Skip to main content
. 2019 Mar 21;8(4):1339–1349. doi: 10.1002/cam4.2044

Table 4.

Case series and retrospective and prospective studies of AIs in the setting of recurrent, metastatic or unresectable uLMS

Study (y) n Age ER/PR Treatment for recurrence or metastasis Response Duration (mo) Prognosis
Ioffe (2009)49 4 1 +/+
3 ±
1 Anastrozole
3 Letrozole
3 SD,1 PR 30‐50
Thanopoulou (2014)40 16 39‐72 16 +/+ 13 Letrozole (2.5 mg/d)
2 Letrozole (2.5 mg/d) + Goserelin
1 Letrozole(2.5 mg/d) → Anastrozole(1 mg/d)
2 PR, 8 SD, 6 PD 13 Median PFS: 14 mo
First‐line therapy 20   17 +/+   3 PR, 11 SD, 6 PD
Effective rate: 70%
   
Altman (2012)13 3 44‐48 1 +/+
2 ±
2 Anastrozole (1 mg/d)
1 Anastrozole (1 mg/d) → Letrozole (2.5 mg/d)
2 SD, 1 PD 4.2 (mean) Mean OS: 44.3 mo
Thanopoulou (2014)40 6 40‐74 6 +/+ 5 Exemestane (25 mg/d)
1 Anastrozole (1 mg/d)
3 SD, 3 PD 3 1‐y PFS rate: 80%
George (2014)43 27 44‐74 22 +/+, 4 ± Letrozole (2.5 mg/d) 14 SD, 13 PD 0.4‐9.9 12‐week PFS rate: 50%
Second‐line therapy 36   29 +/+   19 SD, 17 PD
Effective rate: 52.7%
   
O'Cearbhaill (2010)a 66 34 35‐74 23 +/+,
5 ‐/‐,
3 ‐/?
Letrozole
Exemestane
Anastrozole
3PR, 11SD, 20PD 1‐84 Median PFS: 2.9 mo
Total 90   69 +/+   6 PR, 41 SD, 43 PD
Effective rate: 52.2%
   

Effective rate: CR+PR+SD.

CR, complete response; OS, overall survival; PD, progression of disease; PFS, progression free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; —, The data were not described clearly; →, It means a change from the former one to the latter one.

a

This study did not mention whether AIs were used as first‐line therapy or as second‐line therapy.