Gralow, Julie R.

PURPOSE Older women with breast cancer remain under-represented in clinical trials. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 49907 trial focused on women age 65 years and older. We previously reported the primary analysis after a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival compared with capecitabine. We now update results at a median follow-up of 11.4 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 65 years or older with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to either standard adjuvant chemotherapy (physician’s choice of either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin) or capecitabine. An adaptive Bayesian design was used to determine sample size and test noninferiority of capecitabine. The primary end point was RFS. RESULTS The design stopped accrual with 633 patients at its first sample size assessment. RFS remains significantly longer for patients treated with standard chemotherapy. At 10 years, in patients treated with standard chemotherapy versus capecitabine, the RFS rates were 56% and 50%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .03); breast cancer–specific survival rates were 88% and 82%, respectively (HR, 0.62; P = .03); and overall survival rates were 62% and 56%, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .16). With longer follow-up, standard chemotherapy remains superior to capecitabine among hormone receptor–negative patients (HR, 0.66; P = .02), but not among hormone receptor–positive patients (HR, 0.89; P = .43). Overall, 43.9% of patients have died (13.1% from breast cancer, 16.4% from causes other than breast cancer, and 14.1% from unknown causes). Second nonbreast cancers occurred in 14.1% of patients. CONCLUSION With longer follow-up, RFS remains superior for standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine, especially in patients with hormone receptor–negative disease. Competing risks in this older population dilute overall survival benefits.

552 Background: Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but carry the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). We used the data collected in the S0307 trial to describe factors associated with provoked and unprovoked ONJ. Methods: In S0307, 6097 patients with Stage I-III breast cancer who had surgery were randomized to receive zoledronic acid (ZA) 4mg IV monthly for 6 months, then every 3 months, clodronate (CL) 1600mg daily, or ibandronate (IB) 50mg daily for three years, with no difference in bone metastases or disease-free survival. Patients completed dental procedures prior to and had a dental exam at enrollment. Pearson’s Chi-squared and Student’s T-test were used to test differences in categorical and continuous variables, respectively; logistic regression was used test independent association. Results: Of 5836 evaluable women, 48 developed ONJ, which was associated with bisphosphonate type (28/2124 (1.26%) for ZA, 8/2185 (0.36%) for CL and 12/1527 (0.77%) for IB (p = 0.002). Median time to onset of ONJ was 24.9 (1.4-66.6) for ZA, 41.2 months (range 33.8-67.4) for CL, 23.9 (2.1-75.3) for IB (p = 0.0447). Infection was present in 21 (43.8%) and absent in 20. ONJ was considered unprovoked in 20 (41.7%) and provoked by dental extraction in 20 (41.7%), periodontal disease in 14 (29.2%), denture trauma in 6 (12.5%), other dental surgery in 3 (6.3%). ONJ was associated with dental calculus (OR 2.03 (95% CI: 1.08-3.81), gingivitis (OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.12-3.98), and periodontal disease (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.45-5.53) that were moderate/severe and > 4mm periodontitis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.18-4.08). Patients with provoked and unprovoked ONJ had similar amounts of dental disease and lesion location. ONJ was not associated with dentures, plaque, chemotherapy, corticosteroids or renal adverse events. In multivariate analysis (limited by small sample), only bisphosphonate type was associated with ONJ. Conclusions: ONJ prevalence was low, likely due to patients completing dental procedures before enrollment. ZA carried a higher risk of ONJ (though current adjuvant dosing interval recommendations are less frequent), with time to onset similar to IB. Oral CL and IB (not currently available in the United States) are thus likely more appropriate for patients with poor dental health. Clinical trial information: NCT00127205.

521 Background: S0221 investigated weekly vs q 2 week dosing of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and paclitaxel (P) in patients (pts) with high risk early breast cancer as previously reported (JCO 33:58-64, 2015). After enrollment of 2716 pts randomization to the two AC arms was stopped for futility and an additional 578 pts received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC and were randomized to P weekly (Pw) or P q 2 weeks (P2). We report updated results of the original trial design and the first report of the 578 pts treated with AC x 4 and Pw x 12 or P2 x 6. Methods: Between December 2003 and November 2010, 2716 pts were randomized in a 2x2 factorial design to 1) 15 weeks of weekly AC (A 24 mg/m2/week and C 60 mg/m2/day po) vs 6 cycles of q 2 week AC (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2) and 2) Pw (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2/week x 12) vs P2 (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q 2 weeks x 6), with growth factor support as previously described. After study amendment 578 patients received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC followed by Pw or P2. Updated survival was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. Results: At a median follow-up of 8.5 years, among the pts treated in the original protocol, there were no significant differences among the four treatments for DFS (p=0.21) or OS (p=0.08). The triple-negative subset had worse DFS (P<0.001) than the HER2-positive or ER/PR+/HER2- subsets, with 5 year DFS of 75% vs 83% and 84%, respectively. While we previously found in the triple negative subset that the arm using q 2 weeks for both AC and paclitaxel was marginally superior, the differences among the arms are no longer significant for DFS (p=0.12) or OS (p=0.11). Among the 578 pts assigned ACx4 and randomized to Pw v P2 there were no overall differences in DFS (p=0.70) or OS (p=0.63) after 4.4 years median follow-up. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in DFS or OS between any of the schedules with extended follow-up in the original cohort and no difference in outcome by paclitaxel schedule for the 578 additional patients in the revised protocol. Either paclitaxel schedule may be recommended, with selection based on toxicity, cost, or patient preference rather than efficacy. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, CA21076, CA77597, CA25224, CA77202, CCSRI15469, and Amgen, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00070564.