BALKAN MCO 2011 - F. Cardoso - Hormone therapy: best options for pre and postmenopausal patients Presentation Transcript
ESO BALKAN MASTERCLASS IN CLINICAL ONCOLOGY Dubrovnik, Croatia, 11-15 May 2011 Hormone therapy: best options for pre and postmenopausal patients F. Cardoso, MD ESO Breast Cancer Program Coordinator Head, Breast Cancer Unit - Champalimaud Cancer Center Lisbon, Portugal
MAJOR PUBLISHED STUDIES OF ADJUVANT ENDOCRINE THERAPY WITH AN AROMATASE INHIBITOR IN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN Tamoxifen x 5y N= 8010 N= 6241 N= 4742 Anastrozole x 5 years N= 3123 Letrozole x 5 years N= 5187 and N= 856 Tamoxifen x 2-3y Exemestane x 3-2y Tam x 2y Anastrozole x 3y Letrozole x 5y Anastrozole x 3y Tamoxifen x 5y N=28177
TRIALS OF AROMATASE INHIBITORS IN THE EARLY ADJUVANT SETTING Randomization 2 years 3 years 2 years 3 years ATAC* 5 years TAMOXIFEN 5 years† 5 years ANASTROZOLE 5 years BIG 1-98* 5 years LETROZOLE EXEMESTANE TEAM 5 years ‡ PLACEBO 5 years IES* 2–3 years 2–3 years 2–3 years ABCSG-8/ARNO** 2 years 3 years 3 years 2–3 years 2–3 years ITA 2–3 years *Registration trials; †Combination arm discontinued at first analysis; ‡TEAM protocol altered to affect switch to Exem after 2–3 years Tam; **ABCSG, randomization immediately after surgery; ARNO, randomization up to 2 years after surgery Courtesy of R. Gelber
Oxford Overview (Meta-Analysis) on Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitors
Aromatase Inhibitors (AIs) vs Tamoxifen as Adjuvant Therapy for Postmenopausal Women with Estrogen Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer: Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials of Monotherapy and Switching Strategies Cohort 1: Direct comparison as monotherapy Trials ATAC BIG 1-98/BCSG 18-98 R 5 years Cohort 2: Comparison after 2-3 years of tamoxifen Trials GABG/ARNO IES/BIG 2-97 ITA ABCSG VIII R 2-3 years 2-3 years 5 years Tamoxifen Aromatase inhibitor Ingle JN, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl 2): Abstract 12.
Reduction 3yrs > 2yrs Meta-Analysis: Recurrence Cohort 1: Monotherapy 23% proportional reduction Cohort 2: Switching 29%proportional reduction AI-treated patients had statistically significant improvements in recurrence-free survival in both cohorts Note: These data cannot answer the question if “switching” is better Ingle JN, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl 2): Abstract 12. Dowsett M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):509-518.
Oxford Overview Upfront Tamoxifen vs AI Survival Summary Ingle JN, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl 2): Abstract 12. Dowsett M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):509-518.
Oxford Overview Delayed AI vs TamoxifenSurvival Summary Ingle JN, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl 2): Abstract 12. Dowsett M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(3):509-518.
LESSONS FROM INDIVIDUAL TRIALS
BIG 1-98 Overall Design 2-Arm Option RANDOMI ZE N=1,828 Enrolled 1998-2000 A N=911 Tamoxifen B N=917 Letrozole SURGERY Stratify
CT (Adjuvant/ Neoadjuvant)
-Prior -None -Concurrent 4-Arm Option N=8,010* A RANDOMI ZE N=1548 Tamoxifen B *ITT: excludes 18 patients who withdrew consent and did not receive study treatment N=1546 N=6,182 Enrolled 1999-2003 Letrozole C N=1548 Letrozole Tamoxifen D N=1540 Letrozole Tamoxifen 0 2 5 YEARS Previous Analyses: Is 5 years Let superior to 5 years Tam as initial therapy?
