Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Suppression of ovarian estrogen production reduces the recurrence of hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in premenopausal women, but its value when added to tamoxifen is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3066 premenopausal women, stratified according to prior receipt or nonreceipt of chemotherapy, to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression. The primary analysis tested the hypothesis that tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression would improve disease-free survival, as compared with tamoxifen alone. In the primary analysis, 46.7% of the patients had not received chemotherapy previously, and 53.3% had received chemotherapy and remained premenopausal. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 67 months, the estimated disease-free survival rate at 5 years was 86.6% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 84.7% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.04; P=0.10). Multivariable allowance for prognostic factors suggested a greater treatment effect with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression than with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98). Most recurrences occurred in patients who had received prior chemotherapy, among whom the rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 82.5% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 78.0% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.02). At 5 years, the rate of freedom from breast cancer was 85.7% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence vs. tamoxifen, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not provide a significant benefit in the overall study population. However, for women who were at sufficient risk for recurrence to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy and who remained premenopausal, the addition of ovarian suppression improved disease outcomes. Further improvement was seen with the use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00066690.).

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Poor Prognosis After Second Locoregional Recurrences in the CALOR Trial.

BACKGROUND: Isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRRs) of breast cancer confer a significant risk for the development of distant metastasis. Management practices and second ILRR events in the Chemotherapy as Adjuvant for LOcally Recurrent breast cancer (CALOR) trial were investigated. METHODS: In this study, 162 patients with ILRR were randomly assigned to receive postoperative chemotherapy or no chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics characterize outcomes according to local therapy and the influence of hormone receptor status on subsequent recurrences. Competing risk regression models, Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate associations between treatment, site of second recurrence, and outcome. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.9 years. Of the 98 patients who received breast-conserving primary surgery 89 had an ipsilateral-breast tumor recurrence. Salvage mastectomy was performed for 73 patients and repeat lumpectomy for 16 patients. Another eight patients had nodal ILRR, and one patient had chest wall ILRR. Among 64 patients whose primary surgery was mastectomy, 52 had chest wall/skin ILRR, and 12 had nodal ILRR. For 15 patients, a second ILRR developed a median of 1.6 years (range 0.08-4.8 years) after ILRR. All second ILRRs occurred for patients with progesterone receptor-negative ILRR. Death occurred for 7 (47 %) of 15 patients with a second ILRR and 19 (51 %) of 37 patients with a distant recurrence. As shown in the multivariable analysis, the significant predictors of survival after either a second ILRR or distant recurrence were chemotherapy for the primary cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 3.55; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.15-10.9; p = 0.03) and the interval (continuous) from the primary surgery (HR, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Second ILRRs represented about one third of all recurrence events after ILRR, and all were PR-negative. These second ILRRs and distant metastases portend an unfavorable outcome.

Impact of CYP19A1 and ESR1 variants on early-onset side effects during combined endocrine therapy in the TEXT trial.

BACKGROUND: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and cytochrome P450 19A1 (CYP19A1) genes have been associated with breast cancer risk, endocrine therapy response and side effects, mainly in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This analysis aimed to assess the association of selected germline CYP19A1 and ESR1 SNPs with early-onset hot flashes, sweating and musculoskeletal symptoms in premenopausal patients enrolled in the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT). METHODS: Blood was collected from consenting premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer, randomly assigned to 5-years of tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (OFS) or exemestane plus OFS. DNA was extracted with QIAamp kits and genotyped for two CYP19A1 (rs4646 and rs10046) and three ESR1 (rs2077647, rs2234693 and rs9340799) SNPs by a real-time pyrosequencing technique. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded at baseline and 3-monthly during the first year. Associations of the genotype variants with grade ≥2 early-onset targeted AEs of hot flashes/sweating or musculoskeletal events were assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 2660 premenopausal patients with breast cancer in the intention-to-treat population of TEXT, and 1967 (74 %) are included in this translational study. The CYP19A1 rs10046 variant T/T, represented in 23 % of women, was associated with a reduced incidence of grade ≥2 hot flashes/sweating (univariate odds ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95 % CI 0.63-0.97; P = 0.03), more strongly in patients assigned exemestane + OFS (TT vs CT/CC: OR = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.48-0.89) than assigned tamoxifen + OFS (OR = 0.94, 95 % CI = 0.69-1.27, interaction P = 0.03). No association with any of the CYP19A1/ESR1 genotypes and musculoskeletal AEs was found. CONCLUSION: The CYP19A1 rs10046 variant T/T favors lower incidence of hot flashes/sweating under exemestane + OFS treatment, suggesting endocrine-mediated effects. Based on findings from others, this SNP may potentially enhance treatment adherence and treatment efficacy. We plan to evaluate the clinical impact of this polymorphism during time, pending sufficient median follow up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00066703, registered August 6, 2003.

