An oral SERD did not beat the aromatase inhibitor in first-line treatment when both were combined with palbociclib. Oral SERDs earn their place after resistance, not before it.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (investigator)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 33.1 vs 28.2 months with Giredestrant + palbociclib compared with Letrozole + palbociclib; about 4.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: giredestrant + palbociclib vs letrozole + palbociclib. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
In evERA, pairing an oral SERD with everolimus after CDK4/6 failure delayed progression by more than three months, and by four and a half months in ESR1-mutant tumours.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (ITT)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 8.8 vs 5.5 months with Giredestrant + everolimus compared with Standard ET + everolimus; about 3.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 44 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.56, likely range 0.44 to 0.71).
Progression-free survival (ESR1-mutant)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 10 vs 5.5 months with Giredestrant + everolimus compared with Standard ET + everolimus; about 4.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 62 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.38, likely range 0.27 to 0.54).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after CDK4/6 inhibitor: giredestrant + everolimus vs standard endocrine therapy + everolimus. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first oral SERD to reduce recurrence after surgery, by about 30%, compared with today's hormone pills.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive disease-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- The treated group had about 30 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.7).
- The absolute difference, how many more people out of 100 were helped, is not reported here.
- 30% reduction in iDFS events vs standard ET
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adjuvant ER+/HER2- early breast cancer (medium-high risk): giredestrant vs standard endocrine therapy for 5 years. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first trial to change treatment because of a blood test rather than a scan: switching to camizestrant when an ESR1 mutation appeared in the blood delayed progression by seven months.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 16 vs 9.2 months with Switch to camizestrant + CDK4/6 compared with Continue AI + CDK4/6; about 6.8 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 56 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.44, likely range 0.31 to 0.6).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer on AI + CDK4/6 with an ESR1 mutation detected in ctDNA before radiographic progression: switch to camizestrant + CDK4/6 vs continue AI + CDK4/6. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The trial that got the first PROTAC approved, with benefit only in tumours with ESR1 mutations.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival, ESR1-mutant (BICR)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 5 vs 2.1 months with Vepdegestrant compared with Fulvestrant; about 2.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 43 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.57, likely range 0.42 to 0.77).
Progression-free survival, ITTprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 3.7 vs 3.6 months with Vepdegestrant compared with Fulvestrant; about 0.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 17 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.83, likely range 0.68 to 1.02).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Not significant.
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after CDK4/6 and endocrine therapy: vepdegestrant vs fulvestrant. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Moved Enhertu ahead of chemotherapy in hormone-positive breast cancer and extended it to 'ultralow' HER2.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival, HER2-low (BICR)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 13.2 vs 8.1 months with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); about 5.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 38 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.62, likely range 0.51 to 0.74).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Progression-free survival, ITT (HER2-low + ultralow)surrogate endpoint
- Median 13.2 vs 8.1 months with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); about 5.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 37 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.63, likely range 0.53 to 0.75).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Objective response rate, HER2-lowresponse endpoint
- 56.5 vs 32.2 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); 24.3 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 4 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+ HER2-low/ultralow breast cancer after endocrine therapy, chemotherapy-naive: T-DXd vs chemotherapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
An oral SERD that works alone in ESR1-mutant tumours and, combined with abemaciclib, doubles progression-free time in everyone regardless of mutation.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival, ESR1-mutant (imlunestrant vs standard ET)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 5.5 vs 3.8 months with Imlunestrant compared with Standard endocrine therapy; about 1.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 38 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.62, likely range 0.46 to 0.82).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Progression-free survival (imlunestrant + abemaciclib vs imlunestrant)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 10.9 vs 5.5 months with Imlunestrant + abemaciclib compared with Imlunestrant; about 5.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 41 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.59, likely range 0.46 to 0.75).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survival, ESR1-mutant (imlunestrant vs standard ET), updatedsurvival endpoint
- Median 34.5 vs 23.1 months with Imlunestrant compared with Standard endocrine therapy; about 11.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after ≥1 endocrine line: imlunestrant vs standard endocrine therapy, and imlunestrant + abemaciclib vs imlunestrant. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Continuing CDK4/6 blockade with a different drug after the first one fails gives a small but real benefit.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 6 vs 5.3 months with Abemaciclib + fulvestrant compared with Placebo + fulvestrant; about 0.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 27 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.73, likely range 0.57 to 0.95).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 + endocrine therapy: abemaciclib + fulvestrant vs placebo + fulvestrant. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
A triple combination that doubled progression-free time and, unusually for this disease, extended survival by seven months in a hard-to-treat group.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 15 vs 7.3 months with Inavolisib + palbociclib + fulvestrant compared with Placebo + palbociclib + fulvestrant; about 7.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 57 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.43, likely range 0.32 to 0.59).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalsurvival endpoint
- Median 34 vs 27 months with Inavolisib arm compared with Placebo arm; about 7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 33 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.67, likely range 0.48 to 0.94).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Objective response rateresponse endpoint
- 62.7 vs 28 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with Inavolisib arm compared with Placebo arm; 34.7 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 3 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line PIK3CA-mutant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer relapsing on/after adjuvant endocrine therapy: inavolisib + palbociclib + fulvestrant vs placebo + palbociclib + fulvestrant. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (PIK3CA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Extended CDK4/6 inhibitors to a broad group of early hormone-positive breast cancer patients, including node-negative.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive disease-free survival at 3 yearsprimarysurrogate endpoint
- 90.4 vs 87.1 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 3 years with Ribociclib + NSAI compared with NSAI alone; 3.3 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 30 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 25 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.75, likely range 0.62 to 0.91).
