Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

  • Register
  • Log in
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • AACR Publications
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
Research Article

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II, Presurgical Biomarker Trial of Celecoxib Versus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients

Valentina Aristarco, Davide Serrano, Sara Gandini, Harriet Johansson, Debora Macis, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Matteo Lazzeroni, Irene Feroce, Giancarlo Pruneri, Gianmatteo Pagani, Antonio Toesca, Pietro Caldarella, Andrea DeCensi and Bernardo Bonanni
Valentina Aristarco
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: valentina.aristarco@ieo.it
Davide Serrano
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Gandini
Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Harriet Johansson
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Debora Macis
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matteo Lazzeroni
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Irene Feroce
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Giancarlo Pruneri
Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gianmatteo Pagani
Division of Breast Cancer Surgery, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antonio Toesca
Division of Breast Cancer Surgery, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pietro Caldarella
Division of Breast Cancer Surgery, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrea DeCensi
Division of Medical Oncology, Galliera Hospital, Genoa, Italy.Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bernardo Bonanni
Division of Cancer Prevention and Genetics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0311 Published May 2016
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

In breast cancer presurgical trials, the Ki-67 labeling index predicts disease outcome and offers clues to the preventive potential of drugs. We conducted a placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the activity of exemestane and celecoxib before surgery. The main endpoint was the change in Ki-67. Secondary endpoints were the modulation of circulating biomarkers. Postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg/day (n = 50), or celecoxib 800 mg/day (n = 50), or placebo (n = 25) for 6 weeks before surgery. Changes in biomarkers were analyzed through an ANCOVA model adjusting for baseline values. Exemestane showed a median absolute 10% reduction in Ki-67 [from 22 (interquartile range, IQR, 16–27), to 8 (IQR 5–18)], and a 15% absolute reduction in PgR expression [from 50 (IQR 3–90) to 15 (IQR −0–30)] after 6 weeks of treatment. Exemestane significantly increased testosterone [median change 0.21 ng/mL, (IQR 0.12–0.35)], decreased SHBG [median change −14.6 nmol/L, (IQR −23.1 to −8.6)], decreased total and HDL cholesterol by −10 mg/dL (IQR −21–2) and −7 mg/dL, (IQR −14 to −2), respectively. Triglycerides were reduced by both agents [median change −0.5 mg/dL (IQR −17.5–13.5) and −8 mg/dL (IQR −28–9) for celecoxib and exemestane, respectively]. Exemestane showed a remarkable antiproliferative effect on breast cancer, whereas celecoxib did not affect breast cancer proliferation. Given the proven preventive efficacy of exemestane, these findings support the use of Ki-67 to explore the optimal exemestane dose and schedule in the prevention setting. Cancer Prev Res; 9(5); 349–56. ©2016 AACR.

Introduction

To increase drug development efficiency and assess tumor sensitivity to a given drug, presurgical windows of opportunity trial design have been successfully used. Ki-67 labeling index modulation has been shown to be an appropriate endpoint biomarker for preoperative studies involving hormonal therapies. The posttreatment tumor expression of Ki-67 has been shown to be correlated to disease-free survival (1, 2) and overall survival (3). In addition, Ki-67 analysis on adjacent intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical hyperplasia can be used to explore the potential preventive activity of the tested agent (4, 5).

Exemestane is an irreversible aromatase inhibitor (AI). It binds covalently to the substrate-binding site of aromatase and thereby inactivates the enzyme. This drug is highly specific and inhibits peripheral conversion of androstenedione to estradiol up to 98% (6). The drug is largely used at all stages of breast cancer (7), including the primary prevention setting, where an overall 65% reduction and a 73% reduction of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers were shown in the phase III MAP.3 trial (8). Unlike other AIs, the steroidal structure of exemestane suggests that it may have androgenic properties that may counteract the antiestrogenic properties on the bone, sexual function, and other menopausal symptoms (9).

Epidemiologic studies have explored the link between inflammation and cancer, confirming the role of anti-inflammatory drugs in decreasing cancer risk. The inhibition of COX-2, the inducible isoform of cyclooxygenase is one of the pathways involved. Induction of COX-2 by inflammatory stimuli results in the biosynthesis of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) that control the inflammatory response (10). COX-2 is widely expressed in both invasive and preinvasive breast lesions (11) and PGE2 biosynthesis is considered one check point in the mammary carcinogenesis pathway. Moreover, increased PGE2 levels stimulate aromatase transcription (12). Therefore, NSAIDs and selective anti-COX-2 inhibitors may reduce breast cancer risk through the downregulation of aromatase expression (13). Observational studies, with some inconsistency, have demonstrated an association of NSAID use with reduced breast cancer risk, recurrence, and death (14–16). Among the COX-2 selective inhibitors, celecoxib has a relatively safe profile and has been considered as a possible breast cancer preventive agent (17).

