Skip to content

Palbociclib (PD-0332991) Combined With Fulvestrant In Hormone Receptor+ HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer After Endocrine Failure (PALOMA-3)

MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED, PHASE 3 TRIAL OF FULVESTRANT (FASLODEX (REGISTERED)). WITH OR WITHOUT PD-0332991 (PALBOCICLIB) +/- GOSERELIN IN WOMEN WITH HORMONE RECEPTOR-POSITIVE, HER2-NEGATIVE METASTATIC BREAST CANCER WHOSE DISEASE PROGRESSED AFTER PRIOR ENDOCRINE THERAPY

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01942135
Enrollment
521
Registered
2013-09-13
Start date
2013-09-26
Completion date
2022-09-28
Last updated
2024-04-04

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Metastatic Breast Cancer

Keywords

Palbociclib (PD-0332991), Fulvestrant, Goserelin, Hormone receptor-+, HER2-negative, Prior Endocrine treatment, any menopausal status, PALOMA-3

Brief summary

The study is a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, Phase 3 clinical trial with the primary objective of demonstrating the superiority of palbociclib in combination with fulvestrant (Faslodex®) over fulvestrant alone in prolonging PFS in women with HR+, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer whose disease has progressed after prior endocrine therapy. The safety between the two treatment arms will also be compared. During study treatment, pre- and perimenopausal women must be receiving therapy with the LHRH agonist goserelin (Zoladex® or generic).

Interventions

DRUGPalbociclib

Palbociclib 125 mg/day orally continuously dosed for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off; repeated at each subsequent cycle.

DRUGFulvestrant

Fulvestrant 500 mg intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of Cycle 1, and then on Day 1 of each subsequent 28 day cycle.

DRUGPlacebo

Placebo orally continuously dosed for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off; repeated at each subsequent cycle.

Sponsors

AstraZeneca
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Women 18 years or older with metastatic or locally advanced disease, not amenable to curative therapy * Confirmed diagnosis of HR+/HER2- breast cancer * Any menopausal status * Progressed within 12 months from prior adjuvant or progressed within 1 month from prior advanced/metastatic endocrine breast cancer therapy * On an LHRH agonist for at least 28 days, if pre-/peri-menopausal, and willing to switch to goserelin (Zoladex ®) at time of randomization. * Measurable disease defined by RECIST version 1.1, or bone-only disease * Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0-1 * Adequate organ and marrow function, resolution of all toxic effects of prior therapy or surgical procedures * Patient must agree to provide tumor tissue from metastatic tissue at baseline

