Adjuvant treatment of premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: design of the TEXT and SOFT trials

OBJECTIVES In 2003 the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated the TEXT and SOFT randomized phase III trials to answer two questions concerning adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: 1-What is the role of aromatase inhibitors (AI) for women treated with ovarian function suppression (OFS)? 2-What is the role of OFS for women who remain premenopausal and are treated with tamoxifen? METHODS TEXT randomized patients to receive exemestane or tamoxifen with OFS. SOFT randomized patients to receive exemestane with OFS, tamoxifen with OFS, or tamoxifen alone. Treatment was for 5 years from randomization. RESULTS TEXT and SOFT successfully met their enrollment goals in 2011. The 5738 enrolled women had lower-risk disease and lower observed disease-free survival (DFS) event rates than anticipated. Consequently, 7 and 13 additional years of follow-up for TEXT and SOFT, respectively, were required to reach the targeted DFS events (median follow-up about 10.5 and 15 years). To provide timely answers, protocol amendments in 2011 specified analyses based on chronological time and median follow-up. To assess the AI question, exemestane + OFS versus tamoxifen + OFS, a combined analysis of TEXT and SOFT became the primary analysis (n = 4717). The OFS question became the primary analysis from SOFT, assessing the unique comparison of tamoxifen + OFS versus tamoxifen alone (n = 2045). The first reports are anticipated in mid- and late-2014. CONCLUSIONS We present the original designs of TEXT and SOFT and adaptations to ensure timely answers to two questions concerning optimal adjuvant endocrine treatment for premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer. Trial Registration TEXT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066703 SOFT: Clinicaltrials.govNCT00066690.

Adjuvant pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for older women with endocrine nonresponsive breast cancer who are NOT suitable for a "standard chemotherapy regimen": the CASA randomized trial

There is no optimal treatment for breast cancers lacking estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptors in elderly women with co-morbidities that prevent use of "standard chemotherapy regimens" such as AC or CMF. The CASA trial studied pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and low dose, metronomic cyclophosphamide + methotrexate (CM) for older (>65), vulnerable women with operable, ER and PgR-negative breast cancer. After two years the trial closed early, due to slow and inadequate accrual, with 77 patients (38:PLD, 36:CM, 3:nil). Sixty-eight percent completed PLD; 83% completed CM (both 16 weeks). Patients on PLD reported worse quality of life, cognitive and physical functioning than non-PLD regimens (primarily CM). At a median follow-up of 42 months, 81% of randomized patients remained free of any breast cancer recurrence. Based on our limited experience, PLD and CM may be reasonable options for further study for elderly vulnerable patients with endocrine nonresponsive breast cancer.

Exemestane Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Women With Early Breast Cancer: NCIC CTG MA.27—A Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial

PURPOSE In patients with hormone-dependent postmenopausal breast cancer, standard adjuvant therapy involves 5 years of the nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole. The steroidal inhibitor exemestane is partially non-cross-resistant with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors and is a mild androgen and could prove superior to anastrozole regarding efficacy and toxicity, specifically with less bone loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS We designed an open-label, randomized, phase III trial of 5 years of exemestane versus anastrozole with a two-sided test of superiority to detect a 2.4% improvement with exemestane in 5-year event-free survival (EFS). Secondary objectives included assessment of overall survival, distant disease-free survival, incidence of contralateral new primary breast cancer, and safety. RESULTS In the study, 7,576 women (median age, 64.1 years) were enrolled. At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 4-year EFS was 91% for exemestane and 91.2% for anastrozole (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P = .85). Overall, distant disease-free survival and disease-specific survival were also similar. In all, 31.6% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse effects, concomitant disease, or study refusal. Osteoporosis/osteopenia, hypertriglyceridemia, vaginal bleeding, and hypercholesterolemia were less frequent on exemestane, whereas mild liver function abnormalities and rare episodes of atrial fibrillation were less frequent on anastrozole. Vasomotor and musculoskeletal symptoms were similar between arms. CONCLUSION This first comparison of steroidal and nonsteroidal classes of aromatase inhibitors showed neither to be superior in terms of breast cancer outcomes as 5-year initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal breast cancer by two-way test. Less toxicity on bone is compatible with one hypothesis behind MA.27 but requires confirmation. Exemestane should be considered another option as up-front adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

Trastuzumab treatment beyond progression in advanced breast cancer: patterns of care in six Swiss breast cancer centers.

BACKGROUND Trastuzumab is an established treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer (BC). We analyzed Swiss patterns of care in patients with HER2-positive BC after disease progression on trastuzumab-containing therapy for metastatic BC (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was performed in six Swiss BC centers. Patients with HER2-positive MBC treated with at least one infusion of trastuzumab for advanced disease between January 2006 and December 2007 were identified. Treatment patterns in first and further lines were analyzed. RESULTS All of the 72 identified patients received trastuzumab as their first palliative anti-HER2 therapy, either as monotherapy (n = 23) or in combination with chemotherapy (typically taxane or vinorelbine; n = 49). Median time to progression was 8.1, 8.0 and 7.9 months in the monotherapy, trastuzumab-taxane and trastuzumab-vinorelbine cohorts, respectively. After progression on first-line anti-HER2 therapy, trastuzumab was continued in 67 of 68 patients who received further therapy. One patient received second-line lapatinib plus capecitabine. The median duration of anti-HER2 therapy was 20 months. Patients received a median of 4 lines of anti-HER2 therapy. CONCLUSIONS Durable responses were achieved with repeated exposure to anti-HER2 therapy. In a selected patient population, trastuzumab monotherapy appears to be a reasonable first-line treatment option.

