Citations

Abstract Background: In the treatment of ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC), randomized phase II/III trials testing selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), complete estrogen receptor antagonists (CERANs) and selective ER modulators (SERMs) (mostly compared to fulvestrant) have demonstrated modest (1-2 months) improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), mainly limited to patients with ESR1-mutated MBC. In these studies, the median PFS (mPFS) ranges from 3 to 6 months, with shorter mPFS in patients with prior progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Here we report the final results of a randomized phase II study that compared Z-endoxifen (Endx) 80 mg/day with tamoxifen (Tam) 20 mg/day in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor (ER)- positive/ HER2-negative MBC, and report outcomes according to ESR1, PIK3CA, PTEN and AKT alterations (Alliance A011203; NCT02311933). Methods: Postmenopausal women with unlimited prior endocrine regimens (including CDK 4/6i) and up to two chemotherapy regimens for MBC, with tumor biopsy confirmation of ER+ (>10% nuclear staining) and negative for HER2 amplification/overexpression were eligible. Prior adjuvant Tam was allowed if relapse was > 1 year following Tam completion. Patients randomized to Tam could cross over to Endx at progression. The primary end point was PFS analyzed by the interval censored data analytic approach. ctDNA was analyzed for ESR1 and PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT alterations using Guardant360 CDx 74-gene next-generation sequencing-based assay (Guardant Health). Results: Among 108 women who preregistered, 76 (Endx: 40; Tam: 36) were randomized and eligible. Patients were heavily pretreated; all patients had prior exposure to an aromatase inhibitor (AI), 50% had ≥ 2 AI based regimens in the metastatic setting and 50% in each arm had received fulvestrant. Approximately half on each arm received at least one chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting. Prior CDK 4/6i therapy was imbalanced (48% on Endx and 28% on Tam). Endx did not significantly prolong PFS compared to Tam (median PFS [mPFS] 4.3 vs 1.7 months; HR 0.72, p=0.168). Because arms were imbalanced according to prior CDK 4/6i exposure, we performed an unplanned analysis demonstrating that Endx improved PFS relative to Tam in CDK 4/6i-naïve patients (mPFS 8.3 vs 2.1 months; HR 0.39, p=0.0097) but not in patients treated with prior CDK 4/6i (mPFS 3.0 vs 1.5 months). In the subset of patients who consented for ctDNA testing (n=28), the mPFS for those with either an activating alteration in the PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT pathway or with an ESR1 mutation was similar as the overall trial. For the 24 patients who progressed on Tam and crossed-over to Endx, the median PFS was 3.5 months (range 1.5-15.0 months) with a 6-month clinical benefit rate of 33.3% (8/24; 90% CI: 17.8-52.1%). Conclusions: Endx did not meet the prespecified threshold for concluding that it significantly improved PFS relative to Tam in a cohort of heavily pretreated MBC. However, the observations of a > 6-month improvement in mPFS in CDK 4/6i-naïve patients, anti-tumor activity following crossover to Tam, and mPFS estimates similar to other novel endocrine agents in development all support the ongoing development of Endx. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN) and 5P50CA116201. Clinicaltrials.gov Id: NCT02311933. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Citation Format: M. P. Goetz, V. Suman, J. Reid, T. Dockter, C. Strand, W. F. Symmans, J. Hawse, A. Storniolo, J. Doroshow, J. M. Collins, H. Streicher, M. M. Ames, A. Tarnower, O. M. Hahn, J. N. Ingle, L. Carey, A. Partridge. Final results from the Randomized Phase II study of Z-Endoxifen and Tamoxifen in Endocrine Refractory, Estrogen Receptor Positive, HER2 negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (Alliance A011203) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-08-07.

