Ovarian suppression for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 80% of breast cancers amongst premenopausal women are hormone receptor-positive. Adjuvant endocrine therapy is an integral component of care for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and in premenopausal women includes oestrogen receptor blockade with tamoxifen, temporary suppression of ovarian oestrogen synthesis by luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists, and permanent interruption of ovarian oestrogen synthesis with oophorectomy or radiotherapy. Recent international consensus statements recommend single-agent tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with ovarian function suppression (OFS) as the current standard adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women (often preceded by chemotherapy). This review examined the role of adding OFS to another treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or both) or comparing OFS to no further adjuvant treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of OFS for treatment of premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 September 2019. We screened the reference lists of related articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials assessing any method of OFS, that is, oophorectomy, radiation-induced ovarian ablation, or LHRH agonists, as adjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. We included studies that compared (1) OFS versus observation, (2) OFS + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, (3) OFS + tamoxifen versus tamoxifen, and (4) OFS + chemotherapy + tamoxifen versus chemotherapy + tamoxifen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measures were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Toxicity, contralateral breast cancer, and second malignancy were represented as risk ratios (RRs), and quality of life data were extracted when provided.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update included 15 studies involving 11,538 premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer; these studies were conducted from 1978 to 2014. Some of these treatments are not current standard of care, and early studies did not assess HER2 receptor status. Studies tested OFS versus observation (one study), OFS plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (six studies), OFS plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen (six studies), and OFS plus chemotherapy and tamoxifen versus chemotherapy and tamoxifen (two studies). Of those studies that reported the chemotherapy regimen, an estimated 72% of women received an anthracycline. The results described below relate to the overall comparison of OFS versus no OFS. High-certainty evidence shows that adding OFS to treatment resulted in a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.94; 11 studies; 10,374 women; 1933 reported events). This treatment effect was seen when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, or to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on mortality was not observed when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; 5 studies; 3087 women; median follow-up: range 7.7 to 12.1 years). The addition of OFS resulted in improved DFS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90; 10 studies; 8899 women; 2757 reported events; high-certainty evidence). The DFS treatment effect persisted when OFS was added to observation, to tamoxifen, and to chemotherapy and tamoxifen. The effect on DFS was reduced when OFS was added to chemotherapy without tamoxifen therapy (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01; 5 studies; 2450 women). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across studies for DFS and OS (respectively). Evidence suggests that adding OFS slightly increases the incidence of hot flushes (grade 3/4 or any grade; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 6 studies; 5581 women; low-certainty evidence, as this may have been under-reported in these studies). Two other studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis reported a higher number of hot flushes in the OFS group than in the no-OFS group. Seven studies involving 5354 women collected information related to mood; however this information was reported as grade 3 or 4 depression, anxiety, or neuropsychiatric symptoms, or symptoms were reported without the grade. Two studies reported an increase in depression, anxiety, and neuropsychiatric symptoms in the OFS group compared to the no-OFS group, and five studies indicated an increase in anxiety in both treatment groups (but no difference between groups) or no difference overall in symptoms over time or between treatment groups. A single study reported bone health as osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5); this limited evidence suggests that OFS increases the risk of osteoporosis compared to no-OFS at median follow-up of 5.6 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 28.82; 2011 women; low-certainty evidence). Adding OFS to treatment likely reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; 9 studies; 9138 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; four studies used validated tools, and the fifth study provided no information on how data were collected. Two studies reported worse quality of life indicators (i.e. vaginal dryness, day and night sweats) for women receiving OFS compared to those in the no-OFS group. The other two studies indicated worsening of symptoms (e.g. vasomotor, gynaecological, vaginal dryness, decline in sexual interest, bone and joint pain, weight gain); however these side effects were reported in both OFS and no-OFS groups. The study that did not use a validated quality of life tool described no considerable differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found evidence that supports adding OFS for premenopausal women with early, hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. The benefit of OFS persisted when compared to observation, and when added to endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) or chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (tamoxifen). The decision to use OFS may depend on the overall risk assessment based on tumour and patient characteristics, and may follow consideration of all side effects that occur with the addition of OFS.

Current controversies in the management of early breast cancer

Medical professionals in general, and medical oncologists in particular, have highly stressful practices because they are under constant pressure to have the highest-quality, up-to-date evidence available in order to make the right decision for each individual patient. From a practical point of view, being updated on oncological and other medical specialties may seem an insurmountable task because the number of scientific publications has increased dramatically. The use of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or the application of results obtained from high-quality randomised controlled trials are some of the most common ways to address this need. Unfortunately, they do not cover all complex clinical situations that the majority of medical oncologists face in their outpatient consultations. In this review, we report the conclusions achieved in a multiexpert meeting where five important controversies in the treatment of breast cancer were analysed. Five highly experienced medical oncologists were required to defend an affirmative answer and another five were required to defend a negative answer for each of the clinical questions. After that, a one-day meeting was organised to debate each clinical question and to reach a consensus. We report here the content of this multi-expert meeting along with the conclusions drawn.

Tamoxifen versus control after adjuvant, risk-adapted chemotherapy in postmenopausal, receptor-negative patients with breast cancer: a randomized trial (GABG-IV D-93)--the German Adjuvant Breast Cancer Group

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of adjuvant sequential tamoxifen after chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to oral tamoxifen (30 mg daily for 5 years; n = 421) or no additional treatment (n = 408) after risk-adapted polychemotherapy consisting of three 28-day cycles of CMF (cyclophosphamide, 500 mg/m(2), methotrexate, 40 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil, 600 mg/m(2)) in patients with negative or one to three positive lymph nodes and four 21-day cycles of epirubicin 90 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) followed by three cycles of CMF in patients with four to nine positive lymph nodes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six percent of the patients included were older than 60 years, 63% were node negative, 13% had four to nine positive nodes, 55% had tumor grade 3, and 41% received breast-preserving surgery. At 5.3 years' median follow-up, the first event of failure (recurrence, secondary tumor, or death) had occurred in 123 patients in the tamoxifen group and 107 patients of the control group. Event-free survival rates after 5 years were 70.3% (95% CI, 65.5% to 75.0%) and 72.8% (95% CI, 68.2% to 77.5%) for the tamoxifen and control groups, respectively. The estimated hazard ratio of tamoxifen versus control was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.48; P = .34), which gives no indication of an additional benefit of tamoxifen in these patients.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes substantially to finalization of the presently emerging evidence that tamoxifen does not benefit women with receptor-negative breast cancer after chemotherapy.