Modeling the novel SERD elacestrant in cultured fulvestrant-refractory HR-positive breast circulating tumor cells.

PURPOSE: Metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer initially responds to serial courses of endocrine therapy, but ultimately becomes refractory. Elacestrant, a new generation FDA-approved oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) and antagonist, has demonstrated efficacy in a subset of women with advanced HR+breast cancer, but there are few patient-derived models to characterize its effect in advanced cancers with diverse treatment histories and acquired mutations. METHODS: We analyzed clinical outcomes with elacestrant, compared with endocrine therapy, among women who had previously been treated with a fulvestrant-containing regimen from the recent phase 3 EMERALD Study. We further modeled sensitivity to elacestrant, compared with the currently approved SERD, fulvestrant in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models and cultured circulating tumor cells (CTCs). RESULTS: Analysis of the subset of breast cancer patients enrolled in the EMERALD study who had previously received a fulvestrant-containing regimen indicates that they had better progression-free survival with elacestrant than with standard-of-care endocrine therapy, a finding that was independent estrogen receptor (ESR1) gene mutations. We modeled elacestrant responsiveness using patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models and in ex vivo cultured CTCs derived from patients with HR+breast cancer extensively treated with multiple endocrine therapies, including fulvestrant. Both CTCs and PDX models are refractory to fulvestrant but sensitive to elacestrant, independent of mutations in ESR1 and Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-Bisphosphate 3-Kinase Catalytic Subunit Alpha (PIK3CA) genes. CONCLUSION: Elacestrant retains efficacy in breast cancer cells that have acquired resistance to currently available ER targeting therapies. Elacestrant may be an option for patients with HR+/HER2- breast cancer whose disease progressed on fulvestrant in the metastatic setting. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: Serial endocrine therapy is the mainstay of management for metastatic HR+breast cancer, but acquisition of drug resistance highlights the need for better therapies. Elacestrant is a recently FDA-approved novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), with demonstrated efficacy in the EMERALD phase 3 clinical trial of refractory HR+breast cancer. Subgroup analysis of the EMERALD clinical trial identifies clinical benefit with elacestrant in patients who had received prior fulvestrant independent of the mutational status of the ESR1 gene, supporting its potential utility in treating refractory HR+breast cancer. Here, we use pre-clinical models, including ex vivo cultures of circulating tumor cells and patient-derived xenografts, to demonstrate the efficacy of elacestrant in breast cancer cells with acquired resistance to fulvestrant.

Elacestrant in ER+, HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer with ESR1-Mutated Tumors: Subgroup Analyses from the Phase III EMERALD Trial by Prior Duration of Endocrine Therapy plus CDK4/6 Inhibitor and in Clinical Subgroups.

PURPOSE: Elacestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with manageable safety versus standard-of-care (SOC) endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), HER2- metastatic breast cancer and tumors harboring estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutation following ET plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (ET+CDK4/6i). In patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of elacestrant versus SOC based on prior ET+CDK4/6i duration and in clinical subgroups with prior ET+CDK4/6i ≥12 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EMERALD, an open-label phase III trial, randomly assigned patients with ER+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer who had received 1-2 prior lines of ET, mandatory CDK4/6i, and ≤1 chemotherapy to elacestrant (345 mg daily) or SOC (aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant). PFS was assessed across subgroups in post hoc exploratory analyses without adjustment for multiple testing. RESULTS: In patients with ESR1-mutated tumors and prior ET+CDK4/6i ≥12 months, the median PFS for elacestrant versus SOC was 8.6 versus 1.9 months (HR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.63). In this population, the median PFS (in months) for elacestrant versus SOC was 9.1 versus 1.9 (bone metastases), 7.3 versus 1.9 (liver and/or lung metastases), 9.0 versus 1.9 (<3 metastatic sites), 10.8 versus 1.8 (≥3 metastatic sites), 5.5 versus 1.9 (PIK3 catalytic subunit α mutation), 8.6 versus 1.9 (tumor protein p53 gene mutation), 9.0 versus 1.9 (HER2-low), 9.0 versus 1.9 (ESR1D538G-mutated tumors), and 9.0 versus 1.9 (ESR1Y537S/N-mutated tumors). Subgroup safety was consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of prior ET+CDK4/6i ≥12 months in metastatic breast cancer was associated with a clinically meaningful improvement in PFS for elacestrant compared with SOC and was consistent across all subgroups evaluated in patients with ER+, HER2-, ESR1-mutated tumors.

Abagovomab as maintenance therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a phase III trial of the AGO OVAR, COGI, GINECO, and GEICO--the MIMOSA study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether abagovomab maintenance therapy prolongs recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with ovarian cancer in first clinical remission. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III to IV ovarian cancer in complete clinical remission after primary surgery and platinum- and taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 in a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. Abagovomab 2 mg or placebo was administered as 1-mL suspension once every 2 weeks for 6 weeks (induction phase) and then once every 4 weeks (maintenance phase) until recurrence or up to 21 months after random assignment of the last patient. The primary end point was RFS; secondary end points were OS and immunologic response. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 888 patients included: mean age, 56.3 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, ≤ 1 in > 99% of patients; serous papillary subtype, 81.5%; stage III, 85.9%; and cancer antigen 125 ≤ 35 U/mL after third cycle, 80.9%. Mean exposure to study treatment (± standard deviation) was 449.7 ± 333.08 days. Hazard ratio (HR) of RFS for the treatment group using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.099 (95% CI, 0.919 to 1.315; P = .301). HR of OS using tumor size categorization (≤ 1 cm, > 1 cm) was 1.150 (95% CI, 0.872 to 1.518; P = .322). The most frequently reported type of adverse event was an injection site reaction in 445 patients (50.2%), followed by injection site erythema and fatigue in 227 (25.6%) and 212 patients (23.9%), respectively. By the final visit, median anti-anti-idiotypic antibody level was 493,000.0 ng/mL, indicating a robust response. CONCLUSION: Abagovomab administered as repeated monthly injections is safe and induces a measurable immune response. Administration as maintenance therapy for patients with ovarian cancer in first remission does not prolong RFS or OS.