Skip to content

A Study Of Palbociclib (PD-0332991) + Letrozole VS. Placebo+ Letrozole For 1st Line Treatment Of Asian Postmenopausal Women With ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer [PALOMA-4]

A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND PHASE 3 STUDY OF PALBOCICLIB (ORAL CDK 4/6 INHIBITOR) PLUS LETROZOLE VERSUS PLACEBO PLUS LETROZOLE FOR THE TREATMENT OF PREVIOUSLY UNTREATED ASIAN POSTMENOPAUSAL WOMEN WITH ER (+), HER2 (-) ADVANCED BREAST CANCER

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02297438
Enrollment
340
Registered
2014-11-21
Start date
2015-03-23
Completion date
2025-02-24
Last updated
2026-05-14

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

Conditions

Breast Neoplasms

Keywords

breast cancer, postmenopausal women, estrogen-receptor positive, HER2 negative, locoregionally recurrent, metastatic

Brief summary

The study is designed to compare the clinical benefit following treatment with letrozole in combination with Palbociclib versus letrozole in combination with placebo in Asian postmenopausal women with ER(+)/HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who have not received prior systemic anti cancer therapies for their advanced/metastatic disease.

Interventions

DRUGPalbociclib

Palbociclib, 125mg, orally once daily on Day 1 to Day 21 of every 28-day cycle followed by 7 days off treatment

DRUGLetrozole

Letrozole, 2.5mg, orally once daily (continuously)

DRUGPlacebo

Placebo, 125mg, orally once daily on Day 1 to Day 21 of every 28-day cycle followed by 7 days off treatment

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adult Asian women with locoregionally recurrent or metastatic disease not amenable to curative therapy * Confirmed diagnosis of ER positive breast cancer * No prior systemic anti-cancer therapy for advanced ER+ disease * Postmenopausal women * Measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criterion in Solid Tumors \[RECIST\] or bone-only disease * Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group \[ECOG\] 0-1 * Adequate organ and marrow function * Patient must agree to provide tumor tissue

Exclusion criteria

* Confirmed diagnosis of HER2 positive disease * Patients with advanced, symptomatic, visceral spread that are at risk of life threatening complication in the short term * Known uncontrolled or symptomatic CNS metastases * Prior neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment with a non steroidal aromatase inhibitor (ie, anastrozole or letrozole) with disease recurrence while on or within 12 months of completing treatment * Prior treatment with any CDK 4/6 inhibitor

