Exemestane is superior to megestrol acetate after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized double-blind trial. The Exemestane Study Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) versus megestrol acetate (MA) in postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 769 patients were randomized to EXE 25 mg/d (n = 366) or MA (n = 403) 40 mg four times daily. Tumor response, duration of tumor control, tumor-related signs and symptoms (TRSS), quality of life (QOL), survival, and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall objective response (OR) rates were higher in patients treated with EXE than in those treated with MA (15.0% v 12.4%); a similar trend was noted in patients with visceral metastases (13.5% v 10.5%). Median survival time was significantly longer with EXE (median not reached) than with MA (123.4 weeks; P =.039), as were the median duration of overall success (OR or stable disease > or = 24 weeks; 60.1 v 49.1 weeks; P =.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 v 16.6 weeks; P =.037), and time to treatment failure (16.3 v 15.7 weeks; P =.042). Compared with MA, there were similar or greater improvements in pain, TRSS, and QOL with EXE. Both drugs were well tolerated. Grade 3 or 4 weight changes were more common with MA (17.1% v 7.6%; P =.001). CONCLUSION: EXE prolongs survival time, time to tumor progression, and time to treatment failure compared with MA and offers a well-tolerated treatment option for postmenopausal women with progressive advanced breast cancer who experienced failure of tamoxifen.

Exemestane improves survival in metastatic breast cancer: results of a phase III randomized study.

We compared the efficacy and safety of the oral aromatase inactivator exemestane (EXE) with megestrol acetate (MA) in women with metastatic breast cancer. This phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in 769 postmenopausal women who had experienced tamoxifen failure. Treatment arms consisted of EXE 25 mg once daily (n=366) or MA 40 mg four times daily (160 mg daily; n=403). Peer-reviewed, intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated that EXE induced a trend toward higher rates of complete response (CR)+partial response (PR) (15.0% vs. 12.4%) and of CR+PR+stable disease (SD)=24 weeks (37.4% vs. 34.6%), but differences were not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences favoring EXE were seen in median duration of CR+PR+SD=24 weeks (60.1 vs. 49.1 weeks; P=0.025), time to tumor progression (20.3 vs. 16.6 weeks; P=0.037), time to treatment failure (16.3 vs. 15.7 weeks; P=0.042), and overall survival (not reached vs. 123.4 weeks; P=0.039). Both treatments were well tolerated, but MA was associated with more grade 3 or 4 weight gain (8% vs. 17%, P=0.001); the pain score was sim-ilar in both groups. There was a trend toward superiority in treatment-related signs and symptoms (TRSS) with EXE. There was greater improvement in the pain score and TRSS in patients achieving an objective response with EXE vs. MA. Quality of life improved or was similar for EXE in most domains. Exemestane offers an important new treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-responsive breast cancer.