ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Fulvestrant , Receptor, ErbB-2 , Receptors, Estrogen , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/genetics , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Breast Neoplasms/mortality , Middle Aged , Receptor, ErbB-2/metabolism , Receptors, Estrogen/metabolism , Receptors, Estrogen/analysis , Aged , Adult , Fulvestrant/therapeutic use , Male , Aromatase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Aromatase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal/therapeutic use , Progression-Free Survival , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effectsABSTRACT
As CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) approval changed treatment strategies for patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer (BC), understanding how exposure to CDK4/6i affects the tumor genomic landscape is critical for precision oncology. Using real-world data (RWD) with tumor genomic profiling from 5910 patients with metastatic HR+/HER2- BC, we investigated the evolution of alteration prevalence in commonly mutated genes across patient journeys. We found that ESR1 is more often altered in tumors exposed to at least 1 year of adjuvant endocrine therapy, contrasting with TP53 alterations. We observed a similar trend after first-line treatments in the advanced setting, but strikingly exposure to aromatase inhibitors (AI) combined with CDK4/6i led to significantly higher ESR1 alteration prevalence compared to AI alone, independent of treatment duration. Further, CDK4/6i exposure was associated with higher occurrence of concomitant alterations in multiple oncogenic pathways. Differences based on CDK4/6i exposure were confirmed in samples collected after 2L and validated in samples from the acelERA BC clinical trial. In conclusion, our work uncovers opportunities for further treatment personalization and stresses the need for effective combination treatments to address the altered tumor genomic landscape following AI+CDK4/6i exposure. Further, we demonstrated the potential of RWD for refining patient treatment strategy and guiding clinical trial design.