Dataset Information

Absolute Benefit of Adjuvant Endocrine Therapies for Premenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Early Breast Cancer: TEXT and SOFT Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Risk of recurrence is the primary consideration in breast cancer adjuvant therapy recommendations. The TEXT (Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial) and SOFT (Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial) trials investigated adjuvant endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, testing exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), tamoxifen plus OFS, and tamoxifen alone. We examined absolute treatment effect across a continuum of recurrence risk to individualize endocrine therapy decision making for premenopausal women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative disease.

Patients and methods

The TEXT and SOFT hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative analysis population included 4,891 women. The end point was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), defined as time from random assignment to first occurrence of invasive locoregional, distant, or contralateral breast cancer. A continuous, composite measure of recurrence risk for each patient was determined from a Cox model incorporating age, nodal status, tumor size and grade, and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki-67 expression levels. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot methodology revealed differential treatment effects on 5-year BCFI according to composite risk.

Results

SOFT patients who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy experienced absolute improvement of 5% or more in 5-year BCFI with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone, reaching 10% to 15% at intermediate to high composite risk; the benefit of tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone was apparent at the highest composite risk. The SOFT no-chemotherapy cohort-for whom composite risk was lowest on average-did well with all endocrine therapies. For TEXT patients, the benefit of exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS in 5-year BCFI ranged from 5% to 15%; patients not receiving chemotherapy and with lowest composite risk did well with both treatments.

Conclusion

Premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease and high recurrence risk, as defined by clinicopathologic characteristics, may experience improvement of 10% to 15% in 5-year BCFI with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. An improvement of at least 5% may be achieved for women at intermediate risk, and improvement is minimal for those at lowest risk.

SUBMITTER: Regan MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4962708 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT)/Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) showed superior outcomes for premenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) or tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. We previously reported the magnitude of absolute improvements in freedom from any recurrence across a continuous, composite measure of recurrence risk to tailor decision making. With longer follow-up, we now focus on distant recurrence.MethodsThe TEXT/SOFT HR-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative analysis population included 4,891 women stratified by predetermined chemotherapy use. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence were analyzed using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology across subpopulations defined by the continuous composite measure of recurrence risk. For each patient, the composite risk value was obtained from a Cox model that incorporated age; nodal status; tumor size; grade; and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki-67 labeling index expression levels.ResultsThe overall rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence was 91.1% and ranged from approximately 100% to 63% across lowest to highest composite risks. TEXT patients who received chemotherapy had an average absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS of 5.1%, and STEPP analysis showed improvements from less than 1% to more than 15% from lowest to highest composite risks. SOFT patients who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy had an average 5.2% absolute improvement with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen and reached 10% across composite risks; for tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen, the maximum improvement was approximately 3.5%. Women who did not receive chemotherapy had a more than 97% rate of 8-year freedom from distant recurrence, and improvements with exemestane plus OFS ranged from 1% to 4%.ConclusionPremenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and high recurrence risk, as defined by clinicopathologic characteristics, may experience a 10% to 15% absolute improvement in 8-year freedom from distant recurrence with exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen plus OFS or tamoxifen alone. The potential benefit of escalating endocrine therapy versus tamoxifen alone is minimal for those at low recurrence risk.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials. METHODS:Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS:In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group. CONCLUSIONS:Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).

Project description: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].

Project description:There is growing interest in the endocrine treatment (ET) of premenopausal women with hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This review summarizes available data on endocrine therapy for this patient subset and aims to define the most appropriate treatment approach. The combination of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists plus tamoxifen seems effective and safe and is considered as being superior to either approach alone; still, single-agent therapy remains an acceptable treatment option. Due to their mechanism of action, aromatase inhibitors alone are not suitable for the treatment of premenopausal patients, but the combination with LHRH agonists may result in excellent disease control. Fulvestrant, in conjunction with LHRH agonists, also yields interesting results regarding clinical benefit rate and time to progression; currently, other orally available selective estrogen receptor downregulators are under clinical evaluation. Recently, targeted drugs have been added to ET in order to reverse endocrine resistance, but only limited information regarding their activity in premenopausal patients is available. The cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor palbociclib when combined with fulvestrant and LHRH agonists was shown to prolong progression-free survival over endocrine therapy alone in pretreated patients; similar results were obtained with the addition of abemacicilib or ribociclib to endocrine therapy. Currently, activity of the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in combination with letrozole and goserelin is under assessment in premenopausal patients after progression on tamoxifen (MIRACLE trial). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This review provides clinicians with an overview on the available data regarding endocrine treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in premenopausal women and summarizes the treatment options available in routine clinical practice. Knowledge of an up-to-date therapeutic approach in women with premenopausal HR+ MBC will lead to better disease management, thereby improving disease control and quality of life while minimizing side effects.

Project description:Background:Recent breast cancer treatment guidelines recommend that higher-risk premenopausal patients should receive ovarian function suppression (OFS) as part of adjuvant endocrine therapy. If chemotherapy is also given, it is uncertain whether to select concurrent or sequential OFS initiation. Design and methods:We analyzed 1872 patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TEXT and SOFT trials who received adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and upon randomization to an OFS-containing adjuvant endocrine therapy, initiated gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-agonist triptorelin. Breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was compared between patients who received OFS concurrently with chemotherapy in TEXT (n?=?1242) versus sequentially post-chemotherapy in SOFT (n?=?630). Because timing of trial enrollment relative to adjuvant chemotherapy differed, we implemented landmark analysis re-defining BCFI beginning 1?year after final dose of chemotherapy (median, 15.5 and 8.1?months from enrollment to landmark in TEXT and SOFT, respectively). As a non-randomized treatment comparison, we implemented comparative-effectiveness propensity score methodology with weighted Cox modeling. Results:Distributions of several clinico-pathologic characteristics differed between groups. Patients who were premenopausal post-chemotherapy in SOFT were younger on average. The median duration of adjuvant chemotherapy was 18?weeks in both groups. There were 231 (12%) BC events after post-landmark median follow-up of about 5?years. Concurrent use of triptorelin with chemotherapy was not associated with a significant difference in post-landmark BCFI compared with sequential triptorelin post-chemotherapy, either in the overall population (HR?=?1.11, 95% CI 0.72-1.72; P?=?0.72; 4-year BCFI 89% in both groups), or in the subgroup of 692 women?<40?years at diagnosis (HR?=?1.13, 95% CI 0.69-1.84) who are less likely to develop chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea. Conclusion:Based on comparative-effectiveness modeling of TEXT and SOFT after about 5?years median follow-up, with limited statistical power especially for the subgroup?<40?years, neither detrimental nor beneficial effect of concurrent administration of OFS with chemotherapy on the efficacy of adjuvant therapy that includes chemotherapy was detected. Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00066690 and NCT00066703.