Invasive disease-free survival at 4 yearssurrogate endpoint
- 88.5 vs 83.6 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 4 years with Ribociclib + NSAI compared with NSAI alone; 4.9 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 20 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 29 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.715, likely range 0.609 to 0.84).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adjuvant ribociclib 3 years + endocrine therapy in stage II-III HR+/HER2- breast cancer. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The trial that got Datroway approved in hormone-positive breast cancer, though it did not extend overall survival.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (BICR)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 6.9 vs 4.9 months with Datopotamab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (ICC); about 2 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 37 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.63, likely range 0.52 to 0.76).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalprimarysurvival endpoint
- Median 18.6 vs 18.3 months with Datopotamab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (ICC); about 0.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 1 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.01, likely range 0.83 to 1.22).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
- Not significant.
Objective response rateresponse endpoint
- 36.4 vs 22.9 out of 100 had their tumour shrink with Datopotamab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (ICC); 13.5 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 7 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- A response rate counts how many people had their tumours shrink by a set amount; shrinking is encouraging but does not by itself show that people live longer or feel better.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer after endocrine and 1-2 chemotherapies: Dato-DXd vs chemotherapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Adding the AKT inhibitor capivasertib to fulvestrant doubled progression-free time, especially in tumours with PI3K-pathway mutations.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (overall)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 7.2 vs 3.6 months with Capivasertib + fulvestrant compared with Placebo + fulvestrant; about 3.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6, likely range 0.51 to 0.71).
Progression-free survival (AKT-pathway-altered)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 7.3 vs 3.1 months with Capivasertib + fulvestrant compared with Placebo + fulvestrant; about 4.2 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 50 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.5, likely range 0.38 to 0.65).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after aromatase inhibitor (± CDK4/6): capivasertib + fulvestrant vs placebo + fulvestrant. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Created a new category of breast cancer, HER2-low, by showing Enhertu works in tumours previously called HER2-negative.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival, HR+ cohort (BICR)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 10.1 vs 5.4 months with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); about 4.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 49 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.51, likely range 0.4 to 0.64).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survival, all patientssurvival endpoint
- Median 23.4 vs 16.8 months with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); about 6.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 36 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.64, likely range 0.49 to 0.84).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Progression-free survival, HR-negative (TNBC) cohortsurrogate endpoint
- Median 8.5 vs 2.9 months with Trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with Chemotherapy (TPC); about 5.6 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 54 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.46, likely range 0.24 to 0.89).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- Exploratory cohort.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HER2-low metastatic breast cancer after chemotherapy: T-DXd vs chemotherapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The TROP2 ADC extended survival by about three months in heavily pretreated hormone-positive breast cancer.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 5.5 vs 4 months with Sacituzumab govitecan compared with Chemotherapy; about 1.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 34 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.66, likely range 0.53 to 0.83).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalsurvival endpoint
- Median 14.4 vs 11.2 months with Sacituzumab govitecan compared with Chemotherapy; about 3.2 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 21 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.79, likely range 0.65 to 0.96).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer after endocrine therapy, CDK4/6, and 2-4 chemotherapies: sacituzumab govitecan vs chemotherapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first oral oestrogen-receptor degrader to beat standard hormone therapy, with the benefit concentrated in tumours carrying ESR1 mutations.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (ESR1-mutant)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 3.8 vs 1.9 months with Elacestrant compared with Standard endocrine therapy; about 1.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 45 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.55, likely range 0.39 to 0.77).