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Investigator's Assessment: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsPFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. PFS was defined as 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 the absence of documented PD, whichever occurred first. PD is defined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors Criteria (RECIST v1.1) as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed (over baseline if no decrease in the sum is observed during therapy), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, PFS was based on investigator's assessment.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsPFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. PFS was defined as time from the first dose of study treatment to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause in the absence of documented progressive disease, whichever occurs first. In this outcome measure, PFS was based on BICR.
Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on investigator assessment.
Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measurable Disease at Baseline): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on investigator assessment.
Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on BICR.
Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measurable Disease at Baseline): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on BICR.
Duration of Response (DOR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Objective Disease Response): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDOR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]) to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. DOR data was censored on the date of the last tumor assessment on study for participants who did not have objective tumor progression and who did not die due to any cause while on study. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, DOR was based on investigator assessment.
Duration of Response (DOR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Objective Disease Response): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDOR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]) to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. DOR data was censored on the date of the last tumor assessment on study for participants who did not have objective tumor progression and who did not die due to any cause while on study. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, DOR was based on BICR.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on investigator assessment.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measurable Disease at Baseline): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on investigator assessment.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on BICR.
Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measurable Disease at Baseline): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsDC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on BICR.
Overall Survival (OS): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOS was 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. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods.
1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsOS was 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. The 1-year survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the log \[-log(1 year survival probability)\] was be calculated using a normal approximation, and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival probability itself. The 2-year, and 3-year survival probabilities were estimated similarly.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsAn adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. A serious AE (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Participants were counted only once per treatment in each row.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related): Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsAn adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. A serious AE (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Relatedness to treatment was assessed by the investigator (Yes/No). Participants were counted only once per treatment in each row.
Number of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - Hematology: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsThe laboratory results were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CTCAE v4.0 severity grade. Shift tables were provided to examine the distribution of laboratory toxicities. The following hematology parameters had met the criteria of CTCAE grade shift change from Grade \<=2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 post baseline: neutrophils (absolute), white blood cells, platelets, anemia and hemoglobin increased.
Number of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - Chemistry: Up to Primary Completion DateRandomization up to 65 monthsThe laboratory results were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CTCAE v4.0 severity grade. Shift tables were provided to examine the distribution of laboratory toxicities. The following chemistry parameters had met the criteria of CTCAE grade shift change from Grade \<=2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 post baseline: alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), bilirubin (total), creatinine, hypercalcemia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hypermagnesemia, hypernatremia, hypoalbuminemia, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyponatremia.
Trough Plasma Concentration of PalbociclibPre-dose on Day 14 of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2Summary of palbociclib trough concentrations.
Model Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total Score: Up to Primary Completion DateBaseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) is a modular approach to assess participant health related quality of life using a "core" set of questions (FACT-G) as well as a cancer site specific module. The FACT-G was a 27-item compilation of general questions divided into 4 domains: Physical Well Being, Social/Family Well Being, Emotional Well Being, and Functional Well Being. The FACT-B consists of the FACT-G (27 items) and a breast specific module: a 10-item instrument designed to assess participant concerns relating to breast cancer. For all questions, participants were asked to respond to a 5-level scale ranging from 0=Not at all to 4=Very much. FACT-B total score = FACT-G + Breast Cancer Subscale. As each of the items ranges from 0-4, the range of possible scores is 0-148, with 0 being the worst possible score and 148 the best. A positive change of the total score indicated improvement from baseline and a negative change indicated deterioration.
Model Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index Scores: Up to Primary Completion DateBaseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1The EQ-5D is a 6-item instrument designed to assess health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. It consists of 5 descriptors of current health state (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression); a participant was asked to rate each state on a 3 level scale (1=no problem, 2=some problem, and 3=extreme problem) with higher levels indicating greater severity/impairment.
Model Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores: Up to Primary Completion DateBaseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1The EQ VAS recorded the participant's self rated questionnaire to assess generic health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). Published weights were available that allow for the creation of a single summary score.
Median Baseline Percent (%) Positive Cells for Ki67BaselineArchived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimen from the original diagnostic tumor tissue was collected and sent to the sponsor-designated central laboratories for assessment of Ki67 associated with sensitivity and/or resistance to Palbociclib.
Number of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)BaselineArchived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimen from the original diagnostic tumor tissue was collected and sent to the sponsor-designated central laboratories for assessment of ER associated with sensitivity and/or resistance to Palbociclib.

Countries

China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand

Contacts

STUDY_DIRECTORPfizer CT.gov Call Center

Pfizer

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

This was a multicenter, randomized (1:1), double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group Phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in Asian postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative advanced breast cancer.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Palbociclib + Letrozole
Participants were planned to receive palbociclib 125 mg orally once a day (QD) for 21 days of every 28-day cycle followed by 7 days off treatment together with letrozole 2.5 mg orally QD continuously. The maximum duration of treatment for palbociclib and for letrozole were 1872 days and 1872 days, respectively.
169
Placebo + Letrozole
Participants were planned to receive placebo 125 mg orally once a day (QD) for 21 days of every 28-day cycle followed by 7 days off treatment together with letrozole 2.5 mg orally QD continuously. The maximum duration of treatment for placebo and for letrozole were 1834 days and 1834 days, respectively.
171
Total340

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPalbociclib + LetrozolePlacebo + LetrozoleTotal
Age, Continuous53.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.5
53.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.1
53.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.8
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
169 Participants171 Participants340 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
169 Participants171 Participants340 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
102 / 168126 / 171
other
Total, other adverse events
168 / 168143 / 171
serious
Total, serious adverse events
34 / 16819 / 171

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Investigator's Assessment

PFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. PFS was defined as 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 the absence of documented PD, whichever occurred first. PD is defined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors Criteria (RECIST v1.1) as a 20% increase in the sum of of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed (over baseline if no decrease in the sum is observed during therapy), with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, PFS was based on investigator's assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Investigator's Assessment21.5 Months
Placebo + LetrozoleProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Investigator's Assessment13.9 Months
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral vs. non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.001295% CI: [0.529, 0.867]Log Rank
Secondary

1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability

OS was 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. The 1-year survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and a 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the log \[-log(1 year survival probability)\] was be calculated using a normal approximation, and then back transformed to give a CI for the 1-year survival probability itself. The 2-year, and 3-year survival probabilities were estimated similarly.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability1-year survival probability92.8 Percentage of participants
Palbociclib + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability2-year survival probability80.3 Percentage of participants
Palbociclib + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability3-year survival probability67.1 Percentage of participants
Placebo + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability1-year survival probability90.5 Percentage of participants
Placebo + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability2-year survival probability78.0 Percentage of participants
Placebo + Letrozole1-Year, 2-Year and 3-Year Survival Probability3-year survival probability60.6 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Duration of Response (DOR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Objective Disease Response)

DOR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]) to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. DOR data was censored on the date of the last tumor assessment on study for participants who did not have objective tumor progression and who did not die due to any cause while on study. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, DOR was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with objective disease response, including all participants who were randomized, with objective disease response and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleDuration of Response (DOR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Objective Disease Response)30.3 Months
Placebo + LetrozoleDuration of Response (DOR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Objective Disease Response)24.9 Months
Secondary

Duration of Response (DOR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Objective Disease Response)

DOR was defined as the time from the first documentation of objective tumor response (complete response \[CR\] or partial response \[PR\]) to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause, whichever occurred first. DOR data was censored on the date of the last tumor assessment on study for participants who did not have objective tumor progression and who did not die due to any cause while on study. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, DOR was based on investigator assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with objective disease response, including all participants who were randomized, with objective disease response and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleDuration of Response (DOR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Objective Disease Response)22.4 Months
Placebo + LetrozoleDuration of Response (DOR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Objective Disease Response)19.4 Months
Secondary

Median Baseline Percent (%) Positive Cells for Ki67

Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimen from the original diagnostic tumor tissue was collected and sent to the sponsor-designated central laboratories for assessment of Ki67 associated with sensitivity and/or resistance to Palbociclib.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: This was a subset of as-treated (AT) population (participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received), who had both baseline and at least 1 follow-up values for Ki67.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleMedian Baseline Percent (%) Positive Cells for Ki6730.0 Percentage of Ki67 positive cells
Placebo + LetrozoleMedian Baseline Percent (%) Positive Cells for Ki6727.5 Percentage of Ki67 positive cells
Secondary

Model Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index Scores

The EQ-5D is a 6-item instrument designed to assess health status in terms of a single index value or utility score. It consists of 5 descriptors of current health state (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression); a participant was asked to rate each state on a 3 level scale (1=no problem, 2=some problem, and 3=extreme problem) with higher levels indicating greater severity/impairment.

Time frame: Baseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1

Population: This was a subset of intent-to-treat (ITT) population (participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized), who had both baseline and who completed all 5 items needed to calculated the index-based summary score ata the respective cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 15 Day 10.000 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 35 Day 1-0.020 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 2 Day 10.013 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 37 Day 1-0.022 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 17 Day 1-0.002 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 39 Day 1-0.024 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 9 Day 10.006 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 41 Day 1-0.027 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 19 Day 1-0.004 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 43 Day 1-0.029 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 5 Day 10.010 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 45 Day 1-0.031 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 21 Day 1-0.006 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 47 Day 1-0.033 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 31 Day 1-0.016 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 49 Day 1-0.035 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 23 Day 1-0.008 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 51 Day 1-0.037 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 11 Day 10.004 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 53 Day 1-0.039 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 25 Day 1-0.010 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 55 Day 1-0.041 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 3 Day 10.012 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 57 Day 1-0.043 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 27 Day 1-0.012 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 59 Day 1-0.045 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 13 Day 10.02 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 61 Day 1-0.047 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 29 Day 1-0.014 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 63 Day 1-0.049 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 7 Day 10.008 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 65 Day 1-0.051 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 33 Day 1-0.018 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 65 Day 1-0.164 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 2 Day 10.014 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 3 Day 10.011 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 5 Day 10.005 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 7 Day 10.000 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 9 Day 1-0.006 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 11 Day 1-0.012 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 13 Day 1-0.017 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 15 Day 1-0.023 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 17 Day 1-0.029 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 19 Day 1-0.034 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 21 Day 1-0.040 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 23 Day 1-0.045 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 25 Day 1-0.051 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 27 Day 1-0.057 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 31 Day 1-0.068 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 33 Day 1-0.074 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 35 Day 1-0.079 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 37 Day 1-0.085 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 39 Day 1-0.090 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 41 Day 1-0.096 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 43 Day 1-0.102 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 45 Day 1-0.107 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 47 Day 1-0.113 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 49 Day 1-0.119 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 51 Day 1-0.124 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 53 Day 1-0.130 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 55 Day 1-0.136 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 57 Day 1-0.141 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 59 Day 1-0.147 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 61 Day 1-0.152 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 63 Day 1-0.158 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5-Dimension Scale (EQ-5D) Index ScoresCycle 29 Day 1-0.062 Units on a scale
Comparison: The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.p-value: 0.191495% CI: [-0.02, 0.08]Mixed effects model
Secondary

Model Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores

The EQ VAS recorded the participant's self rated questionnaire to assess generic health status on a scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state). Published weights were available that allow for the creation of a single summary score.

Time frame: Baseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1

Population: This was a subset of intent-to-treat (ITT) population (participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized), who had both baseline and who completed all 5 items needed to calculated the index-based summary score ata the respective cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 65 Day 17.918 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 2 Day 13.047 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 3 Day 13.125 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 5 Day 13.279 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 7 Day 13.434 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 9 Day 13.589 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 11 Day 13.743 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 13 Day 13.898 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 15 Day 14.052 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 17 Day 14.207 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 19 Day 14.362 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 21 Day 14.516 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 23 Day 14.671 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 25 Day 14.826 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 27 Day 14.980 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 29 Day 15.135 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 31 Day 15.289 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 33 Day 15.444 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 35 Day 15.599 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 37 Day 15.753 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 39 Day 15.908 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 41 Day 16.063 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 43 Day 16.217 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 45 Day 16.372 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 47 Day 16.526 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 49 Day 16.681 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 51 Day 16.836 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 53 Day 16.990 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 55 Day 17.145 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 57 Day 17.300 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 59 Day 17.454 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 61 Day 17.609 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 63 Day 17.763 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 49 Day 1-0.272 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 33 Day 10.454 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 2 Day 11.861 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 65 Day 1-0.998 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 3 Day 11.815 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 35 Day 10.363 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 5 Day 11.724 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 51 Day 1-0.363 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 7 Day 11.634 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 37 Day 10.272 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 9 Day 11.543 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 59 Day 1-0.726 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 11 Day 11.452 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 39 Day 10.182 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 13 Day 11.361 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 53 Day 1-0.454 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 15 Day 11.271 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 41 Day 10.091 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 17 Day 11.180 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 63 Day 1-0.907 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 19 Day 11.089 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 43 Day 10.000 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 21 Day 10.998 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 55 Day 1-0.544 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 23 Day 10.908 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 45 Day 1-0.091 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 25 Day 10.817 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 61 Day 1-0.817 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 27 Day 10.726 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 47 Day 1-0.181 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 29 Day 10.635 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 57 Day 1-0.635 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ScoresCycle 31 Day 10.545 Units on a scale
Comparison: The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.p-value: 0.007895% CI: [0.88, 5.83]Mixed effects model
Secondary

Model Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total Score

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) is a modular approach to assess participant health related quality of life using a core set of questions (FACT-G) as well as a cancer site specific module. The FACT-G was a 27-item compilation of general questions divided into 4 domains: Physical Well Being, Social/Family Well Being, Emotional Well Being, and Functional Well Being. The FACT-B consists of the FACT-G (27 items) and a breast specific module: a 10-item instrument designed to assess participant concerns relating to breast cancer. For all questions, participants were asked to respond to a 5-level scale ranging from 0=Not at all to 4=Very much. FACT-B total score = FACT-G + Breast Cancer Subscale. As each of the items ranges from 0-4, the range of possible scores is 0-148, with 0 being the worst possible score and 148 the best. A positive change of the total score indicated improvement from baseline and a negative change indicated deterioration.

Time frame: Baseline up to Cycle 65 Day 1

Population: This was a subset of intent-to-treat (ITT) population (participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized), who had both baseline and who completed \>80% of the corresponding questions and had valid scores for the relevant subscales.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 3 Day 11.441 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 35 Day 1-4.227 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 19 Day 1-1.393 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 37 Day 1-4.582 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 11 Day 10.024 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 39 Day 1-4.936 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 21 Day 1-1.748 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 41 Day 1-5.290 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 7 Day 10.732 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 43 Day 1-5.644 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 23 Day 1-2.102 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 45 Day 1-5.999 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 13 Day 1-0.331 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 47 Day 1-6.353 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 25 Day 1-2.456 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 49 Day 1-6.707 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 5 Day 11.087 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 51 Day 1-7.061 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 27 Day 1-2.810 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 53 Day 1-7.416 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 15 Day 1-0.685 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 55 Day 1-7.770 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 29 Day 1-3.165 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 57 Day 1-8.124 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 9 Day 10.378 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 59 Day 1-8.478 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 31 Day 1-3.519 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 61 Day 1-8.833 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 17 Day 1-1.039 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 63 Day 1-9.187 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 33 Day 1-3.873 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 65 Day 1-9.541 Units on a scale
Palbociclib + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 2 Day 11.618 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 65 Day 1-9.707 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 2 Day 11.021 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 3 Day 10.850 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 5 Day 10.510 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 7 Day 10.169 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 9 Day 1-0.171 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 11 Day 1-0.512 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 13 Day 1-0.852 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 15 Day 1-1.193 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 17 Day 1-1.534 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 19 Day 1-1.874 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 21 Day 1-2.215 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 23 Day 1-2.555 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 25 Day 1-2.896 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 27 Day 1-3.326 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 29 Day 1-3.577 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 31 Day 1-3.918 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 33 Day 1-4.258 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 35 Day 1-4.599 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 37 Day 1-4.939 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 39 Day 1-5.280 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 41 Day 1-5.620 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 43 Day 1-5.961 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 45 Day 1-6.301 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 47 Day 1-6.642 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 49 Day 1-6.983 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 51 Day 1-7.323 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 53 Day 1-7.664 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 55 Day 1-8.004 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 57 Day 1-8.345 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 59 Day 1-8.685 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 61 Day 1-9.026 Units on a scale
Placebo + LetrozoleModel Estimated Mean Changes From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Breast (FACT-B) Total ScoreCycle 63 Day 1-9.367 Units on a scale
Comparison: The analysis based on repeated measures mixed-effects model with an intercept term, treatment, time, treatment-by-time, and baseline as covariate.p-value: 0.786295% CI: [-2.97, 3.92]Mixed effects model
Secondary

Number of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)

Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimen from the original diagnostic tumor tissue was collected and sent to the sponsor-designated central laboratories for assessment of ER associated with sensitivity and/or resistance to Palbociclib.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: This was a subset of as-treated (AT) population (participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received), who had both baseline and at least 1 follow-up values for ER.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Positive152 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Negative2 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Unknown14 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Positive162 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Negative1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Detection in Estrogen Receptor (ER)Unknown8 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - Chemistry