Exclusion criteria

* Prior treatment with any CDK inhibitor, fulvestrant, everolimus, or agent that inhibits the PI3K-mTOR pathway * Patients with extensive advanced/metastatic, symptomatic visceral disease, or known uncontrolled or symptomatic CNS metastases * Major surgery or any anti-cancer therapy within 2 weeks of randomization * Prior stem cell or bone marrow transplantation * Use of potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by the InvestigatorFrom randomization date to date of first documentation of progression or death (assessed up to 12 months)PFS is the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective progression of disease (PD)or death due to any cause in absence of documented PD. Participants lacking an evaluation of tumor response after randomization had their PFS time censored on the date of randomization with the duration of a day. Participants with documentation of PD or death after a long interval (2 or more incomplete or non-evaluable assessments) since the last tumor assessment were censored at the time of last objective assessment that did not show PD. The length of PFS was calculated as PFS time (months) =\[progression/death date(censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4. Progression is defined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors(RECIST v1.1) a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions and the sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5mm or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions or the appearance of new lesions.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Overall Survival (OS)From randomization until death (up to 4.5 years)OS is defined as the time from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. In the absence of confirmation of death, survival time was censored to last date the participant was known to be alive. For participants lacking survival data beyond the date of their last follow-up, the OS time was censored on the last date they were known to be alive. Participants lacking survival data beyond randomization were to have their OS times be censored at randomization. The length of OS was calculated as OS time (months) = \[death date (censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4.
Survival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3From randomization until death (assessed up to 36 months)One-, Two- or Three-year Survival Probability is defined as the probability of survival 1 year, 2 or 3 years after the date of randomization based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Survival time was censored to last date the participant is known to be alive.
Objective Response (OR)From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)OR is defined as the overall complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the RECIST version 1.1 Objective Response Rate (ORR) is defined as the proportion of participants with CR or PR relative to all randomized participants and randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline. Participants who do not have on-study radiographic tumor re-evaluation, who received anti-tumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, or who died, progressed, or dropped out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR were counted as non-responders in the assessment of ORR. Per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria (RECIST v1.1) for target lesions and assessed by MRI: Complete Response (CR), Disappearance of all target lesions; Partial Response (PR), ≥30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions (longest for non-nodal and short axis for nodal target lesions); Overall Response (OR) = CR + PR.
Duration of Response (DR)From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)DR is defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) to the first documentation of disease progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. DR was calculated as \[the date response ended (ie, date of PD or death) - first CR or PR date + 1)\]/30.4. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median of the DR is provided below. No inferential statistical analysis were done for DR. The DR was only calculated for the participants with a CR or PR.
Clinical Benefit Response (CBR)From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)CBR is defined as the overall complete response (CR), partial response (PR) , or stable disease (SD) ≥24 weeks according to the RECIST version 1.1. Clinical Benefit Response Rate (CBRR) is defined as the proportion of participants with CR, PR, or SD ≥24 weeks relative to all randomized participants and randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline. Participants who do not have on-study radiographic tumor re-evaluation, who received antitumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, a best response of SD ≥24 weeks, or who died, progressed, or dropped out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR and a best response of SD ≥24 weeks was counted as non-responders in the assessment of CBR. Per RECIST v1.1 for target lesions and assessed by MRI: CR, disappearance of all target lesions; PR, ≥30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions; OR = CR + PR.
Observed Plasma Trough Concentration (Ctrough) for PalbociclibCycle 1/Day 15 and Cycle 2/Day 15Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For palbociclib, a steady-state trough was to be defined as a predose plasma concentration following at least 8 consecutive days of 125 mg daily dose without dosing interruption and the time window for the PK collection was to be between 22 and 26 hours after the dose (the day prior to PK collection) and no more than 1 hour post-dose on the day of PK collection.
Ctrough for FulvestrantCycles 2/Day 1 and Cycle 3/Day 1Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For fulvestrant, a steady-state trough was to be defined when a patient had received all prior planned doses and the sample was collected predose.
Ctrough for GoserelinCycles 2/ Day 1 and Cycle 3/ Day 1Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For goserelin, a steady-state trough was to be defined when a patient had received all prior planned doses and the sample was collected predose.
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire composed of five multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive , and social functioning), three multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), a global quality of life (QOL) subscale, and six single item symptom scales assessing other cancer-related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and the financial impact of cancer). The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items are then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms. A 10-point or higher change in scores from baseline is considered clinically significant.
Overall Survival (OS)-Number of Participants Who DiedFrom randomization until death (up to 4.5 years)OS is defined as the time from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. In the absence of confirmation of death, survival time was censored to last date the participant was known to be alive. For participants lacking survival data beyond the date of their last follow-up, the OS time was censored on the last date they were known to be alive. Participants lacking survival data beyond randomization were to have their OS times be censored at randomization. The length of OS was calculated as OS time (months) = \[death date (censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4.
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EORTC-QLQ-BR23 is a 23-item breast cancer-specific companion module to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and consists of four functional scales (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspective) and four symptom scales (systemic side effects, breast symptoms, arm symptoms, upset by hair loss). QLQ-BR23 questionnaire employs 4-point scales with responses from 'not at all' to 'very much'. All scores are converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning.
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EORTC-QLQ-BR23 is a 23-item breast cancer-specific companion module to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and consists of four functional scales (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspective) and four symptom scales (systemic side effects, breast symptoms, arm symptoms, upset by hair loss). QLQ-BR23 questionnaire employs 4-point scales with responses from 'not at all' to 'very much'. All scores are converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represent more severe symptoms.
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D)- Health Index ScoresFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EuroQol-5D (version 3L) is a brief self-administered, validated instrument consisting of 2 parts. The first part consists of 5 descriptors of current health state (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/ depression); a participant is asked to rate each state on a three level scale (1=no problem, 2=some problem, and 3=extreme problem) with higher levels indicating greater severity/ impairment Published weights are available that allow for the creation of a single summary score called the EQ-5D index, which basically ranges from 0 to 1 with low scores representing a higher level of dysfunction and 1 as perfect health. The second part consists of the EQ-5D general health status as measured by a visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). EQ-5D VAS measures the participant's self-rated health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state).
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores ScaleFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EuroQol-5D (version 3L) is a brief self-administered, validated instrument consisting of 2 parts. The second part consists of the EQ-5D general health status as measured by a visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). EQ-5D VAS measures the participant's self-rated health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state).
Time to Deterioration (TTD)Baseline, Day 1 of Cycles 2 to 4, Day 1 of every alternate cycle after that until the end of treatment, as of 05 December 2014A time to event analysis was pre-specified for pain. An analysis of TTD in pain defined as time between baseline and first occurrence of increase of ≥10 points in pain. Deterioration will be defined increase in score of 10 points or greater from baseline. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of quartiles (time to deterioration) with 95% CI is mentioned below.
Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)From the date of randomization up to 28 calendar days (±7 days) after last dose of study intervention (up to 8.4 years).An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation patient administered a product or medical device; the event need not necessarily have a causal relationship with the treatment or usage. An SAE is any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires hospitalization; results in persistent or significant disability or in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Severity will be graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE), Version 4.0.
Participants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsFrom baseline to end of treatment/withdrawal (up to 4.5 years)Number of participants with shifts from Grade ≤2 at baseline values to post-baseline values (shift to Grade 3 or 4) were reported as per NCI-CTCAE, V4.0 graded from Grade 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic/ mild symptoms; clinical/diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization/prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Shifts in lab parameter from Grade ≤2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 postbaseline (for parameters Anemia, Hemoglobin increased, Neutrophil count decreased, Platelet count decreased, and White blood cell count decreased) were reported.
Participants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsFrom baseline to end of treatment/withdrawal (up to 4.5 years)Number of participants with shifts from Grade ≤2 at baseline values to post-baseline values (shift to Grade 3 or 4) were reported as per NCI-CTCAE, V4.0 graded from Grade 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic/ mild symptoms; clinical/diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization/prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Shifts in lab parameter from Grade ≤2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 postbaseline (for parameters ALT increased, ALP increased, AST increased, Blood bilirubin increased, Creatinine increased, Hypercalcemia, Hyperkalemia, Hypermagnesemia, Hypernatremia, Hypoalbuminemia, Hypocalcemia, Hypokalemia, Hypomagnesemia, and Hyponatremia) were reported.
Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresFrom Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.The EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire composed of five multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive , and social functioning), three multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), a global quality of life (QOL) subscale, and six single item symptom scales assessing other cancer-related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and the financial impact of cancer). The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items are then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms. A 10-point or higher change in scores from baseline is considered clinically significant.

