Duration of Adjuvant Aromatase-Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, the most effective duration for adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor remains unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy to receive the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for an additional 2 years (2-year group, receiving a total of 7 years) or an additional 5 years (5-year group, receiving a total of 10 years). The primary end point was disease-free survival. The primary analysis included all the patients who were still participating in the trial and who had no recurrence 2 years after randomization (i.e., when treatment in the 2-year group had ended). Secondary end points were overall survival, contralateral breast cancer, second primary cancer, and clinical bone fracture. RESULTS: Among the 3484 women who were enrolled in the trial, 3208 remained in the trial without disease progression after the first 2 years of extended anastrozole treatment following randomization. Among these women, disease progression or death occurred in 335 women in each treatment group in the primary-analysis set at 8 years (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P = 0.90). No between-group differences occurred in most secondary end points, and subgroup analyses did not indicate differences in any particular subgroup. The risk of clinical bone fracture was higher in the 5-year group than in the 2-year group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.84). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer who had received 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, extending hormone therapy by 5 years provided no benefit over a 2-year extension but was associated with a greater risk of bone fracture. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group; ABCSG-16/SALSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00295620.).

Conventional versus reverse sequence of neoadjuvant epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel: sequencing results from ABCSG-34.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative chemotherapy containing anthracyclines and taxanes is well established in early-stage breast cancer. Previous studies have suggested that the chemotherapy sequence may matter but definitive evidence is missing. ABCSG trial 34 evaluated the activity of the MUC1 vaccine tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant treatment; the study provided the opportunity for the second randomisation to compare two different anthracycline/taxane sequences. METHODS: HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer patients were recruited to this randomised multicentre Phase 2 study. Patients in the chemotherapy cohort (n = 311) were additionally randomised to a conventional or reversed sequence of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and docetaxel. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with/without tecemotide was defined as primary study endpoint; RCB in the two chemotherapy groups was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No significant differences in terms of RCB 0/I (40.1% vs. 37.2%; P = 0.61) or pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (24.3% vs. 25%, P = 0.89) were observed between conventional or reverse chemotherapy sequence. No new safety signals were reported, and upfront docetaxel did not result in decreased rates of treatment delay or discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Upfront docetaxel did not improve chemotherapy activity or tolerability; these results suggest that upfront neoadjuvant treatment with anthracyclines remains a valid option.

Adjuvant denosumab in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (ABCSG-18): disease-free survival results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer, treatment with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors is the standard of care, but it increases risk for osteoporosis and fractures. Results from the ABCSG-18 trial showed that use of denosumab as an adjuvant to aromatase inhibitor therapy significantly reduced clinical fractures. Disease-free survival outcomes from ABCSG-18 have not yet been reported. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with early, hormone receptor-positive, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast, who had completed their initial adjuvant treatment pathway (surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy, or a combination) and were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, were enrolled at 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden into this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. With permuted block randomisation (block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by previous aromatase inhibitor use, total lumbar spine bone mineral density score at baseline, and type of centre), patients were assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous denosumab (60 mg) or matching placebo every 6 months during aromatase inhibitor therapy. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was the time to first clinical fracture after randomisation. The secondary endpoint reported here is disease-free survival (defined as time from randomisation to first evidence of local or distant metastasis, contralateral breast cancer, secondary carcinoma, or death from any cause) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (number 2005-005275-15) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00556374), and is ongoing for long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned; 1711 to the denosumab group and 1709 to the placebo group (with five others withdrawing consent). After a median follow-up of 73 months (IQR 58-95), 240 (14·0%) patients in the denosumab and 287 (16·8%) in the placebo group had disease-free survival events. Disease-free survival was significantly improved in the denosumab group versus the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·69-0·98, Cox p=0·0260; descriptive analysis, without controlling for multiplicity). In the denosumab group, disease-free survival was 89·2% (95% CI 87·6-90·8) at 5 years and 80·6% (78·1-83·1) at 8 years of follow-up, compared with 87·3% (85·7-89·0) at 5 years and 77·5% (74·8-80·2) and 8 years in the placebo group. No independently adjudicated cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or confirmed atypical femoral fractures were recorded. The total number of adverse events was similar in the denosumab group (1367 [including 521 serious] adverse events) and the placebo group (1339 [515 serious]). The most common serious adverse events were osteoarthritis (62 [3·6%] of 1709 in the denosumab group vs 58 [3·4%] of 1690 in the placebo group), meniscus injury (23 [1·3%] vs 24 [1·4%]), and cataract (16 [0·9%] vs 28 [1·7%]). One (<0·1%) treatment-related death (due to pneumonia, septic kidney failure, and cardiac decompensation) occurred in the denosumab group. INTERPRETATION: Denosumab constitutes an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for patients with postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy. FUNDING: Amgen.

Adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer (ABCSG-18): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant endocrine therapy compromises bone health in patients with breast cancer, causing osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fractures. Antiresorptive treatments such as bisphosphonates prevent and counteract these side-effects. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the effects of the anti-RANK ligand antibody denosumab in postmenopausal, aromatase inhibitor-treated patients with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, postmenopausal patients with early hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving treatment with aromatase inhibitors were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either denosumab 60 mg or placebo administered subcutaneously every 6 months in 58 trial centres in Austria and Sweden. Patients were assigned by an interactive voice response system. The randomisation schedule used a randomly permuted block design with block sizes 2 and 4, stratified by type of hospital regarding Hologic device for DXA scans, previous aromatase inhibitor use, and baseline bone mineral density. Patients, treating physicians, investigators, data managers, and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to first clinical fracture, analysed by intention to treat. As an additional sensitivity analysis, we also analysed the primary endpoint on the per-protocol population. Patients were treated until the prespecified number of 247 first clinical fractures was reached. This trial is ongoing (patients are in follow-up) and is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2005-005275-15, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00556374. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2006, and July 22, 2013, 3425 eligible patients were enrolled into the trial, of whom 3420 were randomly assigned to receive denosumab 60 mg (n=1711) or placebo (n=1709) subcutaneously every 6 months. Compared with the placebo group, patients in the denosumab group had a significantly delayed time to first clinical fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 0·50 [95% CI 0·39-0·65], p<0·0001). The overall lower number of fractures in the denosumab group (92) than in the placebo group (176) was similar in all patient subgroups, including in patients with a bone mineral density T-score of -1 or higher at baseline (n=1872, HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·31-0·64], p<0·0001) and in those with a bone mineral density T-score of less than -1 already at baseline (n=1548, HR 0·57 [95% CI 0·40-0·82], p=0·002). The patient incidence of adverse events in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug) did not differ between the denosumab group (1366 events, 80%) and the placebo group (1334 events, 79%), nor did the numbers of serious adverse events (521 vs 511 [30% in each group]). The main adverse events were arthralgia and other aromatase-inhibitor related symptoms; no additional toxicity from the study drug was reported. Despite proactive adjudication of every potential osteonecrosis of the jaw by an international expert panel, no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. 93 patients (3% of the full analysis set) died during the study, of which one death (in the denosumab group) was thought to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant denosumab 60 mg twice per year reduces the risk of clinical fractures in postmenopausal women with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors, and can be administered without added toxicity. Since a main side-effect of adjuvant breast cancer treatment can be substantially reduced by the addition of denosumab, this treatment should be considered for clinical practice. FUNDING: Amgen.

Persistence of ctDNA in Patients with Breast Cancer During Neoadjuvant Treatment Is a Significant Predictor of Poor Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Accurate response assessment during neoadjuvant systemic treatment (NST) poses a clinical challenge. Therefore, a minimally invasive assessment of tumor response based on cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may be beneficial to guide treatment decisions. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We profiled 93 genes in tissue from 193 patients with early breast cancer. Patient-specific assays were designed for 145 patients to track ctDNA during NST in plasma. ctDNA presence and levels were correlated with complete pathological response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB) as well as clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumor to identify potential proxies for ctDNA release. RESULTS: At baseline, ctDNA could be detected in 63/145 (43.4%) patients and persisted in 25/63 (39.7%) patients at mid-therapy (MT) and 15/63 (23.8%) patients at the end of treatment. ctDNA detection at MT was significantly associated with higher RCB (OR = 0.062; 95% CI, 0.01-0.48; P = 0.0077). Of 31 patients with detectable ctDNA at MT, 30 patients (96.8%) were nonresponders (RCB II, n = 8; RCB III, n = 22) and only one patient responded to the treatment (RCB I). Considering all 145 patients with baseline (BL) plasma, none of the patients with RCB 0 and only 6.7% of patients with RCB I had ctDNA detectable at MT, whereas 30.6% and 29.6% of patients with RCB II/III, respectively, had a positive ctDNA result. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results demonstrate that the detection and persistence of ctDNA at MT may have the potential to negatively predict response to neoadjuvant treatment and identify patients who will not achieve pCR or be classified with RCB II/III.

