Clinical efficacy of fulvestrant versus exemestane as first-line therapies for Chinese postmenopausal oestrogen-receptor positive /human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 -advanced breast cancer (FRIEND study)

  • Jiayu Wang
  • , Li Cai
  • , Yanqiu Song
  • , Tao Sun
  • , Zhongsheng Tong
  • , Yuee Teng
  • , Huiping Li
  • , Quchang Ouyang
  • , Qianjun Chen
  • , Shude Cui
  • , Yongmei Yin
  • , Ning Liao
  • , Qiang Sun
  • , Jifeng Feng
  • , Xiaojia Wang
  • , Binghe Xu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacies of exemestane and fulvestrant as first-line monotherapies for postmenopausal Chinese women having advanced oestrogen-receptor positive (ER+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-breast cancer (ER+/HER2- ABC) after a previous treatment for ≥2 years with an adjuvant non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-controlled phase 2 FRIEND study, 145 postmenopausal ER+/HER2- ABC patients were assigned into fulvestrant (500 mg on days 0, 14 and 28, and then at every 28 ± 3 days, n = 77) and exemestane (25 mg/day, n = 67) groups. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary outcomes were disease control rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure, duration of response and overall survival. Exploratory end-points included gene mutation-related outcomes and safety. Results: Fulvestrant was superior to exemestane regarding median PFS times (8.5 versus 5.6 months, p = 0.014, HR = 0.62, 95% confidence intervals: 0.42–0.91), objective response rates (19.5% versus 6.0%, p = 0.017) and time to treatment failure (8.4 versus 5.5 months, p = 0.008). The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events in the two groups was virtually identical. The most frequent mutations in 129 analysed patients were detected in the oestrogen receptor gene 1 (ESR1) (18/14.0%), PIK3CA (40/31.0%) and TP53 (29/22.5%) genes. Fulvestrant produced significant longer PFS times compared to exemestane but only for patients with an ESR1-wild type (8.5 versus 5.8 months) (p = 0.035), although there was a similar trend also for the ESR1 mutation without statistical significance. All patients with c-MYC and BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS times in the fulvestrant versus the exemestane group (p = 0.049, p = 0.039). Conclusion: Fulvestrant significantly increased overall PFS for ER+/HER2- ABC patients and was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials: NCT02646735, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02646735.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)73-82
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume184
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2023

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Exemestane
  • Fulvestrant
  • HER2-negative
  • Oestrogen receptor-positive
  • Recurrent breast cancer (BC)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical efficacy of fulvestrant versus exemestane as first-line therapies for Chinese postmenopausal oestrogen-receptor positive /human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 -advanced breast cancer (FRIEND study)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this