2 years versus 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer (HERA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Trastuzumab has established efficacy against breast cancer with overexpression or amplification of the HER2 oncogene. The standard of care is 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab, but the optimum duration of treatment is unknown. We compared 2 years of treatment with trastuzumab with 1 year of treatment, and updated the comparison of 1 year of trastuzumab versus observation at a median follow-up of 8 years, for patients enrolled in the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. METHODS The HERA trial is an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing treatment with trastuzumab for 1 and 2 years with observation after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, or both in 5102 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The comparison of 2 years versus 1 year of trastuzumab treatment involved a landmark analysis of 3105 patients who were disease-free 12 months after randomisation to one of the trastuzumab groups, and was planned after observing at least 725 disease-free survival events. The updated intention-to-treat comparison of 1 year trastuzumab treatment versus observation alone in 3399 patients at a median follow-up of 8 years (range 0-10) is also reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00045032. FINDINGS We recorded 367 events of disease-free survival in 1552 patients in the 1 year group and 367 events in 1553 patients in the 2 year group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·85-1·14, p=0·86). Grade 3-4 adverse events and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction during treatment were reported more frequently in the 2 year treatment group than in the 1 year group (342 [20·4%] vs 275 [16·3%] grade 3-4 adverse events, and 120 [7·2%] vs 69 [4·1%] decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction, respectively). HRs for a comparison of 1 year of trastuzumab treatment versus observation were 0·76 (95% CI 0·67-0·86, p<0·0001) for disease-free survival and 0·76 (0·65-0·88, p=0·0005) for overall survival, despite crossover of 884 (52%) patients from the observation group to trastuzumab therapy. INTERPRETATION 2 years of adjuvant trastuzumab is not more effective than is 1 year of treatment for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. 1 year of treatment provides a significant disease-free and overall survival benefit compared with observation and remains the standard of care. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche (Roche).

Adjuvant bevacizumab-containing therapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BEATRICE): primary results of a randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improves progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer and pathological complete response rates in the neoadjuvant setting. Micrometastases are dependent on angiogenesis, suggesting that patients might benefit from anti-angiogenic strategies in the adjuvant setting. We therefore assessed the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting for women with triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial we recruited patients with centrally confirmed triple-negative operable primary invasive breast cancer from 360 sites in 37 countries. We randomly allocated patients aged 18 years or older (1:1 with block randomisation; stratified by nodal status, chemotherapy [with an anthracycline, taxane, or both], hormone receptor status [negative vs low], and type of surgery) to receive a minimum of four cycles of chemotherapy either alone or with bevacizumab (equivalent of 5 mg/kg every week for 1 year). The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population, safety analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of study drug, and plasma biomarker analyses were done on all treated patients consenting to biomarker analyses and providing a measurable baseline plasma sample. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00528567. FINDINGS Between Dec 3, 2007, and March 8, 2010, we randomly assigned 1290 patients to receive chemotherapy alone and 1301 to receive bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Most patients received anthracycline-containing therapy; 1638 (63%) of the 2591 patients had node-negative disease. At the time of analysis of IDFS, median follow-up was 31·5 months (IQR 25·6-36·8) in the chemotherapy-alone group and 32·0 months (27·5-36·9) in the bevacizumab group. At the time of the primary analysis, IDFS events had been reported in 205 patients (16%) in the chemotherapy-alone group and in 188 patients (14%) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] in stratified log-rank analysis 0·87, 95% CI 0·72-1·07; p=0·18). 3-year IDFS was 82·7% (95% CI 80·5-85·0) with chemotherapy alone and 83·7% (81·4-86·0) with bevacizumab and chemotherapy. After 200 deaths, no difference in overall survival was noted between the groups (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·64-1·12; p=0·23). Exploratory biomarker assessment suggests that patients with high pre-treatment plasma VEGFR-2 might benefit from the addition of bevacizumab (Cox interaction test p=0·029). Use of bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone was associated with increased incidences of grade 3 or worse hypertension (154 patients [12%] vs eight patients [1%]), severe cardiac events occurring at any point during the 18-month safety reporting period (19 [1%] vs two [<0·5%]), and treatment discontinuation (bevacizumab, chemotherapy, or both; 256 [20%] vs 30 [2%]); we recorded no increase in fatal adverse events with bevacizumab (four [<0·5%] vs three [<0·5%]). INTERPRETATION Bevacizumab cannot be recommended as adjuvant treatment in unselected patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to assess the potential effect of bevacizumab on overall survival.

