Second- and third-generation aromatase inhibitors as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal metastatic breast cancer patients: a pooled analysis of the randomised trials
2006

Aromatase Inhibitors vs Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer

Sample size: 2787 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Ferretti G, Bria E, Giannarelli D, Felici A, Papaldo P, Fabi A, Di Cosimo S, Ruggeri E M, Milella M, Ciccarese M, Cecere F L, Gelibter A, Nuzzo C, Cognetti F, Terzoli E, Carlini P

Primary Institution: Regina Elena Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy

Hypothesis

Are aromatase inhibitors more effective than tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer?

Conclusion

Aromatase inhibitors are superior to tamoxifen in improving overall response rate, clinical benefit, and time to progression in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

Supporting Evidence

  • Aromatase inhibitors showed a significant advantage in overall response rate compared to tamoxifen.
  • Time to progression was significantly longer for patients treated with aromatase inhibitors.
  • Clinical benefit was significantly higher in the aromatase inhibitor group.

Takeaway

This study found that aromatase inhibitors work better than tamoxifen for women with certain types of breast cancer.

Methodology

The study analyzed data from six phase III randomized trials comparing aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to variability in trial designs and patient characteristics across studies.

Limitations

The results showed significant heterogeneity among the trials, which may affect the reliability of the conclusions.

Participant Demographics

Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Statistical Information

P-Value

P=0.001 for clinical benefit, P=0.007 for time to progression, P=0.042 for overall response rate.

Confidence Interval

95% CI 1.00–1.28 for overall response rate, 95% CI 0.80–0.96 for time to progression, 95% CI 1.04–1.19 for clinical benefit.

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6603194

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication