Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ESMO Open logoLink to ESMO Open
. 2020 Sep 6;5(5):e000743. doi: 10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000743

Application of the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (V.1.1) to the field of early breast cancer therapies

Shani Paluch-Shimon 1,✉, Nathan I Cherny 1, Elisabeth G E de Vries 2, Urania Dafni 3,4, Martine J Piccart 5, Nicola Jane Latino 6, Fatima Cardoso 7
PMCID: PMC7476474  PMID: 32893189

Abstract

Click here to listen to the Podcast

Background

The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated value scale for solid tumour anticancer treatments. Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS, used to grade therapies with curative intent including adjuvant therapies, has only been evaluated for a limited number of studies. This is the first large-scale field testing in early breast cancer to assess the applicability of the scale to this data set and the reasonableness of derived scores and to identify any shortcomings to be addressed in future modifications of the scale.

Method

Representative key studies and meta-analyses of the major modalities of adjuvant systemic therapy of breast cancer were identified for each of the major clinical scenarios (HER2-positive, HER2-negative, endocrine-responsive) and were graded with form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS. These generated scores were reviewed by a panel of experts for reasonableness. Shortcomings and issues related to the application of the scale and interpretation of results were identified and critically evaluated.

Results

Sixty-five studies were eligible for evaluation: 59 individual studies and 6 meta-analyses. These studies incorporated 101 therapeutic comparisons, 61 of which were scorable. Review of the generated scores indicated that, with few exceptions, they generally reflected contemporary standards of practice. Six shortcomings were identified related to grading based on disease-free survival (DFS), lack of information regarding acute and long-term toxicity and an inability to grade single-arm de-escalation scales.

Conclusions

Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS is a robust tool for the evaluation of the magnitude of benefit studies in early breast cancer. The scale can be further improved by addressing issues related to grading based on DFS, annotating grades with information regarding acute and long-term toxicity and developing an approach to grade single-arm de-escalation studies.

Keywords: early breast cancer, magnitude of clinical benefit scale, ESMO-MCBS

Key questions.

What is already known about this subject?

  • Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to score therapies with curative intent. To date, very limited field testing has been performed to assess the scale in the curative setting.

What does this study add?

  • We evaluated the applicability of the scale and assessed the reasonableness of the generated scores in early breast cancer. Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided a generally robust tool for scoring of adjuvant breast cancer studies. Six shortcomings were identified including lack of information regarding acute and long-term toxicity, an inability to grade single-arm de-escalation scales and limitations related to grading based on disease-free survival.

How might this impact on clinical practice?

  • The identified shortcomings in form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 will be rectified in the upcoming version 2.0 of the scale to strengthen the validity of that scale and its generated results. These developments have important implications for data interpretation, public health and clinical decision-making.

Introduction

As the population ages, the incidence and prevalence of cancer are expected to continue to rise both in developed1 and developing countries.2 The estimated total annual economic cost of cancer was US$1.16 trillion in 2010, about 2% of global gross domestic product3 and is continuing to rise exponentially. Breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer among women2 and the ongoing care of breast cancer patients is estimated to be one of the most significant contributors to growing cancer care expenditure.4

These considerations underscore the need for validated tools to evaluate value of care, where value is recognised as a balance between clinical benefit and cost. With this in mind, both the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established Working Groups to address these issues and they have developed and published a platform for evaluating new anticancer therapeutics—the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)5 and the ASCO Framework for assessing value of cancer care.6

The ESMO-MCBS was initially launched and published in 20155 and revised in 2017 with version 1.1.7 The scale aims to provide a validated and rational stratification process for oncology therapies, and its development process has been predicated on ‘accountability for reasonableness’ which incorporated extensive field testing and the peer review of results for ‘reasonableness’.7 Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS, which is used to grade therapies with curative intent including adjuvant therapies, hitherto, has only been applied in a limited number of studies. Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS grades therapies with curative intent on a three-point scale A, B and C where scores of A and B represent substantial improvement.

This is the first large-scale field testing of form 1 in early breast cancer to assess the applicability of the ESMO-MCBS in this setting, to determine whether the scoring reflected clinical practice (reasonableness) and to identify shortcomings to be addressed in future versions of the scale. It also provides an overview of the magnitude of benefit for the most common therapies/therapeutic strategies in the field of breast cancer, allowing for a critical reassessment of available options.

Methodology

ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 form 1, designed to evaluate adjuvant and neoadjuvant studies, was applied to all the selected studies (online supplementary data).

Supplementary data

esmoopen-2020-000743supp001.pdf (171.7KB, pdf)

Representative key studies and meta-analyses of the major modalities of adjuvant systemic therapy of breast cancer (chemotherapy or endocrine therapy or anti-HER2 therapy) were identified for each of the major clinical scenarios (HER2-positive, HER2-negative, endocrine-responsive). Studies were identified through PubMed, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) registration sites. Pivotal phase 3 studies that have formed the basis for contemporary treatment practice and a randomised phase 2 study that resulted in preliminary drug registration8 were scored.

To identify the pivotal phase 3 studies, a PubMed search was performed with the following search criteria: “breast cancer”[Title] AND breast[Title] AND cancer[Title] AND adjuvant[Title] OR neo-adjuvant AND “2002”[Date—Publication] : “2019”[Date—Publication] AND English[Language] AND “randomized controlled trial” OR “phase 3” OR “randomized phase 2” NOT retrospective[Title/Abstract] NOT historical[Title/Abstract] NOT “systematic review”[Title] NOT advanced[Title] NOT metastatic[Title] NOT irradiation[Title] NOT safety[Title] NOT insights[Title] NOT observations[Title] NOT “quality of life”[Title] NOT biosimilar[Title] NOT analysis[Title] NOT analyses[Title] NOT radiation[Title]. There were 597 studies identified from the search. Relevant studies that were comparative phase 3 randomised controlled studies were identified and subsequently cross-referenced with the FDA and EMA registration sites and ESMO9 and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)10 guidelines to identify pivotal and practice changing studies. Key meta-analyses referenced by ESMO9 and NCCN10 guidelines were identified.

Studies were eligible for scoring if they were randomised comparative studies comparing new therapies to standard of care or meta-analyses of those studies. Studies were scored if they met the scoring criteria defined by the ESMO-MCBS guideline according to the criteria in form 1. Where missing data impeded scoring, the corresponding author was contacted with a request for data or clarification. If no response was received, the study was either marked as not scorable (this occurred for only one study11 and one meta-analysis12) or excluded (if there was inadequate data reported). All scoring was reviewed for accuracy by members of the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Working Group and the generated scores were reviewed by the ESMO Breast Cancer Faculty for reasonableness.

Scoring was performed in accordance with the rules for application of the ESMO-MCBS.5 7 Studies initially evaluated based on disease-free survival (DFS) criteria alone or pathological complete remission (pCR) rate were re-evaluated when mature overall survival (OS) data are available and a final score was determined based on these OS results. The only exception was for studies that were un-blinded after compelling early DFS results with subsequent access to the superior arm, whereby OS results were contaminated by the crossover and therefore were not evaluable.

Studies that could not be scored were classified into one of three groups: (1) studies that did not achieve statistical significance, designated ‘no evaluable benefit’ (NEB), (2) non-inferiority studies in which non-inferiority was not verified, designated ‘negative non-inferiority’ (NNI), (3) studies that could not be scored because required data were not included in the publication, designated ‘scoring not applicable’ (SNA) and (4) not-scorable subgroup data

Results

Sixty-five studies were eligible for evaluation: 59 individual studies and 6 meta-analyses (5 of which were individual patient-level data meta-analyses), which yielded data relevant to 101 therapeutic comparisons, 61 of which demonstrated significant benefit or non-inferiority and could be scored.

Adjuvant chemotherapy

Polychemotherapy versus no chemotherapy

Both cyclophosphamide methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) and anthracycline-based therapy were found to be superior to no chemotherapy (in a predominantly node-positive population), both scoring an A compared with no treatment in the meta-analysis, with a 15-year gain in breast cancer mortality of 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively(table 1).13

Table 1.

First-generation adjuvant chemotherapy

Tested agent Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up (years) DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* pCR ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Polychemotherapy vs none (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Anthracycline vs nil 82% Node+ OS 15 47.4 8.0 0.73 (0.68–0.79) Breast cancer mortality 35.8% 6.5 0.79 (0.72–0.85) A 13
Polychemotherapy vs none (meta-analysis) EBCTCG CMF vs nil 34% Node+ OS 15 39.8 10.2 0.70 (0.63–0.77) Breast cancer mortality 27.6% 6.2 0.76 (0.68–0.84) A 13
CMF×6 vs CAF×6 INT 0102 High-risk Node− DFS 10 75.0 2.0 1.05 (0.94–1.27) 82.0% 3.0 1.19 (0.99–1.43) NEB 14
CMF×6 vs CEF×6 MA5 Node+ RFS 10 45.0 7.0 1.31 (1.06–1.61) 58.0% 4.0 1.18 (0.94–1.49) NEB 15
CMF vs AC ×4 (meta-analysis) EBCTCG 61% Node+ OS 10 42.1 1.1 0.99 (0.90–1.08) Breast cancer mortality 32.5% 0.9 0.98 (0.89–1.08) NEB 13
CMF vs 4 AC×4 (meta-analysis) EBCTCG 61% Node+ OS 10 Overall mortality 34.6% 1.2 0.97 (0.89–1.07) NEB 13
CMF vs CAF/FEC (meta-analysis) EBCTCG 53% Node+ OS 10 33.8 2.6 0.89 (0.82–0.96) Breast cancer mortality 24.1% 4.1 0.80 (0.72–0.88) B 13
CMF vs CAF/FEC (meta-analysis) EBCTCG 53% Node+ OS 10 33.8 2.6 0.89 (0.82–0.96) Overall mortality 27.1% 3.9 0.84 (0.76–0.92) B 13
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

A, doxorubicin; C, cyclophosphamide; DFS, disease-free survival; E, epirubicin; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; F, fluorouracil; M, methotrexate; NEB, no evaluable benefit; Node+, node-positive; Node−, node-negative; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival.

CMF versus anthracyclines

Four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC×4) were not found to be superior to CMF×6 in the meta-analysis.13 Benefit of CAF (cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/fluorouracil)/FEC×6 (fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide) over CMF×6 was not reported in individual studies,14 15 but was demonstrated in a meta-analysis, with a 10-year OS gain of approximately 4% (grade B) (table 1).13

Taxanes

The three studies that evaluated the addition of a taxane to an anthracycline-based regimen all demonstrated gains in DFS, but mature survival data was available for only one of these studies with no significant survival advantage and therefore classified as NEB.16–18 The MA-21 study compared AC×4 followed by paclitaxel to both cyclophosphamide/epirubicin/fluorouracil (CEF) and dose-dense (dd) epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative disease.19 Both study regimens demonstrated superiority to AC×4 followed by paclitaxel based on 30-month DFS gain with no OS data available (grade A) (table 2).

Table 2.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with the addition of taxane

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control (%) OS gain (%) OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
TAC vs FAC GEICAM 9805 High-risk Node− DFS 77 months 81.8 6.0 0.68 (0.49–0.93) 93.5% 1.7 0.76 (0.45–1.26) NEB 16
FEC-P vs FEC GEICAM 9906 Node+ DFS 66 months 72.1 6.4 0.74 (0.60–0.92) 87.1% 2.8 0.78 (0.57–1.06) NEB 17
AC×4 vs AC-P NSABP-B28 Node+ DFS and OS 64.6 months 72.0 4.0 0.83 (0.72–0.95) 85.0% 0 0.93 (0.78–1.12) NEB 18
AC-P vs CEF×6 MA-21 High-risk Node− and + RFS 30 months 85.0† 5.1 1.49 (1.12–1.99)‡   A§ 19
AC-P vs dose dense EC×6 >P×4 q21 MA-21 High-risk Node− and + RFS 30 months 85.0† 4.5 1.68 (1.25–2.27)‡     A§ 19
Paclitaxel q21 d vs q7 day E1199 High-risk LN−/LN+ DFS 12 years 65.5‡ 5.2 0.84 (0.73–0.96) 75.3%‡ 2.4 1.02 (0.88–1.18) NEB 79 80
Paclitaxel q21 d vs docetaxel q21 day E1199 High-risk LN−/LN+ DFS 12 years 65.5‡ 6.4 0.79 (0.68–0.90) 75.3%‡ 3.2 0.86 (0.73–1.00) NEB 79 80
TAC vs AC-T BCIRG 005 Node+ DFS 65 months 79.0 0 1.0 (0.86–1.16) 88.0% 1.0 0.91 (0.75–1.11) NEB 81
TAC vs dd AC-P NSABP-B38 Node+ DFS 64 months 80.1 2.1 NS 89.6% −0.5 NS NEB 82
TAC vs dd AC-PG NSABP-B38 Node+ DFS 64 months 80.1 0.5 NS 89.6% 0.8 NS NEB 82
TC vs AC US Oncology 9735 High-risk Node− and 1–3+nodes DFS 7 years 75.0 6.0 0.74 (0.56–0.98) 84.0% 6.0 0.69 (0.50–0.97) A 20 21
TC×6 vs Tax AC ABC Trials—joint analysis   iDFS non-inferiority 3.3 years 88.2¶ 2.5 1.2 (0.97–1.49)     NNI 22
TC×6 vs Tax AC
Chemo±Taxane (meta-analysis)		 EBCTCG Chemo±Tax- (Node+100%) iDFS non-inferiority
OS		 8 years 34.8 4.6 0.84 (0.78–0.91) Breast cancer mortality 23.9% 2.8 0.86 (0.79–0.93) C 13
Overall mortality 26.7% 3.2 0.86 (0.79–0.93) B 13
Chemo±Tax (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Tax/chemo vs different non-Tax regimen (Node+82%) OS 8 years 22.0 2.9 0.86 (0.82–0.91) Breast cancer mortality 11.5% 1.4 0.88 (0.81–0.95) C 13
              Overall mortality 12.4% 1.2 0.90 (0.84–0.97) C 13
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

†AC-T6 arm.

‡Three weekly paclitaxel arm.

§No OS data published.

¶TC×6 arm.

A, doxorubicin; C, cyclophosphamide; Chemo, chemotherapy; dd, dose dense; DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; F, fluorouracil; G, gemcitabine; iDFS, invasive disease-free survival; NEB, no evaluable benefit; NNI, negative non-inferiority; Node+, node-positive; Node−, node-negative; OS, overall survival; P, paclitaxel; RFS, relapse-free survival; T, docetaxel; Tax, taxane.

In a meta-analysis, the addition of a taxane to an anthracycline demonstrated a small survival advantage at 8 years follow-up (grade C).13 In this meta-analysis, the assessed cohorts consisted predominantly of patients with node-positive disease.

Docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) ×4 was superior to AC×4, demonstrating a 6% gain in OS at 7-year median follow-up (grade A).20 21 However, a joint analysis of three trials comparing TC×6 to combinations including AC and a taxane did not establish non-inferiority of TC×6 when compared with a combined taxane–anthracycline regimens.22

Other chemotherapy regimens

In all the dose-dense(dd) regimen trials, the high-risk, node-positive population demonstrated OS advantage (two studies in grade B, one study in grade C).23–25 The two studies with longest median follow-up achieved the highest grades.24 25 Two meta-analyses confirmed the superiority of dd regimens over standard scheduling (table 3).26 27

Table 3.

Chemotherapy approaches: dose density, neoadjuvant approaches, post-neoadjuvant

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control DFS gain DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* pCR ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
dd studies
 AC-P q21 vs q14 INT C9741/CALGB 9741 Node+ DFS 36 months 75.00% 7.00% 0.74 (0.59–0.93) 90.00% 2.00 0.69 (0.50–0.93) C 23
 EC-P q21 vs q14 AGO Node+ EFS 62 months 62.00% 8.00% 0.72 (0.59–0.87) 77.00% 5.00 0.76 (0.59– 0.97) B 24
 (F)EC-P q21 vs q14 GIM Node+ DFS 7 years 76.00% 5.00% 0.77 (0.65–0.92) 89.00% 5.00 0.65 (0.51– 0.84) B 25
 Meta-analysis—dd vs regular schedule 2 weekly vs 3 weekly (same regimen) DFS and OS 10 years 28.30% 4.30% 0.83 (0.76–0.91) Breast cancer mortality 19.6% 1.80 0.86 (0.77–0.95) C 26
 Meta-analysis—dd vs regular schedule Pooled-analysis—all dd and sequential DFS and OS 10 years 32.00% 3.60% 0.65 (0.81–0.89) Breast cancer mortality 19.6% 2.70 0.87 (0.82–0.92) C 26
 Meta-analysis—dd vs regular schedule Pooled analysis—all dd and sequential DFS and OS 10 years All-cause mortality 25.5% 3.00 0.87 (0.82–0.91) B 26
 dd vs regular schedule Stratified for HR status DFS and OS Variable 2–10 years All 0.84 (0.77–0.91) 0.85 (0.79–0.93) B 27
 dd vs regular schedule Stratified for HR status DFS and OS Variable 2–10 years HR−ve 0.80 (0.69–0.92) B 27
 dd vs regular schedule Stratified for HR status DFS and OS Variable 2–10 years HR+ve 0.93 (0.82–1.05) NEB 27
Post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy
 Capecitabine vs placebo CREATE—X Residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy DFS 3.6 years All 67.6% 6.50% 0.70 (0.53–0.92) 83.60% 5.60 0.59 (0.39–0.90)* A 28
 Capecitabine vs placebo CREATE—X Residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy DFS 3.6 years Triple negative 56.1% 13.70% 0.58 (0.39–0.87) 70.30% 8.50 0.52 (0.30–0.90) A 28
 Capecitabine vs placebo CREATE—X Residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy DFS 3.6 years HR + /HER2-neg 73.4% 3.00% 0.81 (0.55–1.17) 90.00% 3.40 0.73 (0.38–1.14) NEB 28
Neoadjuvant carboplatin
 Neoadjuvant Peg-A+P+Bev vs Peg-A+P+Bev+Carbo GeparSixto Triple negative pCR 35 months 76.10% 9.70% 0.56 (0.33–0.96) 41% vs 56.8% (ss) A 29
 P vs P + carboplatin BRIGHTNESS Triple negative pCR 41% vs 56.8% C 30
 P + carboplatin vs P + carboplatin + veliparib BRIGHTNESS Triple negative pCR 58% vs 53% (ns) NEB 30
 Neoadjuvant AC+P ± carboplatin CALBG 40603 Triple negative pCR 3 years 71.00% 5.00% 0.84 (0.58–1.22) 85.00% −4.00 1.15 (0.74–1.79) 41% vs 54% (ss) NEB 31
 Neoadjuvant AC-P ± bevacizumab CALBG 40603 Triple negative pCR 3 years 72.00% 3.00% 0.80 (0.55–1.17) 81.00% 4.00 0.76 (0.49–1.19) 44% vs 52% (ss) NEB 31
Neoadjuvant other agents
 D+AC vs DG+AC NSABP-B40 HER2-negative pCR 4.7 years 72.80% 1.10% 0.90 (0.67–1.19) 80.90% 4.80 0.73 (0.51–1.04) 32.7% vs 31.8% (ns) NEB 11
 D+AC vs DX+AC NSABP-B40 HER2-negative pCR 4.7 years 72.80% −0.20% 1.01 (0.77–1.33) 80.90% 0.60 0.96 (0.68–1.32) 32.7% vs 29.7% (ns) NEB 11
 Above regimens ± Bev NSABP-B40 HER2-negative pCR 4.7 years 72.80% 4.00% 0.80 (0.63–1.01) 80.90% 0.65 (0.49–0.88) 28.2 vs 34.5% (ss) B/C 11
 EC+D vs EC+D+Bev GeparQuinto Neoadjuvant —all subtypes pCR 3.8 years 81.50% −2.00% 1.03 (0.84–1.25) 88.70% 2.00 0.97 (0.75–1.26) 14.9 vs 18.4% (ss) NEB 83
 P-EC vs Nab-P-EC GeparSepto Neoadjuvant —all subtypes pCR 29% vs 38.4% (ss) NEB 33
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

A, doxorubicin; Bev, bevacizumab; C, cyclophosphamide; Carbo, carboplatin; D, docetaxel; DFS, disease-free survival; E, epirubicin; EFS, event-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; F, fluorouracil; G, gemcitabine; HER2-neg, HER2-negative; HR+, hormone-positive; iDFS, invasive disease-free survival; Nab-P, Nab-paclitaxel; nc, not statistically significant; NEB, no evaluable benefit; OS, overall survival; P, paclitaxel; pCR, pathological complete response; Peg-A, pegylated doxorubicin; q21, every 21 days; ss, statistically signifcant; V, veliparib; X, capecitabine.

Post-neoadjuvant capecitabine for patients with incomplete pathological response after neoadjuvant therapy demonstrated survival benefit of more than 5%, at a median of 3.6-year follow-up for the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and for the triple negative subgroup (grade A).28

The addition of neoadjuvant carboplatin for patients with triple negative breast cancer demonstrated a benefit in the GeparSixto study for both pCR and DFS with an absolute DFS gain of 9.6%29 and a benefit in pCR in the BRIGHTNESS study of 15.8% compared with the non-carboplatin arm.30 The CALGB 40603 did not demonstrate an outcome benefit from the addition of neoadjuvant carboplatin or bevacizumab despite improvements in pCR and was categorised as NEB.31

In the NSABP B40 study, there was no benefit of the addition of gemcitabine or capecitabine to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens.11 32 This study reported an OS benefit from the addition of neoadjuvant bevacizumab with a HR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.49–0.88); however, since the absolute survival benefit was not published, this was not evaluable (SNA).11

In the GeparSepto study, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel demonstrated a limited improvement in pCR rate compared with paclitaxel, however the gain was below the ESMO-MCBS threshold for scoring the ≥30% relative and >15% absolute pCR gain).33

Anti-HER2 therapies

Trastuzumab

All the 12-month adjuvant trastuzumab studies demonstrated substantial benefit (grade A or B).34–36 Two years of trastuzumab was not superior to 12 months.34 While several studies failed to demonstrate non-inferiority of shorter duration of trastuzumab therapy,37–39 the PERSEPHONE study demonstrated non-inferiority for 6 months versus 12 months of trastuzumab and scored a B based on non-inferiority and reduced cost (table 4).40

Table 4.

Anti-HER2 therapies: adjuvant trastuzumab

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control DFS gain DFS HR* OS control OS gain OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Chemotherapy±trastuzumab HERA Adjuvant or neoadjuvant HER2+tumours DFS 2 years DFS 77.4% 8.4% 0.54 (0.43–67) – Early crossover at interim analysis A 34
AC-P vs AC-PH or TCaH BCIRG006 Adjuvant HER2+tumours DFS 65 months 75.0% AC-PH-9% 0.63 87.0% AC-PH-5% 0.75 A 36
AC-P vs AC-PH or TCaH BCIRG006 Adjuvant HER2+tumours DFS 65 months 75.0% TCH-6% 0.75 TCaH-4% 0.77 B {Slamon, 2011 #1663;Slamon, 2011 #166336 }
AC-P vs AC-PH NSABP B31-NCCTG Adjuvant HER2+ tumours DFS 8.4 years 10 years DFS 62.2 11.5% 0.60 (0.53–0.68) 10 years OS 75.2% 8.80% 0.63 (0.54–0.73) A {Perez, 2014 #166835 }
Adjuvant chemo±trastuzumab Meta-analysis HER2+, <2 cm stratified for HR and nodal status DFS and OS HR+all 8 years 75.7% 7.0% 0.70 (0.59–0.85) 88.4% 3.8% 0.68 (0.52–0.89) B {O'Sullivan, 2015 #181184 }
Adjuvant chemo±trastuzumab Meta-analysis HER2+, <2 cm stratified for HR and nodal status DFS and OS HR+<1 node 8 years 81.6% 3.8% 0.64 (0.47–0.83) 92.6% 2.1% 0.68 (0.42–1.10) NEB {O'Sullivan, 2015 #1811}
Adjuvant chemo±trastuzumab Meta-analysis HER2+, <2 cm stratified for HR and nodal status DFS and OS HR− all 8 years 66.4% 9.4% 0.66 (0.49–0.88) 78.8% 8.8% 0.59 (0.47–0.74) A {O'Sullivan, 2015 #1811}
Adjuvant chemo±trastuzumab Meta-analysis HER2+, <2 cm stratified for HR and nodal status DFS and OS HR− <1 node 8 years 73.7% 5.9% 0.77 (0.59–1.00) 87.8% 4.0% 0.69 (0.66–1.04) NEB {O'Sullivan, 2015 #1811}
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

A, doxorubicin; C, cyclophosphamide; Ca, carboplatin; chemo, chemotherapy; DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; H, trastuzumab; HER2+, HER2 overexpression; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; NEB, no evaluable benefit; OS, overall survival; P, paclitaxel; T, docetaxel.

Dual blockade

Four of the five studies testing double blockade with trastuzumab plus a second anti-HER2 agent derived scores based on surrogate outcomes of pCR for neoadjuvant studies or DFS (table 5).

Table 5.

HER2 double blockade and second-generation anti-HER2 therapies

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control (%) OS gain (%) OS HR* pCR QoL Toxicity ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Neratinib vs placebo ExteNET Stage 2–3 HER2+ after 12 months trastuzumab, stratified for HR status iDFS all 5.2 years 87.7 2.5 0.73 (0.57–0.92) After first month similar for both arms 40% grade 3 diarrhoea A 44
Neratinib vs placebo ExteNET Stage 2–3 HER2+ after 12 months trastuzumab, stratified for HR status iDFSHR+ 5.2 years 86.8 4.4 0.60 (0.43–0.83) After first month similar for both arms 40% grade 3 diarrhoea A 44
Neratinib vs placebo ExteNET Stage 2–3 HER2+ after 12 months trastuzumab, stratified for HR status iDFS HR−ve 5.2 years 88.8 0.1 0.95 (0.66–1.35) After first month similar for both arms 40% grade 3 diarrhoea NEB 44
AC-PH vs AC-PHPz APHINITY HER2+, stratified for nodal status iDFS all 45.4 months 93.2 0.9 0.81 (0.66–1.00)   B 41
AC-PH vs AC-PHPz APHINITY HER2+, stratified for nodal status iDFS Node+ 44.5 months 90.2 1.8 0.77 (0.62–0.96)   Not scorable† 41
TDM1 vs H KATHERINE HER2+ residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy iDFS 3 years 77.0 11.3 0.50 (0.39–0.64)       A 45
TH±Pz NeoSphere HER2+ (phase 2) pCR     29.0% vs 45.8%     C 8
H vs LH NeoALTTO Neoadjuvant pCR 3.77 years 76.0 8.0 0.78 (0.47–1.28) 85.0 6.0 0.62 (0.3–1.25) 24.7% vs 29.5% vs 51.3%     NEB 42 43
H vs LH ALTTO Adjuvant DFS 4.5 years 86.0 2.0 0.84 (0.70–1.02) 94.0 1.0 0.80 (0.62–1.03)       NEB 85
H 6 vs 12 months PERSEPHONE HER2+ DFS (non- inferiority) 4 years 89.8 89.4 1.07 (0.93–1.24)       B 40
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

†More than three prespecified subgroups violates scoring rules.

A, doxorubicin; C, cyclophosphamide; chemo, chemotherapy; DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; H, trastuzumab; HER2+, HER2 overexpressed; HR+, hormone-positive; HR-neg, hormone-negative; iDFS, invasive disease-free survival; L, lapatinib; NEB, no evaluable benefit; OS, overall survival; P, paclitaxel; pCR, pathological complete response; Pz, pertuzumab; RFS, relapse-free survival; T, docetaxel.

In the APHINITY study, evaluating the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab, the ITT population scored grade B.41 The node-positive subgroup was not scorable since this was 1 of 12 evaluated subgroups in an exploratory analysis and was, therefore, not eligible for grading (of note, the ESMO-MCBS allows only for scoring of subgroups only if there were up to three planned subgroups in the study design).41

Based on pCR criteria, the NeoSphere study (without published OS data) was graded C8 in contrast to the Neo-ALTTO study, which had a similar pCR gain but no OS benefit.42 43

Second-generation anti-HER2 therapies

In the ExteNET study, the addition of neratinib for node-positive or locally advanced breast cancer after completion of adjuvant trastuzumab scored a grade A (table 5).44

In patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant anti-HER2-based therapy, completing 1 year of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) demonstrated large improvement in DFS compared with trastuzumab (grade A).45

Adjuvant endocrine therapy

Tamoxifen

The addition of 5 years of tamoxifen compared with placebo was graded an A based on increased long-term OS by 6% and 9% at the individual trial level and in the meta-analysis level, respectively (table 6).46 47

Table 6.

Tamoxifen

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up (years) DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Tamoxifen 5 years vs placebo NSABP B14 Node− HR+ RFS 15 65.0 13.0 0.58 (0.50–0.67) 65.0% 6.0 0.80 (0.71–0.91) A 46
Tamoxifen 5 years vs placebo (meta-analysis) EBCTCG HR+ DFS and OS 15 46.2 13.2 0.61 (0.57–0.65) Breast cancer mortality 33.1% 9.2 0.70 (0.64–0.75) A 47
Open in a new tab

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; Node−, node negative; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse-free survival.

Aromatase Inhibitors

The aromatase inhibitor studies to score an A were the Intergroup Exemestane(IES) study and the Italian Tamoxifen Anastrozole (ITA) study. The ITA study score was credited based on DFS results alone in the absence of mature OS data.48 Among the five studies with mature OS data, the data in two did not meet significance thresholds49–52 and the OS gain merited scores of B53–55 or C in the other three.56–58 Comparison aromatase inhibitor alone for 5 years with a switch regimen including tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor (2.5 years each) were credited on the basis of non-inferiority in OS and reduced toxicity compared with aromatase inhibitor alone (table 7).52 55 59 60

Table 7.

