Alan S. Coates

PURPOSE: To investigate whether hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–low (HR+HER2-low) versus HR+HER2-zero early breast cancers have distinct genomic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: This study included HR+, HER2-negative early breast cancers from patients enrolled in the phase III, randomized BIG 1-98 and SOFT clinical trials that had undergone tumor genomic sequencing. Tumors were classified HR+HER2-low if they had a centrally reviewed HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 1+ or 2+ with negative in situ hybridization and HR+HER2-zero if they had an HER2 IHC score of 0. RESULTS: A total of 1,795 tumors were evaluable for this study (BIG 1-98 n = 520, SOFT n = 1,275). The frequency of HER2-low tumors was 37% and 21% in the postmenopausal BIG 1-98 and premenopausal SOFT cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic variables between HER2-low and HER2-zero groups which was consistent across both trials. There was no significant difference in risk of distant recurrence for patients with HER2-low tumors versus HER2-zero tumors (5-year % distant recurrence-free 94.0% v 92.8%, P = .61, in BIG 1-98; 89.4% v 92.7%, P = .31, in SOFT, respectively). Somatic genomic profiles were similar with the exception of MAP3K1 mutations which were more frequent in HER2-zero tumors (BIG 1-98 19% v 5%, SOFT 11% v 6%). Both ERBB2 copy number and ERBB2 gene expression abundance were significantly higher in HER2-low tumors compared with HER2-zero tumors; however, the absolute difference was small. Correlation between ERBB2 copy number values and gene expression was modest ( r = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In two large clinical trials with centrally reviewed HER2 IHC, our findings do not support HER2-low breast cancer as a distinct clinical or biologic entity among HR+HER2- early breast cancers. Absolute differences in median ERBB2 copy number levels or gene expression are small and of unclear biologic relevance.

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]

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 Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690 ) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence. [Media: see text]

513 Background: ILRR is associated with a high risk of developing breast cancer distant metastases and death. The CALOR trial (NCT00074152) investigated the effectiveness of CT following local therapy for ILRR. Previously reported results at 5-yrs median follow-up (MFU) showed significant benefit of CT for ER- ILRR, but further follow-up was required in ER+ ILRR. This report presents results at 8.8 yrs MFU within ER status cohorts. Methods: CALOR is an open-label, randomized trial for patients with completely excised ILRR after unilateral breast cancer. Eligible patients were randomized to CT (selected by the investigator; multidrug for at least 3 months recommended) or No-CT, and stratified by prior CT, hormone-receptor (ER, PR) status, and location of ILRR. Patients with ER and/or PR positive ILRR received adjuvant endocrine therapy. Radiation therapy was mandated for patients with microscopically involved margins, and anti-HER2 therapy was optional. Endpoints are disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). Results: From August 2003 to January 2010, 162 patients were enrolled: 104 ER+ and 58 ER-. The results at 8.8 years MFU in ER status cohorts are summarized in the Table (40 and 27 DFS events, respectively). The reduction in the hazard of an event associated with CT for the ER- ILRR cohort was sustained, but no benefit was observed for the ER+ cohort; interactions were significant for DFS and BCFI. The reduction in the hazard of an event seen in the ER- cohort was not apparent in ER+, with significant interactions for DFS and BCFI. Results for the 3 endpoints were consistent in multi-variable analyses adjusting for location of ILRR, prior chemotherapy, and interval from primary surgery. Conclusions: The final analysis of CALOR confirms that CT benefits patients with resected ER- ILRR. Long-term CALOR trial results do not support the use of CT for ER+ ILRR. Clinical trial information: NCT00074152. [Table: see text]

