Giredestrant for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative, Previously Treated Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized, Phase II acelERA Breast Cancer Study.

PURPOSE: To compare giredestrant and physician's choice of endocrine monotherapy (PCET) for estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BC) in the phase II acelERA BC study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04576455). METHODS: Post-/pre-/perimenopausal women, or men, age 18 years or older with measurable disease/evaluable bone lesions, whose disease progressed after 1-2 lines of systemic therapy (≤1 targeted, ≤1 chemotherapy regimen, prior fulvestrant allowed) were randomly assigned 1:1 to giredestrant (30 mg oral once daily) or fulvestrant/aromatase inhibitor per local guidelines (+luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist in pre-/perimenopausal women, and men) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. Stratification was by visceral versus nonvisceral disease, prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and prior fulvestrant. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (INV-PFS). RESULTS: At clinical cutoff (February 18, 2022; median follow-up: 7.9 months; N = 303), the INV-PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.10; P = .1757). In the prespecified secondary end point analysis of INV-PFS by ESR1 mutation (m) status in circulating tumor DNA-evaluable patients (n = 232), the HR in patients with a detectable ESR1m (n = 90) was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.35 to 1.03) versus 0.88 (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.42) in patients with no ESR1m detected (n = 142). Related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were balanced across arms. CONCLUSION: Although the acelERA BC study did not reach statistical significance for its primary INV-PFS end point, there was a consistent treatment effect with giredestrant across most key subgroups and a trend toward favorable benefit among patients with ESR1-mutated tumors. Giredestrant was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to PCET and consistent with known endocrine therapy risks. Overall, these data support the continued investigation of giredestrant in other studies.

Atezolizumab, Bevacizumab, and Chemotherapy for Newly Diagnosed Stage III or IV Ovarian Cancer: Placebo-Controlled Randomized Phase III Trial (IMagyn050/GOG 3015/ENGOT-OV39).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of the humanized monoclonal antiprogrammed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) antibody, atezolizumab, to platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab in newly diagnosed stage III or IV ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: This multicenter placebo-controlled double-blind randomized phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03038100) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed untreated International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III or IV OC who either had undergone primary cytoreductive surgery with macroscopic residual disease or were planned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval surgery. Patients were stratified by FIGO stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, tumor immune cell PD-L1 staining, and treatment strategy and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 3-weekly cycles of atezolizumab 1,200 mg or placebo (day 1, cycles 1-22), with paclitaxel plus carboplatin (day 1, cycles 1-6) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (day 1, cycles 2-22), omitting perioperative bevacizumab in neoadjuvant patients. The co-primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival in the intention-to-treat and PD-L1-positive populations. RESULTS: Between March 8, 2017, and March 26, 2019, 1,301 patients were enrolled. The median progression-free survival was 19.5 versus 18.4 months with atezolizumab versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; stratified log-rank P = .28), in the intention-to-treat population and 20.8 versus 18.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99; P = .038), in the PD-L1-positive population. The interim (immature) overall survival results showed no significant benefit from atezolizumab. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21% with atezolizumab v 21% with placebo), hypertension (18% v 20%, respectively), and anemia (12% v 12%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in newly diagnosed OC. Insight from this trial should inform further evaluation of immunotherapy in OC.