Aromatase inhibitors

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control (%) DFS gain DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
A 5 years vs Tam 5 years ATAC Postmenopausal HR+ DFS 120 months 76.0 4.30% 0.86 (0.78–0.95) 77.5% 1.0 0.95 (0.84–1.06) NEB 49–51
L vs Tam (5 years) BIG 1–98 Postmenopausal HR+ DFS 97.2 months 72.0 4.4% 0.82 (0.74–0.92) 81.4% 4.0 0.79 (0.69–0.90) B 53–55
L vs Tam→L vs L→Tam BIG 1–98 Postmenopausal HR+ DFS (Tam→L) 71 months 87.9 −1.7 1.05 (0.84–1.32) 93.4% −1.0 1.13 (0.83–1.53) B 55 59
L vs Tam→L vs L→Tam BIG 1–98 Postmenopausal HR+ DFS (L→Tam) 71 months 87.9 −0.3% 0.96 (0.76–1.21) 93.4% −0.3 0.90 (0.65–1.24) B 55 59
Tam 2–3→E 2–3 vs Tam 5 years IES Postmenopausal HR+ and unknown DFS 55.7 months – All 3.3% 0.76 (0.66–0.88) 88.0% 1.3 0.85 (0.71–1.02) B 56 57
Tam 2–3→E 2–3 vs Tam 5 years IES Postmenopausal HR+ DFS 55.7 months – HR+ 3.5% 0.75 (0.65–0.87) 87.9% 1.8 0.83 (0.69–0.99) A 56 57
Tam 2→A 3 years vs Tam 5 year ARNO-95 Tam 2→A 3 years vs Tam 5 years DFS 30.1 months 89.3 4.2% 0.66 (0.44–1.00) p=0.049 94.3% 2.6 0.53 (0.28–0.99) C 58
E vs Tam->E TEAM E 5 years vs Tam 2–3 years →E 5 years DFS 5.1 years 85.0** 1.0% 0.97 (0.88–1.08) 91.0% 0 1.00 (0.89–1.14) B 52
Tam vs Tam→A ITA Postmenopausal HR+ Node+ DFS 36 months 85.8 8.8% 0.35 (0.18–0.68)   A 48
5 years Tam vs 5 years AI (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 10 years 22.7 3.6% 0.80 (0.73–0.88) Breast cancer mortality 14.2% 2.1 0.85 (0.75–0.96) C 60
5 years Tam vs 5 years AI (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 10 years 22.7 3.6% 0.80 (0.73–0.88) Overall mortality 24% 2.7 0.89 (0.8–0.97) C 60
5 years Tam vs Tam→AI (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 10 years 19.0 2.0% 0.82 (0.75–0.91) Breast cancer mortality 10% 1.5 0.84 (0.72–0.96) C 60
5 years Tam vs Tam→AI (meta-analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 10 years 19.0 2.0% 0.82 (0.75–0.91) Overall mortality 17.5% 2.9 0.82 (0.73–0.91) C 60
Tam→AI vs upfront AI (meta- analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 7 years 14.5 0.7% 0.9 (0.81–0.99) Breast cancer mortality 9.3% 1.1 0.89 (0.78–1.03) NEB 60
Tam→AI vs upfront AI (meta- analysis) EBCTCG Postmenopausal HR+ DFS and OS 7 years 14.5 0.7% 0.9 (0.81–0.99) Overall mortality 14.5% 0.9 0.96 (0.86–1.07) NEB 60
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

A, anastrozole; AI, aromatase inhibitor; DFS, disease-free survival; E, exemestane; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; L, letrozole; NEB, no evaluable benefit; Node+, node-positive; OS, overall survival; Tam, tamoxifen.

Meta-analysis data resulted in a C score for the use of an aromatase inhibitor alone in the adjuvant setting, and a C when used a part of a switch after tamoxifen.60

In the premenopausal population, the addition of an aromatase inhibitor (with ovarian function suppression) scored a C when compared with tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression, in the combined SOFT-TEXT study,61–63 but it did not score in the ABCSG-12 study.64

Extended endocrine therapy

In the MA-17 study of 5 years letrozole or placebo after 5 years tamoxifen, the node-positive subgroup scored A based on DFS criteria.65 66 Other studies of extended aromatase inhibitor failed to demonstrate improvement in OS.67–69 The ATLAS (Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter) study of 5 years versus 10 years of adjuvant tamoxifen demonstrated a 2.8% reduction in breast cancer mortality (grade C) (table 8).70

Table 8.

Extended endocrine therapy

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* ESM0-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Letrozole 5 years vs placebo MA-17 Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen (all) DFS 30 months 89.8% 4.6 0.58 (0.45–0.76) 95.0% 0.4 0.82 (0.57–1.19) A 65 66
Letrozole 5 years vs placebo MA-17 Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen (Node+) DFS 30 months 0.61 (0.45–0.84) 0.61 (0.38–0.98) A 65 66
Letrozole 5 years vs placebo MA-17R Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen DFS 6.3 years 91.0% 4.0 0.66 (0.48–0.91) 94.0% 1.0 0.97 (0.73–1.28) NEB 67
Anastrozole for 3 years vs placebo ABCSG6a Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen RFS >5 years 7.1% 4.7 0.62 (0.40–0.96) 88.3% 1.4 0.98 (0.59–1.34) NEB 68
Exemestane vs placebo NSABP-B33 Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen DFS 30 months 89.0% 2.0 0.68 p=0.07 NEB 69
Tamoxifen ATLAS Postmenopausal HR+ after 5 years tamoxifen BC recurrence and BC mortality 7.6 years Risk of recurrence at ≥10 years 25.1% 3.7 0.75 (0.62–0.90) BC mortality 15% 2.8 0.71 (0.58–0.88) C 70
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

BC, breast cancer; DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; NEB, no evaluable benefit; Node+, node-positive; OS, overall survival; RFS, relapse free survival.

Ovarian function suppression in premenopausal women

Three studies were evaluated. Two mature studies did not demonstrate significant OS gain.61 64 71 72 In the SOFT study, a 1.8% OS advantage was observed in the tamoxifen with ovarian function suppression (OFS) arm, scoring a C, and in the subgroup of patients who had received prior chemotherapy the observed gain in OS was 4.3% (grade B) (table 9).63

Table 9.

Ovarian function suppression in premenopausal women

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up (months) DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control (%) OS gain (%) OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Exemestane+OFS vs Tam+OFS SOFT-TEXT All DFS 96 82.8 4.0 0.77 (0.67–0.90) 91.8 2.1 0.80 (0.66–0.96) C 62 86
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT All DFS Tam+OFS 96 78.9 4.3 0.76 (0.62–0.93) 91.5 1.8 0.67 (0.48–0.92) C 62 87
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT All DFS E+OFS 96 78.9 7.0% 0.65 (0.53–0.81) 91.5 0.6 0.85 (0.62–1.15) NEB 62 87
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT No chemo DFS Tam+OFS 96 87.4 3.2 0.76 (0.52–1.12) 1.6 0.74 (0.51–1.09) NEB 62 87
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT No chemo DFS E+OFS 96 87.4 5.2 0.58 (0.38–0.88) NEB 62 87
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT Past- chemo DFS Tam+OFS 96 71.4 5.3 0.76 (0.60–0.97) 85.1 4.3 0.59 (0.42–0.84) B 62 87
Tam vs Tam+OFS vs exemestane+OFS SOFT Past- chemo DFS E+OFS 96 71.4 9.0 0.82 (0.64–1.07) 85.1 2.1 0.79 (0.57–1.09) NEB 62 87
Anastrozole+OFS vs Tam+OFS ABCSG-12 Premenopausal HR+ DFS 94.4 NA – 1.08 (0.81–1.44) 96.3 −2.1 1.63 (1.05–2.52) NEB 64 71 72
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

chemo, chemotherapy; DFS, disease-free survival; E, exemestane; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; OFS, ovarian function suppression; OS, overall survival; Tam, tamoxifen.

