Impact of hormone receptor status and tumor subtypes of breast cancer in young BRCA carriers.

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor expression is a known positive prognostic and predictive factor in breast cancer; however, limited evidence exists on its prognostic impact on prognosis of young patients harboring a pathogenic variant (PV) in the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 genes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included young patients (aged ≤40 years) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and harboring germline PVs in BRCA genes. We investigated the impact of hormone receptor status on clinical behavior and outcomes of breast cancer. Outcomes of interest [disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and overall survival (OS)] were first investigated according to hormone receptor expression (positive versus negative), and then according to breast cancer subtype [luminal A-like versus luminal B-like versus triple-negative versus human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer]. RESULTS: From 78 centers worldwide, 4709 BRCA carriers were included, of whom 2143 (45.5%) had hormone receptor-positive and 2566 (54.5%) hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. Median follow-up was 7.9 years. The rate of distant recurrences was higher in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease (13.1% versus 9.6%, P < 0.001), while the rate of second primary breast cancer was lower (9.1% versus 14.7%, P < 0.001) compared to patients with hormone receptor-negative disease. The 8-year DFS was 65.8% and 63.4% in patients with hormone receptor-positive and negative disease, respectively. The hazard ratio of hormone receptor-positive versus negative disease changed over time for DFS, BCSS, and OS (P < 0.05 for interaction of hormone receptor status and survival time). Patients with luminal A-like breast cancer had the worst long-term prognosis in terms of DFS compared to all the other subgroups (8-year DFS: 60.8% in luminal A-like versus 63.5% in triple-negative versus 65.5% in HER2-positive and 69.7% in luminal B-like subtype). CONCLUSIONS: In young BRCA carriers, differences in recurrence pattern and second primary breast cancer among hormone receptor-positive versus negative disease warrant consideration in counseling patients on treatment, follow-up, and risk-reducing surgery.

Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.