomly assigned 21 women aged 25-40 to either the contraceptive group or the control group as part of a study aimed to determine whether or not a hormonal contraceptive regimen with reduced estrogen and progestogen levels affects mammographic densities. Eligibility criteria included premenopausal women with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer, no prior cancer, bone mineral density not less than 2 standard deviations below normal, normal cholesterol, and a normal physical and pelvic examination. The contraceptive group received intramuscular injection of 7.5 mg leuprolide acetate depot every 28 days, 0.625 mg oral conjugated estrogen for 6 out of 7 days every week, and 10 mg oral medroxyprogesterone acetate for 13 days every fourth 28-day cycle. The reduction in mammographic densities in women on the contraceptive regimen between baseline and 1 year was significantly different than that of the controls whose mammographic densities remained essentially the same (p = 0.039). Cases had significantly more change in fibrous septae between baseline and 1 year than did controls (+0.82 units vs. -0.07; p = 0.0048). These results indicate that lower levels of estrogen and progestogen reduces mammographic densities, which may reduce the risk of breast cancer since increased mammographic densities are linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. Reduced mitotic activity in breast epithelial cells during menopause and with lower levels of estrogen and progestogen (i.e., reduced mammographic densities) suggest that early menopause may also protect against breast cancer.

Sex steroids and breast cancer prevention.

Mitogenesis and mutagenesis are major driving forces in neoplastic development. Little is known about important breast mutagens, but much is known about breast mitogens. "Blocking" the effect of breast cell mitogens, by reducing the actual exposure of the breast to them, is an obvious strategy for breast cancer prevention. The ovarian hormones, estrogens and progesterone, are major effective (direct or indirect) breast cell mitogens. There is overwhelming epidemiologic evidence that breast cancer risk is closely related to exposure to estrogens and progestogens. A woman's exposure to endogenous ovarian estrogens and progesterone is drastically reduced by the use of combination-type oral contraceptives (COCs), but the exogenous synthetic estrogen and progestogen in the COC effectively replace the ovarian estrogen and progesterone, so that no decrease in breast cell exposure to these hormones is obtained. Doses of estrogen and progestogen in modern COCs are close to the minimum attainable, while still retaining both contraceptive efficacy and ovarian suppression (so that endogenous estrogen and progesterone do not add to the dose of estrogen and progestogen from the COC). Considerably lower effective breast cell exposure to estrogen and progestogen can, however, be achieved by using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to suppress ovarian function and compensating for the resulting hypoestrogenemia with low-dose hormone replacement. Such a contraceptive is predicted to reduce lifetime breast cancer risk by more than 50% if used for 10 years and by as much as 70% following 15 years of use. Contraception represents a unique opportunity to have a substantial beneficial impact on women's health; more than 10 million women use COCs daily in the United States.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Contraception and cancer prevention.

PIP: Estrogens and progestins influence rates of cell proliferation in the breast and endometrium. Current oral contraceptives (OCs) inhibit endometrial cell division and protect against ovarian cancer. Findings of a 1991-1992 pilot trial of a prototype contraceptive show that the addition of a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist [GnRHA] significantly reduces the doses of estrogen and progestin to a point lower than that of current OCs. The prototype includes the GnRHA and 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen (CE) (6 days/week) and 10 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate (13 days/4 months). The subjects were 25-40 year old premenopausal women with a 5-fold greater than normal risk of breast cancer who did not want to become pregnant within the next 2 years and who lived in California. The women began the contraceptive regimen during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Women in the treatment group had fewer symptoms than those in the control group because the regimen eliminated symptoms associated with the luteal phase (i.e., premenstrual syndrome). A small increase of the estrogen dose to 0.9 mg CE eliminated the few instances of hot flushes or vaginal dryness. Few subjects had unscheduled bleeding or spotting, and its incidence fell with time. Women in the treatment group experienced a beneficial increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol. They lost bone mineral density (BMD) (measured at the lumbar spine) at an annual rate of 1.9% which was near significance (p = .07), even though 0.625 mg CE is enough to prevent loss of BMD in normal postmenopausal women. Women in the treatment group experienced a greater reduction in mammographic densities than did those in the control group. This is promising, since decreased densities are believed to be linked to a decreased risk of breast cancer. It appears that this regimen reduces the amount of breast cell mitotic activity. Researchers are developing a combined depot form of the complete regimen administered every 3-4 months.^ieng

Breast cancer prevention through modulation of endogenous hormones.

The use of exogenous sex-steroids for hormonal contraception is important to the way of life of many modern women. The widespread use of hormonal contraceptives represents a unique opportunity to have a substantial positive impact on women's health. The observation that users of oral combination type contraceptives have a reduced risk of ovarian cancer should encourage the extension of contraceptive development to address the most important malignancy facing modern women, breast cancer. Epidemiological evidence strongly suggests that both estrogens and progestogens contribute to breast cancer risk, and account for the steep rise in risk seen during the premenopausal years. Studies of normal breast epithelial cell proliferation confirm that progestogens are breast mitogens, and explain why current contraceptives, which are progestogen dominant, do not prevent breast cancer. A long-acting depot contraceptive can be developed which releases: 1) an agonist of gonadotropin releasing hormone to suppress ovarian function; and 2) sex-steroids at doses below those in current contraceptives, and below those associated with ovulation. Such a contraceptive should provide substantial life-time protection against both breast and ovarian cancer, and would retain many of the other health benefits of current contraceptives.