BACKGROUND: At 42.5 months of median follow-up, PHARE failed to show that 6 was non-inferior to 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab. From the results of PHARE, questions remain regarding whether the magnitude of benefit derived from 1 year is sufficient to justify its systematic use for different patient subgroups.METHODS: Treatment effects were evaluated according to various tumour characteristics, and the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were carried out on metastases-free survival (MFS) in the 12 months control arm. A prognostic score was defined providing the identification of patient categories with similar risks. The 6-month arm was used as a validation set in order to test for heterogeneity. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00381901.RESULTS: A total of 261 metastatic events were observed and four prognostic groups were defined: very low, low, intermediate and high risk in the 12-month arm. The corresponding 3-year MFS rates were 98.3%, 95.8%, 90.4% and 78.4% in the four prognostic groups, respectively. In the 6-month arm, the 3-year MFS rates were 98.3%, 94.2%, 85.7% and 74.8% in the four prognostic groups, respectively.CONCLUSION: In the very low-risk group, the potential absolute benefit of standard duration of trastuzumab was small enough to indicate that optimal standard treatment might be clinically questionable. On the other hand, the 3-year metastasis occurrence rates strongly support the need for a search of a more efficient treatment in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups.
Adult Aged