We seek to evaluate the clinical consequences of resistance to antihormonal
therapy by studying analogous animal xenograft models. Two approaches were taken: (1) MCF-7
tumors were serially transplanted into
selective estrogen receptor modulator (
SERM)-treated immunocompromised mice to mimic 5 years of
SERM treatment. The studies in vivo were designed to replicate the development of acquired resistance to
SERMs over years of clinical exposure. (2) MCF-7 cells were cultured long-term under
SERM-treated or
estrogen withdrawn conditions (to mimic
aromatase inhibitors), and then injected into mice to generate endocrine-resistant xenografts. These
tumor models have allowed us to define Phase I and Phase II antihormonal resistance according to their responses to E(2) and
fulvestrant. Phase I
SERM-resistant
tumors were growth stimulated in response to
estradiol (E(2)), but paradoxically, Phase II
SERM and
estrogen withdrawn-resistant
tumors were growth inhibited by E(2).
Fulvestrant did not support growth of Phases I and II
SERM-resistant
tumors, but did allow growth of Phase II
estrogen withdrawn-resistant
tumors. Importantly,
fulvestrant plus E(2) in Phase II antihormone-resistant
tumors reversed the E(2)-induced inhibition and instead resulted in growth stimulation. These data have important clinical implications. Based on these and prior laboratory findings, we propose a clinical strategy for optimal third-line
therapy: patients who have responded to and then failed at least two antihormonal treatments may respond favorably to short-term low-dose
estrogen due to E(2)-induced apoptosis, followed by treatment with
fulvestrant plus an
aromatase inhibitor to maintain low
tumor burden and avoid a negative interaction between physiologic E(2) and
fulvestrant.