Adjuvant ovarian function suppression and cognitive function in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To examine the effect on cognitive function of adjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) for breast cancer. METHODS: The Suppression of Ovarian Function (SOFT) trial randomised premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to 5 years adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen+OFS, exemestane+OFS or tamoxifen alone. The Co-SOFT substudy assessed objective cognitive function and patient reported outcomes at randomisation (T0), and 1 year later (T1); the primary endpoint was change in global cognitive function, measured by the composite objective cognitive function score. Data were compared for the pooled tamoxifen+OFS and exemestane+OFS groups vs the tamoxifen alone group using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Of 86 participants, 74 underwent both T0 and T1 cognitive testing; 54 randomised to OFS+ either tamoxifen (28) or exemestane (26) and 20 randomised to tamoxifen alone. There was no significant difference in the changes in the composite cognitive function scores between the OFS+ tamoxifen or exemestane groups and the tamoxifen group (mean±s.d., -0.21±0.92 vs -0.04±0.49, respectively, P=0.71, effect size=-0.20), regardless of prior chemotherapy status, and adjusting for baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The Co-SOFT study, although limited by small samples size, provides no evidence that adding OFS to adjuvant oral endocrine therapy substantially affects global cognitive function.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are a powerful prognostic marker in patients with triple-negative breast cancer enrolled in the IBCSG phase III randomized clinical trial 22-00.

The purpose of this study was to assess the prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in the triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cohort of the phase III IBCSG trial 22-00, comparing low-dose oral 'metronomic' cyclophosphamide-methotrexate maintenance chemotherapy (CM-maintenance) to no-CM-maintenance in early breast cancer. TILs were evaluated in full-face hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained sections of tumor samples confirmed centrally as TNBC (< 1 % of ER and PgR immunoreactivity and absence of HER2 overexpression or amplification). Mononuclear cells were evaluated in the stromal area within the borders of the invasive tumor. The primary endpoint was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). Cox proportional hazards regression model assessed the association of BCFI and secondary endpoints with TILs score. In the 647 tumor samples, the median percentage of TILs was 18 % (IQR = 8-40 %), with 18 % having TILs ≥ 50 % (lymphocyte-predominant breast cancer, LPBC). At a median follow-up of 6.9 years, TILs were associated with better prognosis. For every 10 % increase of TILs, BCFI risk reduction was 13 % (HR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.79-0.95,P = 0.003). DFS, DRFI, and OS risk reductions were 11 % (P = 0.005), 16 % (P = 0.003), and 17 % (P < 0.001), respectively. Multivariable analysis confirmed the independent prognostic value of TILs. No significant TILs-by-treatment interaction was observed (P = 0.39) for associations of TILs with BCFI, although patients with LPBC receiving CM-maintenance had a greater breast cancer risk reduction (HR 0.64,95 % CI 0.23-1.78) than those with non-LPBC (TILs < 50 %) (HR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.67-1.40). TILs score is a potent prognostic factor in patients with TNBC. Low-dose chemotherapy confers a greater (not statistically significant) clinical benefit in patients with LPBC.

Patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant exemestane versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian suppression (TEXT and SOFT): a combined analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The combined efficacy analysis of the TEXT and SOFT trials showed a significant disease-free survival benefit with exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen plus OFS. We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials. METHODS: Between Nov 7, 2003, and April 7, 2011, 4717 premenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer were enrolled in TEXT or SOFT to receive unmasked adjuvant treatment with 5 years of exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or bilateral ovarian irradiation were used to achieve OFS. Chemotherapy use was optional. Randomisation with permuted blocks was done with the International Breast Cancer Study Group's internet-based system and was stratified by chemotherapy use and status of lymph nodes. Patients completed a quality of life (QoL) form comprising several global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and then every year during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6 months, 24 months, and 60 months with mixed-models for repeated measures for each trial with and without chemotherapy and overall. The analysis was by intention to treat. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 5·7 years (IQR 3·7-6·9); treatment and follow-up of patients continue. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT00066703 (TEXT) and NCT00066690 (SOFT). FINDINGS: Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected by hot flushes and sweats over 5 years than were those on exemestane plus OFS, although these symptoms improved. Patients on exemestane plus OFS reported more vaginal dryness, greater loss of sexual interest, and difficulties becoming aroused than did patients on tamoxifen plus OFS; these differences persisted over time. An increase in bone or joint pain was more pronounced, particularly in the short term, in patients on exemestane plus OFS than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Overall, from a QoL perspective, there is no strong indication to favour either exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. The distinct effects of the two treatments on the burden of endocrine symptoms need to be addressed with patients individually. FUNDING: Pfizer, International Breast Cancer Study Group, and US National Cancer Institute.

ESR1 and ESR2 polymorphisms in the BIG 1-98 trial comparing adjuvant letrozole versus tamoxifen or their sequence for early breast cancer.

Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and ESR2 gene polymorphisms have been associated with endocrine-mediated physiological mechanisms, and inconsistently with breast cancer risk and outcomes, bone mineral density changes, and hot flushes/night sweats. DNA was isolated and genotyped for six ESR1 and two ESR2 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from tumor specimens from 3691 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer enrolled in the BIG 1-98 trial to receive tamoxifen and/or letrozole for 5 years. Associations with recurrence and adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. 3401 samples were successfully genotyped for five SNPs. ESR1 rs9340799(XbaI) (T>C) variants CC or TC were associated with reduced breast cancer risk (HR = 0.82,95% CI = 0.67-1.0), and ESR1 rs2077647 (T>C) variants CC or TC was associated with reduced distant recurrence risk (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53-0.90), both regardless of the treatments. No differential treatment effects (letrozole vs. tamoxifen) were observed for the association of outcome with any of the SNPs. Letrozole-treated patients with rs2077647 (T>C) variants CC and TC had a reduced risk of bone AE (HR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58-0.98, P interaction = 0.08), whereas patients with rs4986938 (G>A) genotype variants AA and AG had an increased risk of bone AE (HR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.01-1.84, P interaction = 0.07). We observed that (1) rare ESR1 homozygous polymorphisms were associated with lower recurrence, and (2) ESR1 and ESR2 SNPs were associated with bone AEs in letrozole-treated patients. Genes that are involved in estrogen signaling and synthesis have the potential to affect both breast cancer recurrence and side effects, suggesting that individual treatment strategies can incorporate not only oncogenic drivers but also SNPs related to estrogen activity.

Predictive value and clinical utility of centrally assessed ER, PgR, and Ki-67 to select adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: TEXT and SOFT trials.

