Unlocking estrogen receptor: Structural insights into agonists and antagonists for glioblastoma therapy.

Glioblastoma (GBM), a malignant brain tumor originating in glial cells, is one of the most common primary brain malignancies, affecting one in 100,000 people, typically in the frontal lobe. Estrogens, like estradiol-17 (E2), significantly influence GBM progression, metastasis, and angiogenesis. Estrogen receptors (ERs) are crucial in signal transduction and physiology, making them potential therapeutic targets. However, their roles in GBM pathogenesis remain unclear. This review explores ERs in GBM, focusing on their involvement in tumor immune evasion, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and the mechanisms underlying GBM progression. Additionally, therapeutic opportunities targeting ERs for GBM treatment are discussed. Estrogen, synthesized primarily in ovaries and in smaller amounts by adrenal glands and fat tissues, regulates reproductive systems, bone density, skin health, and cardiovascular function. The invasive nature and heterogeneity of GBM complicate therapy development. Preclinical findings suggest that endocrine therapy with hormone receptor agonists or antagonists can extend patient survival and improve post-treatment quality of life. The ERß pathway, in particular, shows tumor-suppressive potential, limiting glioma progression with fewer side effects. ERß agonists could become a novel drug class for GBM treatment. Identifying biomarkers and specific therapeutic targets is crucial for early detection and improved prognosis. Estrogen and its receptors are advantageous for GBM treatment due to their regulation of numerous biological processes, ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and genomic and non-genomic control of transcription, making them promising targets for GBM therapy.

Estrogen Receptor Blockade Potentiates Immunotherapy for Liver Metastases by Altering the Liver Immunosuppressive Microenvironment.

Liver metastases (LM) remain a major cause of cancer-related death and are a major clinical challenge. LM and the female sex are predictors of a poorer response to immunotherapy but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. We previously reported on a sexual dimorphism in the control of the tumor microenvironment (TME) of colorectal carcinoma liver metastases (CRCLM) and identified estrogen as a regulator of an immunosuppressive TME in the liver. Here we aimed to assess the effect of estrogen deprivation on the cytokine/chemokine profile associated with CRCLM, using a multiplex cytokine array and the RNAscope technology, and its effects on the innate and adaptive immune responses in the liver. We also evaluated the benefit of combining the selective estrogen-receptor degrader Fulvestrant with immune checkpoint blockade for the treatment of CRCLM. We show that estrogen depletion altered the cytokine/chemokine repertoire of the liver, decreased macrophage polarization, as reflected in reduced accumulation of tumor infiltrating M2 macrophages and increased the accumulation of CCL5+/CCR5+ CD8+ T and NKT cells in the liver TME. Similar results were obtained in a murine pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma model. Importantly, treatment with Fulvestrant also increased the accumulation of CD8+CCL5+, CD8+CCR5+ T and NK cells in the liver TME and enhanced the therapeutic benefit of anti-PD1 immunotherapy, resulting in a significant reduction in the outgrowth of LM. Taken together, our results show that estrogen regulates immune cell recruitment to the liver and suggest that inhibition of estrogen action could potentiate the tumor-inhibitory effect of immunotherapy in hormone-independent and immunotherapy-resistant metastatic cancer. SIGNIFICANCE: The immune microenvironment of the liver plays a major role in controlling the expansion of hepatic metastases and is regulated by estrogen. We show that treatment of tumor-bearing mice with an estrogen receptor degrader potentiated an anti-metastatic effect of immunotherapy. Our results provide mechanistic insight into clinical findings and a rationale for evaluating the efficacy of combination anti-estrogen and immunotherapy for prevention and/or treatment of hepatic metastases in female patients.

Palazestrant (OP-1250), A Complete Estrogen Receptor Antagonist, Inhibits Wild-type and Mutant ER-positive Breast Cancer Models as Monotherapy and in Combination.