Primary Core Analysis (PCA), Median follow-up 26 months
Monotherapy Arm Analysis, Median follow-up 51 months
BIG 1-98 Monotherapy UpdateMedian Follow-up 76 months *Let:Tam: breast cancer events, 321:363 second (non breast) malignancy, 101:115 deaths without prior cancer event, 87:87
Sequential Treatment ComparisonsMedian Follow-up 71 months Tam->Let vs.Let Let->Tamvs. Let
ATAC trial design Postmenopausal women with invasive breast cancer (n = 9366) Surgery radiotherapy chemotherapy Randomisation 1:1:1 for 5 years Discontinued following initial analysis as no efficacy or tolerability benefit compared with tamoxifen arm Tamoxifen (n = 3116) Anastrozole (n = 3125) Combination n=3125 ITT population n = 3125 Safety population n = 3092 HR+ subpopulationn = 2618 ITT population n = 3116 Safety population n = 3094 HR+ subpopulationn = 2598 ITT, intent-to-treat; HR+, hormone receptor-positive The ATAC Trialists’ Group. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 45-53
Hazard ratio Hazard ratio Favoursanastrozole (A) Favourstamoxifen (T) All patients (ITT)HR+ patients Allpatients HR+patients Disease-free survival 0.90 0.85 Time to recurrence 0.81 0.76 Time to distant recurrence 0.86 0.84 Contralateral breast cancer 0.68 0.60 Death − all causes 1.00 0.97 Death after recurrence 0.91 0.90 Death without recurrence 1.12 1.05 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 Hazard ratio (A / T) and 95% CI Efficacy endpoints for all patients and HR+ patients The ATAC Trialists’ Group. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 45-53
In the HR+ subgroup, the absolute difference in recurrence increased from 2.8% after 5 years to 4.8% after 9 years
There is a statistically significant larger carryover effect for anastrozole (HR=0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.94, p=0.01)
Fracture episode rates throughout the study 4 Annual fracture episode rates (%) Anastrozole (A)Tamoxifen (T) 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Time since randomization (years) At risk: 2984 2976 A T 2859 2824 2745 2699 2640 2572 2496 2419 2306 2208 2077 2000 1713 1645 702 659
Results of the First Planned Analysis of the TEAM (Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational) Prospective Randomized Phase III Trial in Hormone Sensitive Postmenopausal Early Breast Cancer N = 9775 accrued IES Positive Results RANDOMIZATION Postmenopausal receptor-positive women Diagnosis and adequate primary therapy of early breast cancer Tamoxifen Exemestane Exemestane Total of 5 years’ treatment Co-primary endpoints DFS at 2.75 years DFS at 5 years TEAM Trial: Revised Design 2004 Rea D, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl): Abstract 11.
RESULTS AT 5 YEARS Rea D, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl): Abstract 11.
DFS ITT and Censored Analyses BIG 1-98, ABCSG 8, and TEAM all had compliance issues and crossover to the AI van de Velde C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2009;7(2):Abstract 2BA.
BIG 1-98 Monotherapy Update Including Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighted Analysis (IPCW) Analyses Regan MM, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl): Abstract 16.
MA.27 Study Design Open-label RANDOMIZE Anastrozole1 mg/day x 5 years Eligibility:
Early breast cancer
Lymph node status
N = 7576 patients May 2003 – July 2008 Exemestane25 mg/day x 5 years Study Objectives:
Primary: Event-free survival (EFS)
Secondary: Overall survival (OS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), time to distant recurrence, incidence of contralateral breast cancer, incidence of clinical fractures, evaluation of breast density, cardiovascular events, toxicities, quality of life
Goss PE, et al. Cancer Res. 2010;70(24 Suppl): Abstract S1-1.
MA.27: EFFICACY OUTCOMES
Exemestane is comparable to anastrozole and provides a new option for 5 years of up-front adjuvant therapy
Compliance is equally poor for both agents
End-organ/toxicity profiles are different
Goss PE, et al. Cancer Res. 2010;70(24 Suppl): Abstract S1-1. Similar results in neo-adjuvant studies; other adjuvant AI vs. AI studies ongoing (FACE trial: letrozole vs anastrozole)
ADJUVANT HT: PRE-MENOPAUSAL BC PATIENTS STILL MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS TAM is the mainstain of treatment! Role of ovarian suppression in the presence or absence of adjuvant CT still controversial (SOFT trial) : In the absence of CT: Tam + OA/OS seems to be superior to each drug alone In the presence of CT: data unclear Optimal duration of ovarian suppression Role of AIs (SOFT and TEXT trials) Optimal duration of adjuvant HT More than 5 years of Tam (Final results of ATLAS, aTTom and Overview) AI after Tam if pts become post-menopausal (recent MA-17 data) What to offer to patients with c.i. or intolerance to tamoxifen (OA/OS alone is a good option)
Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT): Study Design Target accrual: 3000 Enrolled as of 06/09: 2387 Eligibility: Premenopausal Estradiol (E2) in the premenopausal range either after or without chemotherapy ER ≥10% and/or PgR ≥10% Tamoxifen 20 mg/day Randomization OFS* + tamoxifen OFS + exemestane 25 mg/day 5 Years *OFS = ovarian function suppression using triptorelin 3.75 mg by injection every 28 days for 5 years from randomization x 5 years or surgical oophorectomy or ovarian irradiation. Study Chairs: Prudence Francis, MD, and Gini Fleming, MD
Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT): Study Design Target accrual: 2639 Enrolled as of 06/09: 2061 Eligibility: Premenopausal ER ≥10% and/or PgR ≥10% Candidates to begin GnRH analogue from the start of adjuvant therapy Randomization GnRH* + tamoxifen ± chemotherapy GnRH* + exemestane ± chemotherapy 5 Years *GnRH = triptorelin 3.75 mg by injection every 28 days for 5 years, but oophorectomy or radiation is allowed after 6 months. Study Chairs: Barbara Walley, MD, and Olivia Pagani, MD
THE PRINCIPLE OF EXTENDED ADJUVANT THERAPY
Long-Term Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence Remains High in ER/PR+ Patients 0.3 ER/PgR+ (n = 2257) ER/PgR– (n = 1305) 0.2 Recurrence Hazard Rate 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Years PgR = progesterone receptor Saphner T, et al. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(10):2738-2746.
