Precision therapeutics and emerging strategies for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Anti-oestrogen-based therapies, often combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, are the current standard-of-care first-line therapy for patients with advanced-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Resistance to anti-oestrogen agents inevitably occurs, mediated by oestrogen receptor (ER)-dependent or ER-independent mechanisms that drive tumour progression. Emerging endocrine therapies include, but are not limited to, next-generation oral ER degraders and proteolysis targeting chimeras, which might be particularly effective in patients with ESR1-mutant breast cancer. Furthermore, cancers harbouring driver alterations in oncogenic signalling pathways, including AKT and PI3K, might be susceptible to novel combination strategies involving targeted inhibitors. Next-generation CDK2/4 inhibitors are an area of active clinical investigation, and efforts are ongoing to evaluate the role of sequential CDK inhibition. Approved and emerging antibody-drug conjugates exploiting novel target antigens have also demonstrated promising clinical activity. These novel agents, as well as further identification and characterization of predictive biomarkers, will hopefully continue to improve clinical outcomes, reduce the incidence of toxicities, and limit the extent of overtreatment in this population. In this Review, we describe the evolving treatment paradigm for patients with metastatic HR+ breast cancer in light of the growing armamentarium of drugs and biomarkers that will help to shape the future therapeutic landscape. These strategies are expected to involve tumour molecular profiling to enable the delivery of precision medicine.

VERITAC-2: a Phase III study of vepdegestrant, a PROTAC ER degrader, versus fulvestrant in ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Vepdegestrant (ARV-471) is an oral PROTAC ER degrader that binds an E3 ubiquitin ligase and ER to directly trigger ubiquitination of ER and its subsequent proteasomal degradation. In a first-in-human Phase I/II study, vepdegestrant monotherapy was well tolerated with clinical activity in pretreated patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. The global, randomized Phase III VERITAC-2 study compares efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in adults with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Progression-free survival by blinded independent central review (primary end point) will be assessed in the intention-to-treat population and ESR1 mutation-positive subpopulation. Secondary end points include overall survival, tumor response, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and circulating tumor DNA biomarkers.Clinical trial registration: NCT05654623 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

VERITAC-2 is a clinical trial comparing vepdegestrant, a new drug that degrades estrogen receptors, to an existing treatment called fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer grows in response to estrogen, a hormone in the body, and has low levels or no HER2 protein. People living with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer that has grown, spread to another part of the body, or cannot be removed by surgery are often treated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapies, but their cancer may get worse on these treatments and new treatments are needed. Fulvestrant, an endocrine therapy that attaches to estrogen receptors, lowers estrogen's effect on tumors and can slow or stop cancer growth. Vepdegestrant, a new medicine being tested for ER+ breast cancer, is a PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera (PROTAC) protein degrader that attaches to estrogen receptors and causes them to be tagged for removal by the cell's natural protein disposal system. By removing estrogen receptors, vepdegestrant may cause tumors to stop growing or shrink.This paper describes the Phase III VERITAC-2 clinical study comparing vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in people living with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy.Patients will be randomly assigned to receive vepdegestrant (a pill taken once daily by mouth) or fulvestrant (a shot given into the muscle). The purpose of the study is to find out how long people live without their cancer getting worse with vepdegestrant or fulvestrant. VERITAC-2 will also look at how long people live during the study, side effects people may experience, and the overall well-being of people throughout the study.

Mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance to CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treatment.

Cell cycle dysregulation is a hallmark of cancer that promotes eccessive cell division. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) and cyclin-dependent kinase 6 (CDK6) are key molecules in the G1-to-S phase cell cycle transition and are crucial for the onset, survival, and progression of breast cancer (BC). Small-molecule CDK4/CDK6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) block phosphorylation of tumor suppressor Rb and thus restrain susceptible BC cells in G1 phase. Three CDK4/6i are approved for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) BC in combination with endocrine therapy (ET). Though this has improved the clinical outcomes for survival of BC patients, there is no established standard next-line treatment to tackle drug resistance. Recent studies suggest that CDK4/6i can modulate other distinct effects in both BC and breast stromal compartments, which may provide new insights into aspects of their clinical activity. This review describes the biochemistry of the CDK4/6-Rb-E2F pathway in HR+ BC, then discusses how CDK4/6i can trigger other effects in BC/breast stromal compartments, and finally outlines the mechanisms of CDK4/6i resistance that have emerged in recent preclinical studies and clinical cohorts, emphasizing the impact of these findings on novel therapeutic opportunities in BC.

