Citations

Abstract Background Celecoxib and low-dose aspirin might decrease risk of breast cancer recurrence. Methods In the Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.27, postmenopausal hormone receptor–positive breast cancer patients were randomly assigned (2 × 2) to adjuvant exemestane or anastrozole, and celecoxib or placebo. Low-dose aspirin of 81 mg or less was a stratification factor. Due to concerns about cardiac toxicity, celecoxib use was stopped in December 2004, while stratification by aspirin use was removed through protocol amendment. We examined the effects of celecoxib and low-dose aspirin on event-free survival (EFS), defined as time from random assignment to time of locoregional or distant disease recurrence, new primary breast cancer, or death from any cause; distant disease–free survival (DDFS); and overall survival (OS). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Random assignment to celecoxib (n = 811, 50.0%) or placebo (n = 811, 50.0%) was discontinued after 18 months (n = 1622). At a median of 4.1 years’ follow-up, among 1622 patients, 186 (11.5%) patients had an EFS event: 80 (4.9%) had distant relapse, and 125 (7.7%) died from any cause. Celecoxib did not statistically significantly impact EFS, DDFS, or OS in univariate analysis (respectively, P = .92, P = .55, and P = .56) or multivariable analysis (respectively, P = .74, P = .60, and P = .76). Low-dose aspirin use (aspirin users n = 476, 21.5%; non–aspirin users n = 1733, 78.5%) was associated in univariate analyses with worse EFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 1.96, P = 0.006) and worse OS (HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.35 to 2.61, P < .001). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and treatment arm, aspirin use showed no statistical association with EFS (P = .08) and DDFS (P = .82), but was associated with statistically worse OS (HR = 1.67, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.49, P = .01). Conclusion Random assignment to short-term (≤18 months) celecoxib as well as use of low-dose aspirin showed no effect on DDFS and EFS in multivariable analysis. Low-dose aspirin increased “all-cause” mortality, presumably because of higher preexisting cardiovascular risks.

BACKGROUNDBreast cancer patients in the MA.27 trial had similar outcomes with steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane and nonsteroidal anastrozole. AIs increase the risk of osteoporosis. This study examined the effects of self‐reported osteoporosis and osteoporosis therapy (OPT) on outcomes.METHODSThe MA.27 phase 3 adjuvant trial enrolled 7576 postmenopausal women. The primary outcome was event‐free survival (EFS), and the secondary outcome was distant disease–free survival (DDFS). Patients were permitted bisphosphonates to prevent or treat osteopenia/osteoporosis. In a multivariate, stratified Cox regression, factors were significant with a 2‐sided Wald test P value ≤ .05.RESULTSOsteoporosis was reported at the baseline by 654 of the 7576 women (8.6%) and in total by 1294 patients. Oral OPT was received at the baseline by 815 of the 7576 women (10.8%) and in total by 2711 patients (36%). With a median follow‐up of 4.1 years, 693 EFS events (9.15%) and 321 DDFS events (4.2%) occurred. Osteoporosis was not associated with EFS or DDFS. Few EFS events occurred before the initiation of OPT, with no substantive evidence of a time‐differing effect on outcomes (nonproportional hazards). OPT (yes vs no) was significantly associated with improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR] for yes vs no, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57‐0.80; P < .001) and DDFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44‐0.73; P <. 001). Time‐differing (time‐dependent) OPT was not (EFS; P = .45). OPT did not alter the incidence of visceral‐only metastasis (P = .31).CONCLUSIONSOral OPT, administered to postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant AI therapy, was associated with improved EFS and DDFS; the time of OPT initiation (a time‐dependent effect) did not affect the outcome. OPT did not alter the risk of visceral metastasis. Cancer 2017;123:2444–51. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

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: ASP is hypothesized to decrease the risk of breast cancer (BRCA) and BRCA recurrences. Thus we performed an exploratory analysis of ASP and CC use within the NCIC CTG MA.27 adjuvant trial comparing exemestane (E;N=3789) to anastrozole (A; N=3787) with a factorial second randomization to CC or placebo (P). Neither A or E was superior in breast cancer outcomes. Baseline low-dose ASP use is an accepted surrogate of cardiovascular risk factors and was used as a stratification factor across all 4 arms. Randomization to CC-P was discontinued after 18 months (n = 1622) due to concerns of cardiac toxicity. Methods: Patients taking &gt;81mg of ASP daily at baseline were ineligible for randomization and use of &gt;81mg of ASP daily was not allowed. Women enrolled during CC randomization were included in the comparison of E and A, stratified by whether they had been randomized to CC [yes, no;N=1622] and concomitant low-dose ASP [≤81 mg/day (yes, no); N=2209]. Other stratification factors included: lymph-nodes (negative, positive, or unknown); prior adjuvant chemotherapy (yes, no). The primary endpoint, event-free-survival (EFS), was defined as time from randomization to time of locoregional or distant disease recurrence, new primary breast cancer, or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) defined as time from randomization to time of death from any cause and distant disease-free-survival (DDFS), defined as time from randomization to time of distant disease recurrence. Univariate (uni) assessment of CC and ASP use was assessed with stratified log-rank test, adjusting for lymph-node status and adjuvant chemotherapy and applied by intention-to-treat. Exploratory multivariate (multi) analyses (N = 1622) had forced inclusion of treatment and used step-wise forward stratified Cox modeling to examine the effects of CC, ASP use and baseline patient characteristics on outcomes; a factor was added with Wald test statistic p ≤ 0.05. Results: At median follow-up of 4.1 years, 186/1622 (11%) patients had an EFS event; 125 (8%) had died from any cause, and 80 (5%) had distant BRCA relapse. CC did not have significant uni association with outcomes: EFS p-value=0.92; OS p-value p = 0.56; DDFS p-value=0.55. ASP use was associated with worse EFS [p = 0.006, HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.12–1.96)], worse OS [p = 0.0002, HR 1.87 (95% CI (1.35–2.61)], and non-significant difference in DDFS (p = 0.72). CC had no multi association with EFS, OS or DDFS. ASP use had no multi association with EFS and DDFS (p &gt; 0.05). However, ASP use had multi prognostic association with worse OS [p = 0.01; HR 1.67 (95% CI 1.13–2.49)]. Conclusions: Users of either CC or low dose ASP had similar DDFS to non-users in MA.27. As expected, low-dose ASP users (with presumptive cardiovascular risk factors) had worse OS than non-users. Inadequate numbers of patients randomized to CC and lack of randomization to aspirin leaves inadequate evidence from MA.27 to determine whether anti-inflammatories influence breast cancer outcomes. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-02.

