Behavioral and health outcomes from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-36 trial comparing two different adjuvant therapy regimens for early-stage node-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-36 compared four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) in node-negative early-stage breast cancer. A sub-study within B-36, focusing on symptoms, quality of life (QOL), menstrual history (MH), and cardiac function (CF) was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients completed the QOL questionnaire at baseline, during treatment, and every 6 months through 36 months. FACT-B Trial Outcome Index (TOI), symptom severity, and SF-36 Vitality and Physical Functioning (PF) scales scores were compared between the two groups using a mixed model for repeated measures analysis. MH was collected at baseline and subsequently assessed if menstrual bleeding occurred within 12 months prior to randomization. Post-chemotherapy amenorrhea outcome was examined at 18 months and was defined as lack of menses in the preceding year. Logistic regression was used to test for association of amenorrhea and treatment. CF assessment was done at baseline and 12 months. Correlation analysis was used to address associations between changes in baseline and 12-month PF and concurrent CF changes measured by LVEF. RESULTS: FEC-100 patients had statistically significantly lower TOI scores during chemotherapy (P = 0.02) and at 6 months (P < 0.001); lower Vitality score at 6 months (P < 0.01), and lower PF score during the first year than AC patients. There were no statistically significant QOL score differences between the two groups beyond 12 months. No significant differences in symptom severity between the two groups were observed. Rates of amenorrhea were significantly different between FEC-100 and AC (67.4% vs. 59.1%, P < 0.001). There was no association between changes in LVEF and PF (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant QOL differences between the two groups favored AC; however, the magnitude was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There was a clinical and statistically significant difference in risk for amenorrhea, favoring AC. TRIAL REGISTRY: NCT00087178; Date of registration: 07/08/2004.

Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing six cycles of FEC-100 to four cycles of AC in women with operable node-negative breast cancer: the NSABP B-36 trial (NRG Oncology).

PURPOSE: Results from adjuvant trials evaluating 6 cycles of epirubicin-based chemotherapy regimens suggested these programs may be more effective than 4 cycles of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. METHOD: NSABP B-36 was a phase III clinical trial originally designed as a 2 × 2 factorial study comparing 6 cycles of 5-FU, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-100) to 4 cycles of conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) with celecoxib or placebo. Shortly after activation, concerns regarding increased cardiovascular risks among selective COX-2 inhibitors resulted in a decision to remove the celecoxib/placebo from the trial. Women with histologically node-negative invasive breast cancer who had undergone primary surgery with a lumpectomy or total mastectomy were eligible. Primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Between May 2004 and July 2008, 2722 patients were enrolled. Administration of FEC-100 did not result in improvement in DFS compared to AC (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.92-1.29, p value = 0.31). The effect of FEC-100 compared to AC on DFS was significantly different for receptor-positive (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.05-1.66) compared to receptor-negative patients (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.11) (treatment-by-receptor status interaction p value = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the effect of treatment on overall survival (OS) with FEC-100 compared to AC (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.84-1.35, p value = 0.61). Overall, Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more frequent in the FEC-100 group. CONCLUSION: The results of B-36 do not support use of six-cycle anthracycline-based regimens in node-negative breast cancer. Prolongation of anthracycline-based therapy with FEC-100 does not improve DFS or OS, relative to AC for 4 cycles, and was associated with expected increases in toxicity. A statistically significant interaction between treatment and hormone receptor status favoring AC in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers is consistent with the hypothesis that optimal duration of chemotherapy may be four cycles in these patients. Late cardiac events and deaths prior to recurrence or second cancer were infrequent on both arms, but slightly higher with FEC-100. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00087178.

Talazoparib in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA Mutation.

BACKGROUND: The poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) inhibitor talazoparib has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 ( BRCA1/2). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive talazoparib (1 mg once daily) or standard single-agent therapy of the physician's choice (capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine in continuous 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Of the 431 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were assigned to receive talazoparib and 144 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (8.6 months vs. 5.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.71; P<0.001). The interim median hazard ratio for death was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06; P=0.11 [57% of projected events]). The objective response rate was higher in the talazoparib group than in the standard-therapy group (62.6% vs. 27.2%; odds ratio, 5.0; 95% CI, 2.9 to 8.8; P<0.001). Hematologic grade 3-4 adverse events (primarily anemia) occurred in 55% of the patients who received talazoparib and in 38% of the patients who received standard therapy; nonhematologic grade 3 adverse events occurred in 32% and 38% of the patients, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes favored talazoparib; significant overall improvements and significant delays in the time to clinically meaningful deterioration according to both the global health status-quality-of-life and breast symptoms scales were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation, single-agent talazoparib provided a significant benefit over standard chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival. Patient-reported outcomes were superior with talazoparib. (Funded by Medivation [Pfizer]; EMBRACA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01945775 .).

