Relationship between ER expression by IHC or mRNA with Ki67 response to aromatase inhibition: a POETIC study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, oestrogen receptor (ER) analysis is almost entirely by immunohistochemistry (IHC). ASCO/CAP recommends cut-offs of < 1% (negative) and 1-10% (low) cells positive. There is uncertainty whether patients with ER low tumours benefit from endocrine therapy. We aimed to assess IHC and mRNA cut-points for ER versus biological response of primary breast cancer to 2 weeks' aromatase inhibitor treatment as measured by change in Ki67. METHODS: Cases were selected from the aromatase inhibitor treatment group of POETIC. We selected the 15% with the poorest Ki67 response (PR, < 40% Ki67 suppression, n = 230) and a random 30% of the remainder categorised as intermediate (IR, 40-79% Ki67 suppression, n = 150) and good-responders (GR, ≥ 80% Ki67 suppression, n = 230) from HER2 - group. All HER2 + cases available were selected irrespective of their response category (n = 317). ER expression was measured by IHC and qPCR. RESULTS: ER IHC was available from 515 HER2 - and 186 HER2 + tumours and ER qPCR from 367 HER2 - and 171 HER2 + tumours. Ninety-one percentage of patients with ER IHC < 10% were PRs with similar rates in HER2 - and HER2 + cases. At or above ER IHC 10% substantial numbers of patients showed IR or GR. Similar proportions of patients were defined by cut-points of ER IHC < 10% and ER mRNA < 5 units. In addition, loss of PgR expression altered ER anti-proliferation response with 92% of PgR - cases with ER IHC < 40% being PRs. CONCLUSIONS: There was little responsiveness at IHC < 10% and no distinction between < 1% and 1-10% cells positive. Similar separation of PRs from IR/GRs was achieved by IHC and mRNA.

Circulating tumour DNA analysis to direct therapy in advanced breast cancer (plasmaMATCH): a multicentre, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804. FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96-99% (n=800, kappa 0·89-0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83-98) overall and 98% (87-100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0-23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9-49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6-48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3-17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1-33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C). INTERPRETATION: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology.

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. METHODS: In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4-5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6-5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0-4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83-1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79-1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3-4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). INTERPRETATION: After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.

ESR1 F404 Mutations and Acquired Resistance to Fulvestrant in ESR1-Mutant Breast Cancer.

Fulvestrant is used to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, but acquired resistance is poorly understood. PlasmaMATCH Cohort A (NCT03182634) investigated the activity of fulvestrant in patients with activating ESR1 mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Baseline ESR1 mutations Y537S are associated with poor outcomes and Y537C with good outcomes. Sequencing of baseline and EOT ctDNA samples (n = 69) revealed 3/69 (4%) patients acquired novel ESR1 F404 mutations (F404L, F404I, and F404V), in cis with activating mutations. In silico modeling revealed that ESR1 F404 contributes to fulvestrant binding to estrogen receptor-alpha (ERα) through a pi-stacking bond, with mutations disrupting this bond. In vitro analysis demonstrated that single F404L, E380Q, and D538G models were less sensitive to fulvestrant, whereas compound mutations D538G + F404L and E380Q + F404L were resistant. Several oral ERα degraders were active against compound mutant models. We have identified a resistance mechanism specific to fulvestrant that can be targeted by treatments in clinical development. SIGNIFICANCE: Novel F404 ESR1 mutations may be acquired to cause overt resistance to fulvestrant when combined with preexisting activating ESR1 mutations. Novel combinations of mutations in the ER ligand binding domain may cause drug-specific resistance, emphasizing the potential of similar drug-specific mutations to impact the efficacy of oral ER degraders in development. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 201.

Olaparib and Ceralasertib (AZD6738) in Patients with Triple-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the plasmaMATCH Trial (CRUK/15/010).

PURPOSE: Approximately 10% to 15% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and may benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment. PARP inhibitors may also increase exogenous replication stress and thereby increase sensitivity to inhibitors of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein. This phase II study examined the activity of the combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and ATR inhibitor, ceralasertib (AZD6738), in patients with advanced TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with TNBC on most recent biopsy who had received 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease or had relapsed within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. Treatment was olaparib 300 mg twice a day continuously and celarasertib 160 mg on days 1-7 on a 28-day cycle until disease progression. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Tissue and plasma biomarker analyses were preplanned to identify predictors of response. RESULTS: 70 evaluable patients were enrolled. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 10 (14%) patients and 3 (4%) patients had somatic BRCA mutations. The confirmed ORR was 12/70; 17.1% (95% confidence interval, 10.4-25.5). Responses were observed in patients without germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, including patients with mutations in other homologous recombination repair genes and tumors with functional homologous recombination deficiency by RAD51 foci. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate to olaparib and ceralasertib did not meet prespecified criteria for activity in the overall evaluable population, but responses were observed in patients who would not be expected to respond to olaparib monotherapy.

Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study. METHODS: MARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92-3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21-6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3-18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group. INTERPRETATION: In view of the high morbidity associated with EPP in this trial and in other non-randomised studies a larger study is not feasible. These data, although limited, suggest that radical surgery in the form of EPP within trimodal therapy offers no benefit and possibly harms patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/04/003), the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

Operational complexity versus design efficiency: challenges of implementing a phase IIa multiple parallel cohort targeted treatment platform trial in advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platform trial designs are used increasingly in cancer clinical research and are considered an efficient model for evaluating multiple compounds within a single disease or disease subtype. However, these trial designs can be challenging to operationalise. The use of platform trials in oncology clinical research has increased considerably in recent years as advances in molecular biology enable molecularly defined stratification of patient populations and targeted therapy evaluation. Whereas multiple separate trials may be deemed infeasible, platform designs allow efficient, parallel evaluation of multiple targeted therapies in relatively small biologically defined patient sub-populations with the promise of increased molecular screening efficiency and reduced time for drug evaluation. Whilst the theoretical efficiencies are widely reported, the operational challenges associated with these designs (complexity, cost, regulatory, resource) are not always well understood. MAIN: In this commentary, we describe our practical experience of the implementation and delivery of the UK plasmaMATCH trial, a platform trial in advanced breast cancer, comprising an integrated screening component and multiple parallel downstream mutation-directed therapeutic cohorts. plasmaMATCH reported its primary results within 3 years of opening to recruitment. We reflect on the operational challenges encountered and share lessons learnt to inform the successful conduct of future trials. Key to the success of the plasmaMATCH trial was well co-ordinated stakeholder engagement by an experienced clinical trials unit with expert methodology and trial management expertise, a federated model of clinical leadership, a well-written protocol integrating screening and treatment components and including justification for the chosen structure and intentions for future adaptions, and an integrated funding model with streamlined contractual arrangements across multiple partners. Findings based on our practical experience include the importance of early engagement with the regulators and consideration of a flexible resource infrastructure to allow adequate resource allocation to support concurrent trial activities as adaptions are implemented in parallel to the continued management of patient safety and data quality of the ongoing trial cohorts. CONCLUSION: Platform trial designs allow the efficient reporting of multiple treatment cohorts. Operational challenges can be overcome through multidisciplinary engagement, streamlined contracting processes, rationalised protocol and database design and appropriate resourcing.

Genomic profile of advanced breast cancer in circulating tumour DNA.

The genomics of advanced breast cancer (ABC) has been described through tumour tissue biopsy sequencing, although these approaches are limited by geographical and temporal heterogeneity. Here we use plasma circulating tumour DNA sequencing to interrogate the genomic profile of ABC in 800 patients in the plasmaMATCH trial. We demonstrate diverse subclonal resistance mutations, including enrichment of HER2 mutations in HER2 positive disease, co-occurring ESR1 and MAP kinase pathway mutations in HR + HER2- disease that associate with poor overall survival (p = 0.0092), and multiple PIK3CA mutations in HR + disease that associate with short progression free survival on fulvestrant (p = 0.0036). The fraction of cancer with a mutation, the clonal dominance of a mutation, varied between genes, and within hotspot mutations of ESR1 and PIK3CA. In ER-positive breast cancer subclonal mutations were enriched in an APOBEC mutational signature, with second hit PIK3CA mutations acquired subclonally and at sites characteristic of APOBEC mutagenesis. This study utilises circulating tumour DNA analysis in a large clinical trial to demonstrate the subclonal diversification of pre-treated advanced breast cancer, identifying distinct mutational processes in advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and novel therapeutic opportunities.

Reversal of skeletal effects of endocrine treatments in the Intergroup Exemestane Study.

The adjuvant use of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer is associated with adverse effects on bone health. We previously reported a decline in bone mineral density (BMD) following the switch from tamoxifen to exemestane in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES). Here we report effects of endocrine treatment withdrawal on BMD, bone turnover markers (BTM) and fracture rates. 4,724 patients took part in IES, and 206 patients were included in a bone sub-study. BMD and BTM were assessed pre-randomization, during and after the end of treatment (EOT). To evaluate treatment withdrawal effects, 12- and 24-month post EOT BMD results are available for 122 and 126 patients, respectively. Similar patient numbers had BTM measured post EOT. Following treatment withdrawal, the differences in BMD observed between the two endocrine strategies were partially reversed. At 24 months from EOT, spine BMD increased by 1.53% (95%CI 0.63-2.43; p = 0.001) after stopping exemestane and fell by 1.93% (95%CI -2.91 to 0.95; p = 0.0002) following tamoxifen withdrawal. A similar pattern of changes was observed at the hip. At 2 years post EOT, BMD changes from baseline were similar with both treatment strategies. Corresponding inverse changes in BTM were seen, with an increase following tamoxifen withdrawal and a reduction after exemestane. A higher number of fractures occurred during exemestane treatment, but fracture rates were similar after treatment withdrawal. With the switch strategy used in IES, the on treatment adverse bone effects of exemestane are reversed. Ongoing monitoring of BMD is therefore not routinely required.

TPOAb and Thyroid Function Are Not Associated with Breast Cancer Outcome: Evidence from a Large-Scale Study Using Data from the Taxotere as Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial (TACT, CRUK01/001).

BACKGROUND: Small-scale studies correlated the presence of thyroid autoimmunity with both improved or worsened breast cancer outcome. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to clarify this association in a large cohort using the phase III, randomized, controlled Taxotere as Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial (TACT, CRUK01/001). METHODS: TACT women >18 years old with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early breast cancer (pT1-3a, pN0-1, M0), with stored plasma (n = 1,974), taken 15.5 (median; IQR 7.0-24.0) months after breast surgery were studied. Patients had also received chemotherapy (100%), radiotherapy (1,745/1,974; 88.4%), hormonal therapy (1,378/ 1,974; 69.8%), or trastuzumab (48/1,974; 2.4%). History of thyroid diseases and/or related treatments was not available. The prognostic significance of autoantibodies to thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb; positive ≥6 kIU/L), free-thyroxine and thyrotropin (combined: euthyroid, hypothyroid, hyperthyroid) was evaluated for disease-free survival (DFS), overall-survival (OS), and time-to-recurrence (TTR), with Cox regression models in univariate and multivariable analyses. The extended median follow-up was 97.5 months. RESULTS: No difference in DFS was found by TPOAb status (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.78-1.19; p = 0.75) and/or thyroid function (unadjusted HR [hypothyroid vs. euthyroid]: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.79-1.68; p = 0.46; unadjusted HR [hyperthyroid vs. euthyroid]: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.82-1.61; p = 0.44). Similar results were obtained for OS, TTR, multivariable analyses, when TPOAb titre by tertiles was considered, and in a subgroup of 123 patients with plasma collected before adjuvant treatments. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence for a prognostic role of TPOAb and/or thyroid function in moderate-to-high-risk early breast cancer was found in the largest and longest observational study to date.

The challenges of long-term follow-up data collection in non-commercial, academically-led breast cancer clinical trials: the UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: Improved survival rates in early breast cancer and the chronic nature of disease relapse result in a large cohort of patients being available for long-term follow-up (LTFUP) in randomised controlled trials. Whilst of recognised scientific value to assess long-term treatment-related sequelae, the volume of this activity can be challenging for trialists and participating sites, and comes at a considerable cost to research funders and the National Health Service (NHS). A National Cancer Research Institute Breast Clinical Studies Group supported project aimed to characterise UK LTFUP data collection procedures in order to propose improvements. METHODS: Protocols and case report forms for UK non-commercial National Institute for Health Research portfolio early breast cancer randomised controlled trials were reviewed and a questionnaire sent to associated participating NHS sites. Responders were asked to give opinions on issues with follow-up and LTFUP data collection procedures and to suggest potential improvements to practice. Results were used to inform design of a proposed standard LTFUP case report form. RESULTS: Thirty-four trials, involving eight Clinical Trials Units were eligible for inclusion in the review. All trials requested follow-up at least annually up to 5 years, with two-thirds requesting LTFUP after that time point. Information relating to efficacy endpoints was captured for all trials via case report forms; however, precise detail on recording of recurrence, second malignancies and death varied. Separately, questionnaires were returned from 66 NHS sites. Main concerns identified included difficulties in identifying all adverse events from hospital notes, volume of work, bureaucratic data management practices in Clinical Trials Units and perceptions of prioritisation of recruitment over follow-up. CONCLUSION: Variation has existed with respect to detail of LTFUP information requested for UK trials. Improved communication, simplification and standardisation of data and associated collection methods are possible without compromising data requirements for efficient and effective trial reporting. Future use of routinely collected data, captured via electronic means, could transform practices and alleviate resource usage.

Disease-related outcomes with long-term follow-up: an updated analysis of the intergroup exemestane study.