The SOFT and TEXT randomized phase III trials investigated adjuvant endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer. We investigated the prognostic and predictive value of centrally assessed levels of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and Ki-67 expression in women with HER2-negative disease. Of 5707 women enrolled, 4115 with HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) disease had ER, PgR, and Ki-67 centrally assessed by immunohistochemistry. Breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was defined from randomization to first invasive local, regional, or distant recurrence or contralateral breast cancer. The prognostic and predictive values of ER, PgR and Ki-67 expression levels were assessed using Cox modeling and STEPP methodology. In this HR+/HER2- population, the median ER, PgR, and Ki-67 expressions were 95, 90, and 18 % immunostained cells. As most patients had strongly ER-positive tumors, the predictive value of ER levels could not be investigated. Lower PgR and higher Ki-67 expression were associated with reduced BCFI. There was no consistent evidence of heterogeneity of the relative treatment effects according to PgR or Ki-67 expression levels, though there was a greater 5-year absolute benefit of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen with or without OFS at lower levels of PgR and higher levels of Ki-67. Women with poor prognostic features of low PgR and/or high Ki-67 have greater absolute benefit from exemestane + OFS versus tamoxifen + OFS or tamoxifen alone, but individually PgR and Ki-67 are of limited predictive value for selecting adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer.

CYP19A1 polymorphisms and clinical outcomes in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the BIG 1-98 trial.

To determine whether CYP19A1 polymorphisms are associated with abnormal activity of aromatase and with musculoskeletal and bone side effects of aromatase inhibitors. DNA was isolated from tumor specimens of 4861 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer enrolled in the BIG 1-98 trial to receive tamoxifen and/or letrozole for 5 years. Tumors were genotyped for six CYP19A1 polymorphisms using PCR-based methods. Associations with breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), musculoskeletal and bone adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. No association between the CYP19A1 genotypes and BCFI or DRFI was observed overall. A reduced risk of a breast cancer event for tamoxifen-treated patients with rs700518 variants was observed (BCFI CC/TC vs. TT: HR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.34-0.82, interaction P = 0.08), but not observed for letrozole-treated patients. There was an increased risk of musculoskeletal AEs for patients with rs700518 variants CC/TC versus TT (HR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.03-1.45, P = 0.02), regardless of treatment. Tamoxifen-treated patients with rs4646 variants had a reduced risk of bone AEs (AA/CA vs. CC: HR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.59-0.98), whereas an increase of minor allele (C) of rs10046 was associated with an increased risk of bone AEs (HR 1.28, 95 % CI 1.07-1.52). rs936308 variants were associated with a reduced risk of bone AEs in letrozole-treated patients (GG/GC vs. CC: HR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.54-0.99), different from in tamoxifen-treated patients (GG/GC vs. CC: HR 1.32, 95 % CI 0.92-1.90, interaction P = 0.01). CYP19A1 rs700518 variants showed associations with BCFI, DRFI, in tamoxifen treated patients and musculoskeletal AEs regardless of treatment. SNPs rs4646, rs10046, and rs936308 were associated with bone AEs.

Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRR) of breast cancer have a high risk of distant metastasis and death from breast cancer. We aimed to establish whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves the outcome of such patients. METHODS: The CALOR trial was a pragmatic, open-label, randomised trial that accrued patients with histologically proven and completely excised ILRR after unilateral breast cancer who had undergone a mastectomy or lumpectomy with clear surgical margins. Eligible patients were enrolled from hospitals worldwide and were centrally randomised (1:1) to chemotherapy (type selected by the investigator; multidrug for at least four courses recommended) or no chemotherapy, using permuted blocks, and stratified by previous chemotherapy, oestrogen-receptor and progesterone-receptor status, and location of ILRR. Patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive ILRR received adjuvant endocrine therapy, radiation therapy was mandated for patients with microscopically involved surgical margins, and anti-HER2 therapy was optional. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. All analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00074152. FINDINGS: From Aug 22, 2003, to Jan 31, 2010, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy and 77 were assigned to no chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 4·9 years (IQR 3·6-6 ·0), 24 (28%) patients had disease-free survival events in the chemotherapy group compared with 34 (44%) in the no chemotherapy group. 5-year disease-free survival was 69% (95% CI 56-79) with chemotherapy versus 57% (44-67) without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·35-0·99]; p=0·046). Adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly more effective for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative ILRR (pinteraction=0·046), but analyses of disease-free survival according to the oestrogen-receptor status of the primary tumour were not statistically significant (pinteraction=0·43). Of the 81 patients who received chemotherapy, 12 (15%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and intestinal infection. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant chemotherapy should be recommended for patients with completely resected ILRR of breast cancer, especially if the recurrence is oestrogen-receptor negative. FUNDING: US Department of Health and Human Services, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Australian and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Swedish Cancer Society, Oncosuisse, Cancer Association of South Africa, Foundation for Clinical Research of Eastern Switzerland (OSKK), Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama (GEICAM), and the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists' Group (BOOG).

