Citations

Abstract Background: Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy (eET) beyond the first 5 years of ET improves long-term outcomes in breast cancer survivors. For women who remain premenopausal, evidence for benefit has only been demonstrated to date for 5 years of additional tamoxifen, after an initial 5 years of tamoxifen (from ATLAS, aTTom). There are no data available for eET among premenopausal women treated with initial adjuvant aromatase inhibition (AI) and ovarian functions suppression (OFS). Thus, there is uncertainty regarding the optimal eET regimen for young breast cancer survivors. Methods: The Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWS) is a multicenter prospective cohort of women age ≤40 years newly diagnosed with breast cancer between 2006-2016. Women with stage I-III hormone receptor positive breast cancer, ≥6 years post-diagnosis without breast cancer recurrence were considered candidates for eET. Use of eET was elicited on surveys completed at 6, 7 and/or 8 years post-diagnosis, censoring for recurrence or death. Those completing ≥1 survey were eligible for analysis. Patient characteristics were compared by Chi-square test between eET users and non-users, and logistic regression applied to identify factors associated with eET use. Results: Of 667 potential eET candidates, 73.9% (493/667) returned ≥1 survey between year 6-8 and were eligible for analysis. Compared to those without a year 6-8 survey, the analytic cohort tended to be more non-Hispanic white (86.0% v. 77.6%), more financially comfortable (53.9% v. 39.5%) and more likely to have children pre-diagnosis (59.6% v. 41.4%); age and disease characteristics were similar. Overall, 59.6% (294/493) reported any eET use, with use declining over time from 56.9% (265/466) to 51.4% (219/426) to 46.8% (162/346) at years 6, 7 and 8 post-diagnosis, respectively. Among eET users (n=294), tamoxifen monotherapy was the most common approach (76.9%, 226/294), followed by AI monotherapy (22.1%, 65/294, presumably women who transitioned into menopause), AI-OFS (7.1%, 21/294) and tamoxifen-OFS (3.1%, 9/294). Women diagnosed after 2012 were as likely to receive eET as those diagnosed 2006-2011 (59.4%, 117/197 v. 59.8%, 177/296 p=0.928), however eET more often included AI, with or without OFS (41.0% v. 18.6%, p<0.001), or OFS (17.9% v. 7.3%, p=0.005) in later years. In multivariable analysis, increasing age (per year odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.15, p<0.001), higher stage (II v. I: OR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.81-4.48, p<0.001; III v. I: OR: 3.73, 95% CI: 1.87-7.42, p<0.001) and receipt of chemotherapy (OR: 3.50, 95% CI: 2.08-5.91, p<0.001) were independently significantly associated with any eET use, while women not of white non-Hispanic race/ethnicity were less likely to report eET use (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.87, p=0.014). Rates of pregnancy in years 1-5 did not differ between eET users and non-users (10.0%, 29/291 v. 8.7%, 17/195, p=0.645) Conclusion: The majority of eligible young breast cancer survivors in the YWS have received eET despite limited data regarding its utility in this population. Heterogeneity exists regarding strategies utilized, and while some factors associated with eET use appear to reflect appropriate risk-based care, such as stage and receipt of chemotherapy, others, including age and race, suggest disparate uptake. Clinical studies are needed in order to determine the optimal approach to eET for young women with a history of early stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who remain premenopausal following 5 years of ET. Ensuring risk and preference-based uptake of eET should be a priority. Citation Format: Tal Sella, Yue Zheng, Shoshana M Rosenberg, Kathryn J Ruddy, Shari I Gelber, Rulla M Tamimi, Jeffrey M Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virgina F Borges, Steven E Come, Lisa A Carey, Eric P Winer, Ann H Partridge. Extended adjuvant endocrine therapy in a longitudinal cohort of young breast cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-10.