The estrogen receptor (ER) is a well-established target for the treatment of breast cancer, with the majority of patients presenting as ER-positive (ER+). Endocrine therapy is a mainstay of breast cancer treatment but the development of resistance mutations in response to aromatase inhibitors, poor pharmacokinetic properties of fulvestrant, agonist activity of tamoxifen, and limited benefit for elacestrant leave unmet needs for patients with or without resistance mutations in ESR1, the gene that encodes the ER protein. Here we describe palazestrant (OP-1250), a novel, orally bioavailable complete ER antagonist and selective ER degrader. OP-1250, like fulvestrant, has no agonist activity on the ER and completely blocks estrogen-induced transcriptional activity. In addition, OP-1250 demonstrates favorable biochemical binding affinity, ER degradation, and antiproliferative activity in ER+ breast cancer models that is comparable or superior to other agents of interest. OP-1250 has superior pharmacokinetic properties relative to fulvestrant, including oral bioavailability and brain penetrance, as well as superior performance in wild-type and ESR1-mutant breast cancer xenograft studies. OP-1250 combines well with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors in xenograft studies of ER+ breast cancer models and effectively shrinks intracranially implanted tumors, resulting in prolonged animal survival. With demonstrated preclinical efficacy exceeding fulvestrant in wild-type models, elacestrant in ESR1-mutant models, and tamoxifen in intracranial xenografts, OP-1250 has the potential to benefit patients with ER+ breast cancer.

Identification of Candidate Genes in Breast Cancer Induced by Estrogen Plus Progestogens Using Bioinformatic Analysis.

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) was widely used to treat menopause-related symptoms in menopausal women. However, MHT therapies were controversial with the increased risk of breast cancer because of different estrogen and progestogen combinations, and the molecular basis behind this phenomenon is currently not understood. To address this issue, we identified differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the estrogen plus progestogens treatment (EPT) and estrogen treatment (ET) using the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data. As a result, a total of 96 upregulated DEGs were first identified. Seven DEGs related to the cell cycle (CCNE2, CDCA5, RAD51, TCF19, KNTC1, MCM10, and NEIL3) were validated by RT-qPCR. Specifically, these seven DEGs were increased in EPT compared to ET (p < 0.05) and had higher expression levels in breast cancer than adjacent normal tissues (p < 0.05). Next, we found that estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer patients with a higher CNNE2 expression have a shorter overall survival time (p < 0.05), while this effect was not observed in the other six DEGs (p > 0.05). Interestingly, the molecular docking results showed that CCNE2 might bind to 17ß-estradiol (−6.791 kcal/mol), progesterone (−6.847 kcal/mol), and medroxyprogesterone acetate (−6.314 kcal/mol) with a relatively strong binding affinity, respectively. Importantly, CNNE2 protein level could be upregulated with EPT and attenuated by estrogen receptor antagonist, acolbifene and had interactions with cancer driver genes (AKT1 and KRAS) and high mutation frequency gene (TP53 and PTEN) in breast cancer patients. In conclusion, the current study showed that CCNE2, CDCA5, RAD51, TCF19, KNTC1, MCM10, and NEIL3 might contribute to EPT-related tumorigenesis in breast cancer, with CCNE2 might be a sensitive risk indicator of breast cancer risk in women using MHT.

Androgen and oestrogen receptor co-expression determines the efficacy of hormone receptor-mediated radiosensitisation in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and hormone receptor (HR) inhibition are used for the treatment of HR-positive breast cancers; however, little is known about the interaction of the androgen receptor (AR) and estrogen receptor (ER) in response to RT in AR-positive, ER-positive (AR+/ER+) breast cancers. Here we assessed radiosensitisation of AR+/ER+ cell lines using pharmacologic or genetic inhibition/degradation of AR and/or ER. METHODS: Radiosensitisation was assessed with AR antagonists (enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, seviteronel, ARD-61), ER antagonists (tamoxifen, fulvestrant) or using knockout of AR. RESULTS: Treatment with AR antagonists or ER antagonists in combination with RT did not result in radiosensitisation changes (radiation enhancement ratios [rER]: 0.76-1.21). Fulvestrant treatment provided significant radiosensitisation of CAMA-1 and BT-474 cells (rER: 1.06-2.0) but not ZR-75-1 cells (rER: 0.9-1.11). Combining tamoxifen with enzalutamide did not alter radiosensitivity using a 1 h or 1-week pretreatment (rER: 0.95-1.14). Radiosensitivity was unchanged in AR knockout compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 1.07 ± 0.11), and no additional radiosensitisation was achieved with tamoxifen or fulvestrant compared to Cas9 cells (rER: 0.84-1.19). CONCLUSION: While radiosensitising in AR + TNBC, AR inhibition does not modulate radiation sensitivity in AR+/ER+ breast cancer. The efficacy of ER antagonists in combination with RT may also be dependent on AR expression.