Adjuvant bone-modifying agents

None of the six individual studies demonstrated a survival advantage. A meta-analysis identified a reduction in breast cancer mortality of 1.8% (grade C), largely derived from the benefit observed in postmenopausal subgroup where the benefit was 3.3% (grade B) (table 10).73

Table 10.

Adjuvant bone-modifying agents

Study Trial name Setting Primary outcome Median follow-up DFS control (%) DFS gain (%) DFS HR* OS control OS gain (%) OS HR* ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 Reference
Clodronate vs placebo NSABP-B34 Adjuvant clodronate DFS 90.7 months NA Nil 0.91 (0.78–1.07) NA Nil 0.84 (0.65–1.05) NEB 88
Ibandronate vs placebo GAIN HR+ Node+ DFS 38.7 months NA Nil 0.94 (0.77–1.16) NA Nil 0.96 (0.71–1.31) NEB 89
Denosumab vs placebo ABCSG-18 Postmenopausal women on AI Time-to-first clinical fracture NA NA NA NA SNA 90
Clodronate vs placebo Adjuvant clodronate Adjuvant clodronate Time-to-first bone metastases 5.6 years NA NA NA 79.3% 3.6 0.77 (0.56–1.00) NS NEB 91 92
Zoledronate vs placebo ABCSG-12 Premenopausal with OFS DFS 94.4 months 85 3.40 0.77 (0.60–0.99) 94.5% 2.2 0.66 (0.43–1.02) NEB 64 71 72
Zoledronate vs placebo AZURE/BIG01-04 DFS (all patients) 84 months NA 0.94 (0.82–1.06) NA 0.93 (0.81–1.07) NEB 93 94
Zoledronate vs placebo AZURE/BIG01-04 DFS
5 years+menopausal at diagnosis		 NA – 0.77 (0.63–0.96) NA – 0.81 (0.63–1.04) NEB 93 94
Adjuvant bisphosphonate (meta-analysis) EBCTCG With hormonal therapy DFS and OS 5.6 years All Breast cancer mortality 18.4% 1.8 0.91 (0.83–0.99) C 60
Adjuvant bisphosphonate (meta-analysis) EBCTCG With hormonal therapy DFS and OS 5.6 years All-cause mortality 22.3% 1.5 0.92 (0.85–1.00) p=0.06 NEB 60
Adjuvant bisphosphonate (meta-analysis) EBCTCG With hormonal therapy DFS and OS 5.6 years Postmenopausal Breast cancer mortality 18% 3.3 0.82 (0.73–0.93) B 60
Adjuvant bisphosphonates (meta-analysis) EBCTCG With hormonal therapy DFS and OS 5.6 woman years Premenopausal Breast cancer mortality 20.7% −0.1 NEB 60
Open in a new tab

Chart blanks—relevant variables not available in manuscript.

*HR values in parentheses refer to 95% CI.

AI, aromatase inhibitors; DFS, disease-free survival; ESMO-MCBS, The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale; HR+, hormone receptor-positive; NA, not applicable; NEB, No evaluable benefit; Node+, node-positive; NS, not statistically significant; OFS, ovarian function suppression; OS, overall survival; SNA, scoring not applicable.

Expert peer review of the generated results

The scores generated in this field testing were reviewed by the ESMO Breast Cancer Faculty for reasonableness. Apart from the scores for double HER2 blockade, the derived scores were more commonly endorsed as reasonable than unreasonable. There was no consensus about the grading for double HER2 blockade (unreasonable 32%; reasonable 29%): many respondents expounded that the scores for the APHINITY and ExteNET studies, derived from the relative benefit gain in DFS but with very small absolute benefit, were excessively high. In situations when the primary outcome of the study was DFS, and a robust DFS benefit was observed (in terms of both relative and absolute benefits) but without significant OS benefit, a proportion of reviewers expressed that a grade of NEB under represented the clinical value of prolonged interim time without disease, treatment and toxicity.

Discussion

The validity of the ESMO-MCBS is predicated on adherence to the public policy ethical standard of ‘accountability for reasonableness’ and the field testing of the scale over a large range of clinical trials is an important part of the development process. This study, applying the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 to 59 individual trials and 6 meta-analyses, has demonstrated that form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS can be applied to systemic adjuvant therapy trials. Moreover, apart from a few specific exceptions, the generated grades were considered reasonable by experts in the ESMO Breast Cancer Faculty, largely reflecting standard clinical practice.

Applying the scale and interpreting the results was, in most instances, straightforward. A small number of studies did not incorporate all critical data in accordance with CONSORT standards. In some instances HRs were published without CIs, some meta-analyses did not include absolute gain data for OS12 and some studies report the HR to reflect increased recurrence risk (eg, MA-21).19 Furthermore, even with long-term follow-up, some studies never published follow-up of their mature survival data. Since magnitude of benefit grades derived from OS gain at maturity is often less than that derived from DFS, the non-publication of mature OS results occasionally resulted in disproportionally high scores in some studies. This is well illustrated in two examples: no mature survival data were ever published for the ITA study by Boccardo et al which evaluated switching from tamoxifen to an aromatase inhibitor48 and the MA21 study that evaluated the addition of paclitaxel to an anthracycline.19 Consequently, these were among the few studies in their respective classes to score an A, while all others for which mature survival data were available scored C or NEB. We note that this anomaly could be misinterpreted to suggest superiority, or even manipulated with delays or even non-reporting of mature OS data to avoid downgrading.

We note that the ESMO-MCBS is agnostic to DFS type and does not distinguish between DFS, invasive DFS (iDFS) and distant DFS (DDFS) that is also called ‘distant metastasis-free survival’. In recent years, there has been a shift to more accurate end points such as invasive iDFS or DDFS, which are better surrogates for OS benefit,74 since they emphasise events that are more closely related to cancer mortality (ie, invasive relapse or distant metastases). This underscores the importance of new initiatives to introduce standardisation in the definitions and application of these end points.74 75

A key aim of this study was to identify shortcomings in the current version of form 1 which will be addressed in future versions of the scale. This field testing and peer-review process identified six shortcomings in form 1. All of these shortcomings have been reviewed by the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and initiatives are underway to address each of them as part of the forthcoming revisions to be incorporated in the next version of the scale (V.2.0).

1. HR thresholds for DFS are excessively lenient: The experience of this field testing indicates that trials initially graded on the basis of DFS in initial publications, commonly attained lower scores when mature OS data were available and that in many cases the OS gains were not significant. This indicates that the relative benefit thresholds for grade B and C (lower limit of the 95% CI of the HR 0.65–0.85 and >0.85, respectively) are excessively lenient. Consequently, we recommend lowering of the HR thresholds for grades B and C.

2. Lack of absolute gain constraint on DFS scoring can generate inappropriately high scores when absolute gain is very small: Expert peer reviewers concerned that grades accrued on the basis of relative benefit when the observed absolute benefit is very small were unreasonably high. This was highlighted in their critique of scores generated in the APHINITY41 and ExteNET44 trials. This could be corrected by applying the ‘dual rule’ whereby grade criteria include both relative and absolute benefit thresholds in a manner that is constant with all other forms of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1.