We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled presurgical trial to assess the antiproliferative activity of exemestane and celecoxib in a window-of-opportunity trial in women with ER-positive early breast cancer. The primary outcome was the change in Ki-67 in tumor biopsies before and after 6 weeks of treatment to confirm the antiproliferative effect of exemestane and celecoxib. The expression of ER and progesterone receptor (PgR) was before and after treatment. Secondary endpoints were a panel of circulating biomarkers, including testosterone and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG), lipid profile, antithrombin III, fibrinogen; C-reactive protein (CRP), C-telopeptide or carboxy-terminal collagen crosslinks (CTX), osteocalcin, and a major urinary metabolite of PGE2 (PGE-M).

Materials and Methods

Study setting, participants, and recruitment

We conducted a randomized phase II placebo-controlled trial in postmenopausal women with stage I to II ER-positive breast cancer. The treatment arms were exemestane (25 mg/day), celecoxib (800 mg/day), or placebo for 6 weeks before surgery. Exemestane and placebo were double blinded, whereas celecoxib, due to the different dosage and schedule, was open. The arm ratio was 2:2:1 for exemestane, celecoxib, and placebo, respectively. The duration of the treatment was based on the average waiting list in our institute when the study was conducted. The study (IEO number 162, register number ISRCTN86894592) and all amendments during its conduct were approved by the Institutional Review Board (European Institute of Oncology Ethical Committee). Main eligibility criteria were: postmenopausal histologically confirmed ER-positive primary breast cancer (stage T1–2 N0–1, M0), eligible for surgery; signed informed consent. Women with larger tumors who refused neoadjuvant treatment were also eligible.

Exclusion criteria included: previous treatment for breast cancer including chemotherapy and endocrine therapy, coexisting malignancies diagnosed within 5 years with the exception of basal cell carcinoma or cervical cancer in situ, history of thromboembolic events or other cardiovascular diseases, current anticoagulant therapy, moderate to severe alterations in hematologic profile and hemostasis, dysfunction in renal and hepatic metabolism.

Baseline core biopsies of tumor tissue were collected to confirm tumor characteristics. At baseline visit, blood and urine samples, medical history and anthropometric measurements, concomitant medication, and symptoms were collected. The day before surgery, blood and urine samples, symptoms and toxicity, anthropometric measurements, and concomitant medication were taken. At surgery, a sample of breast cancer tissue was stored. Toxicity was evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), version 3.0.

Sampling of biologic specimens and circulating biomarkers

Morning fasting blood samples were taken at baseline and on the day before surgery; serum and plasma were separated by 10-minute centrifugation at 1,850 × g and stored at −80°C until assays were performed.

Total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides serum levels were determined by a high-sensitivity turbidimetric method with Cobas Integra (Roche Diagnostics), a fully mechanized multichannel analyzer for routine clinical chemistry purposes. Methods were followed according to the specific instructions. LDL-cholesterol was obtained according to the Friedewald formula [LDL-cholesterol = total cholesterol − HDL-cholesterol-(triglycerides/5)].

Serum concentrations of high-sensitive- C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) were also measured by COBAS INTEGRA 800 according to the manufacturer's instructions. Sensitivity for the hs-CRP assay was 0.1 mg/L and the intra- and interassay coefficients of variation expected was 4% and 6.4%, respectively, for a control sample of 0.423 mg/L.

Plasma fibrinogen and antithrombin III were assayed on plasma citrate samples using the ACL Elite Pro Analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratory). In this assay, clot detection was performed using photo-optical technology.

SHBG, testosterone, CTX, and osteocalcin were evaluated on a Modular E411 immunoanalyzer (Roche Diagnostics). The sensitivity of the assays was 0.0350 nmol/L and 0.025 ng/mL for SHBG and testosterone, 0.01 and 0.50 ng/mL for CTX and osteocalcin, respectively.

With the exception of the lipid profile, fibrinogen and antithrombin III, which were determined on fresh specimens, pretreatment and posttreatment serum samples obtained from each subject were simultaneously assayed on frozen samples to eliminate the effects of interassay variation. In these assays, in addition to the specific control samples provided with an assay kit, an in-house pooled control sample of serum obtained from healthy donors was used to monitor the coefficient of variation between assays.

First morning urine samples (15 mL) from the same patients were obtained under fasting condition at baseline and the day before surgery. Urinary creatinine was determined to normalize urinary biomarker results.

Because of the rapid metabolism of PGE2, the determination of the in vivo biosynthesis was accomplished by the measurement of the concentration of PGE2 metabolites. We measured urinary concentrations of PGE metabolites (PGEM) by a competitive enzyme immunoassay (EIA) kit purchased from Cayman (Cayman Chemical Co.) that converts all major metabolites into a single stable derivative which is easily measurable by EIA. PGE-M levels were normalized to the creatinine level of the sample to account for differences arising from variations in urine concentrations.