Bone mineral density and circulating biomarkers in the BIG 1-98 trial comparing adjuvant letrozole, tamoxifen and their sequences.

The purpose of the study is to determine the effects of the BIG 1-98 treatments on bone mineral density. BIG 1-98 compared 5-year adjuvant hormone therapy in postmenopausal women allocated to four groups: tamoxifen (T); letrozole (L); 2-years T, 3-years L (TL); and 2-years L, 3-years T (LT). Bone mineral density T-score was measured prospectively annually by dual energy X-ray absorption in 424 patients enrolled in a sub-study after 3 (n = 150), 4 (n = 200), and 5 years (n = 74) from randomization, and 1 year after treatment cessation. Prevalence of osteoporosis and the association of C-telopeptide, osteocalcin, and bone alkaline phosphatase with T-scores were assessed. At 3 years, T had the highest and TL the lowest T-score. All arms except for LT showed a decline up to 5 years, with TL exhibiting the greatest. At 5 years, there were significant differences on lumbar T-score only between T and TL, whereas for femur T-score, differences were significant for T versus L or TL, and L versus LT. The 5-year prevalence of spine and femur osteoporosis was the highest on TL (14.5 %, 7.1 %) then L (4.3 %, 5.1 %), LT (4.2 %, 1.4 %) and T (4 %, 0). C-telopeptide and osteocalcin were significantly associated with T-scores. While adjuvant L increases bone mineral density loss compared with T, the sequence LT has an acceptable bone safety profile. C-telopeptide and osteocalcin are useful markers of bone density that may be used to monitor bone health during treatment. The sequence LT may be a valid treatment option in patients with low and intermediate risk of recurrence.

Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with breast cancer and metastases in the sentinel nodes, axillary dissection has been standard treatment. However, for patients with limited sentinel-node involvement, axillary dissection might be overtreatment. We designed IBCSG trial 23-01 to determine whether no axillary dissection was non-inferior to axillary dissection in patients with one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel nodes and tumour of maximum 5 cm. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients were eligible if they had clinically non-palpable axillary lymph node(s) and a primary tumour of 5 cm or less and who, after sentinel-node biopsy, had one or more micrometastatic (≤2 mm) sentinel lymph nodes with no extracapsular extension. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either undergo axillary dissection or not to undergo axillary dissection. Randomisation was stratified by centre and menopausal status. Treatment assignment was not masked. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. Non-inferiority was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1·25 for no axillary dissection versus axillary dissection. The analysis was by intention to treat. Per protocol, disease and survival information continues to be collected yearly. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00072293. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2001, and Feb 28, 2010, 465 patients were randomly assigned to axillary dissection and 469 to no axillary dissection. After the exclusion of three patients, 464 patients were in the axillary dissection group and 467 patients were in the no axillary dissection group. After a median follow-up of 5·0 (IQR 3·6-7·3) years, we recorded 69 disease-free survival events in the axillary dissection group and 55 events in the no axillary dissection group. Breast-cancer-related events were recorded in 48 patients in the axillary dissection group and 47 in the no axillary dissection group (ten local recurrences in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group; three and nine contralateral breast cancers; one and five [corrected] regional recurrences; and 34 and 25 distant relapses). Other non-breast cancer events were recorded in 21 patients in the axillary dissection group and eight in the no axillary dissection group (20 and six second non-breast malignancies; and one and two deaths not due to a cancer event). 5-year disease-free survival was 87·8% (95% CI 84·4-91·2) in the group without axillary dissection and 84·4% (80·7-88·1) in the group with axillary dissection (log-rank p=0·16; HR for no axillary dissection vs axillary dissection was 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, non-inferiority p=0·0042). Patients with reported long-term surgical events (grade 3-4) included one sensory neuropathy (grade 3), three lymphoedema (two grade 3 and one grade 4), and three motor neuropathy (grade 3), all in the group that underwent axillary dissection, and one grade 3 motor neuropathy in the group without axillary dissection. One serious adverse event was reported, a postoperative infection in the axilla in the group with axillary dissection. INTERPRETATION: Axillary dissection could be avoided in patients with early breast cancer and limited sentinel-node involvement, thus eliminating complications of axillary surgery with no adverse effect on survival. FUNDING: None.