Countries

Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey (Türkiye), Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The study was conducted at 144 sites in 17 countries that randomized 521 participants. Eligible participants were to have histologically or cytologically proven diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the breast with evidence of recurrent (local or metastatic) disease.

Pre-assignment details

The study consisted of a screening visit within 28 days before randomization, an active treatment phase, divided in cycles of 28 days each, and a post-treatment follow-up period during which survival and new anti-cancer therapy information was collected every 3 months for the first 9 months, then every 6 months from the last dose of study intervention.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Palbociclib + Fulvestrant
Participants were administered an initial dose of 125 mg per day orally continuously for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off that can be reduced to 100 mg or 75 mg in case of toxicity; repeated at each subsequent cycle and fulvestrant 500 mg intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 28 days. Pre- and perimenopausal women received goserelin at least 4 weeks before study treatment start and continued receiving concurrent ovarian function suppression with goserelin administered subcutaneously every 28 days during the active treatment phase. Maximum treatment duration was 105 cycles.
347
Placebo + Fulvestrant
Participants were administered placebo orally continuously dosed for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off; repeated at each subsequent cycle and Fulvestrant 500 mg intramuscularly on Days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and then every 28 days. Pre- and perimenopausal women received goserelin at least 4 weeks before study treatment start and continued receiving concurrent ovarian function suppression with goserelin administered subcutaneously every 28 days during the active treatment phase. Maximum treatment duration was 93 cycles.
174
Total521

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event217
Overall StudyDeath21
Overall StudyGlobal Deterioration of Health Status96
Overall StudyObjective Progression or Relapse + Progressive Disease279148
Overall StudyOther194
Overall StudyParticipant Refused to Continue Treatment for Reason Other than Adverse Event103
Overall StudyProtocol Violation10
Overall StudyRandomized Not Treated22
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject43