3. The clinical benefit derived from DFS gain is not credited when OS gain is not verified. In many instances, gains derived from DFS were not credited when there was no significant gain in mature OS. When substantially improved DFS does not result in improved OS, the grading of NEB undervalued the time gained without need for medical treatment, which may itself be a valued outcome independent of OS.76

4. Need to define OS maturity in adjuvant studies: According to the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1, surrogate scores prevail if mature OS data are not yet available. Maturity is generally defined as the time point where most of the anticipated events will have occurred. In a non-curative setting, when all patients are expected to die, conventionally it is when the median survival of both arms is reached. However, in the adjuvant setting, when the number of anticipated events may vary according to the tumour type and stage, this convention does not apply.

Consequently, evaluating maturity of survival data in this setting requires familiarity with the specific clinical scenario and it is conceivable that in some instances this may be source of reasonable disagreement even between experts. ESMO-MCBS instructions for use should include guidelines for OS maturity. For example, 5 years for subtypes at high risk for earlier recurrence (such as triple negative and HER2-positive/endocrine unresponsive subtypes) and at least 8 years for endocrine responsive tumours (including HER2-positive/endocrine-responsive).77

5. Lack of capacity to grade single-arm de-escalation studies in the curative setting: A recent single-arm phase 2 study reported excellent outcomes for node-negative HER2-positive breast cancers smaller than 2 cm treated with the combination of paclitaxel and trastuzumab (without an anthracycline).78 These type of studies are often used to evaluate de-escalation strategies. Form 1 is unable to grade these studies.

6. Lack of consideration of toxicity in the curative setting: The current version of form 1 does not consider toxicity. The shortcoming of this approach is illustrated by the ExteNET study that scores an ‘A’ for the hormone-positive subgroup despite very substantial toxicity secondary to the neratinib, which resulted in a 27.6% discontinuation rate.44 While we appreciate that patients may be willing to make short-term toxicity trade-off to improve cure rate, it is not clear that this approach applies also for long-term toxicity such as peripheral neuropathy or secondary cancers (especially when improvement in cure rate may be small). We support the proposition, initially made by patient advocacy groups, that ESMO-MCBS scores in form 1 should be annotated to indicate acute and/or long-term toxicities.

Conclusions

In a time of exponential growth in the costs of cancer care, tools to assist physicians and regulatory bodies in evaluating new therapeutic options are critical. This study reinforces the validity of the ESMO-MCBS approach to adjuvant therapies insofar as the scoring of adjuvant approaches in early breast cancer largely reflects standard clinical practice. This field testing has identified six shortcomings that have been reviewed by the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and that form the foundation for amendments to be incorporated into future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank and acknowledge our oncology colleagues listed who participated in the field testing for ‘reasonableness’ of scorings using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS and who have agreed to place their names in this publication (online supplementary appendix 1). We also thank those who wished to remain anonymous.

Footnotes

Contributors: Conception of the work: all authors. Funding acquisition: not applicable. Data collection and data analysis: all authors. Manuscript writing/editing: all authors. Final approval: all authors.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: SP-S reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, NanoString; EGEdV reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, Sanofi, Synthon and institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Synthon; MJP reports scientific board member for Oncolytics, consultant honoraria from AstraZeneca, Camel-IDS, Crescendo Biologics, Debiopharm, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Huya, Immunomedics, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Odonate, Periphagen, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, research grants to institute AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Roche-Genentech, Servier, Synthon; FC reports institutional financial support for her advisory role from Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Teva.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement: All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. All data freely available.