Progression-free survival (all patients)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 2.8 vs 1.9 months with Elacestrant compared with Standard endocrine therapy; about 0.9 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 30 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.7, likely range 0.55 to 0.88).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after 1-2 endocrine lines including a CDK4/6 inhibitor: elacestrant vs standard endocrine therapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Showed that a year of a PARP inhibitor after standard treatment improves survival in women with inherited BRCA mutations.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive disease-free survival at 3 yearsprimarysurrogate endpoint
- 85.9 vs 77.1 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 3 years with Olaparib compared with Placebo; 8.8 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 11 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 42 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.58, likely range 0.41 to 0.82).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survival at 4 yearssurvival endpoint
- 89.8 vs 86.4 out of 100 alive at 4 years with Olaparib compared with Placebo; 3.4 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 29 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 32 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.68, likely range 0.47 to 0.97).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Overall survival at 6 yearssurvival endpoint
- 87.5 vs 83.2 out of 100 alive at 6 years with Olaparib compared with Placebo; 4.3 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 23 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 28 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.72, likely range 0.56 to 0.93).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adjuvant olaparib for one year in germline BRCA-mutated, HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (BRCA); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first CDK4/6 inhibitor to reduce recurrence after surgery in high-risk hormone-positive breast cancer.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive disease-free survival at 2 yearsprimarysurrogate endpoint
- 92.2 vs 88.7 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 2 years with Abemaciclib + endocrine therapy compared with Endocrine therapy alone; 3.5 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 29 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 25 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.75, likely range 0.6 to 0.93).
Invasive disease-free survival at 5 yearssurrogate endpoint
- 83.6 vs 76 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 5 years with Abemaciclib + endocrine therapy compared with Endocrine therapy alone; 7.6 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 13 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 32 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.68, likely range 0.6 to 0.77).
Distant relapse-free survival at 5 yearssurrogate endpoint
- 86 vs 79.2 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 5 years with Abemaciclib + endocrine therapy compared with Endocrine therapy alone; 6.8 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 15 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 32 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.675).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adjuvant abemaciclib 2 years + endocrine therapy in high-risk node-positive HR+/HER2- breast cancer. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Two large trials found that adding palbociclib after surgery does not prevent recurrence, even though the same drug helps in metastatic disease.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
4-year invasive disease-free survival (PALLAS)primarysurrogate endpoint
- 84.2 vs 84.5 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 4 years with Palbociclib + ET compared with ET alone; 0.3 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 4 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.96, likely range 0.81 to 1.14).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Adjuvant palbociclib + endocrine therapy in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (PALLAS, 2 years; PENELOPE-B, 1 year after residual disease). People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Postmenopausal women with a few positive lymph nodes and a low gene-test score can skip chemotherapy; premenopausal women still benefit from it.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
5-year iDFS, postmenopausalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- 91.9 vs 91.3 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 5 years with Endocrine alone compared with Chemo-endocrine; 0.6 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 167 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 2 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.02).
5-year iDFS, premenopausalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- 89 vs 93.9 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 5 years with Endocrine alone compared with Chemo-endocrine; 4.9 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 40 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.6, likely range 0.43 to 0.83).