Overall survival in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus fulvestrant: a US Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDKIs) are oral targeted agents approved for use in combination with endocrine therapy as first-line or second-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We previously reported the pooled analyses of progression-free survival in patients in specific clinicopathological subgroups, all of whom received consistent benefit from the addition of a CDKI to hormonal therapy. Here, we report the pooled overall survival results in patients treated with a CDKI and fulvestrant. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, we pooled individual patient data from three phase 3 randomised trials of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant in patients with breast cancer submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and approved before Aug 1, 2020, in support of marketing applications. All analysed patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer, and received at least one dose of CDKI or placebo in combination with fulvestrant. The median overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% CIs were estimated using Cox regression models. Patients were analysed collectively, by number of previous lines of systemic endocrine therapy in any disease setting (first-line or endocrine naive vs second-line and later), and in various clinicopathological subgroups of interest. The estimated median overall survival was not reported by group when the pooled population included patients treated across lines of therapy because of potential patient heterogeneity. All results presented are considered exploratory and hypothesis generating. FINDINGS: Across the three pooled trials, 1960 patients were randomly assigned between Oct 7, 2013, and June 10, 2016 (12 patients were not treated and 1296 [66%] patients were randomly assigned to CDKI and 652 [33%] to placebo). In all treated patients (n=1948), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·88), with a median follow-up of 43·7 months (IQR 37·8-47·7) and deaths in 935 (48%) of the 1948 patients. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·1 months, favouring CDKIs. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as first-line systemic endocrine therapy (two trials; n=396), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·74 (95% CI 0·52-1·07), with a median follow-up of 39·4 months (IQR 37·0-42·2). 123 (31%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival could not be calculated because median overall survival was not estimable (95% CI 50·9-not estimable) in the CDKI group and was 45·7 months (95% CI 41·7-not estimable) in the placebo group. In patients who received CDKIs or placebo in combination with fulvestrant as second-line or later systemic endocrine therapy (three trials; n=1552), the estimated HR for overall survival was 0·77 (95% CI 0·67-0·89), with a median follow-up of 45·1 months (95% CI 39·2-48·5). 812 (52%) of these patients died. The difference in estimated median overall survival was 7·0 months, favouring CDKIs. INTERPRETATION: The addition of CDKIs to fulvestrant resulted in a consistent overall survival benefit in all pooled patients and within most clinicopathological subgroups of interest. These findings support the existing standard of care of CDKIs plus fulvestrant for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. FUNDING: None.

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study.

BACKGROUND: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EUDRACT STUDY NUMBER: 2013-003170-27.

A New Era in ER+ Breast Cancer: Best-in-Class Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader (SERD) Designed as an Endocrine Backbone Treatment.

There has been intense interest in developing orally bioavailable SERDs, energized by the recent discovery of treatment-resistant ESR1 mutations. Overcoming the two decades long challenge of combining all the desirable activities and properties into one molecule, GDC-9545 (giredestrant) was identified with an exceptional preclinical profile. This Viewpoint seeks to place this molecule in the historical context of previously reported oral SERDs and highlights the exciting clinical potential for a best-in-class oral SERD.

GDC-9545 (Giredestrant): A Potent and Orally Bioavailable Selective Estrogen Receptor Antagonist and Degrader with an Exceptional Preclinical Profile for ER+ Breast Cancer.

Breast cancer remains a leading cause of cancer death in women, representing a significant unmet medical need. Here, we disclose our discovery efforts culminating in a clinical candidate, 35 (GDC-9545 or giredestrant). 35 is an efficient and potent selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) and a full antagonist, which translates into better antiproliferation activity than known SERDs (1, 6, 7, and 9) across multiple cell lines. Fine-tuning the physiochemical properties enabled once daily oral dosing of 35 in preclinical species and humans. 35 exhibits low drug-drug interaction liability and demonstrates excellent in vitro and in vivo safety profiles. At low doses, 35 induces tumor regressions either as a single agent or in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in an ESR1Y537S mutant PDX or a wild-type ERα tumor model. Currently, 35 is being evaluated in Phase III clinical trials.