Talazoparib in Patients with a Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer: Detailed Safety Analyses from the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS: The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer patients: impact of a health system outreach program to improve adherence.

PURPOSE: Reports suggest that up to 50% of women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) do not complete the recommended 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). We examined the impact of an outreach program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) on adherence and discontinuation of AET among patients who initiated AET. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of all KPNC patients diagnosed with HR+, stage I-III BC initiating AET before (n = 4287) and after (n = 3580) implementation of the outreach program. We compared adherence proportions and discontinuation rates before and after program implementation, both crude and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and stage. We conducted a pooled analysis of data from six Cancer Research Network (CRN) sites that had not implemented programs for improving AET adherence, using identical methods and time periods, to assess possible secular trends. RESULTS: In the pre-outreach period, estimated adherence in years 1, 2, and 3 following AET initiation was 75.2%, 71.0%, and 67.3%; following the outreach program, the estimates were 79.4%, 75.6%, and 72.2% (p-values < .0001 for pairwise comparisons). Results were comparable after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. The estimated cumulative incidence of discontinuation was 0.22 (0.21-0.24) and 0.18 (0.17-0.19) at 3 years for pre- and post-outreach groups (p-value < .0001). We found no evidence of an increase in adherence between the study periods at the CRN sites with no AET adherence program. CONCLUSION: Adherence and discontinuation after AET initiation improved modestly following implementation of the outreach program.