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPalbociclib + FulvestrantPlacebo + FulvestrantTotal
Age, Continuous56.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.7
56.8 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4
56.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.3
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
17 Participants11 Participants28 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
329 Participants161 Participants490 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Menopausal Status
Postmenopausal
275 Participants138 Participants413 Participants
Menopausal Status
Pre/Perimenopausal
72 Participants36 Participants108 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
347 Participants174 Participants521 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
201 / 347109 / 174
other
Total, other adverse events
341 / 345161 / 172
serious
Total, serious adverse events
78 / 34533 / 172

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by the Investigator

PFS is the time from the date of randomization to the date of the first documentation of objective progression of disease (PD)or death due to any cause in absence of documented PD. Participants lacking an evaluation of tumor response after randomization had their PFS time censored on the date of randomization with the duration of a day. Participants with documentation of PD or death after a long interval (2 or more incomplete or non-evaluable assessments) since the last tumor assessment were censored at the time of last objective assessment that did not show PD. The length of PFS was calculated as PFS time (months) =\[progression/death date(censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4. Progression is defined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors(RECIST v1.1) a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target lesions and the sum must also demonstrate an absolute increase of at least 5mm or unequivocal progression of existing non-target lesions or the appearance of new lesions.

Time frame: From randomization date to date of first documentation of progression or death (assessed up to 12 months)

Population: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantProgression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by the Investigator9.2 months
Placebo + FulvestrantProgression-Free Survival (PFS) as Assessed by the Investigator3.8 months
Comparison: The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.p-value: <0.00000195% CI: [0.318, 0.56]Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale Scores

The EORTC-QLQ-BR23 is a 23-item breast cancer-specific companion module to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and consists of four functional scales (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspective) and four symptom scales (systemic side effects, breast symptoms, arm symptoms, upset by hair loss). QLQ-BR23 questionnaire employs 4-point scales with responses from 'not at all' to 'very much'. All scores are converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represent more severe symptoms.

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresSystemic therapy side effects3.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 15.19
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresBreast symptoms-2.2 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 21.32
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresArm symptoms-2.2 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.59
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresUpset by hair loss2.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30.19
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresUpset by hair loss-6.0 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.91
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresSystemic therapy side effects3.4 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 14.31
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresArm symptoms-2.0 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.08
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ BR23 Symptom Scale ScoresBreast symptoms-1.3 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 17.49
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for systemic therapy side effectsp-value: 0.727395% CI: [-1.6, 2.3]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for breast symptomsp-value: 0.267195% CI: [-2.6, 0.7]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for arm symptomsp-value: 0.87595% CI: [-2.6, 2.2]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for upset by hair lossp-value: 0.025595% CI: [1.1, 16.6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale Scores

The EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire composed of five multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive , and social functioning), three multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), a global quality of life (QOL) subscale, and six single item symptom scales assessing other cancer-related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and the financial impact of cancer). The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items are then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms. A 10-point or higher change in scores from baseline is considered clinically significant.

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresFatigue1.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.12
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresNausea and vomiting1.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.06
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresPain-3.3 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 29.02
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresDyspnoea2.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30.32
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresFinancial difficulties-3.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 28.87
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresInsomnia-2.4 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 29.81
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresAppetite loss1.1 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 36.43
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresConstipation3.5 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 32.05
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresDiarrhoea1.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 18.97
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresConstipation2.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.05
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresFatigue3.3 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 24.82
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresInsomnia-0.4 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 29.3
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresNausea and vomiting4.2 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 19.71
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresFinancial difficulties-4.0 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.3
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresPain2.0 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30.04
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresAppetite loss1.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 29.61
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresDiarrhoea2.4 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.12
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EORTC QLQ-C30 Symptom Scale ScoresDyspnoea3.3 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 24.98
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for fatiguep-value: 0.3295% CI: [-4.5, 1.5]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for nausea and vomitingp-value: 0.036995% CI: [-4.8, -0.2]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for painp-value: 0.001195% CI: [-8.5, -2.1]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for dyspnoeap-value: 0.769995% CI: [-3.7, 2.8]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for insomniap-value: 0.272195% CI: [-5.5, 1.6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for appetite lossp-value: 0.733495% CI: [-4.1, 2.9]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for constipationp-value: 0.649195% CI: [-2.5, 3.9]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for diarrhoeap-value: 0.629395% CI: [-2.8, 1.7]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for financial difficultiesp-value: 0.881295% CI: [-3.1, 3.6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores Scale

The EuroQol-5D (version 3L) is a brief self-administered, validated instrument consisting of 2 parts. The second part consists of the EQ-5D general health status as measured by a visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). EQ-5D VAS measures the participant's self-rated health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state).

