+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The impact of Anastrazole and Letrozole on the metabolic profile in an experimental animal model

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Anastrazole and Letrozole are used as endocrine therapy for breast cancer patients. Previous studies suggested a possible association with metabolic and liver adverse effects. Their results are conflicting. Fifty-five 4-week-old female Wistar rats were allocated in 4 groups 1) ovariectomy control (OC), 2) ovariectomy-Anastrazole (OA) 3) ovariectomy -Letrozole (OL), 4) control. Serum glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-c and LDL-c were measured at baseline, 2 and 4 months. At the end, the animals‘ liver were dissected for pathology. At 4 months, total cholesterol differed among the OC and OL groups ( p =  0.15) and the control and OL groups ( p =  0.12). LDL-C differed between the control and OC groups ( p =  0.015) as well as between the control and OA ( p =0  .015) and OL groups ( p =  0.002). OC group triglycerides, differed from those of the OL group ( p =0  .002) and the control group ( p =  0.007). The OA also significantly differed from the OL ( p =  0.50). Liver pathology analysis revealed differences among groups with favored mild steatosis and ballooning. Anastrazole and Letrozole seem to negatively influence the lipid profile in our experimental model. This information should be taken in caution by medical oncologists when addressing patients with altered lipid metabolism.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

          Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by hepatic steatosis in the absence of a history of significant alcohol use or other known liver disease. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the progressive form of NAFLD. The Pathology Committee of the NASH Clinical Research Network designed and validated a histological feature scoring system that addresses the full spectrum of lesions of NAFLD and proposed a NAFLD activity score (NAS) for use in clinical trials. The scoring system comprised 14 histological features, 4 of which were evaluated semi-quantitatively: steatosis (0-3), lobular inflammation (0-2), hepatocellular ballooning (0-2), and fibrosis (0-4). Another nine features were recorded as present or absent. An anonymized study set of 50 cases (32 from adult hepatology services, 18 from pediatric hepatology services) was assembled, coded, and circulated. For the validation study, agreement on scoring and a diagnostic categorization ("NASH," "borderline," or "not NASH") were evaluated by using weighted kappa statistics. Inter-rater agreement on adult cases was: 0.84 for fibrosis, 0.79 for steatosis, 0.56 for injury, and 0.45 for lobular inflammation. Agreement on diagnostic category was 0.61. Using multiple logistic regression, five features were independently associated with the diagnosis of NASH in adult biopsies: steatosis (P = .009), hepatocellular ballooning (P = .0001), lobular inflammation (P = .0001), fibrosis (P = .0001), and the absence of lipogranulomas (P = .001). The proposed NAS is the unweighted sum of steatosis, lobular inflammation, and hepatocellular ballooning scores. In conclusion, we present a strong scoring system and NAS for NAFLD and NASH with reasonable inter-rater reproducibility that should be useful for studies of both adults and children with any degree of NAFLD. NAS of > or =5 correlated with a diagnosis of NASH, and biopsies with scores of less than 3 were diagnosed as "not NASH."
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer.

             John F Forbes,  Ian Smith,   (2005)
            The aromatase inhibitor letrozole is a more effective treatment for metastatic breast cancer and more effective in the neoadjuvant setting than tamoxifen. We compared letrozole with tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for steroid-hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women. The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study is a randomized, phase 3, double-blind trial that compared five years of treatment with various adjuvant endocrine therapy regimens in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer: letrozole, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole. This analysis compares the two groups assigned to receive letrozole initially with the two groups assigned to receive tamoxifen initially; events and follow-up in the sequential-treatment groups were included up to the time that treatments were switched. A total of 8010 women with data that could be assessed were enrolled, 4003 in the letrozole group and 4007 in the tamoxifen group. After a median follow-up of 25.8 months, 351 events had occurred in the letrozole group and 428 events in the tamoxifen group, with five-year disease-free survival estimates of 84.0 percent and 81.4 percent, respectively. As compared with tamoxifen, letrozole significantly reduced the risk of an event ending a period of disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.93; P=0.003), especially the risk of distant recurrence (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.88; P=0.001). Thromboembolism, endometrial cancer, and vaginal bleeding were more common in the tamoxifen group. Women given letrozole had a higher incidence of skeletal and cardiac events and of hypercholesterolemia. In postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with letrozole, as compared with tamoxifen, reduced the risk of recurrent disease, especially at distant sites. ( number, NCT00004205.) Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial.

              Little data exist on whether efficacy benefits or side-effects persist after 5 years of adjuvant treatment with an aromatase inhibitor. We aimed to study long-term outcomes in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial that compares anastrozole with tamoxifen after a median follow-up of 100 months. We analysed postmenopausal women with localised invasive breast cancer. The primary endpoint disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoints time to recurrence (TTR), incidence of new contralateral breast cancer (CLBC), time to distant recurrence (TTDR), overall survival (OS), and death after recurrence were assessed in the total population (intention to treat; ITT: anastrozole, n=3125; tamoxifen, n=3116; total 6241) and the hormone-receptor-positive subpopulation, the clinically important subgroup for which endocrine treatment is now known to be effective (84% of ITT: anastrozole, n=2618; tamoxifen, n=2598; total 5216). After treatment completion, fractures and serious adverse events continued to be collected blindly (safety population: anastrozole, n=3092; tamoxifen, n=3094; total 6186). This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN18233230. At a median follow-up of 100 months (range 0-126), DFS, TTR, TTDR, and CLBC were improved significantly in the ITT and hormone-receptor-positive populations. For hormone-receptor-positive patients: DFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 (95% CI 0.76-0.94), p=0.003; TTR HR 0.76 (0.67-0.87), p=0.0001; TTDR HR 0.84 (0.72-0.97), p=0.022; and CLBC HR 0.60 (0.42-0.85), p=0.004. Absolute differences in time to recurrence increased over time (TTR 2.8% [anastrozole 9.7%vs tamoxifen 12.5%] at 5 years and 4.8% [anastrozole 17.0%vs tamoxifen 21.8%] at 9 years) and recurrence rates remained significantly lower on anastrozole compared with tamoxifen after treatment completion (HR 0.75 [0.61-0.94], p=0.01). The fewer deaths after recurrence (anastrozole 245 vs tamoxifen 269) was not significant (HR 0.90 [0.75-1.07], p=0.2), and no effect was noted for OS (anastrozole 472 vs tamoxifen 477) HR 0.97 [0.86-1.11], p=0.7). Fracture rates were higher in patients receiving anastrozole than in those receiving tamoxifen during active treatment (number [annual rate]: 375 [2.93%] vs 234 [1.90%]; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.55 [1.31-1.83], p<0.0001), but were not different after treatment was completed (off treatment: 146 [1.56%] vs 143 [1.51%]; IRR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p=0.79). We did not note any significant difference in risk of cardiovascular morbidity or mortality between anastrozole and tamoxifen treatment groups. These data show long-term safety findings and establish clearly the long-term efficacy of anastrozole compared with tamoxifen as initial adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive, early breast cancer, and provide statistically significant evidence of a larger carryover effect after 5 years of adjuvant treatment with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen.

                Author and article information

                [1 ]Second Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Athens , Vas. Sofias 76, Athens, 11528, Greece
                [2 ]Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research “N.S. Christeas”, Athens Medical School , Agiou Thoma 15B, Athens, 11527, Greece
                [3 ]First Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, National University of Athens , Mikras Asias 75str, Athens, 11527, Greece.
                Author notes
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group
                01 December 2015
                : 5
                Copyright © 2015, Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit




                Comment on this article