HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - difference between aromasin and arimidex?

Donna · 02-16-2007, 12:43 PM

Hi Suzan,

This was just published - the "plain english answer" is underlined and in red below. Basically the report says that there isn't enough data yet, but that Femara (letrozole) has a slight advantage over the others. Below is the report name and link in case you want to read the whole thing.

Aromatase inhibitors for treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...370/frame.html

Main results
Thirty studies were identified, twenty five of which were included in the main analysis of any AI versus any other treatment (9416 women). The pooled estimate showed a significant survival benefit for treatment with an AI over other endocrine therapies (HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.96). A subgroup analysis of the three commonly prescribed AIs (anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole) also showed a similar survival benefit (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.80 to 0.96). The results for progression-free survival, clinical benefit and objective response were not statistically significant and there was statistically significant heterogeneity across types of AI. There were very limited data to compare one AI with a different AI, but these suggested an advantage for letrozole over anastrozole. All the trials of AIs used exclusively as first-line therapy were against tamoxifen. There was an advantage to treatment with AIs in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) and clinical benefit (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97) but not overall survival or objective response. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies when considering clinical benefit (P = 0.001). Use of an AI as second-line therapy showed a significant benefit in terms of overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96) but not for progression-free survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.31), clinical benefit (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14) or objective response (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14). This is difficult to interpret due to the extreme heterogeneity across AIs for progression-free survival but not the other endpoints.

AIs have a different toxicity profile to other endocrine therapies. For all AIs combined, they had similar levels of hot flushes (especially when compared to tamoxifen) and arthralgia, increased risks of nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, but a decreased risk of vaginal bleeding and thromboembolic events compared with other endocrine therapies. A similar pattern of risks and benefits was still seen when analyses were limited to the currently most-prescribed third generation AIs.

Have a great day! Donna

02-16-2007, 12:43 PM	#3
Donna Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Shingle Springs, CA - near Sacramento Posts: 295	I was checking on this too Hi Suzan, This was just published - the "plain english answer" is underlined and in red below. Basically the report says that there isn't enough data yet, but that Femara (letrozole) has a slight advantage over the others. Below is the report name and link in case you want to read the whole thing. Aromatase inhibitors for treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...370/frame.html Main results Thirty studies were identified, twenty five of which were included in the main analysis of any AI versus any other treatment (9416 women). The pooled estimate showed a significant survival benefit for treatment with an AI over other endocrine therapies (HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.82 to 0.96). A subgroup analysis of the three commonly prescribed AIs (anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole) also showed a similar survival benefit (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.80 to 0.96). The results for progression-free survival, clinical benefit and objective response were not statistically significant and there was statistically significant heterogeneity across types of AI. There were very limited data to compare one AI with a different AI, but these suggested an advantage for letrozole over anastrozole. All the trials of AIs used exclusively as first-line therapy were against tamoxifen. There was an advantage to treatment with AIs in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) and clinical benefit (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97) but not overall survival or objective response. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies when considering clinical benefit (P = 0.001). Use of an AI as second-line therapy showed a significant benefit in terms of overall survival (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96) but not for progression-free survival (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.31), clinical benefit (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14) or objective response (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14). This is difficult to interpret due to the extreme heterogeneity across AIs for progression-free survival but not the other endpoints. AIs have a different toxicity profile to other endocrine therapies. For all AIs combined, they had similar levels of hot flushes (especially when compared to tamoxifen) and arthralgia, increased risks of nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, but a decreased risk of vaginal bleeding and thromboembolic events compared with other endocrine therapies. A similar pattern of risks and benefits was still seen when analyses were limited to the currently most-prescribed third generation AIs. Have a great day! Donna