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores Scale-1.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 19
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores Scale-2.6 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 23.09
Comparison: Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.p-value: 0.552395% CI: [-1.9, 3.5]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale Scores

The EORTC-QLQ-BR23 is a 23-item breast cancer-specific companion module to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and consists of four functional scales (body image, sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, future perspective) and four symptom scales (systemic side effects, breast symptoms, arm symptoms, upset by hair loss). QLQ-BR23 questionnaire employs 4-point scales with responses from 'not at all' to 'very much'. All scores are converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning.

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresBody image1.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 28.07
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresSexual functioning-1.1 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 16.08
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresSexual enjoyment-5.2 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.8
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresFuture perspective8.1 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30.63
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresFuture perspective4.5 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresBody image-0.3 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.33
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresSexual enjoyment-6.6 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 25.49
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ BR23) Functional Scale ScoresSexual functioning-0.4 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 18.23
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for body imagep-value: 0.138695% CI: [-0.7, 5.2]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual functioningp-value: 0.523595% CI: [-3.1, 1.6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for sexual enjoymentp-value: 0.627195% CI: [-4.4, 7.3]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for future perspectivep-value: 0.084595% CI: [-0.5, 7.6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale Scores

The EORTC-QLQ-C30 is a 30-item questionnaire composed of five multi-item functional subscales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive , and social functioning), three multi-item symptom scales (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and pain), a global quality of life (QOL) subscale, and six single item symptom scales assessing other cancer-related symptoms (dyspnea, sleep disturbance, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and the financial impact of cancer). The questionnaire employs 28 4-point Likert scales with responses from not at all to very much and two 7-point Likert scales for global health and overall QOL. Responses to all items are then converted to a 0 to 100 scale. For functional and global QOL scales, higher scores represent a better level of functioning/QOL. For symptom-oriented scales, a higher score represents more severe symptoms. A 10-point or higher change in scores from baseline is considered clinically significant.

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresGlobal health status / QoL-0.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 64.5
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresPhysical functioning-0.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 22.76
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresRole functioning-1.8 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 30.7
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresEmotional functioning2.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 25.97
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresCognitive functioning-1.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.97
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresSocial functioning-0.5 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 32.07
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresCognitive functioning-2.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 20.22
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresGlobal health status / QoL-4.0 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 26.25
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresEmotional functioning-1.9 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 21.19
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresPhysical functioning-1.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 21.24
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresSocial functioning-0.6 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 32.27
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Functional Scale ScoresRole functioning-3.7 Units on a scale95% Confidence Interval 28.04
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for Global health status/ QoLp-value: 0.031395% CI: [0.3, 6]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for physical functioningp-value: 0.495% CI: [-1.4, 3.5]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for role functioningp-value: 0.261595% CI: [-1.5, 5.3]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for emotional functioningp-value: 0.001695% CI: [1.7, 7.4]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for cognitive functioningp-value: 0.36595% CI: [-1.4, 3.8]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Comparison: Statistical significance for palbociclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for social functioningp-value: 0.961595% CI: [-3.4, 3.5]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Change From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D)- Health Index Scores

The EuroQol-5D (version 3L) is a brief self-administered, validated instrument consisting of 2 parts. The first part consists of 5 descriptors of current health state (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/ depression); a participant is asked to rate each state on a three level scale (1=no problem, 2=some problem, and 3=extreme problem) with higher levels indicating greater severity/ impairment Published weights are available that allow for the creation of a single summary score called the EQ-5D index, which basically ranges from 0 to 1 with low scores representing a higher level of dysfunction and 1 as perfect health. The second part consists of the EQ-5D general health status as measured by a visual analog scale (EQ-5D VAS). EQ-5D VAS measures the participant's self-rated health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state).

Time frame: From Cycle 1 to 14, as of 05 December 2014.

