Láng, István

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The combined analysis of SOFT-TEXT compared outcomes in 4,690 premenopausal women with estrogen/progesterone receptor–positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen + OFS. After a median follow-up of 9 years, exemestane + OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), but not overall survival, compared with tamoxifen + OFS. We now report DFS, DRFI, and overall survival after a median follow-up of 13 years. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 12-year DFS (4.6% absolute improvement, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.90; P < .001) and DRFI (1.8% absolute improvement, HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98; P = .03), but not overall survival (90.1% v 89.1%, HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11), continued to be significantly improved for patients assigned exemestane + OFS over tamoxifen + OFS. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors (86.0% of the ITT population), the absolute improvement in 12-year overall survival with exemestane + OFS was 2.0% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04) and 3.3% in those who received chemotherapy (45.9% of the ITT population). Overall survival benefit was clinically significant in high-risk patients, eg, women age < 35 years (4.0%) and those with > 2 cm (4.5%) or grade 3 tumors (5.5%). These sustained reductions of the risk of recurrence with adjuvant exemestane + OFS, compared with tamoxifen + OFS, provide guidance for selecting patients for whom exemestane should be preferred over tamoxifen in the setting of OFS. [Media: see text]

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690 ) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence. [Media: see text]

LBA1 Background: Adjuvant endocrine therapy with AI vs T improves outcomes in postmenopausal HR+ BC. TEXT and SOFT were designed to test whether adjuvant AI improves outcomes in premenopausal women with HR+ BC treated with OFS (AI question) and to determine the value of OFS in women who remain premenopausal and are suitable for adjuvant T (OFS question). Methods: TEXT and SOFT, randomized phase 3 trials, enrolled 5,738 premenopausal women with HR+ early BC from Nov03 to Apr11 (2672 TEXT; 3066 SOFT). TEXT randomized women within 12wk of surgery to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS; chemotherapy (CT) was optional and concurrent with OFS. SOFT randomized women to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS vs T alone, either within 12wk of surgery if no CT planned, or within 8mo of completing (neo)adjuvant CT. OFS was by choice of 5y triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS: randomization until invasive local, regional, distant recurrence, or contralateral breast; 2nd malignancy; death). Due to low event rates, protocol amendments in 2011 changed the analysis plans to answer the AI question (E+OFS vs T+OFS) by joint analysis of TEXT and SOFT. By Q3’2013 with >5y median follow-up, 436 DFS events were projected, providing 84% power for HR=0.75 with E+OFS vs T+OFS (stratified logrank 2-sided α=0.05). Results: At 5.7y median follow-up, 514 (11%) DFS events were reported in the ITT population comparing E+OFS (n=2346) vs T+OFS (n=2344). Patients assigned E+OFS had significantly reduced DFS hazard (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86; P=0.0002) vs T+OFS; 5y DFS was 91.1% vs 87.3%. Reductions were similar for secondary endpoints of BC-free interval (HR=0.66 (0.55-0.80) 5y BCFI 92.8% vs 88.8%) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR=0.78 (0.62-0.97)), though not overall survival (HR=1.14 (0.86-1.51)) at this early follow-up (194 (4%) deaths). Grade 3-4 targeted AEs were reported in 31% E+OFS vs 29% T+OFS patients. Conclusion: In premenopausal women with HR+ BC, adjuvant treatment with E+OFS significantly reduced the risk of recurrence compared to T+OFS. Clinical trial information: NCT00066703 / NCT00066690 .