Long-Term Outcomes of Adjuvant Denosumab in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant aromatase inhibitors increase osteoporosis and fractures in patients with hormone receptor­positive breast cancer. We have previously reported outcomes of the ABCSG-18 (study 18 from the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group) trial showing that adjuvant anti­receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand denosumab treatment counteracts these adverse effects and may improve outcomes. We report here the final long-term outcomes. METHODS: ABCSG-18 is a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in which 3425 postmenopausal patients with early hormone receptor­positive breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned in 58 trial centers to receive either denosumab 60 mg or placebo administered subcutaneously every 6 months. The primary end point was the time to first clinical fracture after randomization. Secondary disease outcome­related end points were disease-free survival (DFS), bone metastasis­free survival (BMFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: For this final protocol-defined analysis, median follow-up is 8 years (interquartile range, 6 to 9.6 years). There were 309 versus 368 DFS events (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.97) in the denosumab versus the placebo group, respectively, resulting in an absolute 9-year DFS benefit of 3.5 percentage points (79.4 vs. 75.9%). Adjuvant denosumab improved BMFS by 2.5 percentage points (88.9 vs. 86.4%; hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.00) and OS by 1.0 percentage point (90.9 vs. 89.9%; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.01). No new toxicities for this dose of adjuvant denosumab were observed. CONCLUSIONS: DFS, BMFS, and OS continued to show benefit in this final long-term analysis of ABCSG-18. There were no new toxicities. (Funded by Amgen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00556374.)

Treatment Exposure and Discontinuation in the PALbociclib CoLlaborative Adjuvant Study of Palbociclib With Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer (PALLAS/AFT-05/ABCSG-42/BIG-14-03).

PURPOSE: The PALLAS study investigated whether the addition of palbociclib, an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) in early hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. In this analysis, we evaluated palbociclib exposure and discontinuation in PALLAS. METHODS: Patients with stage II-III HR+, HER2- disease were randomly assigned to 2 years of palbociclib with adjuvant ET versus ET alone. The primary objective was to compare iDFS between arms. Continuous monitoring of toxicity, dose modifications, and early discontinuation was performed. Association of baseline covariates with time to palbociclib reduction and discontinuation was analyzed with multivariable competing risk models. Landmark and inverse probability weighted per-protocol analyses were performed to assess the impact of drug persistence and exposure on iDFS. RESULTS: Of the 5,743 patient analysis population (2,840 initiating palbociclib), 1,199 (42.2%) stopped palbociclib before 2 years, the majority (772, 27.2%) for adverse effects, most commonly neutropenia and fatigue. Discontinuation of ET did not differ between arms. Discontinuations for non-protocol-defined reasons were greater in the first 3 months of palbociclib, and in the first calendar year of accrual, and declined over time. No significant relationship was seen between longer palbociclib duration or ≥ 70% exposure intensity and improved iDFS. In the weighted per-protocol analysis, no improvement in iDFS was observed in patients receiving palbociclib versus not (hazard ratio 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.11). CONCLUSION: Despite observed rates of discontinuation in PALLAS, analyses suggest that the lack of significant iDFS difference between arms was not directly related to inadequate palbociclib exposure. However, the discontinuation rate illustrates the challenge of introducing novel adjuvant treatments, and the need for interventions to improve persistence with oral cancer therapies.