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment. Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D)- Health Index Scores0.006 Units on a scale
Placebo + FulvestrantChange From Baseline Between Treatment Comparison in EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D)- Health Index Scores-0.031 Units on a scale
Comparison: Analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.p-value: 0.030895% CI: [0, 0.07]Mixed Model Analysis (2-sided)
Secondary

Clinical Benefit Response (CBR)

CBR is defined as the overall complete response (CR), partial response (PR) , or stable disease (SD) ≥24 weeks according to the RECIST version 1.1. Clinical Benefit Response Rate (CBRR) is defined as the proportion of participants with CR, PR, or SD ≥24 weeks relative to all randomized participants and randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline. Participants who do not have on-study radiographic tumor re-evaluation, who received antitumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, a best response of SD ≥24 weeks, or who died, progressed, or dropped out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR and a best response of SD ≥24 weeks was counted as non-responders in the assessment of CBR. Per RECIST v1.1 for target lesions and assessed by MRI: CR, disappearance of all target lesions; PR, ≥30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions; OR = CR + PR.

Time frame: From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized. Randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline was also included.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantClinical Benefit Response (CBR)66.3 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantClinical Benefit Response (CBR)39.7 percentage of participants
Comparison: The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [2.046, 4.565]Exact test (1-sided)
Secondary

Ctrough for Fulvestrant

Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For fulvestrant, a steady-state trough was to be defined when a patient had received all prior planned doses and the sample was collected predose.

Time frame: Cycles 2/Day 1 and Cycle 3/Day 1

Population: The 40 participants who participated in the early safety review, who are treated with palbociclib + fulvestrant ± goserelin or placebo + fulvestrant ± goserelin and have at least one measured plasma drug concentration.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantCtrough for FulvestrantCycle 2/Day 111.75 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 41
Palbociclib + FulvestrantCtrough for FulvestrantCycle 3/Day 19.90 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 42
Placebo + FulvestrantCtrough for FulvestrantCycle 3/Day 17.60 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 72
Placebo + FulvestrantCtrough for FulvestrantCycle 2/Day 19.31 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 52
Secondary

Ctrough for Goserelin

Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For goserelin, a steady-state trough was to be defined when a patient had received all prior planned doses and the sample was collected predose.

Time frame: Cycles 2/ Day 1 and Cycle 3/ Day 1

Population: The 40 participants who participated in the early safety review, who are treated with palbociclib + fulvestrant ± goserelin or placebo + fulvestrant ± goserelin and have at least one measured plasma drug concentration.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantCtrough for GoserelinCycle 2/Day 1295.1 picograms per milliliter (pg/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 153
Palbociclib + FulvestrantCtrough for GoserelinCycle 3/Day 1344.8 picograms per milliliter (pg/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 64
Placebo + FulvestrantCtrough for GoserelinCycle 2/Day 1302.5 picograms per milliliter (pg/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 74
Placebo + FulvestrantCtrough for GoserelinCycle 3/Day 1288.5 picograms per milliliter (pg/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 40
Secondary

Duration of Response (DR)

DR is defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (CR or PR) to the first documentation of disease progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurs first. If tumor progression data included more than 1 date, the first date was used. DR was calculated as \[the date response ended (ie, date of PD or death) - first CR or PR date + 1)\]/30.4. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median of the DR is provided below. No inferential statistical analysis were done for DR. The DR was only calculated for the participants with a CR or PR.

Time frame: From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantDuration of Response (DR)10.4 Months
Placebo + FulvestrantDuration of Response (DR)9.0 Months
Secondary

Objective Response (OR)

OR is defined as the overall complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the RECIST version 1.1 Objective Response Rate (ORR) is defined as the proportion of participants with CR or PR relative to all randomized participants and randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline. Participants who do not have on-study radiographic tumor re-evaluation, who received anti-tumor treatment other than the study medication prior to reaching a CR or PR, or who died, progressed, or dropped out for any reason prior to reaching a CR or PR were counted as non-responders in the assessment of ORR. Per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria (RECIST v1.1) for target lesions and assessed by MRI: Complete Response (CR), Disappearance of all target lesions; Partial Response (PR), ≥30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions (longest for non-nodal and short axis for nodal target lesions); Overall Response (OR) = CR + PR.

