Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Resistance to endocrine therapy poses a major clinical challenge for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR +), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We present the preplanned 24-month final overall survival (OS) results, alongside updated progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) results. Methods nextMONARCH is an open-label, controlled, randomized, Phase 2 study of abemaciclib alone or in combination with tamoxifen in women with endocrine-refractory HR + , HER2– MBC previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to: abemaciclib 150 mg and tamoxifen 20 mg (A + T), abemaciclib 150 mg (A-150), or abemaciclib 200 mg and prophylactic loperamide (A-200). OS was the main prespecified secondary endpoint. PFS, ORR, and safety at 24 months were compared to previously reported primary analysis results. Results Of the 234 patients enrolled, 12 were receiving study treatment at data cutoff (28Jun2019). Median follow-up was 27.2 months. Median OS was 24.2 months in the A + T arm, 20.8 months in A-150, and 17.0 months in A-200 (A + T versus A-200: HR 0.62; 95%CI [0.40, 0.97], P  = 0.03 and A-150 versus A-200: HR 0.96; 95%CI [0.64, 1.44], P  = 0.83). PFS and ORR results at 24 months were consistent with the primary analysis. The safety profile corresponded with previous reports. Conclusion The addition of tamoxifen to abemaciclib demonstrated greater OS benefit than monotherapy. This study confirmed the single-agent activity of abemaciclib in heavily pretreated women with endocrine-refractory HR + , HER2– MBC, as well as the previously reported primary PFS and ORR results, with no new safety signals observed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02747004.

At 8 years of follow-up, premenopausal women with breast cancer had higher rates of disease-free and overall survival with the addition of ovarian suppression to antiestrogen therapy and a higher rate of hormonal side effects than with tamoxifen alone.

Aromatase inhibitors are somewhat more effective than tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This benefit was extended to premenopausal women when they also received ovarian suppression to prevent ovarian compensation for aromatase inhibition. The most effective adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor (estrogen, progesterone, or both)–positive breast cancer is uncertain. Tamoxifen for at least 5 years is a standard of care. 1 – 3 Adjuvant suppression of ovarian function (hereafter, ovarian suppression) may be recommended in addition. For postmenopausal women, adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor, as compared with tamoxifen, improves outcomes. 2 – 9 In 2003, the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated two randomized, phase 3 trials, the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT) and the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT), involving premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer, through collaboration with . . .

For women with early-stage oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer, adjuvant tamoxifen reduces 15-year breast cancer mortality by a third. Aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen in postmenopausal women but are ineffective in premenopausal women when used without ovarian suppression. We aimed to investigate whether premenopausal women treated with ovarian suppression benefit from aromatase inhibitors. We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials comparing aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole) versus tamoxifen for 3 or 5 years in premenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer receiving ovarian suppression (goserelin or triptorelin) or ablation. We collected data on baseline characteristics, dates and sites of any breast cancer recurrence or second primary cancer, and dates and causes of death. Primary outcomes were breast cancer recurrence (distant, locoregional, or contralateral), breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. As distant recurrence invariably results in death from breast cancer several years after the occurrence, whereas locoregional recurrence and new contralateral breast cancer are not usually fatal, the distant recurrence analysis is shown separately. Standard intention-to-treat log-rank analyses estimated first-event rate ratios (RR) and their confidence intervals (CIs). We obtained data from all four identified trials (ABCSG XII, SOFT, TEXT, and HOBOE trials), which included 7030 women with ER-positive tumours enrolled between June 17, 1999, and Aug 4, 2015. Median follow-up was 8·0 years (IQR 6·1–9·3). The rate of breast cancer recurrence was lower for women allocated to an aromatase inhibitor than for women assigned to tamoxifen (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·90, p=0·0005). The main benefit was seen in years 0–4 (RR 0·68, 99% CI 0·55–0·85; p<0·0001), the period when treatments differed, with a 3·2% (95% CI 1·8–4·5) absolute reduction in 5-year recurrence risk (6·9% vs 10·1%). There was no further benefit, or loss of benefit, in years 5–9 (RR 0·98, 99% CI 0·73–1·33, p=0·89) or beyond year 10. Distant recurrence was reduced with aromatase inhibitor (RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·71–0·97; p=0·018). No significant differences were observed between treatments for breast cancer mortality (RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·82–1·24; p=0·94), death without recurrence (1·30, 0·75–2·25; p=0·34), or all-cause mortality (1·04, 0·86–1·27; p=0·68). There were more bone fractures with aromatase inhibitor than with tamoxifen (227 [6·4%] of 3528 women allocated to an aromatase inhibitor vs 180 [5·1%] of 3502 women allocated to tamoxifen; RR 1·27 [95% CI 1·04–1·54]; p=0·017). Non-breast cancer deaths (30 [0·9%] vs 24 [0·7%]; 1·30 [0·75–2·25]; p=0·36) and endometrial cancer (seven [0·2%] vs 15 [0·3%]; 0·52 [0·22–1·23]; p=0·14) were rare. Using an aromatase inhibitor rather than tamoxifen in premenopausal women receiving ovarian suppression reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence. Longer follow-up is needed to assess any impact on breast cancer mortality. Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council.