The EndoPredict score predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and neoendocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer patients from the ABCSG-34 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NaCT) and neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) can reduce pre-operative tumour burden in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early-stage breast cancer. This prospective translational study assessed the ability of a 12-gene molecular score (MS; EndoPredict®) to predict response to NaCT or NET within the ABCSG-34 trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative samples from patients in the ABCSG-34 randomized phase II trial were selected and EndoPredict testing was performed to generate a 12-gene MS. ABCSG-34 patients were assigned to receive either NaCT or NET based on menopausal status, HR expression, grade and Ki67. Response was measured by residual cancer burden (RCB). RESULTS: Patients selected for NaCT generally had high-risk disease by 12-gene MS (125/134), while slightly more patients treated with NET had low-risk disease (44/83). Low-risk NaCT-treated and high-risk NET-treated tumours responded poorly (NPV 100% [95% CI 66.4%-100%] and NPV 92.3% [95% CI 79.1%-98.4%], respectively]. The 12-gene MS significantly predicted treatment response for NaCT (AUC 0.736 [95% CI 0.63-0.84]) and NET (AUC 0.726 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]). CONCLUSIONS: The 12-gene MS predicted RCB after treatment with neoadjuvant therapies for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer. Tumours with low MS were unlikely to benefit from NaCT, whereas a high MS predicted resistance to NET. This additional biologic information can aid personalized treatment selection in daily practice and builds a strong rationale to use EndoPredict in biomarker-driven studies in the neoadjuvant setting.

Efficacy and safety of the therapeutic cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) in early breast cancer: Results from a prospective, randomised, neoadjuvant phase II study (ABCSG 34).

BACKGROUND: Immune-based strategies represent a promising approach in breast cancer (BC) treatment. The glycoprotein mucin-1 (MUC-1) is overexpressed in more than 90% of BC patients, and is targeted by the cancer vaccine tecemotide. We have investigated the efficacy and safety of tecemotide when added to neoadjuvant standard-of-care (SoC) treatment in early BC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with HER2-early BC were recruited into this prospective, multicentre, randomised 2-arm academic phase II trial. Patients received preoperative SoC treatment (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) with or without tecemotide. Postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor (ER)+++, or ER++ and Ki67 < 14%, and G1,2 tumours ('luminal A' tumours) received 6 months of letrozole. Postmenopausal patients with triple-negative, ER-/+/++ and Ki67 ≥ 14%, and with G3 tumours, as well as premenopausal patients, received four cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide plus four cycles of docetaxel. Primary end-point was residual cancer burden (RCB; 0/I versus II/III) at surgery. Secondary end-points included pathological complete response (pCR), safety, and quality of life. FINDINGS: We observed no significant difference in RCB 0/I rates between patients with (36.4%) and without (31.9%) tecemotide in the overall study population (p = 0.40) nor in endocrine and chemotherapy-treated subgroups (25.0% versus 13.3%, p = 0.17; 39.6% versus 37.8%, p = 0.75, respectively). The addition of tecemotide did not affect overall pCR rates (22.5% versus 17.4%, p = 0.23), MUC-1 expression, or tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes content. Tecemotide did not increase toxicity when compared to SoC therapy alone. INTERPRETATION: Neoadjuvant tecemotide is safe, but does not improve RCB or pCR rates in patients receiving standard neoadjuvant therapy.

Endocrine therapy with or without whole breast irradiation in low-risk breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery: 10-year results of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group 8A trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate long-term results of patients with hormonal receptor-positive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and consecutive endocrine therapy (ET) with or without whole breast irradiation (WBI). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Within the 8 A trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group, a total of 869 patients received ET after BCS which was randomly followed by WBI (n = 439, group 1) or observation (n = 430, group 2). WBI was applied up to a mean total dosage of 50 Gy (+/- 10 Gy boost) in conventional fractionation. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 9.89 years, 10 in-breast recurrences (IBRs) were observed in group 1 and 31 in group 2, resulting in a 10-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) of 97.5% and 92.4%, respectively (p = 0.004). This translated into significantly higher rates for disease-free survival (DFS): 94.5% group 1 vs 88.4% group 2, p = 0.0156. For distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), respective 10-year rates amounted 96.7% and 86.6% for group 1 versus 96.4% and 87.6%, for group 2 (ns). WBI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.27, p < 0.01) and tumour grading (HR: 3.76, p = 0.03) were found as significant predictors for IBR in multiple cox regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: After a median follow-up of 10 years, WBI resulted in a better local control and DFS compared with ET alone. The omission of WBI and tumour grading, respectively, were the only negative predictors for LRFS.

