Barlow, William E

Abstract Background S0221 investigated weekly vs every 2 weeks dosing of doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) followed by paclitaxel in patients with high-risk early breast cancer. After an interim analysis, random assignment to the 2 AC arms was stopped for futility, and the trial was modified to study only the paclitaxel schedules. Methods Between December 2003 and November 2010, a total of 2716 patients were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design to 15 weeks of weekly A and daily C vs 6 cycles of every 2 weeks AC; and weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks vs 6 cycles of every 2 weeks paclitaxel. Between January 2011 and January 2012, an additional 578 patients were assigned to 4 cycles of every 2 weeks AC and randomly assigned to weekly vs every 2 weeks paclitaxel. Updated survival was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. We compared outcomes by breast cancer subtype as well. Results At a median follow-up of 12.1 years, there were no statistically significant differences among the 4 treatment arms in disease-free survival (DFS) (P = .91) or overall survival (P = .34) in the original protocol. Among the 578 patients assigned AC for 4 cycles and randomly assigned to paclitaxel weekly vs every 2 weeks paclitaxel, there were no overall differences in DFS (P = .32) or overall survival (P = .42). Conclusion As there were no statistically significant outcome differences in DFS or overall survival between the studied schedules of AC and paclitaxel with extended follow-up in the original or revised protocol, either paclitaxel schedule may be recommended, with selection based on toxicity, cost, or patient preference.

Abstract Purpose: The aim of PREDICT was to confirm clinical validity and the potential for clinical utility of serial circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration in patients with metastatic breast cancer, focusing on its prognostic value in different breast cancer subtypes and clinical settings. Experimental Design: In total, 4,436 individual patient-level data with CTC results from both baseline and one follow-up (CellSearch; Menarini Silicon Biosystems) were analyzed to evaluate the association between CTC detection and overall survival (OS) in the full patient cohort and separately for tumor and treatment types. Results: Using the cutoff ≥1 CTC for CTC positivity, 913 (20.6%) patients had 0 CTCs at both time points (neg/neg) and 325 (7.3%) and 1,189 (26.8%) patients converted from CTC negative to CTC positive (neg/pos) or vice versa (pos/neg), whereas 2,009 (45.3%) patients had at least one CTC at both time points (pos/pos). The median OS for the neg/neg, neg/pos, pos/neg, and pos/pos group was 45.6, 26.1, 32.3, and 17.3 months, respectively (P < 0.0001, global log-rank test). CTC responders (pos/neg) showed a lower risk of death compared with CTC nonresponders (pos/pos; HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.44–0.53). Similar results were obtained in subgroup analyses according to hormone receptor and HER2 subtype, treatment type, and with a ≥5 CTC cutoff for CTC positivity. Conclusions: Follow-up CTC assessments strongly predict OS independently from tumor subtype and treatment. New randomized trials to define the clinical utility of CTC monitoring for risk stratification and as an early response marker in metastatic breast cancer are urgently needed.

Abstract Background The phase III RxPONDER trial has affected treatment for node-positive (1-3), hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) less than 26. We investigated how these findings apply to different racial and ethnic groups within the trial. Methods The trial randomly assigned women to endocrine therapy (ET) or to chemotherapy plus ET. The primary clinical outcome was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), with distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) as a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and survival outcomes, adjusting for clinicopathological characteristics, RS, and treatment. Results A total of 4048 women with self-reported race/ethnicity were included: Hispanic (15.1%), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (6.1%), Native American/Pacific Islander (0.8%), Asian (8.0%), and non-Hispanic White (NHW) (70%). No differences in RS distribution, tumor size, or number of positive nodes were observed by race/ethnicity. Relative to NHWs, IDFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year IDFS 91.6% vs 87.1%, HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.81) and better for Asians (91.6% vs 93.9%, HR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.91). Relative to NHW, DRFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year DRFS 95.8% vs 91.0%, HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.32) and better for Asians (95.8% vs 96.7%, HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.95). Adjusting for clinical characteristics, particularly body mass index, diminished the effect of race on outcomes. Chemotherapy treatment efficacy did not differ by race/ethnicity. Conclusions NHB women had worse clinical outcomes compared with NHWs in the RxPONDER trial despite similar RS and comparable treatment. Our study emphasizes the persistent racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes while highlighting complex interactions among contributing factors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01272037.