Abstract Background: We have previously shown in a phase III neoadjuvant trial that early development of lapatinib-induced rash (i.e. within 6 weeks after lapatinib initiation) is independently associated with a higher chance of obtaining a pathological complete response (Azim et al; JCO 2013). In the current study, we aimed to investigate whether early lapatinib-induced rash is associated with improved survival in the context of a large phase III adjuvant trial. Methods: This analysis is based on the ALTTO trial (BIG 2-06, Alliance N063D), in which patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer were randomized to adjuvant trastuzumab, lapatinib, their sequence or their combination for a total duration of 1 year. In this sub-study, we evaluated whether the development of rash (any grade) within 6 weeks of lapatinib initiation was associated with disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). All analyses were tested in a multivariate model adjusted for treatment arm, treatment completion and trial stratification factors. Results: A total of 6,098 lapatinib-treated patients were included in the current analysis; of whom 2,006 patients (32.9%) developed early lapatinib-induced rash, 1,025 (16.8%) developed rash after 6 weeks and 3,067 (50.3%) did not develop rash. No differences in patient characteristics were observed between the three groups apart from a higher frequency of younger patients (≤ 50) in the early rash group (54% vs. 47% and 44%, p&lt;0.0001). At a median follow-up of 4.5 years, 876 (14.37%) and 377 (6.18%) patients in the lapatinib containing arms experienced a DFS and OS event, respectively. In a multivariate analysis confined to patients randomized to the lapatinib containing arms, the development of early rash was associated with improved DFS (HR: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.69-0.93, p=0.004) and OS (HR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48 - 0.78, p&lt;0.001) compared to patients who did not develop early rash, with no interaction according to patient's age (p=0.9). No significant association was observed between the development of rash after 6 weeks of lapatinib initiation and survival. Compared to patients randomized to the trastuzumab alone arm (n=2,076), patients who developed early rash in the sequence (n=580) or combination (n=704) arms of trastuzumab/lapatinib had superior DFS (Sequence: HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.58 – 0.98], p=0.034; Combination: HR 0.69 [95% CI: 0.54 – 0.89], p=0.005) and OS (Sequence: HR 0.57 [95%CI: 0.36 – 0.88], p=0.012; Combination: HR 0.59 [95% CI: 0.39 – 0.89], p=0.011). On the other hand, patients randomized to the lapatinib only arm who developed early rash (n=722) still had inferior DFS (HR 1.28 [95% CI: 1.04 – 1.59], p=0.02) with no difference in OS (HR: 0.95; 95%CI: 0.67 – 1.35, p=0.79) compared to patients randomized to the trastuzumab alone arm. Conclusions: The results support our previous findings in the neoadjuvant setting that early development of skin rash within the first 6 weeks can identify patients who derive superior benefit of lapatinib treatment. Citation Format: Azim Jr HA, Sonnenblick A, Agbor-Tarh D, Bradbury I, Daly F, Huang Y, Dueck AC, Pritchard K, Wolff AC, Jackisch C, Lang I, Untch M, Smith I, Boyle F, Xu B, Gomez H, Perez E, Piccart M, de Azambuja E. The impact of early lapatinib-induced rash on disease-free and overall survival in patients treated within the ALTTO phase III randomized trial. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD5-07.

Background Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) improves outcomes for metastatic human epidermal growth factor 2–positive breast cancer and increases the pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, but their role as adjuvant therapy remains uncertain. Methods In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization trial, patients with centrally confirmed human epidermal growth factor 2–positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with T, L, their sequence (T→L), or their combination (L+T). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), with 850 events required for 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for L+T versus T. Results Between June 2007 and July 2011, 8,381 patients were enrolled. In 2011, due to futility to demonstrate noninferiority of L versus T, the L arm was closed, and patients free of disease were offered adjuvant T. A protocol modification required P ≤ .025 for the two remaining pairwise comparisons. At a protocol-specified analysis with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, a 16% reduction in the DFS hazard rate was observed with L+T compared with T (555 DFS events; HR, 0.84; 97.5% CI, 0.70 to 1.02; P = .048), and a 4% reduction was observed with T→L compared with T (HR, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .61). L-treated patients experienced more diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and hepatic toxicity compared with T-treated patients. The incidence of cardiac toxicity was low in all treatment arms. Conclusion Adjuvant treatment that includes L did not significantly improve DFS compared with T alone and added toxicity. One year of adjuvant T remains standard of care.

Abstract Learning Objectives Discuss methods for improving the efficiency of global clinical trials. Explain the need for national regulatory authorities and collaborative cancer groups to initiate efforts to quicken the activation process in their countries. Describe the activation process of phase III studies and its complex and heterogeneous regulation across different geographic and economic regions. Purpose. This study measured the time taken for setting up the different facets of Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization (ALTTO), an international phase III study being conducted in 44 participating countries. Methods. Time to regulatory authority (RA) approval, time to ethics committee/institutional review board (EC/IRB) approval, time from study approval by EC/IRB to first randomized patient, and time from first to last randomized patient were prospectively collected in the ALTTO study. Analyses were conducted by grouping countries into either geographic regions or economic classes as per the World Bank's criteria. Results. South America had a significantly longer time to RA approval (median: 236 days, range: 21–257 days) than Europe (median: 52 days, range: 0–151 days), North America (median: 26 days, range: 22–30 days), and Asia-Pacific (median: 62 days, range: 37–75 days). Upper-middle economies had longer times to RA approval (median: 123 days, range: 21–257 days) than high-income (median: 47 days, range: 0–112 days) and lower-middle income economies (median: 57 days, range: 37–62 days). No significant difference was observed for time to EC/IRB approval across the studied regions (median: 59 days, range 0–174 days). Overall, the median time from EC/IRB approval to first recruited patient was 169 days (range: 26–412 days). Conclusion. This study highlights the long time intervals required to activate a global phase III trial. Collaborative research groups, pharmaceutical industry sponsors, and regulatory authorities should analyze the current system and enter into dialogue for optimizing local policies. This would enable faster access of patients to innovative therapies and enhance the efficiency of clinical research.

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.