This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Goss, P. E. Articles by Schwartz on behalf of the North American Vorozole Study Group, L. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Goss, P. E. Articles by Schwartz on behalf of the North American Vorozole Study Group, L. H.

Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing the New Potent and Selective Third-Generation Aromatase Inhibitor Vorozole With Megestrol Acetate in Postmenopausal Advanced Breast Cancer Patients

From the Division of Hematology-Oncology, Toronto Hospital-General Division, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Department of Medical Oncology/Hematology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.

Address reprint requests to Paul E. Goss, MD, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Toronto Hospital-General Division, 200 Elizabeth St, MLW 2-022, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of vorozole (VOR) 2.5 mg once daily with that of megestrol acetate (MA) 40 mg four times per day as second-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed after tamoxifen treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 452 patients were enrolled onto an open, multicenter, randomized phase III trial comparing VOR to MA for tumor response, safety, and quality of life (as indicated by the Functional Living Index-Cancer score).

RESULTS: Vorozole produced a response rate of 9.7%, compared with 6.8% for MA (P = .24). Clinical benefit (complete response + partial response + no change in > 6 months) was demonstrated in 23.5% and 27.2% of patients treated with VOR and MA, respectively (P = .42). Median duration of response was 18.2 months for VOR versus 12.5 months for MA (P = .074). There was no significant difference in time to progression or survival between the treatment groups. Discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events occurred less frequently in the VOR-treated group (3.1% v 6.2%; P = .18). Patients on the VOR arm reported significantly more nausea, hot flushes, arthralgia, upper respiratory tract infection, anorexia, and paresthesia, whereas those treated with MA had significantly more dyspnea, increased appetite, and weight increase. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in Functional Living Index-Cancer scores (total or subscales). However, when analyzed by objective response, patients with complete or partial responses (P = .032) or no change (P = .033) who were receiving VOR had significant improvement in the psychologic well-being subscale, compared with patients given MA.

CONCLUSION: Vorozole is well tolerated and as effective as MA in the treatment of postmenopausal advanced breast cancer patients with disease progression after tamoxifen treatment.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Colozza, E. de Azambuja, N. Personeni, F. Lebrun, M. J. Piccart, and F. Cardoso Achievements in Systemic Therapies in the Pregenomic Era in Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, March 1, 2007; 12(3): 253 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Beslija, J Bonneterre, H Burstein, V Cocquyt, M Gnant, P Goodwin, V Heinemann, J Jassem, W. Kostler, M Krainer, et al. Second consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer Ann. Onc., February 1, 2007; 18(2): 215 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Mauri, N. Pavlidis, N. P. Polyzos, and J. P. A. Ioannidis Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inactivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2006; 98(18): 1285 - 1291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Lee and L. Feng Randomized Phase II Designs in Cancer Clinical Trials: Current Status and Future Directions J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2005; 23(19): 4450 - 4457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cuzick Aromatase Inhibitors for Breast Cancer Prevention J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1636 - 1643. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Bernard-Marty, F. Cardoso, and M. J. Piccart Facts and Controversies in Systemic Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer Oncologist, November 1, 2004; 9(6): 617 - 632. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. E. Smith and M. Dowsett Aromatase Inhibitors in Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., June 12, 2003; 348(24): 2431 - 2442. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Goodwin, J. T. Black, L. J. Bordeleau, and P. A. Ganz Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measurement in Randomized Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer--Taking Stock J Natl Cancer Inst, February 19, 2003; 95(4): 263 - 281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. L. Harper-Wynne, N. P.M. Sacks, K. Shenton, F. A. MacNeill, P. Sauven, I. J. Laidlaw, Z. Rayter, S. Miall, A. Howes, J. Salter, et al. Comparison of the Systemic and Intratumoral Effects of Tamoxifen and the Aromatase Inhibitor Vorozole in Postmenopausal Patients With Primary Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., February 15, 2002; 20(4): 1026 - 1035. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Molenberghs and G. Verbeke A review on linear mixed models for longitudinal data, possibly subject to dropout Statistical Modeling, December 1, 2001; 1(4): 235 - 269. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Buzdar and A. Howell Advances in Aromatase Inhibition: Clinical Efficacy and Tolerability in the Treatment of Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., September 1, 2001; 7(9): 2620 - 2635. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. P. Donnellan, S. L. Douglas, D. A. Cameron, and R. C.F. Leonard Aromatase Inhibitors and Arthralgia J. Clin. Oncol., May 15, 2001; 19(10): 2767 - 2767. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. E. Goss and K. Strasser Aromatase Inhibitors in the Treatment and Prevention of Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., February 1, 2001; 19(3): 881 - 894. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]