PURPOSE Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT-serine threonine kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway abnormalities contribute to endocrine resistance. Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, improved progression-free survival in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer (BC) when combined with endocrine therapy (ET). In this phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of everolimus + ET as adjuvant therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative BC after adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to physician's choice ET and 1 year of everolimus (10 mg orally once daily) or placebo stratified by risk group. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) evaluated by a stratified log-rank test with the hazard ratio (HR) estimated by Cox regression. Subset analyses included preplanned evaluation by risk group and exploratory analyses by menopausal status and age. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Everolimus did not improve IDFS/OS when added to ET in patients with early-stage high-risk, hormone receptor–positive BC. RESULTS One thousand and nine hundred thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned with 1,792 eligible for analysis. Overall, no benefit of everolimus was seen for IDFS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]) or OS (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.26]). The assumption of proportional hazards was not met suggesting significant variability in the HR over time since the start of treatment. In an unplanned subgroup analysis among postmenopausal patients (N = 1,221), no difference in IDFS (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.36]) or OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.60]) was seen. In premenopausal patients (N = 571), everolimus improved both IDFS (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.94]) and OS (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.86]). Treatment completion rates were lower in the everolimus arm compared with placebo (48% v 73%) with higher grade 3 and 4 adverse events (35% v 7%). CONCLUSION One year of adjuvant everolimus + ET did not improve overall outcomes. Subset analysis suggests mTOR inhibition as a possible target for patients who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy.

Abstract Background Adjuvant bisphosphonates, when given in a low-estrogen environment, can decrease breast cancer recurrence and death. Treatment guidelines include recommendations for adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients. SWOG/Alliance/Canadian Cancer Trials Group/ECOG-ACRIN/NRG Oncology study S0307 compared the efficacy of three bisphosphonates in early-stage breast cancer. Methods Patients with stage I–III breast cancer were randomly assigned to 3 years of intravenous zoledronic acid, oral clodronate, or oral ibandronate. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) with overall survival as a secondary outcome. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results A total of 6097 patients enrolled. Median age was 52.7 years. Prior to being randomly assigned, 73.2% patients indicated preference for oral vs intravenous formulation. DFS did not differ across arms in a log-rank test (P = .49); 5-year DFS was 88.3% (zoledronic acid: 95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.9% to 89.6%), 87.6% (clodronate: 95% CI = 86.1% to 88.9%), and 87.4% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 85.6% to 88.9%). Additionally, 5-year overall survival did not differ between arms (log rank P = .50) and was 92.6% (zoledronic acid: 95% CI = 91.4% to 93.6%), 92.4% (clodronate: 95% CI = 91.2% to 93.5%), and 92.9% (ibandronate: 95% CI = 91.5% to 94.1%). Bone as first site of recurrence did not differ between arms (P = .93). Analyses based on age and tumor subtypes showed no treatment differences. Grade 3/4 toxicity was 8.8% (zoledronic acid), 8.3% (clodronate), and 10.5% (ibandronate). Osteonecrosis of the jaw was highest for zoledronic acid (1.26%) compared with clodronate (0.36%) and ibandronate (0.77%). Conclusions We found no evidence of differences in efficacy by type of bisphosphonate, either in overall analysis or subgroups. Despite an increased rate of osteonecrosis of the jaw with zoledronic acid, overall toxicity grade differed little across arms. Given that patients expressed preference for oral formulation, efforts to make oral agents available in the United States should be considered.