Marc Debled

PURPOSE: Cross-talk between signal transduction pathways likely contributes to hormone resistance in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, has restored sensitivity in endocrine-resistance models and shown anticancer activity in early-phase mBC clinical trials. This analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with tamoxifen in patients with mBC resistant to aromatase inhibitors (AIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, phase II study randomly assigned postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, AI-resistant mBC to tamoxifen 20 mg/d plus everolimus 10 mg/d (n = 54) or tamoxifen 20 mg/d alone (n = 57). Randomization was stratified by primary and secondary hormone resistance. Primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the percentage of all patients with a complete or partial response or stable disease at 6 months. No formal statistical comparison between groups was planned. RESULTS: The 6-month CBR was 61% (95% CI, 47 to 74) with tamoxifen plus everolimus and 42% (95% CI, 29 to 56) with tamoxifen alone. Time to progression (TTP) increased from 4.5 months with tamoxifen alone to 8.6 months with tamoxifen plus everolimus, corresponding to a 46% reduction in risk of progression with the combination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.81). Risk of death was reduced by 55% with tamoxifen plus everolimus versus tamoxifen alone (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.81). The main toxicities associated with tamoxifen plus everolimus were fatigue (72% v 53% with tamoxifen alone), stomatitis (56% v 7%), rash (44% v 7%), anorexia (43% v 18%), and diarrhea (39% v 11%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that tamoxifen plus everolimus increased CBR, TTP, and overall survival compared with tamoxifen alone in postmenopausal women with AI-resistant mBC.

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.).

BACKGROUND: The Cox model relies on the proportional hazards (PH) assumption, implying that the factors investigated have a constant impact on the hazard - or risk - over time. We emphasize the importance of this assumption and the misleading conclusions that can be inferred if it is violated; this is particularly essential in the presence of long follow-ups. METHODS: We illustrate our discussion by analyzing prognostic factors of metastases in 979 women treated for breast cancer with surgery. Age, tumour size and grade, lymph node involvement, peritumoral vascular invasion (PVI), status of hormone receptors (HRec), Her2, and Mib1 were considered. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 14 years; 264 women developed metastases. The conventional Cox model suggested that all factors but HRec, Her2, and Mib1 status were strong prognostic factors of metastases. Additional tests indicated that the PH assumption was not satisfied for some variables of the model. Tumour grade had a significant time-varying effect, but although its effect diminished over time, it remained strong. Interestingly, while the conventional Cox model did not show any significant effect of the HRec status, tests provided strong evidence that this variable had a non-constant effect over time. Negative HRec status increased the risk of metastases early but became protective thereafter. This reversal of effect may explain non-significant hazard ratios provided by previous conventional Cox analyses in studies with long follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Investigating time-varying effects should be an integral part of Cox survival analyses. Detecting and accounting for time-varying effects provide insights on some specific time patterns, and on valuable biological information that could be missed otherwise.