Pathology and IHC

Biopsy and surgical specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin for 6 to 8 hours before being embedded in paraffin. Sections (4-μm thick) were cut and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Consecutive serial sections were used for immunohistochemical determinations. Expressions of ER, PgR, Ki-67, HER2/neu were determined by IHC, as described previously (18). Tumor subtypes were classified by IHC into four categories according to the 2011 St. Gallen criteria (19).

Statistical analysis

In this phase II presurgical trial, we tested the differences in the changes in Ki-67 by treatment arms. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage change from baseline to surgery. All randomized subjects were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat.

In a single-factor ANOVA study, a sample size of 125 patients (50, 50, and 25 for the three arms exemestane, celecoxib, and placebo) had 85% power to detect a difference in the means of percentage changes in Ki-67 versus the alternative hypothesis of equal means using an F test with a 0.05 significance level. The size of the variation in the means is represented by a SD of 18. This calculation was made based on the hypothesis of a 20% increase in percentage change of Ki-67 in the placebo arm and a 25% decrease in the treatment arms. The common SD within a group was assumed to be 60. Descriptive statistics of subjects' demographics and tumor characteristics at baseline were presented and differences among arms are assessed with nonparametric Wilcoxon tests, when evaluated as continuous variables, or χ2 when presented as categorical variables. We also described median values, and interquartile ranges (IQR), of biomarkers at baseline, at surgery, by treatment arms and compared changes and percentage changes, from baseline to surgery, by treatment arms.

The statistical analysis of the primary and secondary endpoints was based on the comparison of the pre–post treatment changes of Ki-67 LI and the other biomarkers adjusting for baseline level. Two orthogonal contrasts were used to compare biomarker changes among treatment groups: any treatment versus placebo and exemestane versus celecoxib. These contrasts were specified a priori and are consistent with the aims of the study. No adjustment for multiple comparisons on the secondary endpoints was made because they were exploratory and should therefore be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.

The effect of potential covariates, such as age, body mass index (BMI), tumor grade and size, and baseline levels of biomarkers, together with their interactions with treatment, were investigated via the ANCOVA analysis. We verified the normal distribution of residuals of the full model. All statistical tests were two-sided. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.0, SAS Institute Inc).

Results

A total of 125 out of a total of 252 screened postmenopausal patients were recruited from February 2004 to March 2009. They were randomized to either exemestane 25 mg/day, or celecoxib 800 mg/day or placebo (50:50:25 subjects each arm). Twenty-two women were not eligible, 26 refused to participate in the study, and 79 entered in competing trials (Fig. 1). The three arms were well balanced and the main characteristics of the randomized patients are shown in Table 1. Compliance was checked by a self-reported diary and pill count. Overall compliance was very high, 74% of the patients showed a pill intake > 80%.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Consort statement.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patients' characteristics at baseline

Tissue biomarkers

The pretreatment versus posttreatment changes in Ki-67, ER, and PgR are shown in Table 2. At baseline, the median level of Ki-67 was 22% (IQR 16–27) in the exemestane group and 18% in the celecoxib and placebo arms (IQR 12–22 and 15–25, respectively). After 6 weeks of treatment, a significant absolute reduction in Ki-67 of 10% (IQR −18 to −5), and over a 50 % relative reduction from baseline was observed in the exemestane group, whereas no change was observed in the two other arms (P value = 0.002 for any treatment versus placebo and P value < 0.0001 for exemestane vs. celecoxib). Exemestane also induced a significant reduction in PgR expression from baseline (median change −15% (IQR −52–0) corresponding to a −77% (IQR −0.19 to −1) relative change (P value = 0.002 for treatment vs. placebo and P value < 0.0001 for exemestane vs. celecoxib) and no significant change in ER expression (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Median and IQR of tissue markers

Circulating biomarkers

The levels of circulating biomarkers are shown in Table 3. Patients receiving exemestane showed an increase in testosterone from baseline, whereas SHBG levels significantly decreased (median change from baseline 0.21, IQR 0.12–0.35 and −14.6; IQR −23.1 to −8.6 for testosterone and SHBG, respectively). No change was observed in the other two arms (P < 0.0001 for any treatment vs. placebo and exemestane vs. celecoxib for testosterone; P = 0.0007 and P < 0.0001 for any treatments vs. placebo and. exemestane vs. celecoxib for SHBG, respectively).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Median and IQR of circulating markers before and after treatment

Several cardiovascular risk biomarkers were analyzed. They included total and HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fibrinogen, and antithrombin III. Triglycerides were significantly reduced by exemestane or celecoxib compared with placebo (median change −0.5, IQR −17.5–13.5 and −8; IQR −28–9 for celecoxib and exemestane, respectively; P value = 0.03). Total cholesterol was significantly reduced by exemestane versus celecoxib (P = 0.0006), and HDL-C was reduced by exemestane (P = 0.04 for any treatment vs. placebo and P < 0.0001 for exemestane vs. celecoxib). No changes in fibrinogen, antithrombin III, CRP, and PGE-M were observed.