Abstract The addition of two years (yrs) of adjuvant abemaciclib to ET resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS) over ET in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. At 7 yrs, abemaciclib+ET demonstrated sustained IDFS and DRFS benefits ([HR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.82), and (HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.84)]). Higher nodal involvement (N2 or N3) is an independent prognostic factor for worse outcomes in EBC. However, previous monarchE data highlight that pts with limited nodal disease (1-3 axillary lymph nodes (ALN)) are at high recurrence risk when additional clinical risk factors are present, such as high-grade (G) tumor and/or large tumor size. Here, we show subgroup analyses by ALN.monarchE is a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in pts with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive ET for at least 5 yrs +/- abemaciclib for 2 yrs (treatment (tx) period). High-risk EBC was defined as either 1-3 ALN (N1) with G3 disease and/or tumor ≥5 cm or, ≥4 ALN (N2: 4-9, N3: ≥10) (Cohort 1 (C1)). A smaller group of pts were enrolled with N1, G≤2, tumor size <5 cm, and central Ki-67 ≥20% (C2). IDFS, DRFS and OS were assessed in C1 by ALN (N1, N2, N3) using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, and unstratified Cox proportional hazard model including interaction effect between tx arm and ALN. Of 5120 randomized pts in C1, 1761 (34.4%) had N1, 2223 (43.4%) had N2, and 1123 (21.9%) had N3 disease. At this analysis (data cut off:15Jul2025), in the ET arm, a comparable number of patients with N1 and N2 disease had IDFS events at 6 yrs (21.6% and 25.4%), while event no. in the N3 subgroup was notably higher (38.1%). A similar trend was observed in DRFS and OS (Table). With a median follow-up time of 76.8 months in C1, the addition of abemaciclib to ET reduced the risk of developing an IDFS event by 24.8% (N1), 31.5% (N2) and 27.4% (N3) compared to ET. The absolute improvements in IDFS rates at 6 yrs were 4.6% (N1), 6.9% (N2), and 8.1% (N3). Reductions in the risk of developing DRFS events were 25.2% (N1), 31.2% (N2), and 25.7% (N3), with corresponding 6yr absolute benefit of 3.8% (N1), 6.4% (N2), and 6.8% (N3). Abemaciclib+ET consistently reduced the risk of death compared to ET across ALN subgroups by 12.3% (N1), 15.5% (N2), and 26.8% (N3), which resulted in absolute improvements in OS of 1.4% (N1), 1.6% (N2), and 2.7% (N3). Baseline disease characteristics, IDFS and DRFS KM curves by ALN will be presented. In the ET arm, pts with N1 + ≥1 additional risk factor had recurrence and death risks comparable to pts with N2, while pts with N3 had poorer prognosis. The addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to ET led to a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of recurrence and death regardless of nodal burden, confirming the consistent and sustained benefit of 2 yrs of tx with abemaciclib and supporting its use in eligible pts with node-positive high-risk EBC. Citation Format: J. Cortes, S. R. D. Johnston, M. Martín, S. M. Tolaney, M. Goetz, H. Rugo, J. Sohn, O. Ozyilkan, M. Henriques Abreu, M. Zaiss, K. Maia Vianna, H. Melgaard Nielsen, A. Chan, H. Kalofonos, S. Morales, B. San Antonio, M. Munoz, B. R Grimes, S. Amdur, P. Neven. monarchE: subgroup analysis of adjuvant abemaciclib + endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, high-risk early breast cancer by nodal status [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-08-08.

Abstract BACKGROUND: EOP is an I-SPY2 sub-study designed to test novel endocrine-based strategies in patients (pts) predicted to have modest benefit from chemotherapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degrader that has demonstrated efficacy in mutant ER+ HER2-negative MBC. METHODS: EOP eligibility included pts with Stage 2/3 HR+ HER2-negative, MammaPrint (MP) Low Risk BC. Patients with MP High1 signatures were eligible if clinically node-negative or SET 2,3 High. Pts were randomized to one of 3 oral treatment (tx) arms: vepdegestrant 200 mg/d (V), vepdegestrant 200 mg/d +letrozole (VL), vepdegestrant 200 mg/d + abemaciclib 150 mg bid (VA). Pts received tx for six 28-day cycles followed by surgery. Premenopausal (PreMN) pts received ovarian function suppression (OFS) starting C1D1 in the VL arm, and C2D1 in the V and VA arms. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as >75% of pts completing >75% of study therapy. Breast MRI functional tumor volume (FTV) and ctDNA (tumor-informed assay) were assessed at baseline (T0), 3 weeks (T1), 12 weeks (T2), and 6 months (T3). Ki67 and ER/PR by IHC were centrally assessed from tumor biopsies at T0, T1, and the surgical specimen. Results: Between 4/2023 and 1/2025, 121 pts were enrolled: 40 in V, 41 in VL, and 40 in VA. Median age was 54 years, 50% preMN. 60% of pts had ductal, 35% lobular, 5% mixed histology. 55% were cN+, and 59% were not breast conservation surgery (BCS) candidates at baseline. Mean baseline Ki67 was 12.5%, 85.1% had MP Low Risk signature, 79.3% were SET 2,3 High. All 3 tx arms met the primary endpoint with 88%, 88%, and 83% completing > 75% study therapy in V, VL, and VA (thus far), respectively. Most common all grade (AG) TRAEs in V and VL arms include fatigue (53% V, 71% VL), hot flashes (48% V, 71% VL), arthralgias (33% V, 49% VL), all G1 or G2 except for 1 G3 fatigue in VL arm. G2 and G3 neutropenia was seen in 1 pt each in V and VL arms. The most common AG TRAEs in VA include diarrhea (80%), fatigue (65%), nausea (58%), hot flashes (50%), neutropenia (43%). High grade TRAEs in VA include neutropenia (23% G3, 5% G4), ovarian cyst requiring surgery (5% G3), diarrhea (15% G3), nausea (3% G3), transaminitis (3% G3), thromboembolic event (8% G3), acute kidney injury (3% G3). Table 1 summarizes key response endpoints by tx arm. CONCLUSION: Six months of neoadjuvant vepdegestrant, alone or in combination with letrozole or abemaciclib, is feasible and demonstrates robust ER/PR degradation. Encouraging anti-tumor activity through reduction of Ki67 and MRI FTV, ctDNA clearance, and achievement of BCS was seen in pre- and postMN women. The neoadjuvant setting provides a rich platform to identify the dynamic range of response and non-response using a multi-modal approach and can be leveraged to inform future trial design and adjuvant therapy. Citation Format: J. Chien, R. M. Mukhtar, C. Yau, A. D. Elias, A. M. Wallace, N. Chan, C. Omene, N. Chen, J. Tseng, M. S. Trivedi, E. Stringer-Reasor, D. Yee, A. S. Clark, A. Thomas, H. Han, M. Arora, C. Nangia, K. Albain, C. Falkson, C. Isaacs, A. Zimmer, M. Rozenblit, L. van't Veer, L. Brown Swigart, G. Hirst, W. Symmans, A. D. Borowsky, N. Onishi, N. Hylton, S. Alkhafaji, K. V. Giridhar, C. Vaklavas, M. Wei, M. P. Goetz, O. Olopade, L. Huppert, C. Wu, L. J. Esserman. I- SPY2 Endocrine Optimization Pilot (EOP): Neoadjuvant vepdegestrant monotherapy or in combination with letrozole or abemaciclib in molecularly selected patients with stage 2/3 HR+ HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD10-02.

