PURPOSE: To evaluate locally versus centrally assessed estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptor status and the impact of PgR on letrozole adjuvant therapy compared with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 randomly assigned 8,010 patients to four arms comparing letrozole and tamoxifen with sequences of each agent. The Central Pathology Office received material for 6,549 patients (82%), of which 79% were assessable (6,291 patients). Prognostic and predictive value of both local and central hormone receptor expression on disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated among 3,650 assessable patients assigned to the monotherapy arms. Prognostic value and the treatment effect were estimated for centrally assessed ER and PgR expression levels using the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot. RESULTS: Central review confirmed 97% of tumors as hormone receptor-positive (ER and/or PgR > or =10%). Of 105 tumors locally ER-negative, 73 were found to have more than 10% positive cells, and eight had 1% to 9%. Of 6,100 tumors locally ER positive, 66 were found to have no staining, and 54 had only 1% to 9%. Discordance was more marked for PgR than ER. Patients with tumors reclassified centrally as ER-negative, or as hormone receptor-negative, had poor DFS. Centrally assessed ER and PgR showed prognostic value. Among patients with centrally assessed ER-expressing tumors, letrozole showed better DFS than tamoxifen, irrespective of PgR expression level. CONCLUSION: Central review changed the assessment of receptor status in a substantial proportion of patients, and should be performed whenever possible in similar trials. PgR expression did not affect the relative efficacy of letrozole over tamoxifen.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate locally versus centrally assessed estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptor status and the impact of PgR on letrozole adjuvant therapy compared with tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 randomly assigned 8,010 patients to four arms comparing letrozole and tamoxifen with sequences of each agent. The Central Pathology Office received material for 6,549 patients (82%), of which 79% were assessable (6,291 patients). Prognostic and predictive value of both local and central hormone receptor expression on disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated among 3,650 assessable patients assigned to the monotherapy arms. Prognostic value and the treatment effect were estimated for centrally assessed ER and PgR expression levels using the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot. RESULTS: Central review confirmed 97% of tumors as hormone receptor-positive (ER and/or PgR > or =10%). Of 105 tumors locally ER-negative, 73 were found to have more than 10% positive cells, and eight had 1% to 9%. Of 6,100 tumors locally ER positive, 66 were found to have no staining, and 54 had only 1% to 9%. Discordance was more marked for PgR than ER. Patients with tumors reclassified centrally as ER-negative, or as hormone receptor-negative, had poor DFS. Centrally assessed ER and PgR showed prognostic value. Among patients with centrally assessed ER-expressing tumors, letrozole showed better DFS than tamoxifen, irrespective of PgR expression level. CONCLUSION: Central review changed the assessment of receptor status in a substantial proportion of patients, and should be performed whenever possible in similar trials. PgR expression did not affect the relative efficacy of letrozole over tamoxifen.
Authors: Todd W Miller; Bryan T Hennessy; Ana M González-Angulo; Emily M Fox; Gordon B Mills; Heidi Chen; Catherine Higham; Carlos García-Echeverría; Yu Shyr; Carlos L Arteaga Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Kanwal P S Raghav; Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Xiudong Lei; Marianan Chavez-Macgregor; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Thomas A Buchholz; Aysegul Sahin; Kim-Anh Do; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John M S Bartlett; Cassandra L Brookes; Tammy Robson; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Lucinda J Billingham; Fiona M Campbell; Margaret Grant; Annette Hasenburg; Elysée T M Hille; Charlene Kay; Dirk G Kieback; Hein Putter; Christos Markopoulos; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Elizabeth A Mallon; Luc Dirix; Caroline Seynaeve; Daniel Rea Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M C De Santis; E La Rocca; E Meneghini; G Bregni; G Di Lorenzo; G Galli; M Di Nicola; S Folli; M Gennaro; G Pruneri; B Paolini; M G Daidone; F De Braud; G Apolone; M Sant; S Di Cosimo Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Olivia Pagani; Shari Gelber; Edda Simoncini; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Karen N Price; Richard D Gelber; Stig B Holmberg; Diana Crivellari; John Collins; Jurij Lindtner; Beat Thürlimann; Martin F Fey; Elizabeth Murray; John F Forbes; Alan S Coates; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-10-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Giuseppe Viale; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Meredith M Regan; Alan S Coates; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Eugenio Maiorano; Gaëtan MacGrogan; Stephen G Braye; Christian Ohlschlegel; Patrick Neven; Zsolt Orosz; Wojciech P Olszewski; Fiona Knox; Beat Thürlimann; Karen N Price; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Richard D Gelber; Barry A Gusterson; Aron Goldhirsch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-11-03 Impact factor: 44.544