Osteocalcin did not show any relevant change, wheras CTX was reduced by celecoxib compared with exemestane (P = 0.002).

Symptoms and toxicity

No grade 3 adverse event was detected after 6 weeks of treatment. In the exemestane arm, 9 subjects (18%) experienced a worsening or de novo mild to moderate hot flashes versus 3 subjects (12%) in the placebo arm and 4 subjects (8%) in the celecoxib group. Six subjects (12%) reported a worsening of night sweating on exemestane versus 2 (8%) in the placebo arm and none in the celecoxib group. Seven subjects (14%) had grade 1 or 2 gastrointestinal toxicity on celecoxib versus 2 (4%) in the exemestane arm and none in the placebo arm. Musculo-skeletal pain was reported in 2 subjects (4%) on exemestane whereas this symptom ameliorated in 4 subjects (8%) in the celecoxib arm.

Discussion

This trial was designed as a window-of-opportunity study to test the biologic effects of exemestane and celecoxib. The main endpoint was cancer cell proliferation reduction measured by Ki-67 expression. This biomarker together with the secondary endpoints explains some of the mechanisms through which these drugs can act as cancer preventive agents. The relevance of the Ki-67 as surrogate biomarker is documented in several presurgical studies where Ki-67 after presurgical treatment predicts disease-free and overall survival (3, 20, 21). Our results clearly showed a remarkable 10% absolute reduction in Ki-67 expression after exemestane treatment. Ki-67 reduction matched with a remarkable 15% absolute PgR expression reduction, another marker of drug biologic activity (22).

In our previous presurgical trial with different tamoxifen doses (23), the Ki-67 median percent change was much lower compared with that with exemestane (−-54% and 15%, for exemestane and tamoxifen, respectively). Overall, all three registered AIs showed a comparable antiproliferative activity and a greater Ki-67 reduction compared with tamoxifen (24). The IMPACT trial compared anastrozole versus tamoxifen or the combination; the anastrozole arm showed a greater Ki-67 reduction compared with the other two arms (25). The P024 study compared tamoxifen to letrozole with similar results (26). Importantly, all these studies showed a correlation between Ki-67 level after treatment and disease-free survival. Also presurgical exemestane treatment modulates Ki-67 and this correlates with the clinical response (27–29). However, the Ki-67 values are not easily comparable among studies due to the technical variability between different laboratories (30). The clinical relevance of the Ki-67 reduction in the prevention setting is highlighted by the effect of AIs shown in phase III trials, where exemestane and anastrozole reduced breast cancer incidence by 50% to 60% (31, 32) compared with the 40% reduction of SERMs (33).

Consistent with prior studies (34, 35), testosterone levels were increased by exemestane, with a possible greater effect compared with the nonsteroidal AIs. This effect is biologically plausible as AIs inhibit the enzyme which converts androgens to estrogens, even though increased levels of testosterone have not been found in all studies (36). Testosterone is a clear breast cancer risk factor for healthy premenopausal women (37, 38). More recently, it has been shown that testosterone can be a biomarker of recurrence in postmenopausal women (39). Interestingly, in a case–control study nested to the WHEL trial, testosterone and SHBG levels were not associated with increased risk of recurrence, whereas higher serum estrogen concentrations were associated with recurrence risk (40). However, a more recent publication from the WHEL study showed a direct correlation between bioavailable testosterone levels and higher risk of recurrence in postmenopausal women with hot flashes (41). While it is unclear whether testosterone is a breast cancer risk biomarker per se or as a precursor of estrogen (42), it is unknown if the increase in testosterone on exemestane may attenuate its preventive potential long-term.

On the basis of the modulation of circulating biomarkers, exemestane may have a neutral cardiovascular safety/toxicity profile, as in our study it decreased total cholesterol and triglycerides but also, to a lesser extent, HDL-C. AIs have been associated with increased cerebrovascular risk in some studies (43, 44), but not all studies, possibly due to their adverse lipid modulation (45).

The presumed better effect on bone metabolism due to the steroidal structure compared with the other nonsteroidal AIs remains controversial (46, 47). Bone-circulating biomarkers were not modified by short-term exemestane treatment. AIs have clear side effects on bone mineral density and fracture risk which is usually associated with an increased bone resorption and formation markers with a peak at 12 to 18 months (48). However, a reduction in bone mineral density is not always preceded by alterations of bone turnover markers (49).