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.

Abstract Background: The non-steroidal reversible aromatase inhibitor (AI), anastrozole (A) is approved as adjuvant monotherapy in hormone receptor (HR) positive early breast cancer (EBC). The steroidal irreversible AI exemestane (E) is approved in sequence after an initial 2-3 years of tamoxifen. MA27 tested the hypothesis that exemestane would have greater efficacy and better end-organ safety than anastrozole for several reasons: E is an irreversible and more potent AI than A; unlike A, E does not induce intra-tumoral aromatase and; through its mild androgenic activity E may exert a second anti-tumor effect and a more favorable bone and lipid metabolism profile than A. Initially the study also tested the role of a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, used in combination with an AI. However, celecoxib was discontinued early in MA27 following identification of cardiovascular toxicity with COX-2 inhibitors. Methods: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive primary breast cancer were randomized after adequate local treatment to 5 years of adjuvant A (1mg/day) or E (25mg/day) with or without celecoxib/placebo (400mg/plac twice daily for 3 years). The primary objective is the comparison of event free survival (EFS) between women treated with A or E. Secondary objectives include overall survival (OS), distant recurrence (DDFS), incidence of contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and safety. Quality of Life in a subset of women has been evaluated, and a very extensive tissue bank created. Stratification included: prior chemotherapy; lymph node status, celecoxib (during use), aspirin use (during randomization to celecoxib), and trastuzumab use (since November 2005). The primary endpoint (EFS) will look for an improvement from 87.5% to 89.9%; HR 0.80, 2-sided 5% level and 80% power, with 644 events required. Results: 7576 women were randomized between June 2003 and July 2008. Celecoxib/placebo, was discontinued 2 years into the trial in December 2004 after 1635 patients had received celecoxib. The number of events required for final analysis was reached April 2010. Patient characteristics were balanced for age (median 64.1yrs); race; ECOG PS; mastectomy; TNM staging and; prior adjuvant chemotherapy. EFS, OS, DDFS, and CBC as well as clinical fractures, cardiovascular events and adverse events will be presented by arm in the final analysis. Conclusions: NCIC CTG MA.27 is the first definitive EBC trial comparing a non-steroidal and steroidal AI as initial adjuvant therapy. Exemestane is not currently approved as initial adjuvant treatment and superiority or equivalence will lead to its inclusion as a first-line option for EBC in postmenopausal HR positive breast cancer. Efficacy, clinical fractures, cardiovascular events and AI related symptoms will help to define the cost-benefit ratios of these two AIs. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S1-1.

Abstract Background: Analyses of adjuvant endocrine therapy suggest that the appearance of new vasomotor or joint symptoms within 3 months of initiating either tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor therapy predict for lower subsequent recurrence. We hypothesized that new vasomotor or joint symptoms may predict outcomes with anastrozole or exemestane in participants in the ongoing NCIC CTG Trial MA.27. We performed a pooled analysis across treatment arms of the MA.27 trial, to examine the effects of early onset new or worsening symptoms on relapse-free survival (RFS).Methods: 7576 postmenopausal women with early breast cancer were accrued to MA.27, a randomized adjuvant trial of exemestane and anastrozole. The second interim analysis data with a 3 year median follow-up was used for this analysis. The trial's primary endpoint is event-free survival, but for this investigational analysis is RFS, which excludes non-breast cancer deaths. All 7118 participants known to be hormone receptor-positive who received trial therapy, and had no relapse in the first 3 months, were included. The association of vasomotor and joint symptoms with patient characteristics was examined with chi-square tests. Stratified log-rank and stratified univariate and multivariate Cox modeling were used to examine the association of early vasomotor and joint symptoms on disease outcomes.Results: Of 4749 women who were asymptomatic at baseline, 230 (5%) experienced vasomotor or joint symptoms at 3 months. The RFS stratified univariate Cox hazard ratio (HR) for vasomotor or joint-related symptoms was 1.184 (95% CI, 0.675-2.079). When all 7118 women were included, 361 (5%) developed new or worsening symptoms at 3 months. RFS was not statistically significant between the women with or without new symptoms (HR 1.129, 95% CI, 0.708-1.800). Higher T stage was the only factor included in the multivariate Cox RFS model that was associated with new or worsening symptoms (p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: In contrast to prior findings, we did not observe a correlation between early emergence of symptoms and improved RFS. Longer follow-up and analysis by treatment arm and at different time points are required. Additional symptoms and time points will be added to the analysis prior to the meeting. Until further data are available, clinicians should not use treatment-emergent symptoms to counsel their patient whether to continue or change their prescribed medication. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 14.