Impact of SERM adherence on treatment effect: International Breast Cancer Study Group Trials 13-93 and 14-93.

The degree of adherence to oral anticancer agents may influence treatment efficacy. Tamoxifen and toremifene usage data from two International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) studies were used to evaluate the impact of treatment adherence on the efficacy of these two selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs). Between 1993 and 1999, IBCSG Trial 13-93 randomized premenopausal women with node-positive disease to tamoxifen or no endocrine therapy and IBCSG Trial 14-93 compared tamoxifen and toremifene in postmenopausal women with node-positive disease. 690 women with estrogen-receptor positive enrolled in these two trials were alive and disease-free 4 years after the start of SERM. The median follow up for this analysis was 9.0 years. Using a Kaplan-Meier landmark analysis at 4 years, the 609 women completing at least 4 years of SERM had improved 10-year disease-free survival (DFS) (71 %) compared with the 81 women taking less than 4 years (64 %), but these differences did not reach statistical significance [DFS hazard ratio (<4 year/4+ year) 1.31, 95 % CI 0.86-1.98), p value = 0.20]. Women who completed less than 4 years of SERM treatment (12 %) appeared not to have achieved the full benefit from their therapy. These results suggest that more effort should be made to educate women regarding the benefits of a full course of treatment. This is especially important in light of the results of the recently reported ATLAS and aTTom trials which suggest a benefit of 10 years of tamoxifen.

Letrozole therapy alone or in sequence with tamoxifen in women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aromatase inhibitor letrozole, as compared with tamoxifen, improves disease-free survival among postmenopausal women with receptor-positive early breast cancer. It is unknown whether sequential treatment with tamoxifen and letrozole is superior to letrozole therapy alone. METHODS: In this randomized, phase 3, double-blind trial of the treatment of hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women, we randomly assigned women to receive 5 years of tamoxifen monotherapy, 5 years of letrozole monotherapy, or 2 years of treatment with one agent followed by 3 years of treatment with the other. We compared the sequential treatments with letrozole monotherapy among 6182 women and also report a protocol-specified updated analysis of letrozole versus tamoxifen monotherapy in 4922 women. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 71 months after randomization, disease-free survival was not significantly improved with either sequential treatment as compared with letrozole alone (hazard ratio for tamoxifen followed by letrozole, 1.05; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.32; hazard ratio for letrozole followed by tamoxifen, 0.96; 99% CI, 0.76 to 1.21). There were more early relapses among women who were assigned to tamoxifen followed by letrozole than among those who were assigned to letrozole alone. The updated analysis of monotherapy showed that there was a nonsignificant difference in overall survival between women assigned to treatment with letrozole and those assigned to treatment with tamoxifen (hazard ratio for letrozole, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02; P=0.08). The rate of adverse events was as expected on the basis of previous reports of letrozole and tamoxifen therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Among postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer, sequential treatment with letrozole and tamoxifen, as compared with letrozole monotherapy, did not improve disease-free survival. The difference in overall survival with letrozole monotherapy and tamoxifen monotherapy was not statistically significant. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004205.)

