Walley, Barbara

Importance The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) previously identified premenopausal patients with tumors in which the ratio of expression of HOXB13 relative to IL17BR (hereafter, BCI [H/I]–low tumors) as likely to derive greatest benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS)–containing adjuvant therapy in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. Objectives To assess BCI as a predictive biomarker of benefit from exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS and to validate BCI as a prognostic biomarker for premenopausal patients. Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study used a prospective-retrospective translational design within the Tamoxifen and Exemestane (TEXT) and SOFT trials (enrolled November 2003 to April 2011). Blinded BCI testing in all available tumor samples was completed in March 2024. Premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer randomized to tamoxifen plus OFS or exemestane plus OFS who had BCI assessed were included. Analysis occurred from March to August 2024. Exposure 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS or exemestane plus OFS. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) for predictive analyses and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) for prognostic analyses after a median follow-up of 13 years in the TEXT cohort. Secondary objectives examined the predictive performance of BCI (H/I) in the combined TEXT and SOFT cohort overall and in prespecified clinical subgroups. Results Of 1782 patients in the TEXT study, 1034 (58.0%) had BCI (H/I)–low tumors; 915 (51.3%) of patients had N0 disease and 1077 (60.4%) were younger than 45 years. Patients with BCI (H/I)–low tumors had a 6.6% absolute benefit in 12-year BCFI (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85) for exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS, while those with BCI (H/I)–high tumors had a 6.3% absolute benefit (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.07; P for interaction = .29). Results were consistent in the combined TEXT plus SOFT cohort (2896 patients) and adjusting for clinicopathological variables. Clinical subgroup analyses consistently showed benefit of exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS for BCI (H/I)–low tumors, and more variable relative treatment effects among BCI (H/I)–high tumors, including by age. Post hoc exploratory time-varying estimates suggested the treatment × BCI associations may differ in years 0 to 5 vs greater than 5 years. BCI and BCI N+ as continuous indices were prognostic for distant recurrence in N0 (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11-1.44; P < .001) and N1 (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.05; P < .001) cancers. The 12-year DRFI was 96.3%, 90.3%, and 84.9% for BCI low-, intermediate-, and high-risk N0 cancers, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance In this study of premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, BCI (H/I) status did not clearly predict greater benefit of adjuvant exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS for women with BCI (H/I)–low tumors than for those with BCI (H/I)–high tumors; BCI continuous indices were reconfirmed as prognostic for premenopausal women. These findings support prior results of SOFT, which compared tamoxifen-alone vs OFS with either exemestane or tamoxifen, indicating premenopausal patients with BCI (H/I)–low tumors may benefit from more intensive endocrine therapy.

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: In 2000, cyclophosphamide(C), epirubicin(E) and fluorouracil (F) (CEF) and doxorubicin (A) and C followed by paclitaxel (T) (AC/T) given every three weeks were commonly used regimens in Canada and the USA to treat women with node positive or high risk node negative operable breast cancer. In a previous trial in women with locally advanced breast cancer, 3 months of dose-dense EC was equivalent to six months of CEF. We hypothesized that the addition of 3 months of a taxane following dose-dense EC would be superior to CEF alone or AC/T. In a randomized trial in women with early breast cancer we compared CEF, dose dense EC/T and AC/T. An interim analysis (JCO, 2010) conducted when 50% of the events for the relapse-free-survival (RFS) analysis were observed, demonstrated that AC/T administered every 3 weeks was significantly inferior to CEF or EC/T. The results of the final RFS including CEF versus EC/T will be presented. Methods: Women, 60 years or younger, with operable axillary node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer were randomized to adjuvant CEF, EC/T or AC/T. CEF was given for 6 cycles and consisted of: C 75 mg/m2 orally on Days 1–14, and E 60 mg/m2 and F 500 mg/m2, IV on Days 1 and 8. CEF patients received concurrent antibiotic prophylaxis. EC/T consisted of 6 cycles of EC every 14 days; E 120 mg/m2 and C 830 mg/m2, both IV on Day 1 with filgrastim 5 [ug]/kg/day subcutaneous from Days 2–13 and epoetin alpha 40,000 units subcutaneous once weekly. After completion of EC, 4 cycles of T 175 mg/m2 every 21 days with filgrastim and epoetin alpha were given. The AC/T regimen consisted of A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 IV every 21 days for 4 cycles. This was followed by T 175 mg/m2 every 21 days for 4 cycles. The final analysis for RFS was planned when 453 events were observed permitting the detection of a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.43 between CEF and AC/T and a HR of 1.43 between EC/T and the best of the other two arms. Quality of Life data using the EORTC C-30 and the Breast Cancer Chemotherapy questionnaires were collected throughout the study. The results will be available at the time of the presentation. Results: A total of 2104 women were enrolled between December 2000 and April 2005. The required 453 events for the RFS analysis were observed by the clinical cut-off date of March 30, 2012. At this point 369 deaths had been observed. The median follow-up is 87.5 months. Outstanding data and queries are currently being collected and reviewed with an expected database lock and final analysis mid August, 2012. Febrile neutropenia remains higher on the CEF and EC/T arms while more neuropathy was seen in the taxane containing regimens. Conclusions: Although the two regimens considered a standard of care at the time the study was initiated are no longer widely used, the trial results will enhance our understanding of the magnitude of benefit of taxane following an anthracycline, the significance of cumulative anthracycline dose, and the role of dose density/ intensity as backbone of conventional chemo regimens. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-01.