Antibody-Drug Conjugate Sacituzumab Govitecan Enables a Sequential TOP1/PARP Inhibitor Therapy Strategy in Patients with Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan (SG) comprises the topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) inhibitor (TOP1i) SN-38, coupled to a monoclonal antibody targeting trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP-2). Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition may synergize with TOP1i and SG, but previous studies combining systemic PARP and TOP1 inhibitors failed due to dose-limiting myelosuppression. Here, we assess the proof-of-mechanism and clinical feasibility for SG and talazoparib (TZP) employing an innovative sequential dosing schedule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In vitro models tested pharmacodynamic endpoints, and in a phase 1b clinical trial (NCT04039230), 30 patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) received SG and TZP in a concurrent (N = 7) or sequential (N = 23) schedule. Outcome measures included safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and establishment of a recommended phase 2 dose. RESULTS: We hypothesized that tumor-selective delivery of TOP1i via SG would reduce nontumor toxicity and create a temporal window, enabling sequential dosing of SG and PARP inhibition. In vitro, sequential SG followed by TZP delayed TOP1 cleavage complex clearance, increased DNA damage, and promoted apoptosis. In the clinical trial, sequential SG/TZP successfully met primary objectives and demonstrated median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.6 months without dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), while concurrent dosing yielded 2.3 months PFS and multiple DLTs including severe myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: While SG dosed concurrently with TZP is not tolerated clinically due to an insufficient therapeutic window, sequential dosing of SG followed by TZP proved a viable strategy. These findings support further clinical development of the combination and suggest that ADC-based therapy may facilitate novel, mechanism-based dosing strategies.

CDK4/6 Inhibitor Efficacy in ESR1-Mutant Metastatic Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer, ESR1 mutations (ESR1m) are a common mechanism of acquired resistance to aromatase inhibitors (ArIh). However, the impact ESR1 alterations have on CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) sensitivity has not been established. Analyses of CDK4/6i trials suggest that the endocrine therapy partner and specific ESR1 allele may affect susceptibility. We analyzed a real-world data set to investigate CDK4/6i efficacy in ESR1m metastatic breast cancer and associated clinical factors. METHODS: ESR1m were identified by analysis of circulating-tumor deoxyribonucleic acid. The GuardantINFORM database contains genomic information from tumors linked with claims data. Patients who started a CDK4/6i within 30 days of sequencing were categorized as having ESR1m or non-ESR1-mutant (non-ESR1m) breast cancer. Data were analyzed to determine the real-world time-to-next-treatment, defined as the start of a breast cancer treatment to initiation of the subsequent treatment. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients with ESR1m and 612 with non-ESR1m metastatic breast cancer were analyzed. ESR1m and non-ESR1m tumors had similar real-world time-to-next-treatment on CDK4/6i regimens (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.23). Duration on therapy in the first-line and second-line plus treatment settings were comparable regardless of ESR1 status. We stratified treatment duration by concurrent endocrine therapy, and patients with ESR1m had worse outcomes on ArIh but comparable real-world time-to-next-treatment on fulvestrant. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest ESR1 variants are not associated with pan-CDK4/6i resistance and are consistent with the hypothesis that CDK4/6 blockade combined with a selective estrogen receptor degrader is potentially an effective option for ESR1m metastatic breast cancer.

Novel oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) to target hormone receptor positive breast cancer: elacestrant as the poster-child.

INTRODUCTION: Estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer is the most common breast cancer subtype, and therapeutic management relies primarily on inhibiting ER signaling. In the metastatic setting, ER signaling is typically targeted by selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) or aromatase inhibitors (AIs), the latter of which prevent estrogen production. Activating ESR1 mutations are among the most common emergent breast cancer mutations and confer resistance to AIs. AREAS COVERED: Until 2023, fulvestrant was the only approved SERD; fulvestrant is administered intramuscularly, and in some cases may also have limited efficacy in the setting of certain ESR1 mutations. In 2023, the first oral SERD, elacestrant, was approved for use in ESR1-mutated, ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and represents a new class of therapeutic options. While the initial approval was as monotherapy, ongoing studies are evaluating elacestrant (as well as other oral SERDs) in combination with other therapies including CDK4/6 inhibitors and PI3K inhibitors, which parallels the current combination uses of fulvestrant. EXPERT OPINION: Elacestrant's recent approval sheds light on the use of biomarkers such as ESR1 to gauge a tumor's endocrine sensitivity. Ongoing therapeutic and correlative biomarker studies will offer new insight and expanding treatment options for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Cracking the Genomic Code of CDK4/6 Inhibitor Resistance.

The therapeutic approach to metastatic hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor-2-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- MBC) has evolved rapidly over recent years. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become first-line targeted agents of choice, in combination with an antiestrogen. Simultaneously, the clinical landscape of therapeutic options has been rapidly shifting, with novel antiestrogens, signal transduction inhibitors, and next-generation CDK inhibitors in various stages of development. Given these dynamic changes, understanding the genomic and molecular landscape of resistance to currently available antiestrogen therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors represents a major focus of translational breast cancer research globally. See related article by Goetz et al., p. 2233.

Virtual Molecular and Precision Medicine Clinic to Improve Access to Clinical Trials for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Academic/Community Collaboration.

PURPOSE: There is a demand for improved care delivery surrounding genomic testing and clinical trial enrollment among patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We sought to improve the current process via real-time informal consultation and prescreening assessment for patients with MBC treated by community and academic medical oncologists by implementing a virtual molecular and precision medicine (vMAP) clinic. METHODS: The vMAP program used a virtual referral system directed to a multidisciplinary team with precision medicine expertise. Providers contacted vMAP regarding patients with MBC, and on receipt of referral, the vMAP team engaged in discussion to identify if further diagnostics were needed (including genomic testing) and to identify potential clinical trials or standard treatment options. Recommendations were then sent to the referring provider within 72 hours. Pre-/postsurveys were issued to network physicians to assess for barriers, clinical trial access, and vMAP referral experience. Program implementation was evaluated with the Squire 2.0 reporting guidelines for quality improvement in health care as a framework. RESULTS: Eighty-one cases from 22 providers were referred to vMAP over a 26-month period. The average response time to the referring provider with a finalized recommendation was 1.90 ± 1.82 days. A total of 86.4% of cases had clinical trial options on vMAP prescreen, with 40.7% initiating formal screening assessments and 27 patients (33.3%) ultimately enrolling on trials. On resurvey, 92% of survey responses across community oncology referring providers said that they were very likely to use vMAP again. CONCLUSION: In the initial 2-year period, vMAP demonstrated an efficient means to offer real-time interpretation of genomic testing and identification of clinical trials for patients with MBC, with effective clinical trial enrollment and high rates of referring provider satisfaction.

Interplay between ESR1/PIK3CA codon variants, oncogenic pathway alterations and clinical phenotype in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): comprehensive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis.

BACKGROUND: although being central for the biology and druggability of hormone-receptor positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations are simplistically dichotomized as mutated or wild type in current clinical practice. METHODS: The study analyzed a multi-institutional cohort comprising 703 patients with luminal-like MBC characterized for circulating tumor DNA through next generation sequencing (NGS). Pathway classification was defined based on previous work (i.e., RTK, RAS, RAF, MEK, NRF2, ER, WNT, MYC, P53, cell cycle, notch, PI3K). Single nucleotide variations (SNVs) were annotated for their oncogenicity through OncoKB. Only pathogenic variants were included in the models. Associations among clinical characteristics, pathway classification, and ESR1/PIK3CA codon variants were explored. RESULTS: The results showed a differential pattern of associations for ESR1 and PIK3CA codon variants in terms of co-occurring pathway alterations patterns of metastatic dissemination, and prognosis. ESR1 537 was associated with SNVs in the ER and RAF pathways, CNVs in the MYC pathway and bone metastases, while ESR1 538 with SNVs in the cell cycle pathway and liver metastases. PIK3CA 1047 and 542 were associated with CNVs in the PI3K pathway and with bone metastases. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated how ESR1 and PIK3CA codon variants, together with alterations in specific oncogenic pathways, can differentially impact the biology and clinical phenotype of luminal-like MBC. As novel endocrine therapy agents such as selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDS) and PI3K inhibitors are being developed, these results highlight the pivotal role of ctDNA NGS to describe tumor evolution and optimize clinical decision making.

Adverse kidney outcomes of CDK 4/6 inhibitors for metastatic breast cancer.

Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors have significantly improved overall and progression free survival of patients with metastatic breast cancer, but their effect on short and long-term kidney function is unknown. We found that early, mild estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline was common in patients treated with CDK 4/6 inhibitors; however, severe kidney injury is rare and long-term eGFR decline is uncommon.

Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors Beyond Progression in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Real-World Biomarker Analysis.