The laboratory results were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CTCAE v4.0 severity grade. Shift tables were provided to examine the distribution of laboratory toxicities. The following chemistry parameters had met the criteria of CTCAE grade shift change from Grade \<=2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 post baseline: alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), bilirubin (total), creatinine, hypercalcemia, hyperglycemia, hyperkalemia, hypermagnesemia, hypernatremia, hypoalbuminemia, hypocalcemia, hypoglycemia, hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hyponatremia.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was as-treated (AT) population, including all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryALT9 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryAlkaline phosphatase0 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryAST9 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryBilirubin (total)2 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryCreatinine1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypercalcemia1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyperglycemia1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyperkalemia1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypermagnesemia10 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypernatremia2 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypoalbuminemia0 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypocalcemia1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypoglycemia0 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypokalemia3 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypomagnesemia3 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyponatremia11 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyponatremia2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryALT1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypermagnesemia8 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryAlkaline phosphatase2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypoglycemia1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryAST6 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypernatremia1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryBilirubin (total)2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypomagnesemia1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryCreatinine0 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypoalbuminemia0 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypercalcemia2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypokalemia6 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyperglycemia1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHypocalcemia1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - ChemistryHyperkalemia0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - Hematology

The laboratory results were graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CTCAE v4.0 severity grade. Shift tables were provided to examine the distribution of laboratory toxicities. The following hematology parameters had met the criteria of CTCAE grade shift change from Grade \<=2 at baseline to Grade 3 or 4 post baseline: neutrophils (absolute), white blood cells, platelets, anemia and hemoglobin increased.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was as-treated (AT) population, including all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyWhite blood cells77 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyAnemia10 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyPlatelets13 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyHemoglobin increased3 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyNeutrophils (absolute)143 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyHemoglobin increased0 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyNeutrophils (absolute)2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyWhite blood cells1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyPlatelets1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Postbaseline Laboratory Abnormalities of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Grade 3 or 4 (Participants With Baseline Laboratory Abnormalities of CTCAE Grade <=2) - HematologyAnemia3 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)

An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. A serious AE (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Participants were counted only once per treatment in each row.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was as-treated (AT) population, including all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with AEs168 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with SAEs26 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with Grade 3 or 4 AEs152 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with Grade 5 AEs4 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued study due to AEs13 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo or Letrozole due to AEs11 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs11 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Letrozole due to AEs10 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants temporarily discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs136 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants temporarily discontinued Letrozole due to AEs11 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with dose reduction of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs16 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with dose reduction and temporary discontinuations of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs38 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with dose reduction of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with AEs155 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs4 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with SAEs16 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants temporarily discontinued Letrozole due to AEs9 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with Grade 3 or 4 AEs38 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Letrozole due to AEs3 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with Grade 5 AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants with dose reduction and temporary discontinuations of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued study due to AEs5 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants temporarily discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs17 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo or Letrozole due to AEs4 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)

An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. A serious AE (SAE) was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to 28 days after last dose that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Relatedness to treatment was assessed by the investigator (Yes/No). Participants were counted only once per treatment in each row.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was as-treated (AT) population, including all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants temporarily discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs132 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants temporarily discontinued Letrozole due to AEs7 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with dose reduction of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs15 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with dose reduction and temporary discontinuations of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs37 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with AEs167 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with SAEs8 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with Grade 3 or 4 AEs149 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with Grade 5 AEs1 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued study due to AEs6 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo or Letrozole due to AEs5 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued due to AEs related to Palbociclib/Placebo5 Participants
Palbociclib + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued due to AEs related to Letrozole1 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued due to AEs related to Palbociclib/Placebo2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants temporarily discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs11 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with Grade 3 or 4 AEs18 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants temporarily discontinued Letrozole due to AEs5 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued Palbociclib/Placebo or Letrozole due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with dose reduction of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with Grade 5 AEs0 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with dose reduction and temporary discontinuations of Palbociclib/Placebo due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued due to AEs related to Letrozole0 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with AEs123 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants discontinued study due to AEs2 Participants
Placebo + LetrozoleNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related)Participants with SAEs3 Participants
Secondary

Overall Survival (OS)