Abstract Background: As the development and use of oral anticancer agents increases, it is critical to understand patient adherence to both standard and investigational agents. The open label, phase 3 multicenter PALLAS trial investigates whether adding 2 years of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (P) to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) over adjuvant ET alone in patients (pts) with HR- positive, HR2-negative, stage II-III breast cancer. Pts were randomly assigned to either Palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3 weeks on, 1 week off, in a 28-day cycle) plus ongoing provider/patient-choice adjuvant ET (P+ET) versus ET alone. We examined patient-reported adherence to ET +/- P during the first two years of study treatment. Methods: Adherence outcomes were measured in English-speaking pts in the U.S., UK, Ireland and Australia, Spanish-speaking pts in Spain and Mexico, and German-speaking pts in Germany and Austria. Adherence measures included drug diaries completed at each cycle, pill counts (for P only) collected at each study visit, and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-4 item and the McHorney Adherence Estimator questionnaires completed at cycles 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 (22 months). Mean adherence for each cycle was defined as the average proportion of prescribed pills taken (via drug diary) across all patients who initiated that cycle. Persistence was defined as the duration of drug initiation to treatment cessation (via drug diary). Generalized estimating equations were used to model the “most adherent” pts on the Morisky (score = 5 vs score <5) and “low risk” for adherence problems on the McHorney (score=0 vs score >0) to compare the average difference between arms over time for ET, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: 81% (N=4688) of PALLAS pts were included in this analysis. Median persistence to ET was 23.6 months in P + ET (n=2169), 23.7 months in ET alone (2136) and 20.4 months for P (n=2194). The number of pts who initiated each cycle for ET declined over time and was similar between arms; the decline was more marked for P (Table 1). Mean adherence range as measured by drug diary was 98.2-99.3% for ET in P+ET and 98.0 - 99.4% in ET alone; and for P, ranged from 93.4 - 98.8%. The adherence and persistence results were nearly identical whether measured by drug diary or pill count for P. The observed percent “most adherent” for P measured by the Morisky scale ranged from 71.9% - 79.6% and the percent “low risk” for adherence problems measured by the McHorney scale, 64.0% - 73.4%. The percent of pts “most adherent” and “low risk” for adherence problems to ET was higher, on average over time, in the P+ET group compared to ET alone (75% vs 68%, p<0.01; 75% vs 72%, p=.05, respectively). Conclusions: Self-reported mean adherence for both P + ET and ET alone was strikingly high for pts who remained on therapy; persistence was also high with ET during the 2-year treatment period. Current analyses suggest that nonadherence to either P or ET was likely not a major contributor to the iDFS results seen in the overall PALLAS trial. These results illustrate the importance of measuring and monitoring patient adherence to oral study agents. Support: AFT, Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30). https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Table 1.Adherence and persistence in PALLAS over the 24 month treatment periodPalbocicilb + ETETPalbociclibETETTreatment cycleMean Adherence (SD)N*Mean Adherence (SD)NMean Adherence (SD)N193.4 (13.8)229098.7 (6.1)230999.0 (5.2)2343294.7 (13.3)218198.8 (6.4)220398.4 (7.1)2206397.4 (10.1)211298.7 (7.3)214298.8 (6.3)2168497.6 (10.2)203598.6 (7.8)211099.0 (5.7)2154597.6 (11.1)197598.3 (7.9)209398.1 (8.3)2148698.1 (8.7)189998.7 (6.6)203798.5 (8.2)2116798.1 (9.3)185599.0 (6.3)201298.6 (7.3)2102898.0 (9.1)181098.2 (8.2)199798.1 (8.2)2092998.4 (7.4)173399.0 (6.4)196298.8 (6.8)20511098.3 (8.6)171499.2 (4.9)194699.0 (5.5)20381198.3 (8.0)169198.5 (7.3)193798.2 (8.2)20311298.7 (6.2)161299.1 (5.3)191098.7 (7.5)19861398.5 (7.7)159698.9 (6.4)189398.8 (7.1)19691497.9 (9.3)157698.4 (7.3)188298.0 (9.1)19611598.5 (6.9)151499.2 (4.6)185499.0 (6.0)19281698.2 (8.7)148699.1 (4.6)183599.1 (5.7)19131798.1 (9.8)147998.3 (7.8)182698.5 (6.4)19031898.7 (6.8)141699.3 (4.1)176899.2 (5.3)18601998.7 (7.3)140899.3 (3.8)175699.4 (3.1)18482098.4 (8.9)139798.9 (5.3)174298.7 (5.8)18382198.5 (7.5)130199.0 (6.1)167698.8 (7.1)17842297.8 (9.7)124698.8 (6.2)164799.2 (5.7)17692398.1 (8.8)118098.2 (8.5)161998.4 (8.0)17552498.8 (7.2)108699.0 (6.3)146898.9 (7.1)16192598.8 (6.7)99699.2 (5.2)143298.8 (7.1)15892697.9 (11.2)84599.1 (5.7)140998.6 (8.8)1578ET=Endocrine therapy * Number of pts who initiated the treatment cycle. Citation Format: Eileen Shinn, David Zahrieh, Angela DeMichele, Nick Zdenkowski, Julie Lemieux, Jun Mao, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Michelle Naughton, Georg Pfeiler, Karen Gelmon, Ingrid Mayer, Daniel Egle, Gabriele Zoppoli, Tiffany Traina, Miguel Martin Jiménez, Silvia Antolin Novoa, Tufia Haddad, Arlene Chan, Alistair Edward Ring, Antonio Wolff, Jose JuanPonce Lorenzo, Dhanusha Sabanathan, Hal Burstein, Zbigniew Ireneusz Nowecki, Gunda Pristauz-Telsnigg, Adam Brufsky, Meritxell Bellet-Ezquerra, Theodoros Foukakis, Yelena Novik, Gabor Rubovszky, Karoline Muehlbacher, Otto Metzger, Theodora Goulioti, Ernest Law, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey, Alex Zoroufy, Dominik Hlauschek, Christian Fesl, Erica Mayer, Michael Gnant. Adherence with adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without Palbociclib in the PALLAS trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-01.

Abstract Background: Quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer patients (pts) can be greatly impacted by initial treatment and ongoing therapy, particularly if side effects and symptoms are not well tolerated. The PALLAS trial investigated whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib (palbo) to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) over adjuvant ET alone. We report on the main patient-reported outcome (PRO) quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity results of this trial by treatment arm. Methods: PALLAS is an ongoing multicenter, open label phase 3 trial that enrolled hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative, stage II-III breast cancer patients at 406 cancer centers across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 2 years of palbo (125mg/day, 3 weeks on 1 week off) plus ongoing provider or patient-choice adjuvant ET (palbo+ET) versus ongoing ET alone. The primary study endpoint was iDFS. Treatment with palbo in all pts stopped at the time of the second interim analysis (5/2020) due to futility; all pts then moved to follow up. The PRO analyses were triggered for completion after awareness of the pre-specified 469 iDFS cases in November 2020. Eight PRO endpoints were measured serially (i.e., day 1 of each monthly cycle for the first 3 months, then every 3 months for the first 2 years, and once at year 3). The endpoints were the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL score, the Brief Fatigue Inventory score, the modified Brief Pain Inventory severity and pain interference scores, the EORTC QLQ-BR23 alopecia score, and the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial hot flash symptoms, vaginal problems, and musculoskeletal pain scores. Linear mixed models compared the average difference between arms across time points during the initial 2-year treatment period adjusting for cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) PRO scores, demographic and clinical variables. The average differences between arms (palbo+ET vs ET alone) and the two-sided (1-[0.05/8]) x 100% confidence intervals, adjusted for multiple comparisons, were calculated. Analysis of covariance compared the average between-arm differences by endpoint at 3 years. Results: The PRO intention to collect population included 4688 (81%) of the overall trial pts, and was clinically and demographically representative of the remaining 1073 pts. Each analysis population, with measures at C1D1 and at least 1 post-C1D1 assessment for each PRO endpoint, comprised ≥ 89% of the 4688 pts and the proportions were similar between arms. After adjustment for baseline covariates, on average, no clinically important differences between arms were observed for any of the eight endpoints over the 2 year treatment period (Table 1). All effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold. These PRO results were similar at the 3 year time point. Conclusions: No clinically significant differences in either patient-reported QOL or symptom severity were found, on average, between participants in the two PALLAS treatment arms while either taking palbo+ET or ET alone, or after study-wide termination of palbo. In general, the addition of palbociclib in the adjuvant breast cancer setting did not contribute to increased symptom burden within this survivorship population. Further analyses will examine the relationship between PROs and treatment discontinuation by arm and study time point. Support: AFT, Pfizer, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Table 1.Results of the Patient-Reported QOL and Symptom Severity Analyses Between the Two Treatment Arms During the First 2 Years of PALLASPRO Endpoint *Palbo + ET Adjusted average score (95% CI)ET alone Adjusted average score (95% CI)Average Difference + (Palbo + ET vs ET alone)[99.38% CI] Clinically ++ Important DifferenceEORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL71.7 (71.2, 72.2)74.0 (73.5, 74.5)-2.3 (-3.3, -1.4)**NoBrief Fatigue Inventory Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.1 (2.0, 2.1)0.2 (0.1, 0.3)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Severity Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.4 (2.4, 2.5)-0.2 (-0.3, -0.1)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Interference Score1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoEORTC QLQ-BR23 Alopecia1.4 (1.4, 1.4)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)0.1 (0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Hot Flash Symptoms1.2 (1.2, 1.3)1.2 (1.2, 1.3)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Vaginal Problems0.8 (0.8, 0.8)0.8 (0.7, 0.8)0.0 (0.0, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Musculoskeletal Pain1.2 (1.2, 1.2)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)-0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)No* For the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL subscale, higher scores indicate better QOL. For all other PRO endpoints, higher scores indicate worse symptom levels. ** The lower bound of the one-sided CI (adjusted for multiple comparisons) was -3.3. Because the lower limit is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -3.44, non-inferiority of palbo+ET relative to ET-alone was concluded. The non-inferiority margin corresponds to a 0.2 SD in the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health/QOL score. +The average difference was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: Cycle 1 day 1 score, region (if applicable), age category, first adjuvant