This trial did not support routine use of ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. Nevertheless, there may be some benefit from ovarian suppression in the subgroup of younger patients whose menses return after adjuvant chemotherapy, but also more symptoms. Adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen has been recommended for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer (positive for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, or both) during the past 15 years. 1 , 2 The value of therapeutic suppression of ovarian estrogen production in premenopausal women who receive tamoxifen is uncertain. 3 The American Society of Clinical Oncology endorsed guidelines recommending that ovarian ablation or suppression (hereafter, ovarian suppression) not be added routinely to adjuvant therapy in premenopausal women. 4 Chemotherapy-induced ovarian suppression (amenorrhea) is correlated with a reduced risk of relapse 5 – 7 but is less likely to be achieved in very young women. International consensus guidelines . . .

The optimal ways of using aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen as endocrine treatment for early breast cancer remains uncertain. We undertook meta-analyses of individual data on 31 920 postmenopausal women with oestrogen-receptor-positive early breast cancer in the randomised trials of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen; of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2–3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5; and of 2–3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen. Primary outcomes were any recurrence of breast cancer, breast cancer mortality, death without recurrence, and all-cause mortality. Intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded aromatase inhibitor versus tamoxifen first-event rate ratios (RRs). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0–1 (RR 0·64, 95% CI 0·52–0·78) and 2–4 (RR 0·80, 0·68–0·93), and non-significantly thereafter. 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (12·1% vs 14·2%; RR 0·85, 0·75–0·96; 2p=0·009). In the comparison of 5 years of aromatase inhibitor versus 2–3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 0–1 (RR 0·74, 0·62–0·89) but not while both groups received aromatase inhibitors during years 2–4, or thereafter; overall in these trials, there were fewer recurrences with 5 years of aromatase inhibitors than with tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitors (RR 0·90, 0·81–0·99; 2p=0·045), though the breast cancer mortality reduction was not significant (RR 0·89, 0·78–1·03; 2p=0·11). In the comparison of 2–3 years of tamoxifen then aromatase inhibitor to year 5 versus 5 years of tamoxifen, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors significantly during years 2–4 (RR 0·56, 0·46–0·67) but not subsequently, and 10-year breast cancer mortality was lower with switching to aromatase inhibitors than with remaining on tamoxifen (8·7% vs 10·1%; 2p=0·015). Aggregating all three types of comparison, recurrence RRs favoured aromatase inhibitors during periods when treatments differed (RR 0·70, 0·64–0·77), but not significantly thereafter (RR 0·93, 0·86–1·01; 2p=0·08). Breast cancer mortality was reduced both while treatments differed (RR 0·79, 0·67–0·92), and subsequently (RR 0·89, 0·81–0·99), and for all periods combined (RR 0·86, 0·80–0·94; 2p=0·0005). All-cause mortality was also reduced (RR 0·88, 0·82–0·94; 2p=0·0003). RRs differed little by age, body-mass index, stage, grade, progesterone receptor status, or HER2 status. There were fewer endometrial cancers with aromatase inhibitors than tamoxifen (10-year incidence 0·4% vs 1·2%; RR 0·33, 0·21–0·51) but more bone fractures (5-year risk 8·2% vs 5·5%; RR 1·42, 1·28–1·57); non-breast-cancer mortality was similar. Aromatase inhibitors reduce recurrence rates by about 30% (proportionately) compared with tamoxifen while treatments differ, but not thereafter. 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor reduces 10-year breast cancer mortality rates by about 15% compared with 5 years of tamoxifen, hence by about 40% (proportionately) compared with no endocrine treatment. Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council.

TAILORx established the role of the 21-gene predictor of genetic risk in ascertaining treatment for women with hormone-receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer. Clinical risk factors provided additional prognostic information for women with intermediate genetic risk.

Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences. Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Fund, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis.

Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2–10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56–0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism—a known side-effect of tamoxifen—for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

This large trial tested the effect of adding zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine treatment (goserelin plus tamoxifen or anastrozole) in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. The results show that adding zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy prolongs disease-free survival in these patients without adding substantially to the burden of adverse events. These results show that adding zoledronic acid to adjuvant endocrine therapy prolongs disease-free survival in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. The optimal management of endocrine-responsive early breast cancer in premenopausal women remains controversial. Although aromatase inhibitors have shown benefits beyond those of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women, 1 – 6 their benefits in premenopausal women, among whom endocrine-responsive disease accounts for 62% of early breast cancers, are unknown. 7 The combination of ovarian suppression with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues and tamoxifen is a standard of care for premenopausal women because it is at least as effective as established cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens and is better tolerated than chemotherapy. 8 – 12 In a study involving premenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, ovarian suppression combined with . . .