Use of letrozole after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer (NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors in patients with postmenopausal breast cancer is unknown. In the NSABP B-42 study, we aimed to determine whether extended letrozole treatment improves disease-free survival after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy in women with postmenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done in 158 centres in the USA, Canada, and Ireland. Postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, who were disease-free after about 5 years of treatment with an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen followed by an aromatase inhibitor, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 5 years of letrozole (2·5 mg orally per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by pathological node status, previous tamoxifen use, and lowest bone mineral density T score in the lumbosacral spine, total hip, or femoral neck. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, defined as time from randomisation to breast cancer recurrence, second primary malignancy, or death, and was analysed by intention to treat. To adjust for previous interim analyses, the two-sided statistical significance level for disease-free survival was set at 0·0418. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00382070, is active, and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2006, and Jan 6, 2010, 3966 patients were randomly assigned to receive letrozole (n=1983) or placebo (n=1983). Follow-up information was available for 3903 patients for the analyses of disease-free survival. Median follow-up was 6·9 years (IQR 6·1-7·5). Letrozole treatment did not significantly improve disease-free survival (339 disease-free survival events were reported in the placebo group and 292 disease-free survival events were reported in the letrozole group; hazard ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·999; p=0·048). 7-year disease-free survival estimate was 81·3% (95% CI 79·3-83·1) in the placebo group and 84·7% (82·9-86·4) in the letrozole group. The most common grade 3 adverse events were arthralgia (47 [2%] of 1933 patients in the placebo group vs 50 [3%] of 1941 patients in the letrozole group) and back pain (44 [2%] vs 38 [2%]). The most common grade 4 adverse event in the placebo group was thromboembolic event (eight [<1%]) and the most common grade 4 adverse events in the letrozole group were urinary tract infection, hypokalaemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (four [<1%] each). INTERPRETATION: After 5 years of aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, 5 years of letrozole therapy did not significantly prolong disease-free survival compared with placebo. Careful assessment of potential risks and benefits is required before recommending extended letrozole therapy to patients with early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Korea Health Technology R&D Project, Novartis.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes are poor for patients with previously treated, advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab is clinically active against cancer, including NSCLC, especially cancers expressing PD-L1 on tumour cells, tumour-infiltrating immune cells, or both. We assessed efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in previously treated NSCLC, analysed by PD-L1 expression levels on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells and in the intention-to-treat population. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial, patients with NSCLC who progressed on post-platinum chemotherapy were recruited in 61 academic medical centres and community oncology practices across 13 countries in Europe and North America. Key inclusion criteria were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), and adequate haematological and end-organ function. Patients were stratified by PD-L1 tumour-infiltrating immune cell status, histology, and previous lines of therapy, and randomly assigned (1:1) by permuted block randomisation (with a block size of four) using an interactive voice or web system to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks. Baseline PD-L1 expression was scored by immunohistochemistry in tumour cells (as percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumour cells TC3≥50%, TC2≥5% and <50%, TC1≥1% and <5%, and TC0<1%) and tumour-infiltrating immune cells (as percentage of tumour area: IC3≥10%, IC2≥5% and <10%, IC1≥1% and <5%, and IC0<1%). The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population and PD-L1 subgroups at 173 deaths. Biomarkers were assessed in an exploratory analysis. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01903993. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Aug 5, 2013, and March 31, 2014. 144 patients were randomly allocated to the atezolizumab group, and 143 to the docetaxel group. 142 patients received at least one dose of atezolizumab and 135 received docetaxel. Overall survival in the intention-to-treat population was 12·6 months (95% CI 9·7-16·4) for atezolizumab versus 9·7 months (8·6-12·0) for docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·53-0·99]; p=0·04). Increasing improvement in overall survival was associated with increasing PD-L1 expression (TC3 or IC3 HR 0·49 [0·22-1·07; p=0·068], TC2/3 or IC2/3 HR 0·54 [0·33-0·89; p=0·014], TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 HR 0·59 [0·40-0·85; p=0·005], TC0 and IC0 HR 1·04 [0·62-1·75; p=0·871]). In our exploratory analysis, patients with pre-existing immunity, defined by high T-effector-interferon-γ-associated gene expression, had improved overall survival with atezolizumab. 11 (8%) patients in the atezolizumab group discontinued because of adverse events versus 30 (22%) patients in the docetaxel group. 16 (11%) patients in the atezolizumab group versus 52 (39%) patients in the docetaxel group had treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events, and one (<1%) patient in the atezolizumab group versus three (2%) patients in the docetaxel group died from a treatment-related adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Atezolizumab significantly improved survival compared with docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC. Improvement correlated with PD-L1 immunohistochemistry expression on tumour cells and tumour-infiltrating immune cells, suggesting that PD-L1 expression is predictive for atezolizumab benefit. Atezolizumab was well tolerated, with a safety profile distinct from chemotherapy. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech Inc.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

The Effect on Surgical Complications of Bevacizumab Added to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: NRG Oncology/NSABP Protocol B-40.