The advantage of letrozole over tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial is consistent in younger postmenopausal women and in those with chemotherapy-induced menopause.

Letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, is ineffective in the presence of ovarian estrogen production. Two subpopulations of apparently postmenopausal women might derive reduced benefit from letrozole due to residual or returning ovarian activity: younger women (who have the potential for residual subclinical ovarian estrogen production), and those with chemotherapy-induced menopause who may experience return of ovarian function. In these situations tamoxifen may be preferable to an aromatase inhibitor. Among 4,922 patients allocated to the monotherapy arms (5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen) in the BIG 1-98 trial we identified two relevant subpopulations: patients with potential residual ovarian function, defined as having natural menopause, treated without adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and age ≤ 55 years (n = 641); and those with chemotherapy-induced menopause (n = 105). Neither of the subpopulations examined showed treatment effects differing from the trial population as a whole (interaction P values are 0.23 and 0.62, respectively). Indeed, both among the 641 patients aged ≤ 55 years with natural menopause and no chemotherapy (HR 0.77 [0.51, 1.16]) and among the 105 patients with chemotherapy-induced menopause (HR 0.51 [0.19, 1.39]), the disease-free survival (DFS) point estimate favoring letrozole was marginally more beneficial than in the trial as a whole (HR 0.84 [0.74, 0.95]). Contrary to our initial concern, DFS results for young postmenopausal patients who did not receive chemotherapy and patients with chemotherapy-induced menopause parallel the letrozole benefit seen in the BIG 1-98 population as a whole. These data support the use of letrozole even in such patients.

Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer have persistent, long-term risk of breast-cancer recurrence and death. Therefore, trials assessing endocrine therapies for this patient population need extended follow-up. We present an update of efficacy outcomes in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study at 8·1 years median follow-up. METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a randomised, phase 3, double-blind trial of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer that compares 5 years of tamoxifen or letrozole monotherapy, or sequential treatment with 2 years of one of these drugs followed by 3 years of the other. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks, and stratified according to the two-arm or four-arm randomisation option, participating institution, and chemotherapy use. Patients, investigators, data managers, and medical reviewers were masked. The primary efficacy endpoint was disease-free survival (events were invasive breast cancer relapse, second primaries [contralateral breast and non-breast], or death without previous cancer event). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). The monotherapy comparison included patients randomly assigned to tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years. In 2005, after a significant disease-free survival benefit was reported for letrozole as compared with tamoxifen, a protocol amendment facilitated the crossover to letrozole of patients who were still receiving tamoxifen alone; Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates with inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) are used to account for selective crossover to letrozole of patients (n=619) in the tamoxifen arm. Comparison of sequential treatments to letrozole monotherapy included patients enrolled and randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, or tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. Treatment has ended for all patients and detailed safety results for adverse events that occurred during the 5 years of treatment have been reported elsewhere. Follow-up is continuing for those enrolled in the four-arm option. BIG 1-98 is registered at clinicaltrials.govNCT00004205. FINDINGS: 8010 patients were included in the trial, with a median follow-up of 8·1 years (range 0-12·4). 2459 were randomly assigned to monotherapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and 2463 to monotherapy with letrozole for 5 years. In the four-arm option of the trial, 1546 were randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, 1548 to tamoxifen for 5 years, 1540 to letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, and 1548 to tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. At a median follow-up of 8·7 years from randomisation (range 0-12·4), letrozole monotherapy was significantly better than tamoxifen, whether by IPCW or intention-to-treat analysis (IPCW disease-free survival HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·74-0·92], overall survival HR 0·79 [0·69-0·90], DRFI HR 0·79 [0·68-0·92], BCFI HR 0·80 [0·70-0·92]; intention-to-treat disease-free survival HR 0·86 [0·78-0·96], overall survival HR 0·87 [0·77-0·999], DRFI HR 0·86 [0·74-0·998], BCFI HR 0·86 [0·76-0·98]). At a median follow-up of 8·0 years from randomisation (range 0-11·2) for the comparison of the sequential groups with letrozole monotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the four endpoints for either sequence. 8-year intention-to-treat estimates (each with SE ≤1·1%) for letrozole monotherapy, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole were 78·6%, 77·8%, 77·3% for disease-free survival; 87·5%, 87·7%, 85·9% for overall survival; 89·9%, 88·7%, 88·1% for DRFI; and 86·1%, 85·3%, 84·3% for BCFI. INTERPRETATION: For postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, a reduction in breast cancer recurrence and mortality is obtained by letrozole monotherapy when compared with tamoxifen montherapy. Sequential treatments involving tamoxifen and letrozole do not improve outcome compared with letrozole monotherapy, but might be useful strategies when considering an individual patient's risk of recurrence and treatment tolerability. FUNDING: Novartis, United States National Cancer Institute, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Interpreting Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early breast cancer.

