Table 1.

Summary of selected adjuvant hormonal therapy studies with ovarian suppression

Intervention	Trial	Patient characteristics	Regimen	Benefit	Notes
Ovarian suppression (OS)	IBCSG VIII (IBCSG, 2003)	N =1063 Pre‐ or peri ER+/− Node (−)	CMF×6 (oral) vs. Goserelin vs. CMF×6→Goserelin	For ER+: CMF→G vs. CMF: RR for DFS 0.80, P=0.26	In ER+ group as whole, no difference between 3 treatment arms; If ER+ and ≤39 years old: 5 year DFS: Goserelin 62% CMF 64% CMF→Goserelin 85% (P=0.02)
	INT 0101 (Davidson et al., 2005)	N =1503 Premenopausal Node (+) ER and/or PR+	CAF vs. CAF‐Z vs. CAF‐ZT	CAF‐Z vs. CAF: HR for DFS 0.93, P=0.22 HR for survival 0.88, P=0.14 CAF‐ZT vs. CAF‐Z: HR for DFS 0.74, P=<0.01 HR for survival 0.91, P=0.21	Trend toward benefit with ovarian suppression after chemo if <40 years
	Arriagada et al., 2005	N =926 Premenopausal ER/PR+ or − Grade II/III or node (+)	Chemo (FAC, FEC, or CMF) vs. Chemo+OS	For all patients: RR for recurrence or death 1.1, P=0.51 RR for death 1.2, P=0.19 For ER+ and <40 years: RR recurrence or death 0.49, P=0.005	Benefit to ovarian suppression after chemo only if ER+ and <50
	EBCTCG, 2005	N =7601 Age<50 at diagnosis 47% ER unknown 61% node+	Ovarian suppression by surgery, XRT, or LHRH inhibitor	Benefit on recurrence 15‐year gain 4.3% HR 0.83 favoring Ovarian suppression Benefit on breast cancer mortality 15‐year gain 3.2% HR 0.87 favoring OS	Benefit in node (+) and (−) More benefit if no chemo given Numbers too small for other subgroup analysis