Table 2.
Hazard ratios comparing relative treatment effects upon breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) in the HR+/HER2- analysis population according to marker subgroups.
| Marker and Category | Trial and Treatment Comparison | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOFT | TEXT | ||||||
| T+OFS vs Tam | E+OFS vs Tam | E+OFS vs T+OFS | |||||
| HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | HR | (95% CI) | ||
| All HR+/HER2- | -- | 0.90 | (0.67, 1.21) | 0.70 | (0.51, 0.96) | 0.52 | (0.37, 0.72) |
| PgR | <20% | 1.44 | (0.75, 2.78) | 0.60 | (0.29, 1.25) | 0.41 | (0.20, 0.84) |
| 20-49% | 0.90 | (0.37, 2.15) | 0.54 | (0.20, 1.50) | 0.52 | (0.24, 1.13) | |
| ≥50% | 0.88 | (0.61, 1.26) | 0.75 | (0.51, 1.11) | 0.52 | (0.34, 0.80) | |
| P(Interaction) | P= 0.42 | P= 0.76 | P= 0.85 | ||||
| Ki-67 | <14% | 0.58 | (0.28, 1.20) | 0.35 | (0.15, 0.79) | 0.73 | (0.24, 2.23) |
| 14-19% | 1.16 | (0.63, 2.12) | 0.95 | (0.50, 1.82) | 0.73 | (0.36, 1.49) | |
| 20-25% | 1.01 | (0.53, 1.93) | 0.99 | (0.51, 1.95) | 0.33 | (0.16, 0.67) | |
| ≥26% | 0.99 | (0.58, 1.70) | 0.72 | (0.39, 1.34) | 0.47 | (0.29, 0.76) | |
| P(Interaction) | P= 0.53 | P= 0.21 | P= 0.40 | ||||
| luminal A/B-like | A-like | 0.91 | (0.55, 1.50) | 0.59 | (0.33, 1.05) | 0.68 | (0.36, 1.29) |
| B-like | 1.01 | (0.69, 1.49) | 0.76 | (0.49, 1.16) | 0.45 | (0.30, 0.65) | |
| P(Interaction) | P= 0.74 | P= 0.50 | P= 0.27 | ||||
Cox models were stratified by nodal status and chemotherapy use. The Wald chi-square tests for marker-by-treatment interaction had 2, 3 or 1 degree of freedom for PgR, Ki-67 and luminal A/B-like, respectively. HRs (CI) for undetermined marker values omitted, e.g., for luminal A/B-like T+OFS vs Tam, this is why the two HRs are both greater than the overall HR.
Abbreviations: OFS=ovarian function suppression; T=tamoxifen; E=exemestane; HR=hazard ratio; LCL=lower confidence level; UCL=upper confidence level; PgR=progesterone receptor.