BACKGROUND: NRG Oncology/NSABP trial B-40 tested the impact of adding bevacizumab (bev) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Secondary endpoints included rates of surgical complications after surgery in patients who did or did not receive bev. METHODS: A total of 1206 women with HER2-negative operable breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive one of three different docetaxel-plus-anthracycline-based regimens, without or with bev (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for the first 6 of 8 cycles and for 10 doses postoperatively. Surgical complications were assessed from date of surgery through 24 months following study entry. RESULTS: Early surgical complications were significantly more frequent in the bev group (25.4 vs. 18.9%; trend test p = 0.008), but most were grade 1-2. Early noninfectious wound dehiscences were infrequent and not significantly different (5.4 vs. 3.1%; trend test p = 0.15). Long-term noninfectious wound complications were significantly higher for patients receiving bev (11.8 vs. 5.1%; trend test p = 0.0007), but the incidence of grade ≥3 wound dehiscence was low in both groups (<1%). Among 193 patients undergoing expander or implant reconstructions, 19 (19.6%) of 97 in the bev-receiving group versus 10 (10.4%) of 96 in the non-bev group had grade ≥3 complications (Pearson, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adding bev increased surgical complications, but most serious complications were not significantly increased. In particular, the need for surgical intervention in patients undergoing breast reconstruction with prosthetic implants was higher with bev but was not statistically significantly different. With precautions, bev can be used safely perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: NSABP B-40 was a 3 × 2 factorial trial testing whether adding capecitabine or gemcitabine to docetaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide neoadjuvant chemotherapy would improve outcomes in women with operable, HER2-negative breast cancer and whether adding neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens would also improve outcomes. As reported previously, addition of neoadjuvant bevacizumab increased the proportion of patients achieving a pathological complete response, which was the primary endpoint. We present secondary patient outcomes, including disease-free survival, a specified endpoint by protocol, and data for distant recurrence-free interval, and overall survival, which were not prespecified endpoints but were collected prospectively. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial (NSABP B-40), we enrolled women aged 18 years or older, with operable, HER2-non-amplified invasive adenocarcinoma of the breast, 2 cm or greater in diameter by palpation, clinical stage T1c-3, cN0, cN1, or cN2a, without metastatic disease and diagnosed by core needle biopsy. Patients received one of three docetaxel-based neoadjuvant regimens for four cycles: docetaxel alone (100 mg/m(2)) with addition of capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) oral twice daily days 1-14, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel) or with addition of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 intravenously, 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel), all followed by neoadjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (60 mg/m(2) and 600 mg/m(2) intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those randomly assigned to bevacizumab groups were to receive bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for six cycles) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and postoperatively for ten doses. Randomisation was done (1:1:1:1:1:1) via a biased-coin minimisation procedure to balance the characteristics with respect to clinical nodal status, clinical tumour size, hormone receptor status, and age. Intent-to-treat analyses were done for disease-free survival and overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00408408. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2007, and June 30, 2010, 1206 patients were enrolled in the study. Follow-up data were collected from Oct 31, 2007 to March 27, 2014, and were available for overall survival in 1186 patients, disease-free survival in 1184, and distant recurrence-free interval in 1181. Neither capecitabine nor gemcitabine increased disease-free survival or overall survival. Median follow-up was 4·7 years (IQR 4·0-5·2). The addition of bevacizumab significantly increased overall survival (hazard ratio 0·65 [95% CI 0·49-0·88]; p=0·004) but did not significantly increase disease-free survival (0·80 [0·63-1·01]; p=0·06). Four deaths occurred on treatment due to vascular disorder (docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group), sudden death (docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group), infective endocarditis (docetaxel plus bevacizumab followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide and bevacizumab group), and visceral arterial ischaemia (docetaxel followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the bevacizumab group were neutropenia (grade 3, 99 [17%]; grade 4, 37 [6%]), hand-foot syndrome (grade 3, 63 [11%]), and hypertension (grade 3, 60 [10%]; grade 4, two [<1%]) and in the non-bevacizumab group were neutropenia (grade 3, 98 [16%]; grade 4, 36 [6%]), fatigue (grade 3, 53 [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (grade 3, 43 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of gemcitabine or capecitabine to neoadjuvant docetaxel plus doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide does not seem to provide any benefit to patients with operable breast cancer, and should not change clinical practice in the short term. The improved overall survival with bevacizumab contradicts the findings of other studies of bevacizumab in breast cancer and may indicate the need for additional investigation of this agent. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Roche Laboratories, Lilly Research Laboratories, and Precision Therapeutics.

Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab and the antimetabolites capecitabine and gemcitabine have been shown to improve outcomes when added to taxanes in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The primary aims of this trial were to determine whether the addition of capecitabine or gemcitabine to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, followed by doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, would increase the rates of pathological complete response in the breast in women with operable, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and whether adding bevacizumab to these chemotherapy regimens would increase the rates of pathological complete response. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1206 patients to receive neoadjuvant therapy consisting of docetaxel (100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on day 1), docetaxel (75 mg per square meter on day 1) plus capecitabine (825 mg per square meter twice a day on days 1 to 14), or docetaxel (75 mg per square meter on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1 and 8) for four cycles, with all regimens followed by treatment with doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide for four cycles. Patients were also randomly assigned to receive or not to receive bevacizumab (15 mg per kilogram of body weight) for the first six cycles of chemotherapy. RESULTS: The addition of capecitabine or gemcitabine to docetaxel therapy, as compared with docetaxel therapy alone, did not significantly increase the rate of pathological complete response (29.7% and 31.8%, respectively, vs. 32.7%; P=0.69). Both capecitabine and gemcitabine were associated with increased toxic effects--specifically, the hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, and neutropenia. The addition of bevacizumab significantly increased the rate of pathological complete response (28.2% without bevacizumab vs. 34.5% with bevacizumab, P=0.02). The effect of bevacizumab on the rate of pathological complete response was not the same in the hormone-receptor-positive and hormone-receptor-negative subgroups. The addition of bevacizumab increased the rates of hypertension, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the hand-foot syndrome, and mucositis. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly increased the rate of pathological complete response, which was the primary end point of this study. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00408408.).

Lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive operable breast cancer (NSABP protocol B-41): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We studied the effect on tumour response to neoadjuvant therapy of the substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with weekly paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide treatment, and of the addition of lapatinib and trastuzumab combined after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide treatment in patients with HER2-positive operable breast cancer to determine whether there would be a benefit of dual HER2 blockade in these patients. METHODS: For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial we recruited women aged 18 years or older with an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 with operable HER2-positive breast cancer. Each received four cycles of standard doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks followed by four cycles of weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks. Concurrently with weekly paclitaxel, patients received either trastuzumab (4 mg/kg load, then 2 mg/kg intravenously) weekly until surgery, lapatinib (1250 mg orally) daily until surgery, or weekly trastuzumab plus lapatinib (750 mg orally) daily until surgery. After surgery, all patients received trastuzumab to complete 52 weeks of HER2-targeted therapy. Randomisation (ratio 1:1:1) was done centrally with stratification by clinical tumour size, clinical nodal status, hormone-receptor status, and age. The primary endpoint was the pathological complete response in the breast, and analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat population. FINDINGS: Patient accrual started on July 16, 2007, and was completed on June 30, 2011; 529 women were enrolled in the trial. 519 patients had their pathological response determined. Breast pathological complete response was noted in 93 (52·5%, 95% CI 44·9-59·5) of 177 patients in the trastuzumab group, 91 (53·2%, 45·4-60·3) of 171 patients in the lapatinib group (p=0·9852); and 106 (62·0%, 54·3-68·8) of 171 patients in the combination group (p=0·095). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were neutropenia (29 [16%] patients in the trastuzumab group [grade 4 in five patients (3%), 28 [16%] in the lapatinib group [grade 4 in eight patients (5%)], and 29 [17%] in the combination group [grade 4 in nine patients (5%)]) and grade 3 diarrhoea (four [2%] patients in the trastuzumab group, 35 [20%] in the lapatinib group, and 46 [27%] in the combination group; p<0·0001). Symptomatic congestive heart failure defined as New York Heart Association Class III or IV events occurred in seven (4%) patients in the trastuzumab group, seven (4%) in the lapatinib group, and one (<1%) in the combination group; p=0·185). INTERPRETATION: Substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy resulted in similar high percentages of pathological complete response. Combined HER2-targeted therapy produced a numerically but insignificantly higher pathological complete response percentage than single-agent HER2-directed therapy; these findings are consistent with results from other studies. Trials are being undertaken to further assess these findings in the adjuvant setting.

Breast Cancer Index and Prediction of Extended Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy Benefit in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer from the NRG Oncology/NSABP B-42 Trial.

PURPOSE: BCI (H/I) has been shown to predict extended endocrine therapy (EET) benefit. We examined BCI (H/I) for EET benefit prediction in NSABP B-42, which evaluated extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of ET. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A stratified Cox model was used to analyze RFI as the primary endpoint, with DR, BCFI, and DFS as secondary endpoints. Because of a nonproportional effect of ELT on DR, time-dependent analyses were performed. RESULTS: The translational cohort included 2,178 patients (45% BCI (H/I)-High, 55% BCI (H/I)-Low). ELT showed an absolute 10-year RFI benefit of 1.6% (P = 0.10), resulting in an underpowered primary analysis (50% power). ELT benefit and BCI (H/I) did not show a significant interaction for RFI (BCI (H/I)-Low: 10 years absolute benefit 1.1% [HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43-1.12; P = 0.13]; BCI (H/I)-High: 2.4% [HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.55-1.26; P = 0.38]; Pinteraction = 0.56). Time-dependent DR analysis showed that after 4 years, BCI (H/I)-High patients had significant ELT benefit (HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69; P < 0.01), whereas BCI (H/I)-Low patients were less likely to benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33-1.39; P = 0.29; Pinteraction = 0.14). Prediction of ELT benefit by BCI (H/I) was more apparent in the HER2- subset after 4 years (ELT-by-BCI (H/I) Pinteraction = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: BCI (H/I)-High versus BCI (H/I)-Low did not show a statistically significant difference in ELT benefit for the primary endpoint (RFI). However, in time-dependent DR analysis, BCI (H/I)-High patients experienced statistically significant benefit from ELT after 4 years, whereas (H/I)-Low patients did not. Because BCI (H/I) has been validated as a predictive marker of EET benefit in other trials, additional follow-up may enable further characterization of BCI's predictive ability.

