Randomized trial of standard adjuvant chemotherapy regimens versus capecitabine in older women with early breast cancer: 10-year update of the CALGB 49907 trial

PURPOSE Older women with breast cancer remain under-represented in clinical trials. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 49907 trial focused on women age 65 years and older. We previously reported the primary analysis after a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival compared with capecitabine. We now update results at a median follow-up of 11.4 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients age 65 years or older with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to either standard adjuvant chemotherapy (physician's choice of either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin) or capecitabine. An adaptive Bayesian design was used to determine sample size and test noninferiority of capecitabine. The primary end point was RFS. RESULTS The design stopped accrual with 633 patients at its first sample size assessment. RFS remains significantly longer for patients treated with standard chemotherapy. At 10 years, in patients treated with standard chemotherapy versus capecitabine, the RFS rates were 56% and 50%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .03); breast cancer-specific survival rates were 88% and 82%, respectively (HR, 0.62; P = .03); and overall survival rates were 62% and 56%, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .16). With longer follow-up, standard chemotherapy remains superior to capecitabine among hormone receptor-negative patients (HR, 0.66; P = .02), but not among hormone receptor-positive patients (HR, 0.89; P = .43). Overall, 43.9% of patients have died (13.1% from breast cancer, 16.4% from causes other than breast cancer, and 14.1% from unknown causes). Second nonbreast cancers occurred in 14.1% of patients. CONCLUSION With longer follow-up, RFS remains superior for standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine, especially in patients with hormone receptor-negative disease. Competing risks in this older population dilute overall survival benefits

Evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to endocrine therapy as first-line treatment for hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis from the LEA (GEICAM/2006-11_GBG51) and CALGB 40503 (Alliance) trials

Background: Randomised trials comparing the efficacy of standard endocrine therapy (ET) versus experimental ET + bevacizumab (Bev) in 1st line hormone receptor–positive patients with metastatic breast cancer have thus far shown conflicting results. Patients and methods: We pooled data from two similar phase III randomised trials of ET ± Bev (LEA and Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40503) to increase precision in estimating treatment effect. Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and safety. Exploratory analyses were performed within subgroups defined by patients with recurrent disease, de novo disease, prior endocrine sensitivity or resistance and reported grades III–IV hypertension and proteinuria. Results: The pooled sample consisted of 749 patients randomised to ET or ET + Bev. Median PFS was 14.3 months for ET versus 19 months for ET + Bev (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.91; p < 0.01). ORR and CBR with ET and ET + Bev were 40 versus 61% (p < 0.01) and 64 versus 77% (p < 0.01), respectively. There was no difference in OS (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.77–1.18; p = 0.68). PFS was superior for ET + Bev for endocrine-sensitive patients (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53–0.89; p = 0.004). Grade III–IV hypertension (2.2 versus 20.1%), proteinuria (0 versus 9.3%), cardiovascular (0.5 versus 4.2%) and liver events (0 versus 2.9%) were significantly higher for ET + Bev (all p < 0.01). Hypertension and proteinuria were not predictors of efficacy (interaction test p = 0.33). Conclusion: The addition of Bev to ET increased PFS overall and in endocrine-sensitive patients but not OS at the expense of significant additional toxicity. Trials registration: ClinicalTrial.Gov NCT00545077 and NCT00601900

Axillary Management of Stage II/III Breast Cancer in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy: Results of CALGB 40601 (HER2-Positive) and CALGB 40603 (Triple-Negative)

Background Management of the axilla in stage II/III breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is controversial. To understand current patterns of care, we collected axillary data from 2 NST trials: HER2-positive (Cancer and Leukemia Group B [CALGB] 40601) and triple-negative (CALGB 40603). Study Design Axillary evaluation pre- and post-NST was per the treating surgeon and could include sentinel node biopsy. Post-NST, node-positive patients were recommended to undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). We report pre-NST histopathologic nodal evaluation and post-NST axillary surgical procedures with correlation to clinical and pathologic nodal status. Results Seven hundred and forty-two patients were treated, 704 had complete nodal data pre-NST and post-NST. Pre-NST, 422 (60%) of 704 patients underwent at least 1 procedure for axillary node evaluation (total of 468 procedures): fine needle aspiration (n = 234; 74% positive), core needle biopsy (n = 138; 72% positive), and sentinel node biopsy (n = 96; 33% positive). Pre-NST, 304 patients were considered node-positive. Post-NST, 304 of 704 patients (43%) underwent sentinel node biopsy; 44 were positive and 259 were negative (29 and 36 patients, respectively, had subsequent ALND). Three hundred and ninety-one (56%) patients went directly to post-NST ALND and 9 (1%) pre-NST node-positive patients had no post-NST axillary procedure. Post-NST, 170 (24%) of the 704 patients had residual axillary disease. Agreement between post-NST clinical and radiologic staging and post-NST histologic staging was strongest for node-negative (81%) and weaker for node-positive (N1 31%, N2 29%), with more than half of the clinically node-positive patients found to be pathologic negative (p < 0.001). Conclusions Our results suggest there is no widely accepted standard for axillary nodal evaluation pre-NST. Post-NST staging was highly concordant in patients with N0 disease, but poorly so in node-positive disease. Accurate methods are needed to identify post-NST patients without residual axillary disease to potentially spare ALND