References

  • 1.Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1374–403. 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ferlay J, et al. GLOBOCAN 2008 v1.2, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2015. Lancet 2016;388:1659–724. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31679-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:117–28. 10.1093/jnci/djq495 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for medical oncology magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS). Annals of Oncology 2015;26:1547–73. 10.1093/annonc/mdv249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. American Society of clinical oncology statement: a conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2563–77. 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cherny NI, Dafni U, Bogaerts J, et al. ESMO-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1. Annals of Oncology 2017;28:2340–66. 10.1093/annonc/mdx310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im Y-H, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:25–32. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1674. 10.1093/annonc/mdz189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Telli ML, Gradishar WJ, Ward JH. NCCN guidelines updates: breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:552–5. 10.6004/jnccn.2019.5006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant bevacizumab in early breast cancer (NSABP B-40 [NRG Oncology]): secondary outcomes of a phase 3, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:1037–48. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00041-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bonilla L, Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L, et al. Dose-Dense chemotherapy in nonmetastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1845–54. 10.1093/jnci/djq409 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Palmieri C, Jones A. The 2011 EBCTCG polychemotherapy overview. Lancet 2012;379:390–2. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61823-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hutchins LF, Green SJ, Ravdin PM, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil versus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil with and without tamoxifen for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer: treatment results of intergroup protocol INT-0102. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8313–21. 10.1200/JCO.2005.08.071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Levine MN, Pritchard KI, Bramwell VHC, et al. Randomized trial comparing cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer: update of national cancer Institute of Canada clinical Trials Group trial MA5. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5166–70. 10.1200/JCO.2005.09.423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Martín M, Seguí MA, Antón A, et al. Adjuvant docetaxel for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2200–10. 10.1056/NEJMoa0910320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martín M, Rodríguez-Lescure A, Ruiz A, et al. Randomized phase 3 trial of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide alone or followed by paclitaxel for early breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:805–14. 10.1093/jnci/djn151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B, et al. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3686–96. 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Burnell M, Levine MN, Chapman J-AW, et al. Cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil versus dose-dense epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel in node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:77–82. 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.1077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jones SE, Savin MA, Holmes FA, et al. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5381–7. 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5391 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jones S, Holmes FA, O'Shaughnessy J, et al. Docetaxel with cyclophosphamide is associated with an overall survival benefit compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: 7-year follow-up of US oncology research trial 9735. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1177–83. 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.4028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Blum JL, Flynn PJ, Yothers G, et al. Anthracyclines in early breast cancer: the ABC Trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG oncology). J Clin Oncol 2017;35:2647–55. 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of intergroup trial C9741/Cancer and leukemia group B trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:1431–9. 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.081 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck H-J, et al. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an ago phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:2874–80. 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P, et al. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2015;385:1863–72. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62048-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rea G. Abstract GS1-01: increasing the dose density of adjuvant chemotherapy by shortening intervals between courses or by sequential drug administration significantly reduces both disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality: an EBCTCG meta-analysis of 21,000 women in 16 randomised trials, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Coinu A, et al. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015;151:251–9. 10.1007/s10549-015-3405-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Masuda N, Lee S-J, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2147–59. 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S, et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:747–56. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70160-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Loibl S, O'Shaughnessy J, Untch M, et al. Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (brightness): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:497–509. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30111-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM, et al. Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol 2015;33:13–21. 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.0572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P, et al. Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:310–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1111097 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A, et al. Nab-Paclitaxel versus solvent-based paclitaxel in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (GeparSepto-GBG 69): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:345–56. 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00542-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cameron D, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Gelber RD, et al. 11 years' follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive early breast cancer: final analysis of the Herceptin adjuvant (HERA) trial. Lancet 2017;389:1195–205. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32616-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3744–52. 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.5730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1273–83. 10.1056/NEJMoa0910383 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pivot X, Romieu G, Debled M, et al. 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHARE): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:741–8. 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70225-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Joensuu H, Fraser J, Wildiers H, et al. Effect of adjuvant trastuzumab for a duration of 9 weeks vs 1 year with concomitant chemotherapy for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: the sold randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:1199–206. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Conte P, Frassoldati A, Bisagni G, et al. Nine weeks versus 1 year adjuvant trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy: final results of the phase III randomized Short-HER study. Annals of Oncology 2018;29:2328–33. 10.1093/annonc/mdy414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Earl HM, Hiller L, Vallier A-L, et al. 6 versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (Persephone): 4-year disease-free survival results of a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2019;393:2599–612. 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30650-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.von Minckwitz G, Procter M, de Azambuja E, et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2017;377:122–31. 10.1056/NEJMoa1703643 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;379:633–40. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61847-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.de Azambuja E, Holmes AP, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): survival outcomes of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial and their association with pathological complete response. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:1137–46. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70320-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martin M, Holmes FA, Ejlertsen B, et al. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1688–700. 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30717-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.von Minckwitz G, Huang C-S, Mano MS, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:617–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fisher B, Jeong J-H, Anderson S, et al. Treatment of axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: updated findings from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1823–31. 10.1093/jnci/djh338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Chia SK, Wolff AC. With maturity comes confidence: EBCTCG tamoxifen update. Lancet 2011;378:747–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61128-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Puntoni M, et al. Switching to anastrozole versus continued tamoxifen treatment of early breast cancer: preliminary results of the Italian tamoxifen anastrozole trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5138–47. 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baum M, Buzdar A, Cuzick J, et al. Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: results of the ATAC (Arimidex, tamoxifen alone or in combination) trial efficacy and safety update analyses. Cancer 2003;98:1802–10. 10.1002/cncr.11745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50., Forbes JF, Cuzick J, et al. , Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists' Group . Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:45–53. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70385-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cuzick J, Sestak I, Baum M, et al. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 10-year analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1135–41. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70257-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.van de Velde CJH, Rea D, Seynaeve C, et al. Adjuvant tamoxifen and exemestane in early breast cancer (team): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet 2011;377:321–31. 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62312-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53., Thürlimann B, Keshaviah A, et al. , Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 Collaborative Group . A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2747–57. 10.1056/NEJMoa052258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Coates AS, Keshaviah A, Thürlimann B, et al. Five years of letrozole compared with tamoxifen as initial adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: update of study big 1-98. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:486–92. 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Regan MM, Neven P, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the big 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:1101–8. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70270-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ, et al. A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1081–92. 10.1056/NEJMoa040331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Coombes RC, Kilburn LS, Snowdon CF, et al. Survival and safety of exemestane versus tamoxifen after 2-3 years' tamoxifen treatment (intergroup Exemestane study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:559–70. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60200-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kaufmann M, Jonat W, Hilfrich J, et al. Improved overall survival in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer after anastrozole initiated after treatment with tamoxifen compared with continued tamoxifen: the ARNO 95 study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2664–70. 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.8054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59., Mouridsen H, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. , BIG 1-98 Collaborative Group . Letrozole therapy alone or in sequence with tamoxifen in women with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;361:766–76. 10.1056/NEJMoa0810818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials. Lancet 2015;386:1341–52. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61074-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Pagani O, Regan MM, Francis PA, et al. Exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;371:107–18. 10.1056/NEJMoa1404037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF, et al. Tailoring adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;379:122–37. 10.1056/NEJMoa1803164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1673:436–46. 10.1056/NEJMoa1412379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H, et al. Zoledronic acid combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy of tamoxifen versus anastrozol plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal early breast cancer: final analysis of the Austrian breast and colorectal cancer Study Group trial 12. Ann Oncol 2015;26:313–20. 10.1093/annonc/mdu544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, et al. A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1793–802. 10.1056/NEJMoa032312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, et al. Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA.17. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1262–71. 10.1093/jnci/dji250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Goss PE, Ingle JN, Pritchard KI, et al. Extending Aromatase-Inhibitor adjuvant therapy to 10 years. N Engl J Med 2016;375:209–19. 10.1056/NEJMoa1604700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Jakesz R, Greil R, Gnant M, et al. Extended adjuvant therapy with anastrozole among postmenopausal breast cancer patients: results from the randomized Austrian breast and colorectal cancer Study Group trial 6A. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1845–53. 10.1093/jnci/djm246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Mamounas EP, Jeong J-H, Wickerham DL, et al. Benefit from exemestane as extended adjuvant therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen: intention-to-treat analysis of the National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-33 trial. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1965–71. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.0228 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, et al. Long-Term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: atlas, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013;381:805–16. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 5-year follow-up of the ABCSG-12 bone-mineral density substudy. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:840–9. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70204-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, et al. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:679–91. 10.1056/NEJMoa0806285 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Coleman R, Powles T, Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet 2015;386:1353–61. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hudis CA, Barlow WE, Costantino JP, et al. Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the steep system. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2127–32. 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Gourgou-Bourgade S, Cameron D, Poortmans P, et al. Guidelines for time-to-event end point definitions in breast cancer trials: results of the DATECAN initiative (definition for the assessment of Time-to-event endpoints in cancer trials). Annals of Oncology 2015;26:2505–6. 10.1093/annonc/mdv478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Robinson AG, Booth CM, Eisenhauer EA. Disease-Free survival as an end-point in the treatment of solid tumours – perspectives from clinical trials and clinical practice. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:2298–302. 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Pan H, Gray R, Braybrooke J, et al. 20-Year risks of breast-cancer recurrence after stopping endocrine therapy at 5 years. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1836–46. 10.1056/NEJMoa1701830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Dang CT, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:134–41. 10.1056/NEJMoa1406281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1663–71. 10.1056/NEJMoa0707056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S, et al. Long-Term follow-up of the E1199 phase III trial evaluating the role of taxane and schedule in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2353–60. 10.1200/JCO.2015.60.9271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J, et al. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3877–84. 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE, et al. Definitive results of a phase III adjuvant trial comparing three chemotherapy regimens in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer: the NSABP B-38 trial. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3197–204. 10.1200/JCO.2012.48.1275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.von Minckwitz G, Loibl S, Untch M, et al. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or everolimus for HER2-negative primary breast cancer (GBG 44-GeparQuinto)†. Ann Oncol 2014;25:2363–72. 10.1093/annonc/mdu455 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.O'Sullivan CC, Bradbury I, Campbell C, et al. Efficacy of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer and tumors ≤ 2 cm: a meta-analysis of the randomized trastuzumab trials. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2600–8. 10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Piccart-Gebhart M, Holmes E, Baselga J, et al. Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization trial. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:1034–42. 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.1797 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA, et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;371:107–18. 10.1056/NEJMoa1404037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF, et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015;372:436–46. 10.1056/NEJMoa1412379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Paterson AHG, Anderson SJ, Lembersky BC, et al. Oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer (national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocol B-34): a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:734–42. 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70226-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.von Minckwitz G, Möbus V, Schneeweiss A, et al. German adjuvant intergroup node-positive study: a phase III trial to compare oral ibandronate versus observation in patients with high-risk early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3531–9. 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.2167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Gnant M, Pfeiler G, Dubsky PC, et al. Adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer (ABCSG-18): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2015;386:433–43. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60995-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Powles T, Paterson S, Kanis JA, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of clodronate in patients with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3219–24. 10.1200/JCO.2002.11.080 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Powles T, Paterson A, McCloskey E, et al. Reduction in bone relapse and improved survival with oral clodronate for adjuvant treatment of operable breast cancer [ISRCTN83688026]. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R13. 10.1186/bcr1384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Coleman RE, Marshall H, Cameron D, et al. Breast-Cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1396–405. 10.1056/NEJMoa1105195 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Coleman R, Cameron D, Dodwell D, et al. Adjuvant zoledronic acid in patients with early breast cancer: final efficacy analysis of the azure (big 01/04) randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:997–1006. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70302-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data

esmoopen-2020-000743supp001.pdf (171.7KB, pdf)

RESOURCES