Our results on Ki-67 are in line with those arising from a similar study in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with exemestane, celecoxib, their combination, or placebo (50). The data were comparable for the exemestane effects on Ki-67 and PgR and no effect by celecoxib. Conversely, in another study in COX2-expressing DCIS, the combination of exemestane and celecoxib showed a possible synergistic effect (51).

Celecoxib alone has been evaluated in previous breast cancer presurgical studies with contradictory results: Martin and colleagues showed mainly null results with 400 mg/day treated for 2 weeks (52), whereas Brandão and colleagues used 400 mg twice a day for 2 to 3 weeks and showed a significant Ki-67 reduction (53). Both studies evaluated a relatively small group of subjects.

Regarding side effects and quality of life, only minor increased climacteric symptoms in the exemestane arm and gastrointestinal discomfort in the celecoxib arm were observed, with no grade 3 adverse events. In the MAP-3 prevention trial, exemestane did not affect quality of life and did not increase fracture risk compared with placebo, notwithstanding a reduction in bone mineral density (8, 49, 54). In the CAAN trial (49), exemestane in combination with celecoxib showed a significantly better quality of life compared with exemestane alone or letrozole. The modest excess of gastrointestinal toxicity in the celecoxib arm should also be interpreted with caution as treatment was unblinded.

The strengths of this study are: the relatively high sample size, the high compliance, and the evaluation of the Ki-67 in a referral laboratory for this methodology (55). It may be considered a weakness that there was a 2:2:1 randomization ratio with a lower power to detect subtle biomarker changes. Also the combination arm was excluded despite the possible interaction between exemestane and celecoxib, because our aim was to develop prevention strategies that were simple and acceptable by high-risk subjects. Results of exploratory analyses on circulating biomarkers should also be considered with caution because the study was designed to investigate differences in Ki-67 between any treatment versus placebo or exemestane versus celecoxib.

The low uptake of breast cancer preventive drugs (56) has led to the use of alternative schedules and doses to minimize toxicity and increase acceptance (57). We are planning a presurgical trial of alternative dosing of exemestane.

In conclusion, our findings indicate that Ki-67 is significantly modulated after short exemestane treatment. Given the known preventive efficacy of exemestane, our findings support the use of Ki-67 as a reliable surrogate biomarker of preventive efficacy. In contrast, there is no clear evidence to support the possible role celecoxib in breast cancer prevention.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: V. Aristarco, D. Serrano, M. Lazzeroni, G. Pruneri, A. DeCensi, B. Bonanni

Development of methodology: H. Joahnsson, D. Macis, G. Pruneri, B. Bonanni

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): D. Serrano, H. Joahnsson, D. Macis, M. Lazzeroni, I. Feroce, G. Pruneri, A. Toesca

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S. Gandini, A. Guerrieri-Gonzaga, G. Pruneri

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: V. Aristarco, D. Serrano, S. Gandini, D. Macis, G. Pruneri, A. DeCensi, B. Bonanni

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): H. Joahnsson, D. Macis, A. Guerrieri-Gonzaga

Study supervision: A. Guerrieri-Gonzaga, A. DeCensi, B. Bonanni

Other (laboratory assays and technical support): V. Aristarco

Other (performed the core biopsy): G. Pagani

Other (breast biopsy): P. Caldarella

Grant Support

B. Bonanni received the financial support by European Institute of Oncology Foundation.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • A. DeCensi and B. Bonanni are co-senior authors of this article.