OS was 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. OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleOverall Survival (OS)51.7 Months
Placebo + LetrozoleOverall Survival (OS)51.5 Months
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.3650295% CI: [0.698, 1.286]Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Wiht Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment

OR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on investigator assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants Wiht Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment37.3 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants Wiht Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment31.6 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.15495% CI: [0.805, 2.1]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)

DC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)76.9 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)73.1 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.24895% CI: [0.725, 2.082]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)

DC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with measureable disease at baseline, including the participants, who were randomized, with measureable disease at baseline, and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)78.1 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)71.8 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.18995% CI: [0.731, 2.509]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment

DC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as \>=30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on investigator assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment79.3 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment80.1 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.47195% CI: [0.533, 1.673]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)

DC/CBR was defined as CR, PR, or stable disease (SD) \>=24 weeks according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST v1.1) recorded in the time period between randomization and disease progression or death to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions except for nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. SD was defined as not qualifying for CR, PR, PD. PD is defined using RECIST v1.1 as a 20% increase in the sum of of diameters of target measurable lesions above the smallest sum observed, with a minimum absolute increase of 5 mm. In this outcome measure, DC/CBR was based on investigator assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with measureable disease at baseline, including the participants, who were randomized, with measureable disease at baseline, and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)77.9 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Disease Control/Clinical Benefit Response (DC/CBR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)79.6 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.38395% CI: [0.474, 1.621]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)

OR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)40.2 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)33.9 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.13595% CI: [0.825, 2.095]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)

OR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with measureable disease at baseline, including the participants, who were randomized, with measureable disease at baseline, and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)52.3 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR) (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)43.5 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.11795% CI: [0.825, 2.346]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)

OR was defined as a complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 recorded from randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause. CR was defined as complete disappearance of all target lesions with the exception of nodal disease. All target nodes must decrease to normal size (short axis \<10 mm). No new lesions. The PR was defined as greater than or equal to 30% decrease under baseline of the sum of diameters of all target measurable lesions. The short diameter was used in the sum for target nodes, while the longest diameter was used in the sum for all other target lesions. No new lesions. In this outcome measure, OR was based on investigator assessment.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population with measureable disease at baseline, including the participants, who were randomized, with measureable disease at baseline, and study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Palbociclib + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)43.4 Percentage of participants
Placebo + LetrozolePercentage of Participants With Objective Response (OR) Based on Investigator Assessment (Participants With Measureable Disease at Baseline)38.0 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.20695% CI: [0.762, 2.066]Fisher Exact
Secondary

Progression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)

PFS was based on Kaplan-Meier estimates. PFS was defined as time from the first dose of study treatment to the first documentation of objective tumor progression or to death due to any cause in the absence of documented progressive disease, whichever occurs first. In this outcome measure, PFS was based on BICR.

Time frame: Randomization up to 65 months

Population: This was intent-to-treat (ITT) population, including all participants who were randomized, with study drug assignment designated according to initial randomization, regardless of whether participants received study drug or received a different drug from that to which they were randomized.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Palbociclib + LetrozoleProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)21.6 Months
Placebo + LetrozoleProgression-Free Survival (PFS) Based on Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR)16.4 Months
Comparison: Stratified by disease site (visceral versus non-visceral) per Randomization.p-value: 0.1477895% CI: [0.651, 1.139]Log Rank
Secondary

Trough Plasma Concentration of Palbociclib

Summary of palbociclib trough concentrations

Time frame: Pre-dose on Day 14 of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2

Population: This was a subset of as-treated (AT) population (participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, with treatment assignments designated according to actual study treatment received), including all participants who are treated with palbociclib and have at least 1 measured plasma concentration.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (GEOMETRIC_MEAN)Dispersion
Palbociclib + LetrozoleTrough Plasma Concentration of PalbociclibCycle 181.1 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 29
Palbociclib + LetrozoleTrough Plasma Concentration of PalbociclibCycle 277.4 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 43
Palbociclib + LetrozoleTrough Plasma Concentration of PalbociclibAverage trough concentration80.2 ng/mLGeometric Coefficient of Variation 36

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 15, 2026