Anastrozole (Arimidex) vs. Fulvestrant (Faslodex)
Hi All - Does anyone know why an oncologist would treat with an AI like anastrozole rather than fulvestrant? I'm currently on anastrozole and ribociclib (Kisqali). For my initial diagnosis of Stage 1A IDC (HR+, HER2-), I had lumpectomy, radiation and started anastrozole. 6 years later (this past January), mets in my lung were found incidentally on a chest CT after stopping the AI after my 5-year remission point. So now I'm back on the anastrozole with the Kisqali. I'm sure my onc is keeping me with the AI because it had held my mets stable until it was discovered, but I've read where fulvestrant has a slightly higher progression-free survival rate than anastrozole. This is the main reason I'm curious why they would not have put me on that instead of back on the anastrozole (which I do tolerate very well, and maybe that's why). I will ask this same question when I see my onc in a couple of weeks after more scans to determine if more mets are present elsewhere. Thoughts from this group?
Comments
-
sounds like it did hold your disease back (rather than failure) and daily oral meds presumed to be a bit better for quality of life vs intramuscular injections every month.
Hope this helps!
0 -
mswife - Thanks for your response! While true that the AI has held me stable, it sounds like progression may be staved off even longer with fulvestrant than with AI? In other words, I could become refractive to my AI sooner than if taking fulvestrant? I know of course that every patient is different - just going on the data I've read from clinical trials. Monthly injections would be worth having a longer time without progression, for sure - not knowing about side effects with that particular drug.
0