PURPOSE: As the continuation beyond progression (BP) of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is becoming increasingly attractive for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), the definition of resistance factors is crucial. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of CDK 4/6i BP and to explore potential genomic stratification factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a multi-institutional cohort of patients with HR-positive HER2-negative MBC characterized for circulating tumor DNA through next-generation sequencing before treatment start. Differences across subgroups were analyzed by chi-square test, and survival was tested by univariable and multivariable Cox regression. Further correction was applied by propensity score matching. RESULTS: Among the 214 patients previously exposed to CDK4/6i, 172 were treated with non-CDK4/6i-based treatment (non-CDK) and 42 with CDK4/6i BP. Multivariable analysis showed a significant impact of CDK4/6i BP, TP53 single-nucleotide variants, liver involvement, and treatment line on both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching confirmed the prognostic role of CDK4/6i BP both for PFS and OS. The favorable impact of CDK4/6i BP was consistent across all subgroups, and a differential benefit was suggested for ESR1-mutated patients. ESR1 and RB1 mutations were more represented in the CDK4/6i BP subgroup with respect to CDK4/6i upfront. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted a significant prognostic impact of the CDK4/6i BP strategy with a potential added benefit in patients with ESR1 mutations suggesting the need for an extensive biomarker characterization.

A Gene Panel Associated With Abemaciclib Utility in ESR1-Mutated Breast Cancer After Prior Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6-Inhibitor Progression.

PURPOSE: For patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), first-line treatment is endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i). After disease progression, which often comes with ESR1 resistance mutations (ESR1-MUT), which therapies to use next and for which patients are open questions. An active area of exploration is treatment with further CDK4/6i, particularly abemaciclib, which has distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with the other approved CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib and ribociclib. We investigated a gene panel to prognosticate abemaciclib susceptibility in patients with ESR1-MUT MBC after palbociclib progression. METHODS: We examined a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with ESR1-MUT MBC who received abemaciclib after disease progression on ET plus palbociclib. We generated a panel of CDK4/6i resistance genes and compared abemaciclib progression-free survival (PFS) in patients without versus with mutations in this panel (CDKi-R[-] v CDKi-R[+]). We studied how ESR1-MUT and CDKi-R mutations affect abemaciclib sensitivity of immortalized breast cancer cells and patient-derived circulating tumor cell lines in culture. RESULTS: In ESR1-MUT MBC with disease progression on ET plus palbociclib, the median PFS was 7.0 months for CDKi-R(-) (n = 17) versus 3.5 months for CDKi-R(+) (n = 11), with a hazard ratio of 2.8 (P = .03). In vitro, CDKi-R alterations but not ESR1-MUT induced abemaciclib resistance in immortalized breast cancer cells and were associated with resistance in circulating tumor cells. CONCLUSION: For ESR1-MUT MBC with resistance to ET and palbociclib, PFS on abemaciclib is longer for patients with CDKi-R(-) than CDKi-R(+). Although a small and retrospective data set, this is the first demonstration of a genomic panel associated with abemaciclib sensitivity in the postpalbociclib setting. Future directions include testing and improving this panel in additional data sets, to guide therapy selection for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

Clinical Implications and Treatment Strategies for ESR1 Fusions in Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Case Series.

In hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+ MBC), endocrine resistance is commonly due to genetic alterations of ESR1, the gene encoding estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). While ESR1 point mutations (ESR1-MUT) cause acquired resistance to aromatase inhibition (AI) through constitutive activation, far less is known about the molecular functions and clinical consequences of ESR1 fusions (ESR1-FUS). This case series discusses 4 patients with HR+ MBC with ESR1-FUS in the context of the existing ESR1-FUS literature. We consider therapeutic strategies and raise the hypothesis that CDK4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i) may be effective against ESR1-FUS with functional ligand-binding domain swaps. These cases highlight the importance of screening for ESR1-FUS in patients with HR+ MBC while continuing investigation of precision treatments for these genomic rearrangements.

Immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with breast cancer.

Purpose: To explore the immunogenicity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines in patients with breast cancer based on type of anticancer treatment. Methods: Patients with breast cancer had anti-spike antibody concentrations measured ⩾14 days after receiving a full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination series. The primary endpoint was IgA/G/M anti-spike antibody concentration. Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze log10-transformed antibody titer concentrations. Results: Between 29 April and 20 July 2021, 233 patients with breast cancer were enrolled, of whom 212 were eligible for the current analysis. Patients who received mRNA-1273 (Moderna) had the highest antibody concentrations [geometric mean concentration (GMC) in log10: 3.0 U/mL], compared to patients who received BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (GMC: 2.6 U/mL) (multiple regression adjusted p = 0.013) and Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson/Janssen) (GMC: 2.6 U/mL) (p = 0.071). Patients receiving cytotoxic therapy had a significantly lower antibody titer GMC (2.5 U/mL) compared to patients on no therapy or endocrine therapy alone (3.0 U/mL) (p = 0.005). Patients on targeted therapies (GMC: 2.7 U/mL) also had a numerically lower GMC compared to patients not receiving therapy/on endocrine therapy alone, although this result was not significant (p = 0.364). Among patients who received an additional dose of vaccine (n = 31), 28 demonstrated an increased antibody response that ranged from 0.2 to >4.4 U/ mL. Conclusion: Most patients with breast cancer generate detectable anti-spike antibodies following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, though systemic treatments and vaccine type impact level of response. Further studies are needed to better understand the clinical implications of different antibody levels, the effectiveness of additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, and the risk of breakthrough infections among patients with breast cancer.