HOXB13:IL17BR and molecular grade index and risk of breast cancer death among patients with lymph node-negative invasive disease.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that a two-gene ratio (HOXB13:IL17BR) and a five-gene (BUB1B, CENPA, NEK2, RACGAP1, RRM2) molecular grade index (MGI) are predictive of clinical outcomes among early-stage breast cancer patients. In an independent population of lymph node-negative breast cancer patients from a community hospital setting, we evaluated the performance of two risk classifiers that have been derived from these gene signatures combined, MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and the Breast Cancer Index (BCI). METHODS: A case-control study was conducted among 4,964 Kaiser Permanente patients diagnosed with node-negative invasive breast cancer from 1985 to 1994 who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. For 191 cases (breast cancer deaths) and 417 matched controls, archived tumor tissues were available and analyzed for expression levels of the seven genes of interest and four normalization genes by RT-PCR. Logistic regression methods were used to estimate the relative risk (RR) and 10-year absolute risk of breast cancer death associated with prespecified risk categories for MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and BCI. RESULTS: Both MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and BCI classified over half of all ER-positive patients as low risk. The 10-year absolute risks of breast cancer death for ER-positive, tamoxifen-treated patients classified in the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups were 3.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9% to 5.4%), 5.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.6%), and 12.9% (95% CI 7.9% to 17.6%) by MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and 3.5% (95% CI 1.9% to 5.1%), 7.0% (95% CI 3.8% to 10.1%), and 12.9% (95% CI 7.1% to 18.3%) by BCI. Those for ER-positive, tamoxifen-untreated patients were 5.7% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.4%), 13.8% (95% CI 8.4% to 18.9%), and 15.2% (95% CI 9.4% to 20.5%) by MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and 5.1% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.6%), 18.6% (95% CI 10.8% to 25.7%), and 17.5% (95% CI 11.1% to 23.5%) by BCI. After adjusting for tumor size and grade, the RRs of breast cancer death comparing high- versus low-risk categories of both classifiers remained elevated but were attenuated for tamoxifen-treated and tamoxifen-untreated patients. CONCLUSION: Among ER-positive, lymph node-negative patients not treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, MGI+HOXB13:IL17BR and BCI were associated with risk of breast cancer death. Both risk classifiers appeared to provide risk information beyond standard prognostic factors.

Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy regimens that combine anthracyclines and taxanes result in improved disease-free and overall survival among women with operable lymph-node-positive breast cancer. The effectiveness of concurrent versus sequential regimens is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5351 patients with operable, node-positive, early-stage breast cancer to receive four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (sequential ACT); four cycles of doxorubicin and docetaxel (doxorubicin-docetaxel); or four cycles of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and docetaxel (concurrent ACT). The primary aims were to examine whether concurrent ACT was more effective than sequential ACT and whether the doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen would be as effective as the concurrent-ACT regimen. The secondary aims were to assess toxic effects and to correlate amenorrhea with outcomes in premenopausal women. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 73 months, overall survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year overall survival, 83%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio for death, 0.83; P=0.03) and the concurrent-ACT group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio, 0.86; P=0.09). Disease-free survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year disease-free survival, 74%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio for recurrence, a second malignant condition, or death, 0.80; P=0.001) and the concurrent-ACT group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio, 0.83; P=0.01). The doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen showed noninferiority to the concurrent-ACT regimen for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14). Overall survival was improved in patients with amenorrhea for 6 months or more across all treatment groups, independently of estrogen-receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ACT improved disease-free survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel or concurrent ACT, and it improved overall survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel. Amenorrhea was associated with improved survival regardless of the treatment and estrogen-receptor status. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003782.)

Oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B-34): a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates are thought to act through the osteoclast by changing bone microenvironment. Previous findings of adjuvant clodronate trials in different populations with operable breast cancer have been mixed. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) protocol B-34 aims to ascertain whether oral clodronate can improve outcomes in women with primary breast cancer. METHODS: NSABP B-34 is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 3323 women with stage 1-3 breast cancer. After surgery to remove the tumour, patients were stratified by age, axillary nodes, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either oral clodronate 1600 mg daily for 3 years (n=1662) or placebo (1661). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00009945. FINDINGS: Median follow-up was 90·7 months (IQR 82·7-100·0) and 3311 patients had data for this period. Disease-free survival did not differ between groups (286 events in the clodronate group vs 312 in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·78-1·07; p=0·27). Moreover, no differences were recorded for overall survival (0·84, 0·67-1·05; p=0·13), recurrence-free interval (0·83, 0·67-1·04; p=0·10), or bone metastasis-free interval (0·77, 0·55-1·07; p=0·12). Non-bone metastasis-free interval was slightly increased with clodronate (0·74, 0·55-1·00; p=0·047). Analyses in women age 50 years or older on study entry showed benefits of clodronate for recurrence-free interval (0·75, 0·57-0·99; p=0·045), bone metastasis-free interval (0·62, 0·40-0·95; p=0·027), and non-bone metastasis-free interval (0·63, 0·43-0·91; p=0·014), but not for overall survival (0·80, 0·61-1·04, p=0·094). Adherence to treatment at 3 years was 56% for the clodronate group and 60% for the placebo group. Grade 3 or higher liver dysfunction was noted in 23 of 1612 patients in the clodronate group and 12 of 1623 patients in the placebo group; grade 3-4 diarrhoea was noted in 28 patients in the clodronate group and in ten in the placebo group. There was one possible case of osteonecrosis of the jaw in the clodronate group. INTERPRETATION: Findings of NSABP B-34 suggest that bisphosphonates might have anticancer benefits for older postmenopausal women. A meta-analysis of adjuvant bisphosphonate trials is suggested before recommendations for use in non-osteoporotic postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer are made. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute, Bayer Oy (formerly Schering Oy).

Multinational Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Humanized Anti-HER2 Monoclonal Antibody in Women Who Have HER2-Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer That Has Progressed After Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

PURPOSE: Overexpression of the HER2 protein occurs in 25% to 30% of human breast cancers and leads to a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Efficacy and safety of recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody as a single agent was evaluated in women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two women, with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after one or two chemotherapy regimens, were enrolled. Patients received a loading dose of 4 mg/kg intravenously, followed by a 2-mg/kg maintenance dose at weekly intervals. RESULTS: Study patients had advanced metastatic disease and had received extensive prior therapy. A blinded, independent response evaluation committee identified eight complete and 26 partial responses, for an objective response rate of 15% in the intent-to-treat population (95% confidence interval, 11% to 21%). The median duration of response was 9.1 months; the median duration of survival was 13 months. The most common adverse events, which occurred in approximately 40% of patients, were infusion-associated fever and/or chills that usually occurred only during the first infusion, and were of mild to moderate severity. These symptoms were treated successfully with acetaminophen and/or diphenhydramine. The most clinically significant adverse event was cardiac dysfunction, which occurred in 4.7% of patients. Only 1% of patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, administered as a single agent, produces durable objective responses and is well tolerated by women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Side effects that are commonly observed with chemotherapy, such as alopecia, mucositis, and neutropenia, are rarely seen.

Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase II trial, 99 patients were randomly assigned to bevacizumab 7.5 (n = 32) or 15 mg/kg (n = 35) plus carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2) every 3 weeks or carboplatin and paclitaxel alone (n = 32). Primary efficacy end points were time to disease progression and best confirmed response rate. On disease progression, patients in the control arm had the option to receive single-agent bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with the control arm, treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) resulted in a higher response rate (31.5% v 18.8%), longer median time to progression (7.4 v 4.2 months) and a modest increase in survival (17.7 v 14.9 months). Of the 19 control patients that crossed over to single-agent bevacizumab, five experienced stable disease, and 1-year survival was 47%. Bleeding was the most prominent adverse event and was manifested in two distinct clinical patterns; minor mucocutaneous hemorrhage and major hemoptysis. Major hemoptysis was associated with squamous cell histology, tumor necrosis and cavitation, and disease location close to major blood vessels. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel improved overall response and time to progression in patients with advanced or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with nonsquamous cell histology appear to be a subpopulation with improved outcome and acceptable safety risks.