ET, race, ethnicity, N-stage, T-stage, histological grade, PgR, prior chemotherapy, ECOG Performance Status. ++Based on each instrument’s published clinically relevant cut-offs, if available. After calculating Cohen’s d treatment effect sizes, (i.e. by dividing the average difference by the ET-alone arm standard deviation from cycle 1 day 1), all effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold, and would not be considered clinically important. Citation Format: Michelle Joy Naughton, David Zahrieh, Michael Gnant, Nicholas Zdenkowski, Julie Lemieux, Jun J Mao, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Eileen Shinn, Marija Balic, Christoph Thomssen, Jane Neisel, Manuel Ruiz-Echarri, Sibylle Loibl, Claudine Isaacs, David Cameron, Fernando Manuel Henao Carrasco, Matthew Goetz, Viktor Wette, Gustavo Werutsky, Hope Rugo, Marcus Vetter, Ling-Ming Tseng, Kathy Miller, Florian Fitzal, Juan Miguel Gil Gil, Haeseong Park, Barbro Linderholm, Emilio Bajetta, Zoneddy Dayao, Aleix Prat, Karin Ehrhardt, Otto Metzger, Amal Arahmani, Ernest Law, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey, Alex Zoroufy, Amylou Dueck, Dominik Hlauschek, Angela DeMichele, Erica Mayer. Quality of life and symptom severity in the PALLAS randomized trial of palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (AFT-05) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-01.

Abstract Introduction: Breast cancer treatments can impair fertility via direct gonadotoxicity (chemotherapy) as well as by introducing delays in childbearing that allow natural ovarian aging. Guidelines strongly recommend fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation techniques for premenopausal women who have not completed their desired childbearing at the time of cancer diagnosis. Prior studies have identified high rates of fertility concern but relatively low rates of fertility counseling and use of fertility preservation techniques. We sought to investigate rates of fertility counseling, use of fertility preservation techniques, and how fertility concerns impact cancer treatment decisions in a modern cohort of patients with breast cancer at a large academic medical center in the United States. Methods: All patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester with a new diagnosis (within the year prior) of stage 0-4 breast cancer were invited (by mail or in person) to participate in the Mayo Clinic Breast Registry. After informed consent, participants were asked to complete a baseline survey and annual follow-up surveys. On baseline and one-year surveys, patients were queried about desire for future children and fertility concerns. Nurse chart abstraction was used to collect information about tumor subtype, stage, and treatments received. We examined survey data from women diagnosed under the age of 50 who expressed an interest in having future biological children on either the baseline or year 1 survey between February 2015 and October 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the degree of fertility concern in this population, the impact of that concern on cancer treatment decisions, and steps taken to preserve fertility. Results: Between February 2015 and October 2020, 865 women under age 50 at diagnosis consented to the registry. Of these women, 627 completed a baseline and/or 1-year survey and 100 answered either “yes” or “unsure” to the question: “At the present time, do you wish to have any more biological children in the future?” on one or both surveys. Among the 100 women expressing interest in future child-bearing, 92% were white, 27% had node-positive and one had distant metastatic disease at diagnosis. The age at diagnosis ranged from 19 to 49 years, with a mean age of 33.8 years. Of the 75 who reported a desire for future children at baseline, 28% felt “somewhat concerned” about their future fertility and 40% felt “very concerned.” Of the 70 who reported a desire for future children on the year 1 survey, 17% felt “somewhat concerned” and 59% felt “very concerned.” For those “very concerned” about future fertility at year 1, 65% reported that this concern had a major impact on their treatment decisions. Often, that treatment modification entailed using endocrine therapy for less than 5 years; 52% of those who specified the type of treatment modification they had made indicated this option. Of note, six women who reported no desire for future biological children at baseline were “unsure” at year 1. At year 1, 93% of women recalled a discussion about fertility with their doctor prior to starting treatment, and 49% had taken steps to preserve fertility (32.5% with embryo cryopreservation, 20% with oocyte cryopreservation and 65% with a GnRH agonist; some selected multiple options). Conclusion: We found a reassuringly high rate of patient-reported fertility counseling and use of reproductive endocrinology technologies to preserve fertility in women who reported a desire for additional children at or soon after diagnosis with breast cancer. Consistent with prior studies, fertility concerns frequently impacted breast cancer treatment decisions. It is important to err on the side of inclusivity when providing fertility counseling because desire for fertility can change over time. Citation Format: Samantha Mannion, Alexandra Higgins, Elizabeth A Stewart, Zaraq Khan, Chandra Shenoy, Nicole Larson, Hazel B Nichols, H Irene Su, Ann H Partridge, Fergus J Couch, Janet E Olson, Kathryn Ruddy. Prevalence and impact of fertility concerns in young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-11-02.

Abstract Purpose: Young age at breast cancer diagnosis correlates with unfavorable clinicopathologic features and worse outcomes compared with older women. Understanding biological differences between breast tumors in young versus older women may lead to better therapeutic approaches for younger patients. Experimental Design: We identified 100 patients ≤35 years old at nonmetastatic breast cancer diagnosis who participated in the prospective Young Women's Breast Cancer Study cohort. Tumors were assigned a surrogate intrinsic subtype based on receptor status and grade. Whole-exome sequencing of tumor and germline samples was performed. Genomic alterations were compared with older women (≥45 years old) in The Cancer Genome Atlas, according to intrinsic subtype. Results: Ninety-three tumors from 92 patients were successfully sequenced. Median age was 32.5 years; 52.7% of tumors were hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative, 28.0% HER2-positive, and 16.1% triple-negative. Comparison of young to older women (median age 61 years) with luminal A tumors (N = 28 young women) revealed three significant differences: PIK3CA alterations were more common in older patients, whereas GATA3 and ARID1A alterations were more common in young patients. No significant genomic differences were found comparing age groups in other intrinsic subtypes. Twenty-two patients (23.9%) in the Young Women's Study cohort carried a pathogenic germline variant, most commonly (13 patients, 14.1%) in BRCA1/2. Conclusions: Somatic alterations in three genes (PIK3CA, GATA3, and ARID1A) occur at different frequencies in young versus older women with luminal A breast cancer. Additional investigation of these genes and associated pathways could delineate biological susceptibilities and improve treatment options for young patients with breast cancer. See related commentary by Yehia and Eng, p. 2209

PURPOSE CALGB 40603 ( NCT00861705 ), a 2 × 2 randomized phase II trial, demonstrated that adding carboplatin or bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel (wP) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer. We now report long-term outcomes (LTOs) and correlative science end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate LTOs in 443 patients who initiated study treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics, pathologic response, calculated residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with residual disease (RD), treatment assignment, and dose delivery during wP on LTOs, including event-free survival (EFS). Genomic predictors of treatment response and outcomes were assessed on pretreatment tumor samples by mRNA sequencing. RESULTS Among baseline characteristics, only the clinical stage was associated with LTOs. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, LTOs were not significantly improved with either carboplatin or bevacizumab, overall or in patients with basal-like subtype cancers by genomic analysis. Patients with pCR (n = 205, 46.3%) had significantly higher 5-year EFS (85.5% v 56.6%, log-rank P < .0001) and overall survival (87.9% v 63.4%, P < .0001) rates compared with patients with RD, even those with RCB class I. Among clinical and genomic features, evidence of immune activation, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and low B-cell receptor evenness, was associated with pCR and improved EFS. CONCLUSION Despite higher pCR rates, neither carboplatin nor bevacizumab appeared to improve LTOs although the study was not powered to assess these secondary end points. pCR was associated with superior LTOs even when compared with minimal RD. Markers of immune activation in pretreatment tumor biopsies were independently associated with higher pCR rates and improved survival.

Recent epidemiologic data show an increasing incidence of breast cancer among premenopausal women in many higher-income countries. Among premenopausal women, those diagnosed under age 40 years experience inferior long-term outcomes, particularly in the setting of hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative disease. In addition to more advanced disease presentation and/or less favorable disease biology, suboptimal adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) has emerged as an important driver of this age-related disparity. Historically, young women have been excluded from treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs), attained low rates of chemotherapy-related amenorrhea, and exhibited low adherence to ET. Recently, several studies have demonstrated treatment with ovarian function suppression (OFS) during the first 5 years postdiagnosis to be associated with improvements in breast cancer recurrence and mortality, with additional benefits achieved from pairing OFS with an AI. As the first 5 years of ET for premenopausal women has been transformed, extended ET, administered in years 5-10 postdiagnosis, has also become more common. However, the only studies of extending ET in premenopausal women have tested an additional 5 years of tamoxifen following an initial 5 years of tamoxifen and studies of AIs in the second 5 years have been limited to postmenopausal women. Herein, we review available data concerning potential benefits and risks to be considered when counseling premenopausal women on extended ET, including the continuation of OFS. We offer a pragmatic framework to support decision making given the current body of knowledge and call out the need for additional research into this issue.