Abstract Background: TheTAILORx trial established that adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) is non-inferiorto chemotherapy plus ET (CET) in T1-2N0 HR+/HER2-negative early breast cancer(EBC) with an Oncotype DX (ODX) 21-gene recurrence score (RS) of 11-25, RS 0-10is associated with low distant recurrence (DR) rates with ET alone, and RS26-100 is associated with higher DR rates despite CET. Although ODX isprognostic for 10-year DR, it has limited value for late DR >5 years. Inorder to develop improved DR risk prognostication, we developed multimodal AImodels integrating clinical, molecular, and histopathology features to provideprognostic information for early (<5years), late (>5 years), and overall DR at 15 years using primary tumorsamples and clinical data from volunteers who participated in TAILORx. Methods: DigitizedH&E slides were generated and nucleic acids extracted and sequenced from∼5000 primary tumor samples using Caris MI Tumor Seek-Hybrid, of which 2,808(56%) were used for model training and 5-fold nested cross validation (60/20/20split). Models included single-modality (clinical [C], image [I], molecular [M:ODX genes]), dual-modality (CM, IC), and multimodal (ICM). An expandedmolecular model (M+) model was also derived from expanded molecular inputsderived from whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS) data, including 5 commercialgene signatures (ODX, MammaPrint, Prosigna, EndoPredict, BCI) and 57 high-variancegenes; only EndoPredict, BCI, and ODX gene signatures were retained for model M+.Model-CM+ combined clinical plus expanded molecular features, while ICM/ICM+integrated image, clinical, and (expanded) molecular inputs. Risk scores were dichotomized into high vs. low risk groups usingthresholds chosen to yield risk group proportions closely matching thosedefined by the ODX RS cutoff of 25 for distinguishing high vs. low genomicrisk. Theprimary endpoint was distant recurrence (DR). Prognostic performance wasassessed using truncated concordance index (C-index, 90th percentile of eventtimes), hazard ratios (HRs), and log-rank tests. DNA-level whole exomesequencing (WES) features were also tested but did not provide additionalprognostic information and thus excluded from final models. Results: Theactual ODX continuous RS achieved a C-index of 0.625 for overall DR and 0.743early DR, but no prognostic value for late DR (0.52). Similar results for theC-index were observed for ODX+C for overall DR (0.619), early DR (0.724), andlate DR (0.514). Of all modelsevaluated, model-ICM+ gave the best overall prognostic accuracy for overall DR (C-index0.713; hazard ratio [HR] 3.56 for comparison of high vs. low risk, p<0.001)and late DR (C-index 0.655; HR 2.36, p<0.001), and ranked second for earlyDR (C-index 0.772; HR 6.59, p<0.001) behind the CM+ model (C-index 0.782). Amongsingle-modality models, Model-M+ improved early DR prognostication comparedwith a molecular model including only ODX genes(C-index 0.767 vs 0.744 for M),whereas Model-I was strongest for late DR prognostication (C-index 0.635). Conclusions: Molecularfeatures primarily drove prognostic accuracy for early DR within 5 years,whereas histopathology features strengthened the prognostic accuracy for lateDR after 5 years. Multimodal models captured these complementary signals, withICM+ giving the best overall accuracy for individualized prognostic assessment.Additional validation of the optimized ICM+ model and other models is beingperformed in an intendent validation sample of 2000 TAILORx volunteers, withresults to be presented at the meeting.Supported by the Breast CancerResearch Foundation and the U.S. NIH/NCI U10CA180820 and 5U24CA196172, and theU.S. Postal Service Breast Cancer Stamp Fund. Citation Format: J. A. Sparano, V. Wang, R. J. Gray, D. F. Makower, K. S. Albain, D. F. Hayes, C. E. Geyer, E. C. Dees, M. P. Goetz, J. A. Olson, S. S. Badve, T. J. Saphner, T. J. Whelan, M. Radovich, V. G. Kaklamani, G. W. Sledge. Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models integrating image, clinical, and molecular data for predicting early and late breast cancer recurrence in TAILORx [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-08.