MA.17: Trial Design Randomization (Disease-free) Letrozole 2.5 mg qd* Tamoxifen Placebo qd† 5 years early adjuvant 5 years extended adjuvant Primary endpoint: DFS Secondary endpoints: OS/safety/QOL *n = 2575 (efficacy); 2154 (safety) in the letrozole arm†n = 2582 (efficacy); 2145 (safety) in the placebo arm Goss PE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(19):1793-1802.
MA.17 RESULTS: DFS BY TREATMENT DURATION Longer duration is associated with greater benefit 93% P= 0.00008 87%
Increasing benefit in estimated DFS with treatment duration
Goss et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:TBD.
Overall Survival Node Positive Node Negative p = 0.04 p = 0.34
MA.17: Menopausal Status at Primary Diagnosis Premenopausal n = 889
<50 years of age with menses but underwent subsequent bilateral oophorectomy when tamoxifen started OR
<50 years of age with menses when tamoxifen started but became ammenhoreic during adjuvant chemotherapy or on tamoxifen
Menopausal Status at Primary Diagnosis Postmenopausal n = 4277
≥50 years of age without menses at diagnosis OR
<50 years of age without menses and considered postmenopausal at diagnosis OR
Considered postmenopausal by virtue of menopausal LH/FSH
Goss PE, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl): Abstract 13.
Among Untreated (Placebo) WomenPremenopausal Had Greater Disease Recurrence HR = 2.06 P = .09 HR = 0.78 P = .78 HR = 0.67 P = .05 % Event-Free (4-Year) Premenopausal placebo (n = 465) Postmenopausal placebo (n = 2010) Goss PE, et al. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl): Abstract 13.
The Principle of Extended Adjuvant Therapy Unanswered questions: 1) Optimal duration 2) What about patients who have already received an AI as part of their 1st 5 years of HT?
Extending Duration of Adjuvant AI Therapy NCIC CTG - MA.17R (10 vs 5 Years) PLAC 5y ANY AI 5y TAM 2-5 y 0-2 y LET 5y NSABP B-42 PLAC 5y LET 5y SALSA (ABCSG 16) ANA 2y Endocrine therapy 5y (±1 y) ANA 5y 3-2y AI 2-3yTAM
S LE After 4 to 6 years of prior adjuvant endocrine therapy Postmenopausal, HR-positive, Node-positive Continuous letrozole x 5 years R ANDOMIZE Stratify Institution Prior ET: SERM AI Both Intermittent letrozole over 5 years 9 mos. 9 mos. 9 mos. 9 mos. 12 mos. 0 6 12 18 24 36 30 42 48 54 60 Extended Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy A: Continuous letrozole 2.5 mg daily for 5 years B: Intermittent letrozole 2.5 mg daily for the first 9 months of years 1 through 4, followed by 12 months in year 5
QUALITY OF LIFE & HT KEY TAKE HOME MESSAGES: 1) Different HT agents have different toxicity profiles/side effects 2) Overall, compliance is low to all agents and worse for longer durations 2) ALWAYS adapt to patients’ co-morbidities and tolerance UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: 1) Arthralgias: Mechanism and solutions 2) Cognitive function: Reason for unexpected results
ADVERSE EVENTS: TAMOXIFEN VS AIS Compared with tamoxifen, AIs associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and bone fractures, decreased risk of venous thromboembolism and endometrial cancer Amir E, et al. SABCS 2010. Abstract S2-7.