Time frame: From randomization until end of treatment (assessed up to 2 years)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized. Randomized participants with measurable disease at baseline was also included.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantObjective Response (OR)21.0 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantObjective Response (OR)8.6 percentage of participants
Comparison: The exact test is testing the null hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is less than or equal to 1 vs. the alternative hypothesis that the odds ratio of objective response rate is greater than 1. An Odds Ratio \>1 means better response in favor of palbociclib plus fulvestrant arm.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [1.563, 5.603]Exact test (1-sided)
Secondary

Observed Plasma Trough Concentration (Ctrough) for Palbociclib

Ctrough was defined as steady-state predose concentration. Observed directly from data. For palbociclib, a steady-state trough was to be defined as a predose plasma concentration following at least 8 consecutive days of 125 mg daily dose without dosing interruption and the time window for the PK collection was to be between 22 and 26 hours after the dose (the day prior to PK collection) and no more than 1 hour post-dose on the day of PK collection.

Time frame: Cycle 1/Day 15 and Cycle 2/Day 15

Population: The participants who were treated with Palbociclib + fulvestrant (with or without goserelin) or placebo + fulvestrant (with or without goserelin) and have at least one measured plasma drug concentration. The geometric mean and coefficient of variation was not estimable for Cycle 1/Day 15 and Cycle 2/Day 15 for the reporting arm placebo plus fulvestrant.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + FulvestrantObserved Plasma Trough Concentration (Ctrough) for PalbociclibCycle 1/Day 1570.70 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 44
Palbociclib + FulvestrantObserved Plasma Trough Concentration (Ctrough) for PalbociclibCycle 2/Day 1575.29 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL)Geometric Coefficient of Variation 44
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)

OS is defined as the time from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. In the absence of confirmation of death, survival time was censored to last date the participant was known to be alive. For participants lacking survival data beyond the date of their last follow-up, the OS time was censored on the last date they were known to be alive. Participants lacking survival data beyond randomization were to have their OS times be censored at randomization. The length of OS was calculated as OS time (months) = \[death date (censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4.

Time frame: From randomization until death (up to 4.5 years)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantOverall Survival (OS)34.9 months
Placebo + FulvestrantOverall Survival (OS)28.0 months
Comparison: The primary hypothesis to be tested was H0: λ≥1 versus. HA: λ\<1, where λ was the palbociclib plus fulvestrant: placebo plus fulvestrant hazard ratio (HR). A HR less than 1 indicates a reduction in hazard rate in favor of Palbociclib + Fulvestrant. The study was planned to have 90% power and control the type-I error rate at 0.025.p-value: =0.042995% CI: [0.644, 1.029]Stratified Log Rank Test (1-sided)
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)-Number of Participants Who Died

OS is defined as the time from date of randomization to date of death due to any cause. In the absence of confirmation of death, survival time was censored to last date the participant was known to be alive. For participants lacking survival data beyond the date of their last follow-up, the OS time was censored on the last date they were known to be alive. Participants lacking survival data beyond randomization were to have their OS times be censored at randomization. The length of OS was calculated as OS time (months) = \[death date (censor date) - randomization date + 1\]/30.4.

Time frame: From randomization until death (up to 4.5 years)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantOverall Survival (OS)-Number of Participants Who Died201 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantOverall Survival (OS)-Number of Participants Who Died109 Participants
Secondary

Participants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry Results

Number of participants with shifts from Grade ≤2 at baseline values to post-baseline values (shift to Grade 3 or 4) were reported as per NCI-CTCAE, V4.0 graded from Grade 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic/ mild symptoms; clinical/diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization/prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Shifts in lab parameter from Grade ≤2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 postbaseline (for parameters ALT increased, ALP increased, AST increased, Blood bilirubin increased, Creatinine increased, Hypercalcemia, Hyperkalemia, Hypermagnesemia, Hypernatremia, Hypoalbuminemia, Hypocalcemia, Hypokalemia, Hypomagnesemia, and Hyponatremia) were reported.

Time frame: From baseline to end of treatment/withdrawal (up to 4.5 years)

Population: The as-treated (AT) population or safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study intervention received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsALT increased10 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsALP increased2 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsAST increased13 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsBlood bilirubin increased2 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsCreatinine increased5 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypercalcemia1 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHyperkalemia2 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypermagnesemia7 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypernatremia0 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypoalbuminemia0 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypocalcemia2 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypokalemia0 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypomagnesemia0 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHyponatremia12 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypocalcemia2 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsALT increased1 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypermagnesemia2 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsALP increased2 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypomagnesemia0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsAST increased7 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypernatremia1 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsBlood bilirubin increased3 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypokalemia0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsCreatinine increased0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypoalbuminemia1 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHypercalcemia0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHyponatremia4 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Chemistry ResultsHyperkalemia2 Participants
Secondary