  • Received August 24, 2015.
  • Revision received January 29, 2016.
  • Accepted February 15, 2016.
  • ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Yerushalmi R,
    2. Woods R,
    3. Ravdin PM,
    4. Hayes MM,
    5. Gelmon KA
    . Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:174–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Kalinsky K,
    2. Hershman DL
    . Cracking open window of opportunity trials. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2573–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A,
    3. Gandini S,
    4. Serrano D,
    5. Cazzaniga M,
    6. Mora S,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic significance of Ki-67 labeling index after short-term presurgical tamoxifen in women with Er-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2010;22:582–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Puntoni M,
    3. Pruneri G,
    4. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A,
    5. Lazzeroni M,
    6. Serrano D,
    7. et al.
    Lapatinib activity in premalignant lesions and HER-2-positive cancer of the breast in a randomized, placebo-controlled presurgical trial. Cancer Prev Res 2011;4:1181–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Guerrieri-Gonzaga A,
    3. Pruneri G,
    4. Puntoni M,
    5. Cazzaniga M,
    6. Vingiani A,
    7. et al.
    Metformin decreases Ki67 in HER2+ve ductal carcinoma in situ in a window of opportunity trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 Dec 9–13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Abstract nr P5-12-02.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Lonning PE
    . Exemestane: a review of its clinical efficacy and safety. Breast 2001;10:198–208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Van AK,
    2. Neven P,
    3. Lintermans A,
    4. Wildiers H,
    5. Paridaens R
    . Aromatase inhibitors in the breast cancer clinic: focus on exemestane. Endocr Relat Cancer 2014;21:R31–49.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Goss PE,
    2. Ingle JN,
    3. Alés-Martinez JE,
    4. Cheung AM,
    5. Chlebowski RT,
    6. Wactawski-Wende J,
    7. et al.
    Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2381–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lonning PE,
    2. Geisler J,
    3. Krag LE,
    4. Erikstein B,
    5. Bremnes Y,
    6. Hagen AI,
    7. et al.
    Effects of exemestane administered for 2 years versus placebo on bone mineral density, bone biomarkers, and plasma lipids in patients with surgically resected early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5126–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Harris RE,
    2. Casto BC,
    3. Harris ZM
    . Cyclooxygenase-2 and the inflammogenesis of breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol 2014;5:677–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Soslow RA,
    2. Dannenberg AJ,
    3. Rush D,
    4. Woerner BM,
    5. Khan KN,
    6. Masferrer J,
    7. et al.
    Cox-2 is expressed in human pulmonary, colonic, and mammary tumors. Cancer 2000;89:2637–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Barnes NL,
    2. Warnberg F,
    3. Farnie G,
    4. White D,
    5. Jiang W,
    6. Anderson E,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition: effects on tumour growth, cell cycling and lymphangiogenesis in a xenograft model of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2007;96:575–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Diaz-Cruz ES,
    2. Shapiro CL,
    3. Brueggemeier RW
    . Cyclooxygenase inhibitors suppress aromatase expression and activity in breast cancer cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:2563–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Moorman PG,
    2. Grubber JM,
    3. Millikan RC,
    4. Newman B
    . Association between non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and invasive breast cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Causes Control 2003;14:915–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Bowers LW,
    2. Maximo IX,
    3. Brenner AJ,
    4. Beeram M,
    5. Hursting SD,
    6. Price RS,
    7. et al.
    NSAID use reduces breast cancer recurrence in overweight and obese women: role of prostaglandin-aromatase interactions. Cancer Res 2014;74:4446–57.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Holmes MD,
    2. Chen WY,
    3. Li L,
    4. Hertzmark E,
    5. Spiegelman D,
    6. Hankinson SE
    . Aspirin intake and survival after breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1467–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mukherjee D
    . Does a coxib-associated thrombotic risk limit the clinical use of the compounds as analgesic anti-inflammatory drugs? Arguments in favor. Thromb Haemost 2006;96:407–12.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Viale G,
    2. Giobbie-Hurder A,
    3. Regan MM,
    4. Coates AS,
    5. Mastropasqua MG,
    6. Dell'orto P,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5569–75.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Goldhirsch A,
    2. Wood WC,
    3. Coates AS,
    4. Gelber RD,
    5. Thurlimann B,
    6. Senn HJ
    . 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 2011;22:1736–47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Dowsett M,
    2. Smith IE,
    3. Ebbs SR,
    4. Dixon JM,
    5. Skene A,
    6. Griffith C,
    7. et al.
    Short-term changes in Ki-67 during neoadjuvant treatment of primary breast cancer with anastrozole or tamoxifen alone or combined correlate with recurrence-free survival. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:951s–8s.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Dowsett M,
    2. Smith IE,
    3. Ebbs SR,
    4. Dixon JM,
    5. Skene A,
    6. A'hern R,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic value of Ki67 expression after short-term presurgical endocrine therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:167–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Tubiana-Hulin M,
    2. Becette V,
    3. Bieche I,
    4. Mauriac L,
    5. Romieu G,
    6. Bibeau F,
    7. et al.
    Exemestane as neoadjuvant hormonotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: results of a phase II trial. Anticancer Res 2007;27:2689–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Robertson C,
    3. Viale G,
    4. Pigatto F,