BIG 1.98 Trial: Cognitive Functioning Ribi K, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15S): Abstract 510.
TEAM Trial: Cognitive Functioning After one year therapy:
Tamoxifen users performed worse than healthy controls on ‘verbal memory’ and ‘executive functioning’
Tamoxifen users scored lower on ‘information processing speed’ compared to exemestane users
Patients ≤ 65 years old on tamoxifen performed worse than healthy controls on executive functioning while patients ≥65 years old performed worse on verbal control and information processing speed
No difference between exemestane and healthy controls on any of the 8 cognitive domains after 1 year of therapy
SAME RESULTS SEEN IN COGNITIVE SUBSTUDY OF BIG 1-98
IMPORTANT CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
Schilder C, et al. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2009;7(2):Abstract 5013.
THE ROLE TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH Biomarkers of response Pharmacogenetics & pharmacogenomics
Potential Predictive Markers for Endocrine Therapy
ER and PgR
For tamoxifen and AIs
Only ones with LEVEL 1 evidence
But NOT discriminative between tamoxifen and AI
Seems associated with lower endocrine responsiveness
NOT discriminative between tamoxifen and AI
PROLIFERATION (Ki67): Maybe!
21-gene recurrence score (OncotypeDx®)
Predictive of response for both tamoxifen and AIs
But NOT discriminative between tamoxifen and AI
For tamoxifen: Bcl-2, AIB-1, ER-beta, MTA1s, Cyclin E: none proven
For AIs: Intratumoral aromatase: not proven
Gene Signatures: All preliminary
The Role of Pharmacogenomics CYP2D6 for prediction of adjuvant HT benefit STILL CONTROVERSIAL
CYP2D6 associated with recurrence
Goetz et al. 2005, 2007 (USA)
Schroth et al. 2007 (Germany)
Kiyotani et al. 2008 (Japan)
Newman et al. 2008 (UK)
Xu et al. 2008 (China)
Goetz et al. SABCS 2008
Aubert RE et al. ASCO 2009
CYP2D6 not associated with recurrence
Wegman et al. 2005, 2007 (Sweden)
Nowell et al. 2005 (USA)
Dezentje V et al. ASCO 2009 (Netherlands)
Goetz et al. SABCS 2009
TAKE HOME MESSAGES
ADJUVANT HT: POST-MENOPAUSAL BC PATIENTS
Both TAM and AIs are valid options
Both upfront and sequential (Tam-> AI & AI -> Tam) are valid options
Benefit of AI over Tam is small and mainly in DFS
Apparently all AIs were born equal!
Toxicity profiles are different
Rates of non-compliance are high (e.g. AIs >30%)
ALWAYS take into account co-morbidities & tolerance
Crucial role of patient education & physician-patient communication(some type of Ht is better than non compliance!!)
The LONGER the treatment duration, the HIGHER/LONGER benefit (carryover effect)
ADJUVANT HT: PRE-MENOPAUSAL BC PATIENTS
TAMOXIFEN is the main therapy
OA/OS should be offered in addition to Tam in the absence of CT
Role of OA/OS in the presence of CT still controversial
AI must NOT be used in pre-menopausal early BC pts, outside clinical trials (if used ALWAYS with OA/OS)
CAUTION: peri-menopausal patients!!!
The LONGER the treatment duration, the HIGHER/LONGER benefit (carryover effect)
ADJUVANT HT: TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH
Urgent need for BIOMARKERS to predict benefit from different types of HT agents (Tam vs. AIs)
ER still the most important biomarker. LEVELS OF ER do matter!
CYP2D6 polymorphisms SHOULD NOT be used in clinical practice in treatment decisions
Early Peak of Recurrences and Distant Metastases Despite Tamoxifen Treatment 3,614 postmenopausal women with ER+ operable breast cancer, all treated with tamoxifen 5% Overall Locoregional Distant Contralateral 4% 3% Annual Recurrence Rate 2% 1% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Years From Diagnosis Mansell J et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; Dec 27 [Epub ahead of print].
Benefits of Adjuvant Tamoxifen Tamoxifen 5 Years vs Not RECURRENCES Tamoxifen 5 Years vs Not ALL DEATHS Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Lancet. 2005:365(9472):1687-1717.
ZIPP: Subgroup Analysis Adjuvant Goserelinvs Tam vs Both *First Event Sverrisdottir SABCS 2010.