PURPOSE: Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), an investigator-led study in 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer has demonstrated clinically important benefits from switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane. Now, with longer follow-up, a large number of non-breast cancer-related events have been reported. Exploratory analyses describe breast cancer-free survival (BCFS) and explore incidence and patterns of the different competing events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who were disease-free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. At this planned analysis, the median follow-up was 91 months. Principal analysis focuses on 4,052 patients with estrogen receptor (ER) -positive and 547 with ER-unknown tumors. RESULTS: In all, 930 BCFS events have been reported (exemestane, 423; tamoxifen, 507), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.92; P = .001) in favor of exemestane in the ER-positive/ER unknown group. Analysis partitioned at 2.5 years after random assignment showed that the on-treatment benefit of switching to exemestane (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.75; P < .001) was not lost post-treatment, but that there was no additional gain once treatment had ceased (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10; P = .60). Improvement in overall survival was demonstrated, with 352 deaths in the exemestane group versus 405 deaths in the tamoxifen group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = .04). Of these, 222 were reported as intercurrent deaths (exemestane, 107; tamoxifen, 115). CONCLUSION: The protective effect of switching to exemestane compared with continuing on tamoxifen on risk of relapse or death was maintained for at least 5 years post-treatment and was associated with a continuing beneficial impact on overall survival.

Randomized, phase III trial of sequential epirubicin and docetaxel versus epirubicin alone in postmenopausal patients with node-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The Docetaxel Epirubicin Adjuvant (DEVA) trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of incorporating docetaxel after epirubicin to create a sequential anthracycline-taxane regimen in early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After complete tumor excision, postmenopausal women with node-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to either epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks for six cycles (EPI × 6) or three cycles of epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (EPI-DOC). A subset of patients also participated in a quality of life (QOL) study. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: From 1997 to 2005, 803 patients entered DEVA (EPI × 6, n = 397; EPI-DOC, n = 406). At a median follow-up of 64.7 months (interquartile range, 45.2 to 84.4 months), 198 DFS events had been reported (EPI × 6, n = 114; EPI-DOC, n = 84). The 5-year DFS rates were 72.7% (95% CI, 68.0% to 77.3%) for epirubicin alone and 79.5% (95% CI, 75.2% to 83.8%) for epirubicin followed by docetaxel; evidence of improvement in DFS was observed with EPI-DOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.91; P = .008). One hundred twenty-seven patients have died (EPI × 6, n = 75; EPI-DOC, n = 52); a reduction in deaths was observed with EPI-DOC (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.94; P = .02). The 5-year overall survival rates were 81.8% (95% CI, 77.7% to 85.9%) for epirubicin and 88.9% (95% CI, 85.5% to 92.2%) for epirubicin followed by docetaxel. Assessment of toxicity and QOL showed that EPI-DOC was associated with greater toxicity but with no difference in QOL between arms during follow-up. CONCLUSION: These results suggest, within a relatively small trial, that substitution of docetaxel for epirubicin for the last three cycles of chemotherapy results in improved outcome in postmenopausal women with node-positive, early breast cancer compared with six cycles of epirubicin monotherapy.

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.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen preserves bone in postmenopausal women, but non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors accelerate bone loss and increase fracture risk. We aimed to study the effect on bone health in a subgroup of women included in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), a large randomised trial that compared the switch to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane with continuation of tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: Results were analysed from 206 evaluable patients from the IES, in which postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected unilateral breast cancer (that was oestrogen-receptor positive or of unknown status), who were disease-free after 2-3 years of treatment with tamoxifen were randomised to continue oral tamoxifen 20 mg/day or switch to oral exemestane 25 mg/day to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint was change in bone-mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover were also analysed in this substudy, and the incidence of fractures in the entire study reported. The IES is registered on the Current Controlled Trials website . FINDINGS: Within 6 months of switching to exemestane, BMD was lowered by 0.051 g/cm(3) (2.7%; 95% CI 2.0-3.4; p<0.0001) at the lumbar spine and 0.025 g/cm(3) (1.4%; 0.8-1.9; p<0.0001) at the hip compared with baseline. BMD decreases were only 1.0% (0.4-1.7; p=0.002) and 0.8% (0.3-1.4; p=0.003) in year 2 at the lumbar spine and hip, respectively. No patient with BMD in the normal range at trial entry developed osteoporosis. Bone resorption and formation markers increased at all time points in women receiving exemestane (p<0.001). With a median follow-up in all IES participants (n=4274) of 58 months, 162 (7%) and 115 (5%) patients in the exemestane and tamoxifen groups, respectively, had fractures (odds ratio 1.45 [1.13-1.87]; p=0.003). INTERPRETATION: These results indicate that the increase in survival shown previously with the IES switch strategy is achieved at the expense of some detriment to skeletal health, so the risk-benefit ratio to women needs to be individually assessed.