Effect of Metformin Versus Placebo on New Primary Cancers in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.32: A Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Randomized Double-Blind Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Metformin has been associated with lower cancer risk in epidemiologic and preclinical research. In the MA.32 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial, metformin (v placebo) did not affect invasive disease-free or overall survival. Here, we report metformin effects on the risk of new cancer. Between 2010 and 2013, 3,649 patients with breast cancer younger than 75 years without diabetes with high-risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 breast cancer (any estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) were randomly assigned to metformin 850 mg orally twice a day or placebo twice a day for 5 years. New primary invasive cancers (outside the ipsilateral breast) developing as a first event were identified. Time to events was described by the competing risks method; two-sided likelihood ratio tests adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol intake were used to compare metformin versus placebo arms. A total of 184 patients developed new invasive cancers: 102 metformin and 82 placebo, hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.68; P = .13. These included 48 contralateral invasive breast cancers (27 metformin v 21 placebo), HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.27; P = .40 and 136 new nonbreast primary cancers (75 metformin v 61 placebo), HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.74; P = .21. Metformin did not reduce the risk of new cancer development in these nondiabetic patients with breast cancer.

Effect of Metformin vs Placebo on Invasive Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Breast Cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Metformin, a biguanide commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes, has been associated with potential beneficial effects across breast cancer subtypes in observational and preclinical studies. Objective: To determine whether the administration of adjuvant metformin (vs placebo) to patients with breast cancer without diabetes improves outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: MA.32, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, conducted in Canada, Switzerland, US, and UK, enrolled 3649 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving standard therapy between August 2010 and March 2013, with follow-up to October 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor [estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor {ER/PgR}] status, positive vs negative; body mass index, ≤30 vs >30; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu], positive vs negative; and any vs no chemotherapy) to 850 mg of oral metformin twice a day (n = 1824) or oral placebo twice a day (n = 1825) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of the 8 secondary outcomes, overall survival, distant relapse-free survival, and breast cancer-free interval were analyzed. Results: Of the 3649 randomized patients (mean age, 52.4 years; 3643 women [99.8%]), all (100%) were included in analyses. After a second interim analysis, futility was declared for patients who were ER/PgR-, so the primary analysis was conducted for 2533 patients who were ER/PgR+. The median duration of follow-up in the ER/PgR+ group was 96.2 months (range, 0.2-121 months). Invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 465 patients who were ER/PgR+. The incidence rates for invasive disease-free survival events were 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; P = .93), and the incidence rates for death were 1.46 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 1.32 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41; P = .47). Among patients who were ER/PgR-, followed up for a median of 94.1 months, incidence of invasive disease-free survival events was 3.58 vs 3.60 per 100 patient-years, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P = .92). None of the 3 secondary outcomes analyzed in the ER/PgR+ group had statistically significant differences. Grade 3 nonhematological toxic events occurred more frequently in patients taking metformin than in patients taking placebo (21.5% vs 17.5%, respectively, P = .003). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the metformin vs placebo groups were hypertension (2.4% vs 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs 7.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with high-risk operable breast cancer without diabetes, the addition of metformin vs placebo to standard breast cancer treatment did not significantly improve invasive disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01101438.

Cancer Antigen 15-3/Mucin 1 Levels in CCTG MA.32: A Breast Cancer Randomized Trial of Metformin vs Placebo.