    5. Johansson H,
    6. Kisanga ER,
    7. et al.
    A randomized trial of low-dose tamoxifen on breast cancer proliferation and blood estrogenic biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:779–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Ellis MJ,
    2. Suman VJ,
    3. Hoog J,
    4. Lin L,
    5. Snider J,
    6. Prat A,
    7. et al.
    Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype–ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2342–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Dowsett M,
    2. Ebbs SR,
    3. Dixon JM,
    4. Skene A,
    5. Griffith C,
    6. Boeddinghaus I,
    7. et al.
    Biomarker changes during neoadjuvant anastrozole, tamoxifen, or the combination: influence of hormonal status and Her-2 in breast cancer–a study from the impact trialists. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2477–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Ellis MJ,
    2. Ma C
    . Letrozole in the neoadjuvant setting: the P024 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;105 Suppl 1:33–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Bundred NJ,
    2. Cramer A,
    3. Morris J,
    4. Renshaw L,
    5. Cheung KL,
    6. Flint P,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition does not improve the reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ proliferation with aromatase inhibitor therapy: results of the ERISAC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1605–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Mlineritsch B,
    2. Tausch C,
    3. Singer C,
    4. Luschin-Ebengreuth G,
    5. Jakesz R,
    6. Ploner F,
    7. et al.
    Exemestane as primary systemic treatment for hormone receptor positive post-menopausal breast cancer patients: a phase II trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG-17). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:203–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Toi M,
    2. Saji S,
    3. Masuda N,
    4. Kuroi K,
    5. Sato N,
    6. Takei H,
    7. et al.
    Ki67 index changes, pathological response and clinical benefits in primary breast cancer patients treated with 24 weeks of aromatase inhibition. Cancer Sci 2011;102:858–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Polley MY,
    2. Leung SC,
    3. Gao D,
    4. Mastropasqua MG,
    5. Zabaglo LA,
    6. Bartlett JM,
    7. et al.
    An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol 2015;28:778–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Goss PE,
    2. Richardson H,
    3. Chlebowski R,
    4. Johnston D,
    5. Sarto GE,
    6. Maunsell E,
    7. et al.
    National Cancer Institute Of Canada Clinical Trials Group Map.3 Trial: evaluation of exemestane to prevent breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Clin Breast Cancer 2007;7:895–900.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Cuzick J,
    2. Sestak I,
    3. Forbes JF,
    4. Dowsett M,
    5. Knox J,
    6. Cawthorn S,
    7. et al.
    Anastrozole for prevention of breast cancer in high-risk postmenopausal women (IBIS-II): an international, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2014;383:1041–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Cuzick J,
    2. Sestak I,
    3. Bonanni B,
    4. Costantino JP,
    5. Cummings S,
    6. Decensi A,
    7. et al.
    Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 2013;381:1827–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Gallicchio L,
    2. Macdonald R,
    3. Wood B,
    4. Rushovich E,
    5. Helzlsouer KJ
    . Androgens and musculoskeletal symptoms among breast cancer patients on aromatase inhibitor therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;130:569–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Rossi E,
    2. Morabito A,
    3. Di Rella F,
    4. Esposito G,
    5. Gravina A,
    6. Labonia V,
    7. et al.
    Endocrine effects of adjuvant letrozole compared with tamoxifen in hormone-responsive postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer: the HOBOE trial. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3192–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Ingle JN,
    2. Buzdar AU,
    3. Schaid DJ,
    4. Goetz MP,
    5. Batzler A,
    6. Robson ME,
    7. et al.
    Variation in anastrozole metabolism and pharmacodynamics in women with early breast cancer. Cancer Res 2010;70:3278–86.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Kaaks R,
    2. Berrino F,
    3. Key T,
    4. Rinaldi S,
    5. Dossus L,
    6. Biessy C,
    7. et al.
    Serum sex steroids in premenopausal women and breast cancer risk within the european prospective investigation into Cancer And Nutrition (EPIC). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:755–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. 38.↵
    1. Eliassen AH,
    2. Missmer SA,
    3. Tworoger SS,
    4. Hankinson SE
    . Endogenous steroid hormone concentrations and risk of breast cancer: does the association vary by a woman's predicted breast cancer risk? J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1823–30.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. 39.↵
    1. Micheli A,
    2. Meneghini E,
    3. Secreto G,
    4. Berrino F,
    5. Venturelli E,
    6. Cavalleri A,
    7. et al.
    Plasma testosterone and prognosis of postmenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2685–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Rock CL,
    2. Flatt SW,
    3. Laughlin GA,
    4. Gold EB,
    5. Thomson CA,
    6. Natarajan L,
    7. et al.
    Reproductive steroid hormones and recurrence-free survival in women with a history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:614–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Emond JA,
    2. Patterson RE,
    3. Natarajan L,
    4. Laughlin GA,
    5. Gold EB,
    6. Pierce JP
    . Sex hormone concentrations and the risk of breast cancer recurrence in postmenopausal women without hot flashes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:939–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Zeleniuch-Jacquotte A,
    2. Shore RE,
    3. Koenig KL,
    4. Akhmedkhanov A,
    5. Afanasyeva Y,
    6. Kato I,
    7. et al.
    Postmenopausal levels of oestrogen, androgen, and SHBG and breast cancer: long-term results of a prospective study. Br J Cancer 2004;90:153–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Forbes JF,