Participants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology Results

Number of participants with shifts from Grade ≤2 at baseline values to post-baseline values (shift to Grade 3 or 4) were reported as per NCI-CTCAE, V4.0 graded from Grade 1 to 5. Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic/ mild symptoms; clinical/diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local/noninvasive intervention indicated. Grade 3: Severe/medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization/prolongation of hospitalization indicated. Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated. Shifts in lab parameter from Grade ≤2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 postbaseline (for parameters Anemia, Hemoglobin increased, Neutrophil count decreased, Platelet count decreased, and White blood cell count decreased) were reported.

Time frame: From baseline to end of treatment/withdrawal (up to 4.5 years)

Population: The as-treated (AT) population or safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study intervention received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsHemoglobin increased1 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsPlatelet count decreased10 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsNeutrophil count decreased239 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsWhite blood cell count decreased167 Participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsAnemia16 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsWhite blood cell count decreased0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsAnemia3 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsHemoglobin increased0 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsNeutrophil count decreased1 Participants
Placebo + FulvestrantParticipants With Shifts From CTCAE Grade ≤2 at Baseline to CTCAE Grade 3 or 4 Postbaseline for Hematology ResultsPlatelet count decreased0 Participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation patient administered a product or medical device; the event need not necessarily have a causal relationship with the treatment or usage. An SAE is any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that results in death; is life-threatening; requires hospitalization; results in persistent or significant disability or in congenital anomaly/birth defect. Severity will be graded by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE), Version 4.0.

Time frame: From the date of randomization up to 28 calendar days (±7 days) after last dose of study intervention (up to 8.4 years).

Population: The as-treated (AT) population or safety analysis set included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study intervention received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With Grade 5 AEs2.3 percentage of participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With AEs98.8 percentage of participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With SAEs22.6 percentage of participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With Grade 3 or 4 AEs80.6 percentage of participants
Palbociclib + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)Discontinued palbociclib/placebo due to AEs7.5 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)Discontinued palbociclib/placebo due to AEs4.7 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With Grade 3 or 4 AEs26.7 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With AEs93.6 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With Grade 5 AEs1.7 percentage of participants
Placebo + FulvestrantPercentage of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs; All Causalities)With SAEs19.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Survival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3

One-, Two- or Three-year Survival Probability is defined as the probability of survival 1 year, 2 or 3 years after the date of randomization based on the Kaplan-Meier estimate. Survival time was censored to last date the participant is known to be alive.

Time frame: From randomization until death (assessed up to 36 months)

Population: The ITT population or full analysis set included all participants who were randomized, with study intervention, regardless of whether participants received the study intervention or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 185.5 Survival Probability
Palbociclib + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 265.3 Survival Probability
Palbociclib + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 349.6 Survival Probability
Placebo + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 184.8 Survival Probability
Placebo + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 257.3 Survival Probability
Placebo + FulvestrantSurvival Probabilities at Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3Survival Probability at Year 340.8 Survival Probability
Secondary

Time to Deterioration (TTD)

A time to event analysis was pre-specified for pain. An analysis of TTD in pain defined as time between baseline and first occurrence of increase of ≥10 points in pain. Deterioration will be defined increase in score of 10 points or greater from baseline. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of quartiles (time to deterioration) with 95% CI is mentioned below.

Time frame: Baseline, Day 1 of Cycles 2 to 4, Day 1 of every alternate cycle after that until the end of treatment, as of 05 December 2014

Population: The PRO -evaluable population is defined as a subset of ITT participants, who have completed a baseline and at least one post -baseline PRO assessment prior to end of study treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + FulvestrantTime to Deterioration (TTD)25% quartile1.9 Months
Palbociclib + FulvestrantTime to Deterioration (TTD)50% quartile8.0 Months
Placebo + FulvestrantTime to Deterioration (TTD)25% quartile1.0 Months
Placebo + FulvestrantTime to Deterioration (TTD)50% quartile2.8 Months
Comparison: Treatment with palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed TTD in pain symptom compared with placebo plus fulvestrant for unstratified analysis.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [0.487, 0.846]Unstratified log-rank test (1-sided)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 14, 2026