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

The treatment landscape of invasive early-stage and metastatic breast cancer is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates included in the most recent version (version 5.2025) of the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer specific to workup, locoregional therapy, surveillance, and systemic neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy recommendations for invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer.

Introduction Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), has potential associations with higher rates of diabetic retinopathy (DR) complications including proliferative DR (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). The purpose of this study was to determine whether an association exists between semaglutide and PDR and treatment-requiring DR/DME. Research design and methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 14 databases (six administrative claims and eight electronic health records) in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Evidence Network. Adults with T2D on semaglutide, other GLP-1RA (dulaglutide, exenatide), or non-GLP-1RA medications (empagliflozin, sitagliptin, glipizide) from 1 December 2017 to 31 December 2023 were included. The association between semaglutide and PDR or treatment-requiring DR/DME was assessed using an active-comparator cohort design comparing new users of semaglutide as second-line T2D treatment to those on other GLP-1RAs and non-GLP-1RAs. Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Network-wide HR estimates were generated using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results The study included 810 390 new semaglutide users for T2D. PDR risk for semaglutide was similar to dulaglutide (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.54, p=0.51), empagliflozin (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.30, p=0.41) and sitagliptin (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.55, p=0.57) but was lower than glipizide (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.88, p=0.01). The risk for treatment-requiring DR/DME for semaglutide was similar to empagliflozin (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.02, p=0.06) but lower than dulaglutide (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.91, p=0.02), sitagliptin (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, p=0.008) and glipizide (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.91, p=0.02). Conclusions and relevance We did not identify increased risk for either PDR or treatment-requiring DR/DME comparing semaglutide with other GLP-1RAs or non-GLP-1RAs. Patients with T2D should still undergo close eye care follow-up, particularly when initiating new antihyperglycemic medications.

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.

Abstract Purpose :Tamoxifen undergoes bioactivation to its active metabolite (Z)-endoxifen, which blocks estrogen-dependent breast tumor growth at high potency. We tested the feasibility and safety of supplementing standard tamoxifen therapy with low-dose (Z)-endoxifen in patients with breast cancer with compromised tamoxifen bioactivation. Patients and Methods :We conducted a prospective, interventional, three group randomized trial including 235 patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who received standard tamoxifen therapy (20 mg/day). Patients were stratified by CYP2D6 genotype (n = 78), defining poor, intermediate, and normal metabolizers, or by baseline (Z)-endoxifen plasma concentration (n = 78), defining ≤15, 15 to 25, and ≥25 nmol/L. Co-treatment with (Z)-endoxifen 3 and 1.5 mg/day or placebo was performed, respectively. A control group (n = 79) received placebo regardless of metabolizer phenotype. The primary endpoint was the number of patients with (Z)-endoxifen levels >32 nmol/L after 6 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were continuously monitored. Results: A higher proportion of patients in both intervention groups achieved target concentrations >32 nmol/L compared with control (P < 0.0001). At 3 mg (Z)-endoxifen supplementation, 92.3% of CYP2D6 poor metabolizer patients and all patients with baseline (Z)-endoxifen ≤15 nmol/L achieved the target concentration. At 1.5 mg (Z)-endoxifen supplementation, 88% of CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizer patients and 95% of patients with 15 to 25 nmol/L baseline (Z)-endoxifen levels achieved the target concentration. Similar proportions of patients receiving (Z)-endoxifen (6/80, 7.5%) or placebo (8/155, 5.2%) experienced grade 3 adverse events. Conclusions: Adding low-dose (Z)-endoxifen to standard tamoxifen is safe and provides a new approach to personalized antiestrogen treatment for patients with low endoxifen plasma levels.