Comparison of toremifene and tamoxifen in post-menopausal patients with advanced breast cancer: a randomized double-blind, the 'nordic' phase III study

• Published in: British journal of cancer 1997-07, Vol.76 (2), p.270-277
• Main Authors: Pyrhönen, S, Valavaara, R, Modig, H, Pawlicki, M, Pienkowski, T, Gundersen, S, Bauer, J, Westman, G, Lundgren, S, Blanco, G, Mella, O, Nilsson, I, Hietanen, T, Hindy, I, Vuorinen, J, Hajba, A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic agents; Biological and medical sciences; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Breast Neoplasms - drug therapy; Breast Neoplasms - mortality; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Cancer Research; Chemotherapy; clinical-oncology; Double-Blind Method; Drug Resistance; Epidemiology; Estrogen Antagonists - adverse effects; Estrogen Antagonists - therapeutic use; Female; Humans; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Molecular Medicine; Oncology; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; Postmenopause; Prospective Studies; Scandinavian and Nordic Countries; Survival Rate; Tamoxifen - adverse effects; Tamoxifen - therapeutic use; Toremifene - adverse effects; Toremifene - therapeutic use; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0007-0920; 1532-1827
• DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1997.375

The study was planned to compare, in a prospective double-blind randomized trial, the efficacy and safety of toremifene (TOR) and tamoxifen (TAM) in post-menopausal patients with advanced breast cancer who have not had prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. Four hundred and fifteen post-menopausal patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive or ER-unknown advanced breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive daily either 60 mg TOR or 40 mg TAM. The patients were stratified to measurable and non-measurable but evaluable groups. They were assessed for response to therapy, time to progression (TTP), time to treatment failure (TTF), response duration, overall survival and drug toxicity. Two hundred and fourteen patients were randomized into TOR and 201 into TAM treatment. The response rate (complete + partial) was 31.3% for TOR and 37.3% for TAM (P = 0.215). The 95% confidence interval (CI) for the 6% difference was -15.1% to 3.1%. The median TTP was 7.3 months for TOR and 10.2 months for TAM (P = 0.047). The 95% CI for the hazard ratio of 0.80 was 0.64-1.00. A percentage of the TOR patients (9.8%) and the TAM patients (18.9%) discontinued the treatment prematurely (P = 0.011) for various reasons. Consequently, the median TTF of 6.3 vs 8.5 months did not differ significantly (P = 0.271). The hazard ratio was 0.89 and the subsequent 95% CI 0.73-1.09. The median overall survival was 33.0 months for TOR and 38.7 months for TAM (P = 0.645). The hazard ratio was 0.94 with 95% CI of 0.73-1.22. The transient difference in TTP may be related to an imbalance in ER content of the tumours. When only patients with ER-positive tumours were considered (n = 238), no difference between two treatments was seen (P = 0.578). TAM was associated with an overall slightly higher frequency of adverse drug reactions than TOR (44.3 vs 39.3%) and a higher discontinuation rate due to these events (3.5% vs 0.9%). Treatment-emerged moderate dizziness (P = 0.026) and cataracts (P = 0.026) were more frequent among TAM than among TOR patients. In conclusion, TOR (60 mg day(-1)) and TAM (40 mg day(-1)) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of advanced post-menopausal ER-positive or ER-unknown breast cancer.