Next-generation selective estrogen receptor degraders and other novel endocrine therapies for management of metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: current and emerging role.

Endocrine therapy (ET) is a pivotal strategy to manage early- and advanced-stage estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. In patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), progression of disease inevitably occurs due to the presence of acquired or intrinsic resistance mechanisms. ET resistance can be driven by ligand-independent, ER-mediated signaling that promotes tumor proliferation in the absence of hormone, or ER-independent oncogenic signaling that circumvents endocrine regulated transcription pathways. Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations induce constitutive ER activity and upregulate ER-dependent gene transcription, provoking resistance to estrogen deprivation and aromatase inhibitor therapy. The role ESR1 mutations play in regulating response to other therapies, such as the selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) fulvestrant and the available CDK4/6 inhibitors, is less clear. Novel oral SERDs and other next-generation ETs are in clinical development for ER+ breast cancer as single agents and in combination with established targeted therapies. Recent results from the phase III EMERALD trial demonstrated improved outcomes with the oral SERD elacestrant compared to standard anti-estrogen therapies in ER+ MBC after prior progression on ET, and other agents have shown promise in both the laboratory and early-phase clinical trials. In this review, we will discuss the emerging data related to oral SERDs and other novel ET in managing ER+ breast cancer. As clinical data continue to mature on these next-generation ETs, important questions will emerge related to the optimal sequence of therapeutic options and the genomic and molecular landscape of resistance to these agents.

Targeting CDK4 and 6 in Cancer Therapy: Emerging Preclinical Insights Related to Abemaciclib.

Pharmacologic inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4 and 6) are approved for the treatment of subsets of patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). In metastatic disease, strategies involving endocrine therapy combined with CDK4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4 and 6i) improve clinical outcomes in HR+ BCs. CDK4 and 6i prevent retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein phosphorylation, thereby blocking the transcription of E2F target genes, which in turn inhibits both mitogen and estrogen-mediated cell proliferation. In this review, we summarize preclinical data pertaining to the use of CDK4 and 6i in BC, with a particular focus on several of the unique chemical, pharmacologic, and mechanistic properties of abemaciclib. As research efforts elucidate the novel mechanisms underlying abemaciclib activity, potential new applications are being identified. For example, preclinical studies have demonstrated abemaciclib can exert antitumor activity against multiple tumor types and can cross the blood-brain barrier. Abemaciclib has also demonstrated distinct activity as a monotherapeutic in the treatment of BC. Accordingly, we also discuss how a greater understanding of mechanisms related to CDK4 and 6 blockade highlight abemaciclib's unique in-class properties, and could pave new avenues for enhancing its therapeutic efficacy.

Venous and arterial thrombosis associated with abemaciclib therapy for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib is a mainstay of treatment for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, increased venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates in multiple clinical trials resulted in a black-box warning for this agent. Thrombosis rates in unselected real-world populations receiving abemaciclib remain ill defined. METHODS: A multicenter observational cohort study was conducted of patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving abemaciclib. The primary end point was thrombosis during treatment or within 30 days of discontinuation. Multivariable logistic models assessed predictors of VTE, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model assessed mortality. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were included, with a median treatment duration of 5.5 months. Twenty-six patients developed 27 (7.4%) thrombotic events (17 VTE, nine arterial thrombosis, and one with both events). No baseline characteristics were associated with increased VTE risk in multivariable modeling. Patients developing VTE during therapy had a higher risk of death than those who did not (hazard ratio, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.07-4.13). Median survival in patients who developed VTE compared with those who did not was 9.6 vs 25.8 months, respectively. The rate of VTE and any thrombosis during abemaciclib therapy was 9.1 and 13.7 events per 100 person-years, respectively, which is notably higher than rates observed in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, abemaciclib was associated with a VTE rate approximately two-fold greater than the already elevated rates reported in the MONARCH trials. Patients developing thrombosis on abemaciclib had a significantly higher risk of death. Given these findings, studies evaluating the role of thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving abemaciclib are needed.