Be careful
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- breast cancer with 1-3 positive nodes and recurrence score ≤25: endocrine therapy alone vs chemo-endocrine therapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first trial to show a PI3K inhibitor helps in breast cancers carrying a PIK3CA mutation, at the cost of high blood sugar and rash.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survival (PIK3CA-mutant)primarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 11 vs 5.7 months with Alpelisib + fulvestrant compared with Placebo + fulvestrant; about 5.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 35 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.65, likely range 0.5 to 0.85).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after aromatase inhibitor: alpelisib + fulvestrant vs placebo + fulvestrant, by PIK3CA status. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Showed that most women with the commonest breast cancer can safely skip chemotherapy if a gene test says their risk is low or intermediate.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive disease-free survival at 9 years (RS 11-25)primarysurrogate endpoint
- 83.3 vs 84.3 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 9 years with Endocrine therapy alone compared with Chemo-endocrine therapy; 1 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 8 percent higher chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 1.08, likely range 0.94 to 1.24).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: HR+/HER2-, node-negative early breast cancer with Oncotype DX recurrence score 11-25: endocrine therapy alone vs chemo-endocrine therapy. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Abemaciclib roughly doubled the time to progression when added to an aromatase inhibitor; the survival gain of about 13 months narrowly missed statistical significance.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 28.2 vs 14.8 months with Abemaciclib + NSAI compared with Placebo + NSAI; about 13.4 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 46 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.54, likely range 0.42 to 0.7).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalsurvival endpoint
- Median 66.8 vs 53.7 months with Abemaciclib + NSAI compared with Placebo + NSAI; about 13.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 20 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.8, likely range 0.62 to 1.03).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line postmenopausal HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: abemaciclib + NSAI vs placebo + NSAI. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The first CDK4/6 inhibitor trial to show that adding the pill to hormone therapy makes women live longer, by about a year.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 25.3 vs 16 months with Ribociclib + letrozole compared with Placebo + letrozole; about 9.3 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 43 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.57, likely range 0.46 to 0.7).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalsurvival endpoint
- Median 63.9 vs 51.4 months with Ribociclib + letrozole compared with Placebo + letrozole; about 12.5 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 24 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.76, likely range 0.63 to 0.93).
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line postmenopausal HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: ribociclib + letrozole vs placebo + letrozole. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
The trial that made palbociclib the first CDK4/6 inhibitor in routine use. It doubled progression-free time but did not extend life.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Progression-free survivalprimarysurrogate endpoint
- Median 27.6 vs 14.5 months with Palbociclib + letrozole compared with Placebo + letrozole; about 13.1 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 44 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.56, likely range 0.46 to 0.69).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
Overall survivalsurvival endpoint
- Median 53.9 vs 51.2 months with Palbociclib + letrozole compared with Placebo + letrozole; about 2.7 months longer for half the group.
- A median is a midpoint: half the people did better than this and half did worse, so it is not a prediction for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 4 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.96, likely range 0.78 to 1.18).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- Overall survival counts deaths from any cause, so it is the most direct measure of whether a treatment helps people live longer.
Be careful
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: First-line postmenopausal HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: palbociclib + letrozole vs placebo + letrozole. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
- The trial selected people by a biomarker (HER2); the result should not be assumed for people whose cancer does not have it.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
For younger women, shutting down the ovaries and adding an aromatase inhibitor prevents more recurrences than tamoxifen alone, with the largest gains in the highest-risk women.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
12-year disease-free survival (TEXT+SOFT)primarysurrogate endpoint
- 80.5 vs 75.9 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back at 12 years with Exemestane + OFS compared with Tamoxifen + OFS; 4.6 more per 100.
- Roughly one extra person helped for every 22 treated. That is a rough figure taken from the two percentages, not a guarantee for any one person.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 21 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.79, likely range 0.7 to 0.9).
- This is a surrogate endpoint: it measures the cancer being controlled or absent on scans and tests, which often, but not always, translates into living longer.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Premenopausal HR+ early breast cancer: ovarian function suppression + exemestane vs + tamoxifen vs tamoxifen alone. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page
Three thousand breast cancer survivors were coached for years to eat far more vegetables, fruit and fibre. They did, and it made no difference to recurrence or survival.
In plain words
What these results mean for people, not percentages
Invasive breast cancer event (recurrence or new primary)primaryother endpoint
- 16.7 vs 16.9 out of 100 alive without the cancer coming back with Dietary intervention compared with Comparison; 0.2 fewer per 100.
- On this measure the first group did worse, not better.
- Put another way, the treated group had about 4 percent lower chance of the event at any given time (hazard ratio 0.96, likely range 0.8 to 1.14).
- The likely range for the hazard ratio crosses 1, so the difference could be due to chance.
- This endpoint is not one of the standard survival or response measures; read it alongside the trial's primary result.
- These results apply to the people the trial enrolled: Early-stage breast cancer survivors within 4 years of diagnosis: intensive telephone counselling for a diet very high in vegetables, fruit and fibre and low in fat vs printed dietary guidelines. People in a different situation may not see the same effect.
Numbers are from the trial as recorded here; see the source links in the table below. This is orientation, not medical advice: ask your team how closely the trial population matches you.
Pictograms, table and sources on the trial page