Preexisting Somatic Mutations of Estrogen Receptor Alpha (ESR1) in Early-Stage Primary Breast Cancer.

Background: More than three-quarters of primary breast cancers are positive for estrogen receptor alpha (ER; encoded by the gene ESR1), the most important factor for directing anti-estrogenic endocrine therapy (ET). Recently, mutations in ESR1 were identified as acquired mechanisms of resistance to ET, found in 12% to 55% of metastatic breast cancers treated previously with ET. Methods: We analyzed 3217 population-based invasive primary (nonmetastatic) breast cancers (within the SCAN-B study, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02306096), sampled from initial diagnosis prior to any treatment, for the presence of ESR1 mutations using RNA sequencing. Mutations were verified by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction on tumor and normal DNA. Patient outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimation and a series of 2-factor Cox regression multivariable analyses. Results: We identified ESR1 resistance mutations in 30 tumors (0.9%), of which 29 were ER positive (1.1%). In ET-treated disease, presence of ESR1 mutation was associated with poor relapse-free survival and overall survival (2-sided log-rank test P < .001 and P = .008, respectively), with hazard ratios of 3.00 (95% confidence interval = 1.56 to 5.88) and 2.51 (95% confidence interval = 1.24 to 5.07), respectively, which remained statistically significant when adjusted for other prognostic factors. Conclusions: These population-based results indicate that ESR1 mutations at diagnosis of primary breast cancer occur in about 1% of women and identify for the first time in the adjuvant setting that such preexisting mutations are associated to eventual resistance to standard hormone therapy. If replicated, tumor ESR1 screening should be considered in ER-positive primary breast cancer, and for patients with mutated disease, ER degraders such as fulvestrant or other therapeutic options may be considered as more appropriate.

Current trends in the treatment of HR+/HER2+ breast cancer.

Treatment for HR+/HER2+ patients has been debated, as some tumors within this luminal HER2+ subtype behave like luminal A cancers, whereas others behave like non-luminal HER2+ breast cancers. Recent research and clinical trials have revealed that a combination of hormone and targeted anti-HER2 approaches without chemotherapy provides long-term disease control for at least some HR+/HER2+ patients. Novel anti-HER2 therapies, including neratinib and trastuzumab emtansine, and new agents that are effective in HR+ cancers, including the next generation of oral selective estrogen receptor downregulators/degraders and CDK4/6 inhibitors such as palbociclib, are now being evaluated in combination. This review discusses current trials and results from previous studies that will provide the basis for current recommendations on how to treat newly diagnosed patients with HR+/HER2+ disease.

Real-world data of fulvestrant as first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Goals of endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer (ABC) include prolonging survival rates, maintaining the quality of life, and delaying the initiation of chemotherapy. We evaluated the effectiveness of fulvestrant as first-line in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive ABC with relapse during or after adjuvant anti-estrogenic therapy in real-world settings. Retrospective, observational study involving 171 postmenopausal women with ER-positive ABC who received fulvestrant as first-line between January 2011 and May 2018 in Spanish hospitals. With a median follow-up of 31.4 months, the progression-free survival (PFS) with fulvestrant was 14.6 months. No differences were seen in the visceral metastatic (14.3 months) versus non-visceral (14.6 months) metastatic subgroup for PFS. Overall response rate and clinical benefit rate were 35.2% and 82.8%. Overall survival was 43.1 months. The duration of the clinical benefit was 19.2 months. Patients with ECOG performance status 0 at the start of treatment showed a significant greater clinical benefit rate and overall survival than with ECOG 1-2. Results in real-world settings are in concordance with randomized clinical trials. Fulvestrant continues to demonstrate clinical benefits in real-world settings and appears be well tolerated as first-line for the treatment of postmenopausal women with ER-positive ABC.

