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 coprimary 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. PALOMA-2 demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in progression-free survival with palbociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (ER+/HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we report results for the secondary end point overall survival (OS). Postmenopausal women (N = 666) with ER+/HER2– ABC without previous systemic therapy for ABC were randomly assigned 2:1 to palbociclib plus letrozole or placebo plus letrozole. After a median follow-up of 90.1 months, 405 deaths were observed and 155 patients were known to be alive. The median OS was 53.9 months (95% CI, 49.8 to 60.8) with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 51.2 months (95% CI, 43.7 to 58.9) with placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.18]; stratified one-sided P = .34). An imbalance in the number of patients with unknown survival outcome between the treatment arms (13.3% v 21.2%, respectively) limited interpretation of OS results. With recovered survival data, the median OS was 53.8 (95% CI, 49.8 to 59.2) versus 49.8 months (95% CI, 42.3 to 56.4), respectively (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12]; one-sided P = .21). OS was not significantly improved with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole.

Premenopausal women with early hormone-receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer receive 5-10 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) during which pregnancy is contraindicated and fertility may wane. The POSITIVE study investigates the impact of temporary ET interruption to allow pregnancy. POSITIVE enrolled women with stage I-III HR + early breast cancer, ≤42 years, who had received 18-30 months of adjuvant ET and wished to interrupt ET for pregnancy. Treatment interruption for up to 2 years was permitted to allow pregnancy, delivery and breastfeeding, followed by ET resumption to complete the planned duration. From 12/2014 to 12/2019, 518 women were enrolled at 116 institutions/20 countries/4 continents. At enrolment, the median age was 37 years and 74.9 % were nulliparous. Fertility preservation was used by 51.5 % of women. 93.2 % of patients had stage I/II disease, 66.0 % were node-negative, 54.7 % had breast conserving surgery, 61.9 % had received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy. Tamoxifen alone was the most prescribed ET (41.8 %), followed by tamoxifen + ovarian function suppression (OFS) (35.4 %). A greater proportion of North American women were <35 years at enrolment (42.7 %), had mastectomy (59.0 %) and received tamoxifen alone (59.8 %). More Asian women were nulliparous (81.0 %), had node-negative disease (76.2%) and received tamoxifen + OFS (56.0 %). More European women had received chemotherapy (69.3 %). The characteristics of participants in the POSITIVE study provide insights to which patients and doctors considered it acceptable to interrupt ET to pursue pregnancy. Similarities and variations from a regional, sociodemographic, disease and treatment standpoint suggest specific sociocultural attitudes across the world.

PURPOSE: We investigated time to pregnancy, efficacy and safety of fertility preservation, and assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in women with early hormone receptor–positive breast cancer (BC) desiring future pregnancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: POSITIVE is an international, single-arm, prospective trial, in which 518 women temporarily interrupted adjuvant endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy. We evaluated menstruation recovery and factors associated with time to pregnancy and investigated if ART use was associated with achieving pregnancy. The cumulative incidence of BC-free interval (BCFI) events was estimated according to the use of ovarian stimulation at diagnosis. The median follow-up was 41 months. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-three patients (53%) reported amenorrhea at enrollment, of whom 94% resumed menses within 12 months. Among 497 patients evaluable for pregnancy, 368 (74%) reported at least one pregnancy. Young age was the main factor associated with shorter time to pregnancy with cumulative incidences of pregnancy by 1 year of 63.5%, 54.3%, and 37.7% for patients age <35, 35-39, and 40-42 years, respectively. One hundred and seventy-nine patients (36%) had embryo/oocyte cryopreservation at diagnosis, of whom 68 reported embryo transfer after enrollment. Cryopreserved embryo transfer was the only ART associated with higher chance of pregnancy (odds ratio, 2.41 [95% CI, 1.75 to 4.95]). The cumulative incidence of BCFI events at 3 years was similar for women who underwent ovarian stimulation for cryopreservation at diagnosis, 9.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 15.4), compared with those who did not, 8.7% (95% CI, 6.0 to 12.5). CONCLUSION: In POSITIVE, fertility preservation using ovarian stimulation was not associated with short-term detrimental impact on cancer prognosis. Pregnancy rates were highest among those who underwent embryo/oocyte cryopreservation followed by embryo transfer.

Purpose: BCI (H/I) has been shown to predict extended endocrine therapy (EET) benefit. We examined BCI (H/I) for EET benefit prediction in NSABP B-42, which evaluated extended letrozole therapy (ELT) in patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer after 5 years of ET. Experimental Design: A stratified Cox model was used to analyze RFI as the primary endpoint, with DR, BCFI, and DFS as secondary endpoints. Because of a nonproportional effect of ELT on DR, time-dependent analyses were performed. Results: The translational cohort included 2,178 patients (45% BCI (H/I)-High, 55% BCI (H/I)-Low). ELT showed an absolute 10-year RFI benefit of 1.6% (P = 0.10), resulting in an underpowered primary analysis (50% power). ELT benefit and BCI (H/I) did not show a significant interaction for RFI (BCI (H/I)-Low: 10 years absolute benefit 1.1% [HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.43–1.12; P = 0.13]; BCI (H/I)-High: 2.4% [HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.55–1.26; P = 0.38]; Pinteraction = 0.56). Time-dependent DR analysis showed that after 4 years, BCI (H/I)-High patients had significant ELT benefit (HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12–0.69; P < 0.01), whereas BCI (H/I)-Low patients were less likely to benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.33–1.39; P = 0.29; Pinteraction = 0.14). Prediction of ELT benefit by BCI (H/I) was more apparent in the HER2- subset after 4 years (ELT-by-BCI (H/I) Pinteraction = 0.04). Conclusions: BCI (H/I)-High versus BCI (H/I)-Low did not show a statistically significant difference in ELT benefit for the primary endpoint (RFI). However, in time-dependent DR analysis, BCI (H/I)-High patients experienced statistically significant benefit from ELT after 4 years, whereas (H/I)-Low patients did not. Because BCI (H/I) has been validated as a predictive marker of EET benefit in other trials, additional follow-up may enable further characterization of BCI's predictive ability.

Previous analyses from the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies showed that palbociclib (PAL) plus endocrine therapy (ET) prolongs time to first subsequent chemotherapy (TTC) versus placebo (PBO) plus ET in the overall population of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative (HR+/HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated TTC in relevant patient subgroups. These post hoc analyses evaluated TTC by subgroup using data from 2 randomized, phase 3 studies of women with HR+/HER2− ABC. In PALOMA-2, postmenopausal patients previously untreated for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus letrozole (LET; 2.5 mg/day; n = 444) or PBO plus LET (n = 222). In PALOMA-3, premenopausal or postmenopausal patients whose disease had progressed after prior ET were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus fulvestrant (FUL; 500 mg; n = 347) or PBO plus FUL (n = 174). First subsequent chemotherapy was received by 35.5% and 56.2% in PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 after progression on palbociclib plus ET or placebo plus ET. Across all subgroups analyzed, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the PAL plus ET arm than the PBO plus ET arm. TTC was longer with PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET across the same patient subgroups in both studies. Across all subgroups, PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET had longer median PFS and resulted in prolonged TTC in both the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies. Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427, NCT01942135).

Purpose: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was evaluated as postinduction therapy for patients with PD-L1–unselected locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who derived clinical benefit from first-line pembrolizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy induction therapy. Patients and Methods: In this phase 2 study (NCT04191135), participants with previously untreated locally recurrent inoperable/metastatic TNBC received first-line pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks plus platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants with complete/partial response or stable disease (per RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg once every 3 weeks plus olaparib 300 mg twice a day or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were primary endpoints. Results: Of 460 participants receiving induction treatment, 271 were randomly assigned to postinduction therapy. The median PFS was 5.5 months in the pembrolizumab plus olaparib group versus 5.6 months in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group [hazard ratio (HR), 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72–1.33; P = 0.4556]. The median OS was 25.1 versus 23.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.64–1.40). In participants with tumor BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations (tBRCAm), HRs for PFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.33–1.48) and OS (0.81; 95% CI, 0.28–2.37) favored pembrolizumab plus olaparib. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 84.4% and 96.2% of participants receiving pembrolizumab plus olaparib and pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, respectively. Conclusions: Although the primary endpoint was not met, postinduction pembrolizumab plus olaparib therapy resulted in similar PFS and OS compared with pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in this setting. The positive trend for PFS and OS in participants with tBRCAm suggests a potential nonchemotherapy strategy for maintaining clinical benefit attained with first-line pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy induction treatment. No new safety signals were identified.