Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its ...efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial.
PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA.
From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50 and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85).
There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life.
•Palbociclib plus fulvestrant did not provide evidence of PFS superiority over capecitabine in MBC patients resistant to AIs.•Palbociclib plus ET did not show PFS superiority over capecitabine in wild-type ESR1 MBC patients resistant to AIs.•Palbociclib plus ET was better tolerated and offered better quality of life than capecitabine.
HER2 mutations are targetable alterations in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In the SUMMIT basket study, patients with HER2-mutant MBC received neratinib ...monotherapy, neratinib + fulvestrant, or neratinib + fulvestrant + trastuzumab (N + F + T). We report results from 71 patients with HR+, HER2-mutant MBC, including 21 (seven in each arm) from a randomized substudy of fulvestrant versus fulvestrant + trastuzumab (F + T) versus N + F + T.
Patients with HR+ HER2-negative MBC with activating HER2 mutation(s) and prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy received N + F + T (oral neratinib 240 mg/day with loperamide prophylaxis, intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29 of cycle 1 then q4w, intravenous trastuzumab 8 mg/kg then 6 mg/kg q3w) or F + T or fulvestrant alone. Those whose disease progressed on F + T or fulvestrant could cross-over to N + F + T. Efficacy endpoints included investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (RECIST v1.1), duration of response, and progression-free survival (PFS). Plasma and/or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples were collected at baseline; plasma was collected during and at end of treatment. Extracted DNA was analyzed by next-generation sequencing.
ORR for 57 N + F + T-treated patients was 39% 95% confidence interval (CI) 26% to 52%); median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI 6.0-15.1 months). No responses occurred in fulvestrant- or F + T-treated patients; responses in patients crossing over to N + F + T supported the requirement for neratinib in the triplet. Responses were observed in patients with ductal and lobular histology, 1 or ≥1 HER2 mutations, and co-occurring HER3 mutations. Longitudinal circulating tumor DNA sequencing revealed acquisition of additional HER2 alterations, and mutations in genes including PIK3CA, enabling further precision targeting and possible re-response.
The benefit of N + F + T for HR+ HER2-mutant MBC after progression on CDK4/6is is clinically meaningful and, based on this study, N + F + T has been included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment guidelines. SUMMIT has improved our understanding of the translational implications of targeting HER2 mutations with neratinib-based therapy.
•The phase II SUMMIT basket study evaluated neratinib-based therapy in patients with solid tumors harboring HER2 mutations.•57 MBC patients received N + F + T, including 7 of 21 randomized 1:1:1 to F, F + T, or N + F + T.•The ORR for patients who received N + F + T was 39% (95% CI 26% to 52%); this included 1 complete and 21 partial responses.•Responses were seen in ductal (ORR 39%) and lobular (ORR 41%) MBC, one or more HER2 mutations, or co-occurring HER3 mutation.•Responses after cross-over from F or F + T to N + F + T support the requirement of neratinib for efficacy of the triplet.
Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist ...conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts.
In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability.
A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate 13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124, and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients.
Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.
•Lasofoxifene showed antitumor activity in patients with ESR1-mutated mBC that progressed on an AI plus a CDK4/6i.•Lasofoxifene numerically improved PFS (5.6 versus 3.7 months) and clinical benefit rate (37% versus 22%) versus fulvestrant.•Lasofoxifene was well-tolerated with no unexpected safety signals.•Lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, including Y537S MAF, in more patients than fulvestrant, exhibiting target engagement.•Lasofoxifene may be a promising endocrine therapy backbone for ESR1-mutated mBC in a post-CDK4/6i setting.
A mutation within one allele of the p53 tumor suppressor gene can inactivate the remaining wild-type allele in a dominant-negative manner and in some cases can exert an additional oncogenic activity, ...known as mutant p53 'gain of function' (GOF). To study the role of p53 mutations in prostate cancer and to discriminate between the dominant-negative effect and the GOF activity of mutant p53, we measured, using microarrays, the expression profiles of three immortalized prostate epithelial cultures expressing wild-type, inactivated p53 or mutated p53. Analysis of these gene expression profiles showed that both inactivated p53 and p53(R175H) mutant expression resulted in the upregulation of cell cycle progression genes. A second group, which was upregulated exclusively by mutant p53(R175H), was predominantly enriched in developmental genes. This group of genes included the Twist1, a regulator of metastasis and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Twist1 levels were also elevated in metastatic prostate cancer-derived cell line DU145, in immortalized lung fibroblasts and in a subset of lung cancer samples, all in a mutant p53-dependent manner. p53(R175H) mutant bearing immortalized epithelial cells showed typical features of EMT, such as higher expression of mesenchymal markers, lower expression of epithelial markers and enhanced invasive properties in vitro. The mechanism by which p53(R175H) mutant induces Twist1 expression involves alleviation of the epigenetic repression. Our data suggest that Twist1 expression might be upregulated following p53 mutation in cancer cells.
PDF
