Fulvestrant 250mg versus Anastrozole 1 mg in the Treatment of Advanced Breast Cancer: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

  • Gong, Dan-Dan (Institute of Molecular Biology and Translational Medicine, Affiliated People's Hospital, Jiangsu University) ;
  • Man, Chang-Feng (Institute of Molecular Biology and Translational Medicine, Affiliated People's Hospital, Jiangsu University) ;
  • Xu, Juan (Institute of Molecular Biology and Translational Medicine, Affiliated People's Hospital, Jiangsu University) ;
  • Fan, Yu (Institute of Molecular Biology and Translational Medicine, Affiliated People's Hospital, Jiangsu University)
  • 발행 : 2014.03.01


Objective: Most patients with advanced breast cancer experience resistance to endocrine treatment and eventual disease progression. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant 250mg with anastrozole 1mg in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Methods: Electronic literature databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to August 2013. Only RCTs that compared fulvestrant 250mg to anastrozole 1mg in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer were selected. The main outcomes were time to treatment failure (TTF), time to progression (TTP), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate, and tolerability. Results: Four RCTs covering 1,226 patients (fulvestrant, n=621; anastrozole, n=605) were included in the meta-analysis. Fulvestrant increased the DOR compared to anastrozole (HR =1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.51). There was no statistically significant difference between fulvestrant and anastrozole in terms of TTF (HR=1.02, 95%CI 0.89-1.17), complete response (RR=1.79, 95%CI, 0.93-3.43), and partial response (RR=0.91, 95%CI 0.69-1.21). As for safety, there was no statistical significance between the two groups for common adverse events. Conclusion: Fulvestrant 250mg is as effective and well-tolerated as anastrozole 1mg treatment for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women whose disease progressed after prior endocrine treatment. Thus, fulvestrant may serve as a reasonable alternative to anastrozole when resistance is experienced in breast cancer cases.


  1. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088-101.
  2. Bergh J, Jonsson PE, Lidbrink EK, et al (2012). FACT: an open-label randomized phase III study of fulvestrant and anastrozole in combination compared with anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for patients with receptor-positive postmenopausal breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30, 1919-25.
  3. Carlson RW, O'Neill A, Vidaurre T, et al (2012). A randomized trial of combination anastrozole plus gefitinib and of combination fulvestrant plus gefitinib in the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 133, 1049-56.
  4. Cope S, Ouwens MJ, Jansen JP, Schmid P (2013). Progression-Free Survival with Fulvestrant 500 mg and Alternative Endocrine Therapies as Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis with Parametric Survival Models. Value Health, 16, 403-17.
  5. Di Leo A, Jerusalem G, Petruzelka L, et al (2010). Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 28, 4594-600.
  6. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315, 629-34.
  7. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM et al (1998). Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst, 90, 1371-88.
  8. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al (2011). Strategies for subtypes--dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol, 22, 1736-47.
  9. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557-60.
  10. Higgins JPT GS (2009). The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2.
  11. Howell A, Robertson JF, Quaresma Albano J, et al (2002). Fulvestrant, formerly ICI 182, 780, is as effective as anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing after prior endocrine treatment. J Clin Oncol, 20, 3396-403.
  12. Howell A, Sapunar F (2011). Fulvestrant revisited: efficacy and safety of the 500-mg dose. Clin Breast Cancer, 11, 204-10.
  13. Jia WJ, Jia HX, Feng HY, et al (2014). HER2-enriched tumors have the highest risk of local recurrence in chinese patients treated with breast conservation therapy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 315-20.
  14. Kuter I, Gee JM, Hegg R, et al (2012). Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 133, 237-46.
  15. Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS, et al (2012). Combination anastrozole and fulvestrant in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 367, 435-44.
  16. Motamedi S, Majidzadeh K, Mazaheri M, Anbiaie R, Mortazavizadeh SM, Esmaeili R (2012). Tamoxifen resistance and CYP2D6 copy numbers in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 6101-4.
  17. Najafi B, Anvari S, Roshan ZA (2013). Disease free survival among molecular subtypes of early stage breast cancer between 2001 and 2010 in Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 5811-16.
  18. Ohno S, Rai Y, Iwata H, et al (2010). Three dose regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal Japanese women with advanced breast cancer: results from a double-blind, phase II comparative study (FINDER1). Ann Oncol, 21, 2342-7.
  19. Osborne CK, Pippen J, Jones SE, et al (2002). Double-blind, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer progressing on prior endocrine therapy: results of a North American trial. J Clin Oncol, 20, 3386-95.
  20. Pritchard KI, Rolski J, Papai Z, et al (2010). Results of a phase II study comparing three dosing regimens of fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer (FINDER2). Breast Cancer Res Treat, 123, 453-61.
  21. Robertson JF, Nicholson RI, Bundred NJ, et al (2001). Comparison of the short-term biological effects of 7alpha-[9-(4, 4, 5, 5, 5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)-nonyl]estra-1, 3, 5, (10)-triene-3, 17beta-diol (Faslodex) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res, 61, 6739-46.
  22. Robertson JF (2007). Fulvestrant (Faslodex) -- how to make a good drug better. Oncologist, 12, 774-84.
  23. Robertson JF, Llombart-Cussac A, Rolski J, et al (2009). Activity of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer: results from the FIRST study. J Clin Oncol, 27, 4530-5.
  24. Valachis A, Mauri D, Polyzos NP, et al (2010). Fulvestrant in the treatment of advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol, 73, 220-7.
  25. Winer EP, Hudis C, Burstein HJ, et al (2005). American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2004. J Clin Oncol, 23, 619-29.
  26. Xu B, Jiang Z, Shao Z, et al (2011). Fulvestrant 250 mg versus anastrozole for Chinese patients with advanced breast cancer: results of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase III trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 67, 223-30.

피인용 문헌

  1. Breast Cancer: Major Risk Factors and Recent Developments in Treatment vol.15, pp.8, 2014,
  2. Treatment patterns and duration in post-menopausal women with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer in the US: a retrospective chart review in community oncology practices (2004–2010) vol.31, pp.2, 2015,