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and cytochrome P450 19A1 (CYP19A1) genes have been associated with breast cancer risk, endocrine therapy response and side effects, mainly in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This analysis aimed to assess the association of selected germline CYP19A1 and ESR1 SNPs with early-onset hot flashes, sweating and musculoskeletal symptoms in premenopausal patients enrolled in the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT). Blood was collected from consenting premenopausal women with hormone-responsive early breast cancer, randomly assigned to 5-years of tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (OFS) or exemestane plus OFS. DNA was extracted with QIAamp kits and genotyped for two CYP19A1 (rs4646 and rs10046) and three ESR1 (rs2077647, rs2234693 and rs9340799) SNPs by a real-time pyrosequencing technique. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded at baseline and 3-monthly during the first year. Associations of the genotype variants with grade ≥2 early-onset targeted AEs of hot flashes/sweating or musculoskeletal events were assessed using logistic regression models. There were 2660 premenopausal patients with breast cancer in the intention-to-treat population of TEXT, and 1967 (74 %) are included in this translational study. The CYP19A1 rs10046 variant T/T, represented in 23 % of women, was associated with a reduced incidence of grade ≥2 hot flashes/sweating (univariate odds ratio (OR) = 0.78; 95 % CI 0.63–0.97; P = 0.03), more strongly in patients assigned exemestane + OFS (TT vs CT/CC: OR = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.48–0.89) than assigned tamoxifen + OFS (OR = 0.94, 95 % CI = 0.69–1.27, interaction P = 0.03). No association with any of the CYP19A1/ESR1 genotypes and musculoskeletal AEs was found. The CYP19A1 rs10046 variant T/T favors lower incidence of hot flashes/sweating under exemestane + OFS treatment, suggesting endocrine-mediated effects. Based on findings from others, this SNP may potentially enhance treatment adherence and treatment efficacy. We plan to evaluate the clinical impact of this polymorphism during time, pending sufficient median follow up. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00066703, registered August 6, 2003.

Isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRRs) of breast cancer confer a significant risk for the development of distant metastasis. Management practices and se

Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) and ESR2 gene polymorphisms have been associated with endocrine-mediated physiological mechanisms, and inconsistently with breast cancer risk and outcomes, bone mineral density changes, and hot flushes/night sweats. DNA was isolated and genotyped for six ESR1 and two ESR2 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from tumor specimens from 3691 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer enrolled in the BIG 1-98 trial to receive tamoxifen and/or letrozole for 5 years. Associations with recurrence and adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. 3401 samples were successfully genotyped for five SNPs. ESR1 rs9340799(XbaI) (T>C) variants CC or TC were associated with reduced breast cancer risk (HR = 0.82,95 % CI = 0.67–1.0), and ESR1 rs2077647 (T>C) variants CC or TC was associated with reduced distant recurrence risk (HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.53–0.90), both regardless of the treatments. No differential treatment effects (letrozole vs. tamoxifen) were observed for the association of outcome with any of the SNPs. Letrozole-treated patients with rs2077647 (T>C) variants CC and TC had a reduced risk of bone AE (HR = 0.75, 95 % CI = 0.58–0.98, P _interaction = 0.08), whereas patients with rs4986938 (G>A) genotype variants AA and AG had an increased risk of bone AE (HR = 1.37, 95 % CI = 1.01–1.84, P _interaction = 0.07). We observed that (1) rare ESR1 homozygous polymorphisms were associated with lower recurrence, and (2) ESR1 and ESR2 SNPs were associated with bone AEs in letrozole-treated patients. Genes that are involved in estrogen signaling and synthesis have the potential to affect both breast cancer recurrence and side effects, suggesting that individual treatment strategies can incorporate not only oncogenic drivers but also SNPs related to estrogen activity.

The SOFT and TEXT randomized phase III trials investigated adjuvant endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer. We investigated the prognostic and predictive value of centrally assessed levels of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and Ki-67 expression in women with HER2-negative disease. Of 5707 women enrolled, 4115 with HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−) disease had ER, PgR, and Ki-67 centrally assessed by immunohistochemistry. Breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was defined from randomization to first invasive local, regional, or distant recurrence or contralateral breast cancer. The prognostic and predictive values of ER, PgR and Ki-67 expression levels were assessed using Cox modeling and STEPP methodology. In this HR+/HER2- population, the median ER, PgR, and Ki-67 expressions were 95, 90, and 18 % immunostained cells. As most patients had strongly ER-positive tumors, the predictive value of ER levels could not be investigated. Lower PgR and higher Ki-67 expression were associated with reduced BCFI. There was no consistent evidence of heterogeneity of the relative treatment effects according to PgR or Ki-67 expression levels, though there was a greater 5-year absolute benefit of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen with or without OFS at lower levels of PgR and higher levels of Ki-67. Women with poor prognostic features of low PgR and/or high Ki-67 have greater absolute benefit from exemestane + OFS versus tamoxifen + OFS or tamoxifen alone, but individually PgR and Ki-67 are of limited predictive value for selecting adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer.