Purpose: The efficacy and safety of combining bevacizumab (7.5 and 15 mg/kg) with docetaxel as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) was investigated in a three-arm, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 736) were randomly assigned to docetaxel 100 mg/m² plus either placebo or bevacizumab 7.5 or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included best overall response, duration of response, time to treatment failure, overall survival, and safety. Results: Combination of bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, but not 7.5 mg/kg, with docetaxel showed superior median PFS (mPFS) to placebo plus docetaxel in unstratified analysis (placebo mPFS, 8.2 months; 7.5 mg/kg mPFS, 9.0 months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; P = .12]; 15 mg/kg mPFS, 10.1 months [HR, 0.77; P = .006]) and stratified analysis (placebo mPFS, 8.1 months; 7.5 mg/kg mPFS, 9.0 months [HR, 0.80; P = .045]; 15 mg/kg mPFS, 10.0 months [HR, 0.67; P < .001]). Response rates in patients with measurable disease at baseline also increased with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (46% [placebo] v 55% [7.5 mg/kg; P = .07] and 64% [15 mg/kg; P < .001]). Combination with bevacizumab had limited impact on the known toxicity profile of docetaxel. Conclusion: Combination of bevacizumab with docetaxel did not significantly impact on the safety profile of docetaxel. Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks significantly increased PFS when combined with docetaxel as first-line therapy for MBC compared with docetaxel plus placebo.

Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer. In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane–ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen–ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane–ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen–ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane–ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane–ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen–ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.)

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. 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. 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. 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.)

No gold standard treatment exists for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Clinical decision making is based on knowledge of prognostic and predictive factors that are extrapolated from clinical trials and, sometimes, are not reliably transferable to a real-world scenario. Moreover, misalignment between endpoints used in drug development and measures of outcome in clinical practice has been noted. The roles of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as primary endpoints in the context of clinical trials are the subjects of lively debate. Information about these parameters in routine clinical practice is potentially useful to design new studies and/or to interpret the results of clinical research. This study analyzed the impact of patient and tumor characteristics on the major measures of outcome across different lines of treatment in a cohort of 472 patients treated for MBC. OS, PFS, and postprogression survival (PPS) were analyzed. The study showed how biological and clinical characteristics may have different prognostic value across different lines of therapy for MBC. After first-line treatment, the median PPS of luminal A, luminal B, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive groups was longer than 12 months. The choice of OS as a primary endpoint for clinical trials could not be appropriate with these subtypes. In contrast, OS could be an appropriate endpoint when PPS is expected to be low (e.g., triple-negative subtype after the first line; other subtypes after the third line). The potential implications of these findings are clinical and methodological.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents the 15-20% of all breast cancers (BC) and is characterized by a very aggressive behavior. Recent data suggest that TNBC is not a single disease, but it is rather an umbrella for different ontology-profiles such as basal like 1 and 2, mesenchymal, and the luminal androgen receptor (LAR). The LAR subtype is characterized by the expression of the Androgen Receptor (AR) and its downstream effects. Notwithstanding the role of the AR in several signaling pathways, its impact on a biological and clinical standpoint is still controversial. The LAR subtype has been associated with better prognosis, less chemotherapy responsiveness and lower pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical evidence suggests a role for anti-androgen therapies such as bicalutamide, enzalutamide and abiraterone, offering an interesting chemo-free alternative for chemo-unresponsive patients, and therefore potentially shifting current treatment strategies.