Optimal duration of prior endocrine therapy predicts the efficacy of Fulvestrant in a real-world study for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Fulvestrant 500 mg is standard of care for endocrine therapy-naive or pretreated women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This study was conducted to explore the potential factors and duration of last endocrine therapy as predictors for the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg on Chinese patients in real-world practice. Two hundred and fifty-two MBC patients who were treated with fulvestrant 500 mg consecutively between January 2011 and December 2015 in our institute were included in this study. Efficacy outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and clinical benefit rate (CBR). The optimal cut-off value for duration of last endocrine therapy was determined by survival ROC analysis. Adverse events were graded according to NCI-CTC AE 4.0. Fulvestrant 500 mg demonstrated a median PFS of 5.8 months (95%CI 4.6-6.9), and a median OS of 35.9 months (95%CI 30.2-41.4). CBR was 41.3% (95%CI 35-47). Liver metastasis, bone alone metastasis, lines of endocrine therapy for MBC, and sensitivity to last endocrine therapy were statistically significant in the Cox multivariate analysis (P values of 0.022, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.038, respectively). The optimal cut-off values for duration of last endocrine therapy to predict the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg were 25.08 months for adjuvant endocrine therapy and 5.17 months for first-line endocrine therapy, which showed no difference in prediction power with ABC clinical definition. Patients with prior adjuvant endocrine therapy ≥25.08 months or first-line therapy≥5.17 months reached a longer PFS of fulvestrant (p = 0.04). Six patients discontinued the treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Patients with the duration of prior endocrine therapy longer than optimal cut-off points indicate better PFS of fulvestrant. Liver metastasis, bone alone metastasis, line of fulvestrant, and sensitivity to last endocrine therapy were also predictors for response of fulvestrant. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03708432.

Concomitant fulvestrant with reirradiation for unresectable locoregional recurrent estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer: A case report and narrative review.

RATIONALE: Locoregional recurrence of breast cancer is a challenging issue for clinicians. Treatment options for unresectable recurrent estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer in previously irradiated area are limited. Some studies showed concomitant fulvestrant with radiation therapy might increase radiosensitivity compared with radiation alone in vitro, no in vivo reports yet. PATIENT CONCERN: Here, we present a case report and make a narrative review of concomitant fulvestrant with radiation therapy for unresectable locoregional recurrent ER+ breast cancer. The patient was treated with modified radical mastectomy in 2015, adjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, followed by exemestane until November 2018, relapsed in internal mammary lymph nodes with sternum involved. DIAGNOSIS: The final diagnosis was breast cancer internal mammary lymph nodes metastasis with sternum involved. INTERVENTIONS: After diagnosis was made, concurrent fulvestrant with reirradiation as a palliative treatment were proposed under multiple disciplinary team. OUTCOMES: There was a good clinical response, enabling curative chance with radiation therapy to a total dose of 60 Gy. Computed tomography scan revealed no evidence of residual tumor. LESSONS: As far as we know, this is the first report concerning concomitant fulvestrant with reirradiation for unresectable locoregional recurrent ER+ breast cancer. Since no severe adverse events were observed, this strategy could be a suitable "loco-regional rescue therapy" to further reduce tumor progression or even reach a curative effect. Studies of this treatment strategy in randomized clinical trials are warranted to further assess its safety and effectiveness.

Efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg in Chinese postmenopausal women with advanced/recurrent breast cancer and factors associated with prolonged time-to-treatment failure: A retrospective case series.

This study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant 500 mg for the treatment of hormone receptor positive advanced postmenopausal women, including ovarian ablation and investigated factors associated with prolonged time-to-treatment failure.Data from 60 women with metastatic breast cancer who were treated at Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Patients received 500 mg (n = 60) between December 2011 and November 2012 were followed until November 2017. Main outcomes were clinical responses to fulvestrant, including best response, progressive disease, partial response, and stable disease lasting 12 months or more. Time to progression and time to progression-free-survival were also analyzed.Among the included 60 patients (mean age 47.18 years), 51 (85.0%) had received prior adjuvant therapy. During follow-up after fulvestrant treatment, the median PFS for the best response was derived as 7.0 months (inter-quartile = 4, 13.8 months). The observed median progression-free-survival time for best response was represented longer when fulvestrant was first-line treatment than when patients received prior endocrine and/or chemotherapy. Univariate analysis revealed that receiving either endocrine therapy only or endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy prior to fulvestrant treatment may be associated with median progression-free survival time to best response (P = .002, .026, .007, respectively).Fulvestrant treatment is safe and well-tolerated in women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer, and first-line fulvestrant therapy increases progression-free-survival time, especially in patients without prior adjuvant treatment.

Targeting Toll-like receptor 4 with CLI-095 (TAK-242) enhances the antimetastatic effect of the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant on non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Estrogen plays a critical role in the invasiveness and metastasis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) through estrogen receptor ß (ERß). However, the antimetastatic effect of the ERß antagonist fulvestrant was still limited in NSCLC patients. Recently, Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling was implicated in NSCLC metastasis. Our present study aimed to evaluate the synergistic antimetastatic effect of a combination of fulvestrant and the TLR4-specific inhibitor CLI-095 (TAK-242) on human NSCLC cells. METHODS: The expression levels of ERß and TLR4 were detected by immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of 180 primary NSCLC and 30 corresponding metastatic lymph node samples. The association between ERß and TLR4 expression was analyzed. The aggressiveness of NSCLC cells treated with fulvestrant, CLI-095 or the drug combination and formation status of their invadopodia, invasion-associated structures, were investigated. The protein levels in NSCLC cells in different groups were determined by Western blot and immunofluorescence analyses. RESULTS: Here, a positive correlation between ERß and TLR4 expression was observed in both primary NSCLC tissue (Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient = 0.411, p < 0.001) and metastatic lymph node tissue (Spearman's Rho correlation coefficient = 0.374, p = 0.009). The protein levels of ERß in NSCLC cell lines were decreased by fulvestrant, and this suppressive effect was significantly enhanced when fulvestrant was combined with CLI-095 (p < 0.05). Both the migration and invasion of NSCLC cells were suppressed by fulvestrant or CLI-095 alone, and the combination of fulvestrant + CLI-095 showed the strongest inhibitory effect (p < 0.05). In addition, the results demonstrated that CLI-095 also helped fulvestrant restrict the formation and function of invadopodia in NSCLC cells (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our study results suggested that CLI-095 enhances the antimetastatic effect of fulvestrant on NSCLC and provided support for further investigation of the antitumor activity of combined therapy with antiestrogen and anti-TLR4 agents in the clinic.

Efficacy of a novel orally active SERD AZD9496 against hormone dependent post-menopausal breast cancer depends on inhibition of cellular aromatase activity.

Treatment of hormone sensitive breast cancer tumors with endocrine therapy such as antiestrogens or aromatase inhibitors has improved the outcome significantly. Studies including our own have shown that downregulation of ERα with pure antiestrogen fulvestrant in combination with aromatase inhibitors may prolong responsiveness of the tumors to endocrine therapy. Fulvestrant has been studied as second line or first line treatment for post-menopausal hormone receptor positive breast cancers as a single agent or in combination with AIs. Studies have also suggested that further escalation of dose may improve benefit. However, dose escalation of fulvestrant, which is administered via intramuscular injection, is difficult due to its poor solubility. To overcome this shortcoming of an injectable drug, a novel orally active antiestrogen, AZD9496 was developed. In addition to being orally active, AZD9496 is designed as a selective ERα downregulator (SERD). In the current study, we compared the effect of AZD9496 and fulvestrant on the growth of MCF-7Ca (human estrogen receptor positive MCF-7 cells stably transfected with human placental aromatase gene) xenografts grown in ovariectomized athymic nude mice. AZD9496 was also compared to fulvestrant in vitro as a single agent or in combination with anastrozole. Our current study shows that AZD9496 is equally effective as fulvestrant at controlling the growth of hormone sensitive human breast cancer tumors. Similar to fulvestrant, AZD9496 inhibits cellular aromatase activity through ERα mediated signaling. However, unlike fulvestrant, combination of AZD9496 with anastrozole did not produce increased tumor inhibition. Our results show that AZD9496 was significantly better at inhibiting cellular aromatase which contributed to its anticancer activity. Next, we measured the effect of AZD9496 on the mouse uterus. Uterine weight of mice treated with AZD9496 was significantly lower than that for mice treated with androstenedione. This reduction in uterine weight was due to AZD9496 mediated inhibition of aromatase activity and not a direct effect on uterine ERα expression. We also observed that anti-cancer efficacy of AZD9496 depended on its ability to inhibit cellular aromatase. These results suggest that AZD9496 may be a better alternative to fulvestrant due to its selectivity for mammary ER and ability to inhibit aromatase in addition of downregulating ERα that can be obtained upon oral administration. As such, AZD9496 may prove to be a better option than fulvestrant for the treatment of hormone sensitive human breast cancer.