Additive homeopathy in cancer patients: Retrospective survival data from a homeopathic outpatient unit at the Medical University of Vienna

Background: Current literature suggests a positive influence of additive classical homeopathyon global health and well-being in cancer patients. Besides encouraging case reports, thereis little if any research on long-term survival of patients who obtain homeopathic care duringcancer treatment. Design: Data from cancer patients who had undergone homeopathic treatment complementaryto conventional anti-cancer treatment at the Outpatient Unit for Homeopathy in MalignantDiseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria, were collected,described and a retrospective subgroup-analysis with regard to survival time was performed.Patient inclusion criteria were at least three homeopathic consultations, fatal prognosis ofdisease, quantitative and qualitative description of patient characteristics, and survival time. Results: In four years, a total of 538 patients were recorded to have visited the OutpatientUnit Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria. 62.8% of them were women, and nearly 20% had breast cancer. From the 53.7%(n = 287) who had undergone at least three homeopathic consultations within four years, 18.7%(n = 54) fulfilled inclusion criteria for survival analysis. The surveyed neoplasms were glioblas-toma, lung, cholangiocellular and pancreatic carcinomas, metastasized sarcoma, and renal cellcarcinoma. Median overall survival was compared to expert expectations of survival outcomesby specific cancer type and was prolonged across observed cancer entities (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Extended survival time in this sample of cancer patients with fatal prognosis butadditive homeopathic treatment is interesting. However, findings are based on a small sample,and with only limited data available about patient and treatment characteristics. The relationshipbetween homeopathic treatment and survival time requires prospective investigation in largersamples possibly using matched-pair control analysis or randomized trials.

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.).

Androgen receptor status is highly conserved during tumor progression of breast cancer

BACKGROUND With the advent of new and more efficient anti-androgen drugs targeting androgen receptor (AR) in breast cancer (BC) is becoming an increasingly important area of investigation. This would potentially be most useful in triple negative BC (TNBC), where better therapies are still needed. The assessment of AR status is generally performed on the primary tumor even if the tumor has already metastasized. Very little is known regarding discrepancies of AR status during tumor progression. To determine the prevalence of AR positivity, with emphasis on TNBCs, and to investigate AR status during tumor progression, we evaluated a large series of primary BCs and matching metastases and recurrences. METHODS AR status was performed on 356 primary BCs, 135 matching metastases, and 12 recurrences using a next-generation Tissue Microarray (ngTMA). A commercially available AR antibody was used to determine AR-status by immunohistochemistry. AR positivity was defined as any nuclear staining in tumor cells ≥1 %. AR expression was correlated with pathological tumor features of the primary tumor. Additionally, the concordance rate of AR expression between the different tumor sites was determined. RESULTS AR status was positive in: 87 % (307/353) of primary tumors, 86.1 % (105/122) of metastases, and in 66.7 % (8/12) of recurrences. TNBC tested positive in 11.4 %, (4/35) of BCs. A discrepant result was seen in 4.3 % (5/117) of primary BC and matching lymph node (LN) metastases. Three AR negative primary BCs were positive in the matching LN metastasis, representing 17.6 % of all negative BCs with lymph node metastases (3/17). Two AR positive primary BCs were negative in the matching LN metastasis, representing 2.0 % of all AR positive BCs with LN metastases (2/100). No discrepancies were seen between primary BC and distant metastases or recurrence (n = 17). CONCLUSIONS Most primary (87 %) and metastasized (86.1 %) BCs are AR positive including a significant fraction of TNBCs (11.4 %). Further, AR status is highly conserved during tumor progression and a change only occurs in a small fraction (4.1 %). Our study supports the notion that targeting AR could be effective for many BC patients and that re-testing of AR status in formerly negative or mixed type BC's is recommended.

Selective resistance to the PARP inhibitor olaparib in a mouse model for BRCA1-deficient metaplastic breast cancer

Metaplastic breast carcinoma (MBC) is a rare histological breast cancer subtype characterized by mesenchymal elements and poor clinical outcome. A large fraction of MBCs harbor defects in breast cancer 1 (BRCA1). As BRCA1 deficiency sensitizes tumors to DNA cross-linking agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, we sought to investigate the response of BRCA1-deficient MBCs to the PARP inhibitor olaparib. To this end, we established a genetically engineered mouse model (GEMM) for BRCA1-deficient MBC by introducing the MET proto-oncogene into a BRCA1-associated breast cancer model, using our novel female GEMM ES cell (ESC) pipeline. In contrast to carcinomas, BRCA1-deficient mouse carcinosarcomas resembling MBC show intrinsic resistance to olaparib caused by increased P-glycoprotein (Pgp) drug efflux transporter expression. Indeed, resistance could be circumvented by using another PARP inhibitor, AZD2461, which is a poor Pgp substrate. These preclinical findings suggest that patients with BRCA1-associated MBC may show poor response to olaparib and illustrate the value of GEMM-ESC models of human cancer for evaluation of novel therapeutics.