    2. Cuzick J,
    3. Buzdar A,
    4. Howell A,
    5. Tobias JS,
    6. Baum M
    . Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:45–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cuzick J
    . IBIS II: a breast cancer prevention trial in postmenopausal women using the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2008;8:1377–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Forbes JF,
    2. Sestak I,
    3. Howell A,
    4. Bonanni B,
    5. Bundred N,
    6. Levy C,
    7. et al.
    Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015 Dec 11. [Epub ahead of print].
  46. 46.↵
    1. Shapiro Cl
    . Aromatase inhibitors and bone loss: risks in perspective. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4847–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Mccloskey EV,
    2. Hannon RA,
    3. Lakner G,
    4. Fraser WD,
    5. Clack G,
    6. Miyamoto A,
    7. et al.
    Effects of third generation aromatase inhibitors on bone health and other safety parameters: results of an open, randomised, multi-centre study of letrozole, exemestane and anastrozole in healthy postmenopausal women. Eur J Cancer 2007;43:2523–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Coleman RE,
    2. Banks LM,
    3. Girgis SI,
    4. Kilburn LS,
    5. Vrdoljak E,
    6. Fox J,
    7. et al.
    Skeletal effects of exemestane on bone-mineral density, bone biomarkers, and fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer participating in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES): a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:119–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Chow LW,
    2. Yip AY,
    3. Chu WP,
    4. Loo WT,
    5. Toi M
    . Bone metabolism and quality-of-life of postmenopausal women with invasive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant hormonal therapy: sub-analyses from celecoxib anti-aromatase neoadjuvant (CAAN) trial. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2011;125:112–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Bundred NJ,
    2. Cramer A,
    3. Morris J,
    4. Renshaw L,
    5. Cheung KL,
    6. Flint P,
    7. et al.
    Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition does not improve the reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ proliferation with aromatase inhibitor therapy: results of the ERISAC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1605–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Generali D,
    2. Buffa FM,
    3. Deb S,
    4. Cummings M,
    5. Reid LE,
    6. Taylor M,
    7. et al.
    Cox-2 expression is predictive for early relapse and aromatase inhibitor resistance in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, and is a target for treatment. Br J Cancer 2014;111:46–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Martin LA,
    2. Davies GL,
    3. Weigel MT,
    4. Betambeau N,
    5. Hills MJ,
    6. Salter J,
    7. et al.
    Pre-surgical study of the biological effects of the selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;123:829–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Brandão RD,
    2. Veeck J,
    3. Van de Vijver KK,
    4. Lindsey P,
    5. de Vries B,
    6. van Elssen CH,
    7. et al.
    A randomised controlled phase II trial of pre-operative celecoxib treatment reveals anti-tumour transcriptional response in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15:R29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Maunsell E,
    2. Goss PE,
    3. Chlebowski RT,
    4. Ingle JN,
    5. Alés-Martinez JE,
    6. Sarto GE,
    7. et al.
    Quality of life in Map.3 (Mammary Prevention 3): a randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating exemestane for prevention of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1427–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Polley MY,
    2. Leung SC,
    3. Mcshane LM,
    4. Gao D,
    5. Hugh JC,
    6. Mastropasqua MG,
    7. et al.
    An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1897–906.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Waters EA,
    2. Mcneel TS,
    3. Stevens WM,
    4. Freedman AN
    . Use of tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention in 2010. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;134:875–80.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Decensi A,
    2. Thorat MA,
    3. Bonanni B,
    4. Smith SG,
    5. Cuzick J
    . Barriers to preventive therapy for breast and other major cancers and strategies to improve uptake. Ecancermedicalscience 2015;9:595.
    OpenUrlPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 9 (5)
May 2016
Volume 9, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II, Presurgical Biomarker Trial of Celecoxib Versus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
Citation Tools
A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II, Presurgical Biomarker Trial of Celecoxib Versus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients
Valentina Aristarco, Davide Serrano, Sara Gandini, Harriet Johansson, Debora Macis, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Matteo Lazzeroni, Irene Feroce, Giancarlo Pruneri, Gianmatteo Pagani, Antonio Toesca, Pietro Caldarella, Andrea DeCensi and Bernardo Bonanni
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2016 (9) (5) 349-356; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0311

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II, Presurgical Biomarker Trial of Celecoxib Versus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients
Valentina Aristarco, Davide Serrano, Sara Gandini, Harriet Johansson, Debora Macis, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Matteo Lazzeroni, Irene Feroce, Giancarlo Pruneri, Gianmatteo Pagani, Antonio Toesca, Pietro Caldarella, Andrea DeCensi and Bernardo Bonanni
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2016 (9) (5) 349-356; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0311
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Cervical Screening by Self-collection, Pap, or a Choice
  • Colorectal Cancer Chemoprevention
  • Sulforaphane and Breast Cancer Stem-like Cells
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians
  • Reviewers

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2019 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement