Datopotamab Deruxtecan Versus Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Inoperable/Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer: Primary Results From TROPION-Breast01.

PURPOSE: The global, phase 3, open-label, randomized TROPION-Breast01 study assessed the trophoblast cell surface antigen 2-directed antibody-drug conjugate datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) versus investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) in hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with inoperable/metastatic HR+/HER2‒ breast cancer, who had disease progression on endocrine therapy, for whom endocrine therapy was unsuitable, and had received one to two previous lines of chemotherapy in the inoperable/metastatic setting, were randomly assigned 1:1 to Dato-DXd (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks) or ICC (eribulin/vinorelbine/capecitabine/gemcitabine). Dual primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to Dato-DXd (n = 365) or ICC (n = 367). Dato-DXd significantly reduced the risk of progression or death versus ICC (PFS by BICR hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76]; P < .0001). Consistent PFS benefit was observed across subgroups. Although OS data were not mature, a trend favoring Dato-DXd was observed (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.14]). The rate of grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with Dato-DXd was lower than ICC (20.8% v 44.7%). The most common TRAEs (any grade; grade ≥3) were nausea (51.1%; 1.4%) and stomatitis (50%; 6.4%) with Dato-DXd and neutropenia (grouped term, 42.5%; 30.8%) with ICC. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving Dato-DXd had statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS and a favorable and manageable safety profile, compared with ICC. Results support Dato-DXd as a novel treatment option for patients with inoperable/metastatic HR+/HER2‒ breast cancer who have received one to two previous lines of chemotherapy in this setting.

Phase I/Ib Trial of Inavolisib Plus Palbociclib and Endocrine Therapy for PIK3CA-Mutated, Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and preliminary antitumor activity of inavolisib, a potent and selective small-molecule inhibitor of p110α that promotes the degradation of mutated p110α, in combination with palbociclib and endocrine therapy (ET), in a phase I/Ib study in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03006172). METHODS: Women ≥18 years of age received inavolisib, palbociclib, and letrozole (Inavo + Palbo + Letro arm) or fulvestrant (Inavo + Palbo + Fulv arm) until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. The primary objective was to evaluate safety or tolerability. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included, 33 in the Inavo + Palbo + Letro arm and 20 in the Inavo + Palbo + Fulv arm. Median duration of inavolisib treatment was 15.7 and 20.8 months (cutoff: March 27, 2023), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in all patients; the most frequent were stomatitis, hyperglycemia, and diarrhea; grade ≥3 any TRAE rates were 87.9% and 85.0%; 6.1% and 10.0% discontinued any treatment due to TRAEs in the Inavo + Palbo + Letro and Inavo + Palbo + Fulv arms, respectively. No PK drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were observed among the study treatments when administered. Confirmed objective response rates were 52.0% and 40.0% in patients with measurable disease, and median progression-free survival was 23.3 and 35.0 months in the Inavo + Palbo + Letro and Inavo + Palbo + Fulv arms, respectively. Available paired pre- and on-treatment tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA analyses confirmed the effects of study treatment on pharmacodynamic and pathophysiologic biomarkers of response. CONCLUSION: Inavolisib plus palbociclib and ET demonstrated a manageable safety profile, lack of DDIs, and promising preliminary antitumor activity.

A plain language summary of the CAPItello-291 study: Capivasertib in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the article discussing the results of the CAPItello-291 study. In the study, participants had advanced breast cancer that could not be completely removed with surgery, and that was diagnosed as a type of breast cancer where tumor cells had hormone receptors (HR-positive) but did not have HER2 receptors (HER2-negative). All participants were also required to have previously received treatment with a type of therapy called an aromatase inhibitor (with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor), but over time their cancer cells had still grown or spread. The CAPItello-291 study researchers wanted to find out if a treatment combination of the medications capivasertib plus fulvestrant worked better than placebo plus fulvestrant. Capivasertib is a drug that blocks the activity of a protein called AKT, which is found inside breast cancer cells. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The main finding was that participants who took capivasertib plus fulvestrant lived longer without their disease getting worse (progressing) compared with those treated with placebo plus fulvestrant. This is called progression-free survival. This result was seen across all participants (median progression-free survival of 7.2 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.6 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). It was also seen in participants whose tumors had detectable genetic alterations in genes called PIK3CA, AKT1, and/ or PTEN (median progression-free survival of 7.3 months with capivasertib plus fulvestrant vs 3.1 months with placebo plus fulvestrant). The most common side effects experienced by participants included diarrhea and different types of rash. These were as expected (given how capivasertib works). The CAPItello-291 study is still ongoing, and more results are expected to be released in the future. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Results from the CAPItello-291 study showed that capivasertib plus fulvestrant compared with placebo plus fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in participants with HR-positive/ HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose cancer had grown or spread despite hormone therapy (with/without a CDK4/6 inhibitor).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04305496 (CAPItello-291) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Imlunestrant, an Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader, as Monotherapy and in Combination With Targeted Therapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Phase Ia/Ib EMBER Study.

PURPOSE: Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader designed to deliver continuous ER target inhibition, including in ESR1-mutant breast cancer. This phase Ia/b trial determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy, in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer. The ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) ABC experience is reported here. METHODS: An i3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by dose expansions of imlunestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemaciclib with or without aromatase inhibitor (AI), everolimus, or alpelisib. Imlunestrant was administered orally once daily and with the combination partner per label. RESULTS: Overall, 262 patients with ER+/HER2- ABC were treated (phase Ia, n = 74; phase Ib, n = 188). Among patients who received imlunestrant monotherapy (n = 114), no dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations occurred. At the RP2D (400 mg once daily), patients (n = 51) reported grade 1-2 nausea (39.2%), fatigue (39.2%), and diarrhea (29.4%). Patients at RP2D had received previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i; 92.2%), fulvestrant (41.2%), and chemotherapy (29.4%) for ABC and achieved a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 8.3). Among patients who received imlunestrant + abemaciclib (n = 42) and imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI (n = 43), most (69.4%) were treatment-naïve for ABC; all were CDK4/6i-naïve. Patients treated with imlunestrant + everolimus (n = 42)/alpelisib (n = 21) had received previous CDK4/6i (100%), fulvestrant (34.9%), and chemotherapy (17.5%) for ABC. No new safety signals or interactions with partnered drugs were observed. The mPFS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to not available) for imlunestrant + abemaciclib and was not reached for imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI. The mPFS with imlunestrant + everolimus/alpelisib was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 19.1)/9.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 11.1). Antitumor activity was evident regardless of ESR1 mutation status. CONCLUSION: Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy, had a manageable safety profile with evidence of preliminary antitumor activity in ER+/HER2- ABC.

Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

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.

Predictors of Response to CDK4/6i Retrial After Prior CDK4/6i Failure in ER+ Metastatic Breast Cancer.

After disease progression on endocrine therapy (ET) plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, there is no standardized sequence for subsequent treatment lines for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). CDK4/6i retrial as a treatment strategy is commonplace in modern clinical practice; however, the available prospective data investigating this strategy have had inconclusive results. To frame this data in a real-world context, we performed a retrospective analysis assessing the efficacy of CDK4/6is in 195 patients who had previous exposure to CDK4/6i in a prior treatment line at our institution. Among patients who had stopped a CDK4/6i due to toxicity, CDK4/6i retrial either immediately after with a different CDK4/6i or in a further treatment line with the same initial CDK4/6i was both safe and effective, with a median time to treatment failure (TTF) of 10.1 months (95%CI, 4.8-16.9). For patients whose disease progressed on a prior CDK4/6i, we demonstrated comparable median TTFs for patients rechallenged with the same CDK4/6i (4.3 months, 95%CI 3.2-5.5) and with a different CDK4/6i (4.7 months, 95%CI 3.7-6.0) when compared to the recent PACE, PALMIRA, and MAINTAIN trials. Exploratory genomic analysis suggested that the presence of mutations known to confer CDK4/6i resistance, such as TP53 mutations, CDK4 amplifications, and RB1 or FAT1 loss of function mutations may be molecular biomarkers predictive of CDK4/6i retrial failure.

Current and emerging treatment approaches for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

In the past decade, significant progress was made in treating hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (mBC), but many clinical questions remain. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors are now widely used in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) as standard of care, having demonstrated significant progression-free survival versus ET, and also significant overall survival benefits in the metastatic setting. Inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR intracellular signaling pathway coupled with ET typically follows first-line therapies. Novel endocrine options including oral selective estrogen receptor down-regulators (SERDs) are in late phases of development, with elacestrant being the first oral SERD to be approved for ESR1-mutant mBC. However, endocrine-refractory disease is inevitable in most patients and represents an area of unmet need, with current recommended options offering poor efficacy, undesirable toxicity, and reduced quality of life. Breakthrough advances in the metastatic setting came via the development of antibody-drug conjugates, which have the advantage of delivering cytotoxic payloads to tumor cells with higher tumor selectivity. Trastuzumab deruxtecan offers a novel therapeutic option for patients with HR+/HER2-low mBC and sacituzumab govitecan is a novel therapeutic option for patients with HR+/HER2- mBC, including those with unmet treatment need in the later-line endocrine-refractory setting. Data gaps still exist regarding optimal sequencing of these novel agents; additional studies into mechanisms of resistance in the metastatic setting would provide further insights. Herein, we describe the current treatment options for HR+/HER2- mBC, including the latest practice-impacting data, and provide commentary on future directions.

Phase Ia/b Study of Giredestrant ± Palbociclib and ± Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Locally Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Giredestrant is an investigational next-generation, oral, selective estrogen receptor antagonist and degrader for the treatment of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. We present the primary analysis results of the phase Ia/b GO39932 study (NCT03332797). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with ER+, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy received single-agent giredestrant (10, 30, 90, or 250 mg), or giredestrant (100 mg) ± palbociclib 125 mg ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist. Detailed cardiovascular assessment was conducted with giredestrant 100 mg. Endpoints included safety (primary), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy. RESULTS: As of January 28, 2021, with 175 patients enrolled, no dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and the MTD was not reached. Adverse events (AE) related to giredestrant occurred in 64.9% and 59.4% of patients in the single-agent ± LHRH agonist and giredestrant + palbociclib ± LHRH agonist cohorts, respectively (giredestrant-only-related grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 4.5% of patients across the single-agent cohorts and 3.1% of those with giredestrant + palbociclib). Dose-dependent asymptomatic bradycardia was observed, but no clinically significant changes in cardiac-related outcomes: heart rate, blood pressure, or exercise duration. Clinical benefit was observed in all cohorts (48.6% of patients in the single-agent cohort and 81.3% in the giredestrant + palbociclib ± LHRH agonist cohort), with no clear dose relationship, including in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Giredestrant was well tolerated and clinically active in patients who progressed on prior endocrine therapy. Results warrant further evaluation of giredestrant in randomized trials in early- and late-stage ER+ breast cancer.

TROPION-Breast01: Datopotamab deruxtecan vs chemotherapy in pre-treated inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Improving the prognosis for patients with metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer remains an unmet need. Patients with tumors that have progressed on endocrine therapy and/or are not eligible for endocrine therapy had limited treatment options beyond chemotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates are a novel and promising treatment class in this setting. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) consists of a TROP2-directed humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody attached via a serum-stable cleavable linker to a topoisomerase I inhibitor payload. TROPION-Breast01 is an ongoing phase III study that is evaluating the efficacy and safety of Dato-DXd compared with investigator's choice of standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer who have received one or two prior lines of systemic chemotherapy in the inoperable or metastatic setting. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05104866 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Antibody-drug conjugates are a type of drug with two parts: an antibody that directs the drug to the cancer cells and a cancer-cell killing toxic payload. By binding to cancer cells before releasing the payload, treatment is directed to the site of action so there are fewer side effects in the rest of the body. Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) is an antibody-drug conjugates made up of datopotamab (antibody) and DXd (payload) which are joined together via a stable linker. Datopotamab binds to a protein found on cancer cells called TROP2; it then goes inside and releases the DXd payload to kill the tumor cells. DXd may leak out to surrounding cancer cells and kill those as well. The TROPION-Breast01 study is comparing Dato-DXd with standard-of-care chemotherapy. Around 700 patients will take part, who have: Tumors that cannot be surgically removed. Tumors that are hormone receptor-positive and do not have HER2 overexpression. Had one or two lines of previous chemotherapy (after the tumor could not be surgically removed, or had spread). Had tumor growth despite hormonal therapy or are ineligible for hormonal therapy. Patients who meet the entry criteria will be randomly assigned to a treatment group in equal numbers to either Dato-DXd or an appropriate chemotherapy, out of four options chosen by the treating doctor. At the end of the study, researchers will look at whether the patients who receive Dato-DXd live longer without their breast cancer getting worse, compared with patients who receive chemotherapy. This study is also looking at how the treatment affects patients' quality of life.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of PFS and OS comparing ribociclib plus letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole as first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

Background: Current standard-of-care first-line treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) is cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy. In the MONALEESA-2 trial, first-line ribociclib + letrozole demonstrated statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus placebo + letrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. In the PALOMA-2 trial, first-line palbociclib + letrozole did not show OS benefit versus placebo + letrozole in a similar patient population. Understanding OS outcomes in the respective trials is critical for treatment decisions; however, there are no head-to-head clinical trial data comparing ribociclib and palbociclib. Objectives: To conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and OS of first-line ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. Design: Letrozole-anchored MAIC using individual patient data from MONALEESA-2 and published summary data from PALOMA-2. Methods: Using individual data, patients from MONALEESA-2 who matched inclusion criteria from PALOMA-2 were selected, and weighting was conducted to ensure baseline characteristics were similar to those in published aggregated data from PALOMA-2. The Bucher method was used to generate corresponding hazard ratios (HRs). Results: The final effective sample size compared n = 150 (ribociclib) and n = 112 (placebo) MONALEESA-2 patients with n = 444 (palbociclib) and n = 222 (placebo) PALOMA-2 patients. After matching and weighting, patient characteristics were well balanced. MAIC analysis showed a numerical PFS benefit [HR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-1.11; p = 0.187] and significant OS benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.96; p = 0.031) with ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole. Conclusion: Results of this cross-trial MAIC analysis showed a numerical PFS benefit and significantly greater OS benefit with first-line ribociclib + letrozole versus palbociclib + letrozole. These results support letrozole + ribociclib as the preferred first-line CDK4/6i for postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC. Trial registration: NCT01958021; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01958021 (MONALEESA-2) and NCT01740427; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01740427 (PALOMA-2).

Overall survival with sacituzumab govitecan in hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TROPiCS-02): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit over chemotherapy in the phase 3 TROPiCS-02 trial in patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+ and HER2-) metastatic breast cancer with limited treatment options. Here, we report the protocol-specified final analysis of overall survival and endpoints by trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2) expression and other variables. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial, which took place in 91 centres across North America (the USA and Canada) and Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sacituzumab govitecan or chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine). Patients had confirmed HR+ and HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer and had received at least one previous endocrine therapy, a taxane, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in any setting and two to four previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (previously reported and not included in this analysis), and secondary endpoints included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), and patient-reported outcomes. Overall survival was assessed using stratified log-rank tests and Cox regression. Trop-2 expression was assessed in tumour tissue by immunohistochemistry. In the statistical testing hierarchy, ORR and patient-reported outcomes were tested sequentially if overall survival was significant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03901339. FINDINGS: At the data cutoff date of July 1, 2022, 543 of 776 screened patients were randomly assigned between May 30, 2019, and April 5, 2021, with 272 patients in the sacituzumab govitecan group and 271 patients in the chemotherapy group. With a 12·5-month (IQR 6·4-18·8) median follow-up, 390 deaths occurred among 543 patients. Overall survival was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy (median 14·4 months [95% CI 13·0-15·7] vs 11·2 months [10·1-12·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·65-0·96; p=0·020); survival benefit was consistent across Trop-2 expression-level subgroups. ORR was significantly improved with sacituzumab govitecan compared with chemotherapy (57 [21%] patients vs 38 [14%]; odds ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·03-2·56]; p=0·035), as was time to deterioration of global health status and quality of life (median 4·3 months vs 3·0 months; HR 0·75 [0·61-0·92]; p=0·0059) and fatigue (median 2·2 months vs 1·4 months; HR 0·73 [0·60-0·89]; p=0·0021). The safety profile of sacituzumab govitecan was consistent with previous studies (including the TROPiCS-02 primary analysis and the ASCENT trial). One fatal adverse event (septic shock caused by neutropenic colitis) was determined to be related to sacituzumab govitecan treatment. INTERPRETATION: Sacituzumab govitecan demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit over chemotherapy, with a 3·2-month median overall survival improvement and a manageable safety profile. These data support sacituzumab govitecan as a new treatment option for patients with pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+ and HER2- metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Molecularly Targeted Therapies for Triple Negative Breast Cancer: History, Advances, and Future Directions.

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains the subtype with poorest prognosis. Despite the subtype's heterogeneity, there is still a paucity in effective targeted therapeutics that offer both good efficacy and tolerability, and chemotherapy remains the backbone of modern TNBC therapy. In the past few years, immunotherapy as well as novel therapeutic modalities like antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have shown clinical benefit and have been FDA approved in various clinical stages of unselected TNBC. However, there has not been similar advancement in molecularly targeted therapies, especially when compared to advancements seen in hormone receptor (HR)-positive or HER2-positive breast cancer. PARP inhibitors have been approved for BRCA-mutated TNBC, but responses are short-lived, and resistance remains a barrier for current treatment. PI3K pathway inhibitors approved in HR+ breast cancer has not worked for TNBC and continue to have significant dose-limiting adverse effects. EGFR inhibition has been thoroughly explored in TNBC, but all trials so far have shown minimal efficacy. Nevertheless, despite these setbacks, current research in targeted therapy for TNBC holds great promise in overcoming the barriers of the past and developing novel therapeutic approaches for the future. In this review, we describe molecular targets both identified and validated in the treatment of TNBC, discuss the historical efforts towards development of targeted agents and current areas of improvement, and address promising advances that have the potential to improve outcomes in this heterogenous and aggressive breast cancer subtype. Immunotherapy, ADCs, and AR targeting will be discussed in separate reviews of this edition.

Novel endocrine therapies: What is next in estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer?

Endocrine therapy (ET) is the cornerstone of management in hormone receptor (HR)+ breast cancer (BC). Indeed, targeting the estrogen receptor (ER) signaling at different levels is a successful strategy, since BC largely relies on the ER signaling as a driver of tumorigenesis and progression. In metastatic BC, progression of disease typically occurs due to either ligand-independent ER signaling, which favors tumor proliferation and survival in the absence of hormonal stimuli, or an ER-independent signaling, which exploits alternative transcription pathways. For instance, estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations induce constitutive ER activity, in turn upregulating ER-dependent gene transcription and causing resistance to estrogen depleting therapies. The largest unmet need lies after progression on ET + cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, where fulvestrant alone provides an average 2-3-month PFS. In this context, novel oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) and other next-generation ETs are being investigated, both as single agents and in combination with targeted therapies. Elacestrant, the next generation ET in most advanced clinical development and the first to be FDA approved, demonstrated improved outcomes compared to standard ETs in ET pre-treated HR+/HER2- metastatic BC in the phase 3 EMERALD clinical trial. Additionally, other agents are showing promising results in both preclinical and early phase clinical settings. In this review, emerging data related to oral SERDs and other novel ETs in managing HR+/HER2- BC are presented. Major challenges and future perspectives related to the optimal sequence of therapeutic options and the molecular landscape of endocrine resistance are also provided.

Capivasertib in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: AKT pathway activation is implicated in endocrine-therapy resistance. Data on the efficacy and safety of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib, as an addition to fulvestrant therapy, in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial, we enrolled eligible pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer who had had a relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive capivasertib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. The dual primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with AKT pathway-altered (PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN) tumors. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 708 patients underwent randomization; 289 patients (40.8%) had AKT pathway alterations, and 489 (69.1%) had received a CDK4/6 inhibitor previously for advanced breast cancer. In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.6 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.71; P<0.001). In the AKT pathway-altered population, the median progression-free survival was 7.3 months in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group, as compared with 3.1 months in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or higher in patients receiving capivasertib-fulvestrant were rash (in 12.1% of patients, vs. in 0.3% of those receiving placebo-fulvestrant) and diarrhea (in 9.3% vs. 0.3%). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported in 13.0% of the patients receiving capivasertib and in 2.3% of those receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Capivasertib-fulvestrant therapy resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with fulvestrant alone among patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer whose disease had progressed during or after previous aromatase inhibitor therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. (Funded by AstraZeneca and the National Cancer Institute; CAPItello-291 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04305496.).

Quality of life with ribociclib versus abemaciclib as first-line treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Background: A cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) + endocrine therapy is recommended as first-line treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Quality of life (QoL) is an important endpoint that affects treatment decisions. Understanding the relevance of CDK4/6i treatment on QoL is gaining importance given use in earlier treatment lines for ABC and an emerging role in treating early breast cancer in which QoL may be more impactful. In the absence of head-to-head trial data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) permits comparative efficacy between trials. Objective: In this analysis, patient-reported QoL for MONALEESA-2 [ribociclib + aromatase inhibitor (AI)] and MONARCH 3 (abemaciclib + AI) was compared using MAIC with a focus on individual domains. Design: An anchored MAIC of QoL comparing ribociclib + AI versus abemaciclib + AI was performed using data from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and BR-23 questionnaires. Methods: Individual patient data from MONALEESA-2 and published aggregated data from MONARCH 3 were included in this analysis. Time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) was calculated as the time from randomization to a ⩾10-point deterioration with no later improvement above this threshold. Results: Patients from the ribociclib (n = 205) and placebo (n = 149) arms of MONALEESA-2 were matched with patients from the abemaciclib (n = 328) and placebo (n = 165) arms of MONARCH 3. After weighting, baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. TTSD significantly favored ribociclib versus abemaciclib in appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR), 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27-0.81], diarrhea (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.79), fatigue (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.96), and arm symptoms (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79). TTSD did not significantly favor abemaciclib compared with ribociclib in any functional or symptom scale of the QLQ-C30 or BR-23 questionnaires. Conclusions: This MAIC indicates that ribociclib + AI is associated with better symptom-related QoL than abemaciclib + AI for postmenopausal patients with HR+/HER2- ABC treated in the first-line setting. Trial registration: NCT01958021 (MONALEESA-2) and NCT02246621 (MONARCH 3).

Antitumour activity of neratinib in patients with HER2-mutant advanced biliary tract cancers.

HER2 mutations are infrequent genomic events in biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Neratinib, an irreversible, pan-HER, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, interferes with constitutive receptor kinase activation and has activity in HER2-mutant tumours. SUMMIT is an open-label, single-arm, multi-cohort, phase 2, 'basket' trial of neratinib in patients with solid tumours harbouring oncogenic HER2 somatic mutations (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01953926). The primary objective of the BTC cohort, which is now complete, is first objective response rate (ORR) to neratinib 240 mg orally daily. Secondary objectives include confirmed ORR, clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, overall survival, safety and tolerability. Genomic analyses were exploratory. Among 25 treatment-refractory patients (11 cholangiocarcinoma, 10 gallbladder, 4 ampullary cancers), the ORR is 16% (95% CI 4.5-36.1%). The most common HER2 mutations are S310F (n = 11; 48%) and V777L (n = 4; 17%). Outcomes appear worse for ampullary tumours or those with co-occurring oncogenic TP53 and CDKN2A alterations. Loss of amplified HER2 S310F and acquisition of multiple previously undetected oncogenic co-mutations are identified at progression in one responder. Diarrhoea is the most common adverse event, with any-grade diarrhoea in 14 patients (56%). Although neratinib demonstrates antitumour activity in patients with refractory BTC harbouring HER2 mutations, the primary endpoint was not met and combinations may be explored.

The oral selective estrogen receptor degrader GDC-0810 (ARN-810) in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR + /HER2 -) advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: GDC-0810 (ARN-810) is a novel, non-steroidal, orally bioavailable, selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) that potentially inhibits ligand-dependent and ligand-independent estrogen receptor (ER)-mediated signaling. METHODS: A phase Ia/Ib/IIa dose escalation, combination treatment with palbociclib or a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, and expansion study determined the safety, pharmacokinetics, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of GDC-0810 in postmenopausal women with ER + (HER2 -) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Baseline plasma ctDNA samples were analyzed to determine the ESR1 mutation status. RESULTS: Patients (N = 152) received GDC-0810 100-800 mg once daily (QD) or 300-400 mg twice daily, in dose escalation, expansion, as single agent or combination treatment. Common adverse events regardless of attribution to study drug were diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and constipation. There was one dose-limiting toxicity during dose escalation. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. GDC-0810 600 mg QD taken with food was the RP2D. Pharmacokinetics were predictable. FES reduction (> 90%) highlighting pharmacodynamic engagement of ER was observed. Outcomes for the overall population and for patients with tumors harboring ESR1 mutations included partial responses (4% overall; 4% ESR1), stable disease (39% overall; 42% ESR1), non-complete response/non-progressive disease (13% overall; 12% ESR1), progressive disease (40% overall; 38% ESR1), and missing/unevaluable (5% overall; 5% ESR1). Clinical benefit (responses or SD, lasting ≥ 24 weeks) was observed in patients in dose escalation (n = 16, 39%) and expansion (n = 24, 22%). CONCLUSION: GDC-0810 was safe and tolerable with preliminary anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with ER + advanced/MBC, with/without ESR1 mutations, highlighting the potential for oral SERDs. Clinical Trial and registration date April 4, 2013. NCT01823835 .

Sacituzumab Govitecan in Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer is treated with sequential single-agent chemotherapy with poor outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload targeting trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, an epithelial antigen expressed in breast cancer. METHODS: In this global, randomized, phase III study, SG was compared with physician's choice chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in endocrine-resistant, chemotherapy-treated HR+/HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive SG (n = 272) or chemotherapy (n = 271). The median age was 56 years, 95% had visceral metastases, and 99% had a prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, with three median lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Primary end point was met with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.83; P = .0003]). The median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 7.0) with SG and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4) with chemotherapy; the PFS at 6 and 12 months was 46% (95% CI, 39 to 53) v 30% (95% CI, 24 to 37) and 21% (95% CI, 15 to 28) v 7% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median overall survival (first planned interim analysis) was not yet mature (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .14). Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (SG v chemotherapy) were neutropenia (51% v 38%) and diarrhea (9% v 1%). CONCLUSION: SG demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit over chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and limited treatment options.

Accelerating drug development in breast cancer: New frontiers for ER inhibition.

The estrogen receptor (ER) is an important driver in the proliferation, tumorigenesis, and progression of breast cancers, and targeting ER signaling at different levels is a successful strategy in the control of hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer. Endocrine therapy has been the treatment of choice for HR+ breast cancer in the early and advanced stages with multiple agents, including selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMS), selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), and aromatase inhibitors (AIs), which vary in their mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetics. Combination strategies also employ cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase to maximize the benefits of endocrine therapy. This paper reviews the clinical development of SERDs and other novel ER inhibitors, as well as combination strategies to overcome mechanisms of ER pathway escape. It also assesses the advantages of newer oral ER inhibitors with increased bioavailability, improved therapeutic index, better administration, and increased efficacy, as well as discussing future directions in the field.