Emerging principles for the development of resistance to antihormonal therapy: implications for the clinical utility of fulvestrant.

ABSTRACT

We seek to evaluate the clinical consequences of resistance to antihormonal therapy by studying analogous animal xenograft models. Two approaches were taken (1) MCF-7 tumors were serially transplanted into selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)-treated immunocompromised mice to mimic 5 years of SERM treatment. The studies in vivo were designed to replicate the development of acquired resistance to SERMs over years of clinical exposure. (2) MCF-7 cells were cultured long-term under SERM-treated or estrogen withdrawn conditions (to mimic aromatase inhibitors), and then injected into mice to generate endocrine-resistant xenografts. These tumor models have allowed us to define Phase I and Phase II antihormonal resistance according to their responses to E(2) and fulvestrant. Phase I SERM-resistant tumors were growth stimulated in response to estradiol (E(2)), but paradoxically, Phase II SERM and estrogen withdrawn-resistant tumors were growth inhibited by E(2). Fulvestrant did not support growth of Phases I and II SERM-resistant tumors, but did allow growth of Phase II estrogen withdrawn-resistant tumors. Importantly, fulvestrant plus E(2) in Phase II antihormone-resistant tumors reversed the E(2)-induced inhibition and instead resulted in growth stimulation. These data have important clinical implications. Based on these and prior laboratory findings, we propose a clinical strategy for optimal third-line therapy patients who have responded to and then failed at least two antihormonal treatments may respond favorably to short-term low-dose estrogen due to E(2)-induced apoptosis, followed by treatment with fulvestrant plus an aromatase inhibitor to maintain low tumor burden and avoid a negative interaction between physiologic E(2) and fulvestrant.