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.

Making Informed Choices On Incorporating Chemoprevention into carE (MiCHOICE, SWOG 1904): Design and methods of a cluster randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) have a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, which can be substantially reduced with antiestrogen therapy for chemoprevention. However, antiestrogen therapy for breast cancer risk reduction remains underutilized. Improving knowledge about breast cancer risk and chemoprevention among high-risk patients and their healthcare providers may enhance informed decision-making about this critical breast cancer risk reduction strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: We are conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of patient and provider decision support tools to improve informed choice about chemoprevention among women with AH or LCIS. We have cluster randomized 26 sites across the U.S. through the SWOG Cancer Research Network. A total of 415 patients and 200 healthcare providers are being recruited. They are assigned to standard educational materials alone or combined with the web-based decision support tools. Patient-reported and clinical outcomes are assessed at baseline, after a follow-up visit at 6 months, and yearly for 5 years. The primary outcome is chemoprevention informed choice after the follow-up visit. Secondary endpoints include other patient-reported outcomes, such as chemoprevention knowledge, decision conflict and regret, and self-reported chemoprevention usage. Barriers and facilitators to implementing decision support into clinic workflow are assessed through patient and provider interviews at baseline and mid-implementation. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: With this hybrid effectiveness/implementation study, we seek to evaluate if a multi-level intervention effectively promotes informed decision-making about chemoprevention and provide valuable insights on how the intervention is implemented in U.S. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04496739.