Background: Circulating levels of cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, a tumor marker and regulator of cellular metabolism, were reduced by metformin in a nonrandomized neoadjuvant study. We examined the effects of metformin (vs placebo) on CA 15-3 in participants of MA.32, a phase III randomized trial in early-stage breast cancer. Methods: A total of 3649 patients with T1-3, N0-3, M0 breast cancer were randomly assigned; pretreatment and 6-month on-treatment fasting plasma were centrally assayed for CA 15-3. Genomic DNA was analyzed for the rs11212617 single nucleotide polymorphism. Absolute and relative change of CA 15-3 (metformin vs placebo) were compared using Wilcoxon rank and t tests. Regression models adjusted for baseline differences and assessed key interactions. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Mean (SD) age was 52.4 (10.0) years. The majority of patients had T2/3, node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Mean (SD) baseline CA 15-3 was 17.7 (7.6) and 18.0 (8.1 U/mL). At 6 months, CA 15-3 was statistically significantly reduced in metformin vs placebo arms (absolute geometric mean reduction in CA 15-3 = 7.7% vs 2.0%, P < .001; relative metformin: placebo level of CA 15-3 [adjusted for age, baseline body mass index, and baseline CA 15-3] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval = 0.92 to 0.96). This reduction was independent of tumor characteristics, perioperative systemic therapy, baseline body mass index, insulin, and the single nucleotide polymorphism status (all Ps > .11). Conclusions: Our observation that metformin reduces CA 15-3 by approximately 6% was corroborated in a large placebo-controlled randomized trial. The clinical implications of this reduction in CA 15-3 will be explored in upcoming efficacy analyses of breast cancer outcomes in MA.32.

Effect of metformin versus placebo on metabolic factors in the MA.32 randomized breast cancer trial.

Metformin may exert anticancer effects through indirect (mediated by metabolic changes) or direct mechanisms. The goal was to examine metformin impact on metabolic factors in non-diabetic subjects and determine whether this impact varies by baseline BMI, insulin, and rs11212617 SNP in CCTG MA.32, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized adjuvant breast cancer (BC) trial. 3649 subjects with T1-3, N0-3, M0 BC were randomized; pretreatment and 6-month on-treatment fasting plasma was centrally assayed for insulin, leptin, highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP). Glucose was measured locally and homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) calculated. Genomic DNA was analyzed for the rs11212617 SNP. Absolute and relative change of metabolic factors (metformin versus placebo) were compared using Wilcoxon rank and t-tests. Regression models were adjusted for baseline differences and assessed interactions with baseline BMI, insulin, and the SNP. Mean age was 52 years. The majority had T2/3, node positive, hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative BC treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Median baseline body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 kg/m2 (metformin) and 27.3 kg/m2 (placebo). Median weight change was -1.4 kg (metformin) vs +0.5 kg (placebo). Significant improvements were seen in all metabolic factors, with 6 month standardized ratios (metformin/placebo) of 0.85 (insulin), 0.83 (HOMA), 0.80 (leptin), and 0.84 (hsCRP), with no qualitative interactions with baseline BMI or insulin. Changes did not differ by rs11212617 allele. Metformin (vs placebo) led to significant improvements in weight and metabolic factors; these changes did not differ by rs11212617 allele status.

Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer (PANACEA): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: HER2-positive breast cancers usually contain large amounts of T-cell infiltrate. We hypothesised that trastuzumab resistance in HER2-positive breast cancer could be mediated by immune mechanisms. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor, added to trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We did this single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b-2 trial in 11 centres based in five countries. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older, who had advanced, histologically confirmed, HER2-positive breast cancer; documented progression during previous trastuzumab-based therapy; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded metastatic tumour biopsy for central assessment of programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. In phase 1b, we enrolled patients with PD-L1-positive tumours in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation of intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 1b study was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity and recommended phase 2 dose; however, a protocol amendment on Aug 28, 2015, stipulated a flat dose of pembrolizumab of 200 mg every 3 weeks in all Merck-sponsored trials. In phase 2, patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumours were enrolled in parallel cohorts and received the flat dose of pembrolizumab plus standard trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study was the proportion of PD-L1-positive patients achieving an objective response. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02129556, and with EudraCT, number 2013-004770-10, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2015, and April 5, 2017, six patients were enrolled in phase 1b (n=3 received 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab, n=3 received 10 mg/kg pembrolizumab) and 52 patients in phase 2 (n=40 had PD-L1-positive tumours, n=12 had PD-L1-negative tumours). The data cutoff for this analysis was Aug 7, 2017. During phase 1b, there were no dose-limiting toxicities in the dose cohorts tested. Median follow-up for the phase 2 cohort was 13·6 months (IQR 11·6-18·4) for patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, and 12·2 months (7·9-12·2) for patients with PD-L1-negative tumours. Six (15%, 90% CI 7-29) of 40 PD-L1-positive patients achieved an objective response. There were no objective responders among the PD-L1-negative patients. The most common treatment-related adverse event of any grade was fatigue (12 [21%] of 58 patients). Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) of patients, treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 17 (29%), and serious adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) patients. The most commonly occurring serious adverse events were dyspnoea (n=3 [5%]), pneumonitis (n=3 [5%]), pericardial effusion (n=2 [3%]), and upper respiratory infection (n=2 [3%]). There was one treatment-related death due to Lambert-Eaton syndrome in a PD-L1-negative patient during phase 2. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab was safe and showed activity and durable clinical benefit in patients with PD-L1-positive, trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer. Further studies in this breast cancer subtype should focus on a PD-L1-positive population and be done in less heavily pretreated patients. FUNDING: Merck, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Neoadjuvant Degarelix Versus Triptorelin in Premenopausal Patients Who Receive Letrozole for Locally Advanced Endocrine-Responsive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate endocrine activity in terms of ovarian function suppression (OFS) of degarelix (a gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist) versus triptorelin (a GnRH agonist) in premenopausal patients receiving letrozole as neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Premenopausal women with stage cT2 to 4b, any N, M0; estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor greater than 50%; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to triptorelin 3.75 mg administered intramuscularly on day 1 of every cycle or degarelix 240 mg administered subcutaneously (SC) on day 1 of cycle 1 then 80 mg SC on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, both with letrozole 2.5 mg/day for six 28-day cycles. Surgery was performed 2 to 3 weeks after the last injection. Serum was collected at baseline, after 24 and 72 hours, at 7 and 14 days, and then before injections on cycles 2 through 6. The primary end point was time to optimal OFS (time from the first injection to first assessment of centrally assessed estradiol level ≤ 2.72 pg/mL [≤ 10 pmol/L] during neoadjuvant therapy). The trial had 90% power to detect a difference using a log-rank test with a two-sided α of .05. Secondary end points included response, tolerability, and patient-reported endocrine symptoms. RESULTS: Between February 2014 and January 2017, 51 patients were enrolled (n = 26 received triptorelin plus letrozole; n = 25 received degarelix plus letrozole). Time to optimal OFS was three times faster for patients assigned to degarelix and letrozole than to triptorelin and letrozole (median, 3 v 14 days; hazard ratio, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.65 to 5.65; P < .001). Furthermore, OFS was maintained during subsequent cycles for all patients assigned to receive degarelix and letrozole, whereas 15.4% of patients assigned to receive triptorelin and letrozole had suboptimal OFS after cycle 1 (six events during 127 measurements). Adverse events as a result of both degarelix plus letrozole and triptorelin plus letrozole were as expected. CONCLUSION: In premenopausal women receiving letrozole for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, OFS was achieved more quickly and maintained more effectively with degarelix than with triptorelin.

Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials. METHODS: Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group. CONCLUSIONS: Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).

Extended adjuvant intermittent letrozole versus continuous letrozole in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (SOLE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women. METHODS: We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1-4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53-72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2-87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0-88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93-1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3-5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3-5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3-5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group). INTERPRETATION: In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them. FUNDING: Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Suppression of ovarian estrogen production reduces the recurrence of hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in premenopausal women, but its value when added to tamoxifen is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3066 premenopausal women, stratified according to prior receipt or nonreceipt of chemotherapy, to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression. The primary analysis tested the hypothesis that tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression would improve disease-free survival, as compared with tamoxifen alone. In the primary analysis, 46.7% of the patients had not received chemotherapy previously, and 53.3% had received chemotherapy and remained premenopausal. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 67 months, the estimated disease-free survival rate at 5 years was 86.6% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 84.7% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.04; P=0.10). Multivariable allowance for prognostic factors suggested a greater treatment effect with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression than with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98). Most recurrences occurred in patients who had received prior chemotherapy, among whom the rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 82.5% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 78.0% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.02). At 5 years, the rate of freedom from breast cancer was 85.7% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence vs. tamoxifen, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not provide a significant benefit in the overall study population. However, for women who were at sufficient risk for recurrence to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy and who remained premenopausal, the addition of ovarian suppression improved disease outcomes. Further improvement was seen with the use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00066690.).

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS: In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).