The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study is a four-arm trial comparing 5 years of monotherapy with tamoxifen or with letrozole or with sequences of 2 years of one followed by 3 years of the other for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early invasive breast cancer. From 1998 to 2003, BIG -98 enrolled 8,010 women. The enhanced design f the trial enabled two complementary analyses of efficacy and safety. Collection of tumor specimens further enabled treatment comparisons based on tumor biology. Reports of BIG 1-98 should be interpreted in relation to each individual patient as she weighs the costs and benefits of available treatments. Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT00004205.

Cognitive function in postmenopausal breast cancer patients one year after completing adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole and/or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial.

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer may affect cognition. The purpose of this study was to examine whether cognitive function improves after cessation of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Change in cognitive function was assessed in 100 postmenopausal breast cancer patients in the BIG 1-98 trial, who were randomized to receive 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen or letrozole alone or in sequence. Cognitive function was evaluated by computerized tests during the fifth year of trial treatment (Y5) and 1 year after treatment completion (Y6). Cognitive test scores were standardized according to age-specific norms and the change assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. There was significant improvement in the composite cognitive function score from Y5 to Y6 (median of change = 0.22, effect size = 0.53, P < 0.0001). This improvement was consistent in women taking either tamoxifen or letrozole at Y5 (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0002, respectively). For postmenopausal patients who received either adjuvant letrozole or tamoxifen alone or in sequence, cognitive function improved after cessation of treatment.

Adjuvant! Online estimation of chemotherapy effectiveness when added to ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer.

Adjuvant! Online (Adjuvant!) is a user-friendly, web-based tool that provides estimates of adjuvant therapy outcomes for individual patients. While reliable evidence underpins estimates for most patient cohorts, there is a paucity of data on the effect of adding chemotherapy to complete estrogen blockade for premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial 11-93 enrolled 174 premenopausal women with estrogen-receptor positive, node-positive breast cancer. Among these patients, 55% had one positive axillary lymph node and 97% had three or fewer positive nodes. Patients were randomized to receive ovarian function suppression plus 5 years of tamoxifen with or without anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Estimated hazard rates and corresponding 10-year relapse-free survival percentages obtained from Trial 11-93 data were compared with those predicted using Adjuvant!. The 10-year relapse-free survival percentages predicted from Adjuvant! were 64.4% (95% CI, 61.9-67.2%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 73.1-76.8%) for chemoendocrine therapy. By contrast, these estimates in Trial 11-93 were 76.4% (95% CI, 65.8-84.0%) for endocrine therapy alone and 74.9% (95% CI, 64.5-82.7%) for chemoendocrine therapy. The Adjuvant! estimate for the endocrine-alone control group is lower than that observed in Trial 11-93 (P = 0.03), while the estimates for the two chemoendocrine therapy groups are similar. Adjuvant! appears to underestimate the effectiveness of adjuvant endocrine therapy alone for premenopausal women with endocrine responsive breast cancer, thus overestimating the added benefit, if any, from chemotherapy for this patient population.