The potential risk of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients--results from a prospective randomized trial of the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG-07).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact that pre- and postoperatively administered chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF) and postoperative chemotherapy vs. postoperative chemotherapy alone have on long-term prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ABCSG conducted a nationwide randomized phase III trial in high-risk endocrine non-responsive breast cancer patients comparing pre- and postoperative chemotherapy containing CMF as preoperative treatment vs. postoperative chemotherapy alone between 1991 and 1999. From 1996 the ABCSG-07 protocol was amended to also allow randomization of high-risk endocrine-responsive patients. Of 423 eligible patients with high-risk primary breast cancer, 203 patients were randomly assigned to preoperatively receive three cycles of CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil; 600/40/600 mg/m(2)) intravenously on day 1 and 8, while 195 patients received postoperative chemotherapy alone. In both groups, three cycles of CMF were given initially, and another three cycles of CMF were administered in node-negative patients, whereas node-positive patients received three cycles of EC (epirubicin, cyclophosphamide; 70/600 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: Overall response rate to preoperative chemotherapy with three cycles of CMF was 56.2%; complete pathological response was achieved in 12 patients (5.9%). Recurrence-free survival was significantly better in patients receiving chemotherapy postoperatively (HR 0.7, 0.515-0.955; P = 0.024). No survival difference was observed between the two therapy groups (HR 0.800, 0.563-1.136; P = 0.213). DISCUSSION: Preoperative chemotherapy with CMF has to be considered as insufficient in high-risk breast cancer patients. Delayed surgery and anthracycline-based chemotherapy result in shorter recurrence-free survival but not overall survival.

Randomized adjuvant trial of tamoxifen and goserelin versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil: evidence for the superiority of treatment with endocrine blockade in premenopausal patients with hormone-responsive breast cancer--Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5.

PURPOSE: Effective adjuvant treatment modalities in premenopausal breast cancer patients today include chemotherapy, ovariectomy, and tamoxifen administration. The purpose of Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 5 was to compare the efficacy of a combination endocrine treatment with standard chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Assessable trial subjects (N = 1,034) presenting with hormone-responsive disease were randomized to receive either 3 years of goserelin plus 5 years of tamoxifen or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). Stratification criteria included tumor stage and grade, number of involved nodes, type of surgery, and steroid hormone receptor content. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was defined as time from randomization to first relapse, local recurrence, or contralateral incidence, and overall survival (OS) as time to date of death. RESULTS: With a 60-month median follow-up, 17.2% of patients in the endocrine group and 20.8% undergoing chemotherapy developed relapses. Local recurrences emerged in 4.7% and 8.0%, respectively. RFS and local recurrence-free survival differed significantly in favor of endocrine therapy (P =.037 and P =.015), with a similar trend observed in OS (P =.195). CONCLUSION: Overall, our data suggest that the goserelin-tamoxifen combination is significantly more effective than CMF in the adjuvant treatment of premenopausal patients with stage I and II breast cancer.

Randomized trial of tamoxifen versus tamoxifen plus aminoglutethimide as adjuvant treatment in postmenopausal breast cancer patients with hormone receptor-positive disease: Austrian breast and colorectal cancer study group trial 6.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of aminoglutethimide to tamoxifen is able to improve the outcome in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2,021 postmenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen for 5 years alone or tamoxifen in combination with aminoglutethimide (500 mg/d) for the first 2 years of treatment. Tamoxifen was administered at 40 mg/d for the first 2 years and at 20 mg/d for 3 years. RESULTS: All randomized and eligible patients were included in the analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle. After a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 5-year disease-free survival in the aminoglutethimide plus tamoxifen group was 83.6% versus 83.7% in the monotherapy group (P =.89). The corresponding data for overall survival at 5 years were 91.4% and 91.2%, respectively (P =.74). More patients failed to complete combination treatment (13.7%) because of side effects as compared to tamoxifen alone (5.2%; P =.0001). CONCLUSION: Aminoglutethimide given for 2 years in addition to tamoxifen for 5 years does not improve the prognosis of postmenopausal patients with receptor-positive, lymph node-negative or lymph node-positive breast cancer.