Portman, David

Abstract Background: Most patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) will ultimately develop resistance. A large unmet need exists especially when resistance occurs following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), which is potentially driven by a mutation in the ERα-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. In the ELAINE 1 trial, LAS monotherapy provided numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median 5.6 mos vs 3.7 mos; HR: 0.669 [95% CI, 0.445‒1.125], P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) compared with the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1141‒51). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial showed that LAS combined with abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ∼13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1131‒40). The phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated based on these promising earlier-phase data. Recent results from postMONARCH confirmed superior efficacy of fulv/Abema over fulv/placebo (mPFS 6.0 mos vs 5.3 mos, HR 0.73 [0.57‒0.95], nominal P-value 0.017) in non-biomarker‒selected, mBC patients after progression on a prior CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI), with similar HR in an ESR1-mutated cohort (Kalinsky K et al. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:1101‒12). Additionally, recent data from EMBER-3 demonstrated meaningful PFS with a novel ET combined with abemaciclib after progression on AI/CDK4/6i (Jhaveri KL et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1189‒202). The ELAINE 3, global trial will compare LAS/Abema with fulv/Abema in a post-CDK4/6i, ESR1-mutation‒selected, mBC population. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Patients are being enrolled at approximately 152 sites in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Romania, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States). Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an AI plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM (days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly) plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS per RESIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR); key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Safety, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and quality of life (including vaginal health) will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test with an expected PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis. Enrollment is currently ongoing to meet the target sample size of 500 patients. Citation Format: M. P. Goetz, S. A. Wander, T. Bachelot, G. Curigliano, A. de Nonneville, E. N. Gal-Yam, K. Jhaveri, S. L. Sammons, S. Shen, C. J. Twelves, G. Gasper, P. V. Plourde, D. J. Portman, S. Damodaran. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating ER+/HER2-, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-07-30.

TPS1127 Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 mos; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with LAS monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (1). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that LAS plus abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (2). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 mos for LAS/Abema and 7 mos for fulv/Abema (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 mos at approximately 125 global sites. 1. Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1141-1151. 2. Damodaran S, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1131-1140. Clinical trial information: NCT05696626 .

Abstract Introduction: LAS is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM)/tissue-selective estrogen agonist/antagonist studied in women with osteoporosis and vulvar-vaginal atrophy, and most recently, metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with ESR1 mutations. LAS data in healthy postmenopausal women and young men show linear PK and no differences by age or race (Gardner. J Clin Pharmacol 2006;46:52-58; Prakash. Drug Metab Dispos 2008;26:1218-26; Data on file). Also, no PK differences were found between Caucasian and Japanese patients (Jhee. AACR-JCA 2022, abstract A83; Fountaine. J Clin Pharmacol 2006;46:693-99). Here we report select PK data of LAS (5 mg/day) from women with mBC in the ELAINE 1 and ELAINE 2 oncology trials to indirectly investigate possible drug-drug interactions between LAS and Abema. Methods: Patients with mBC and ESR1 mutations who progressed on endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors received LAS 5 mg/day as monotherapy (ELAINE 1) or combined with Abema (provided by Eli Lilly and Co) 150 mg BID (ELAINE 2). Blood was collected prior to daily dosing at weeks 2, 4, 8, and every 4 weeks up to the final visit in ELAINE 1, and visits during the first 8 weeks in ELAINE 2, to determine the plasma trough steady-state concentrations (Css) of LAS, Abema, and two active Abema metabolites (M2 and M20). LAS was assayed using validated high-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS; detection 0.025 to 25.0 ng/mL); levels below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) were reported as 0 ng/mL. Abema and its M2 and M20 metabolites were measured by validated Turbo Ion Spray LC/MS/MS (detection 1.00 to 500 ng/mL); values below the LLOQ were reported as < LLOQ ng/mL. Mean trough Css at each visit were calculated for LAS (ELAINE 1 and 2), and Abema and its M2 and M20 metabolites (ELAINE 2). LAS levels from ELAINE 1 and 2 were compared, while Abema, M2 and M20 plasma levels in ELAINE 2 were compared with previously reported levels. Such indirect comparisons may help determine if Abema altered the metabolism of LAS, or if LAS altered that of Abema, M2, or M20. The relationships of LAS and Abema levels with progression-free survival (PFS) were also explored. Results: Across all time points for subjects who had PK samples assessed, the LAS mean trough Css was 33.6 ng/mL (CV%, 39.8) in ELAINE 1 (n=40) and 30.9 ng/mL (CV 50.5%) in ELAINE 2 (n=29); in both studies, LAS concentrations were consistent across visits. LAS levels in ELAINE 2 were similar to those in ELAINE 1 with no evidence of accumulation. Mean (CV%) Abema plasma concentrations at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8 were 199 (102%), 107 (130%), 82 (271%), and 94.3 (223%) ng/mL, respectively. Minimum and maximums of the mean trough Css for LAS, Abema, M2, and M20 are shown in Table 1. No relationships between LAS or Abema levels and antitumor activity measured by PFS were seen (data to be presented). Conclusion: The steady-state PK of 5 mg LAS in the ELAINE 1 and 2 studies suggest that the addition of abemaciclib to LAS did not result in an obvious or significant LAS-Abema, drug-drug interaction. Abema PK data from ELAINE 2 were consistent with published data (European Medicines Agency, Verzenio). These results support the continued development of LAS alone and combined with Abema for treating ER+/HER2-, ESR1-mutated mBC that progressed on endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitors. Table. Mean trough, steady-state concentrations of lasofoxifene and abemaciclib. XX- XX aData from patients who received oral LAS (5 mg/day) plus Abema (150 mg BID). Abema, abemaciclib; LAS, lasofoxifene; M2 and M20 are Abema metabolites. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Paul V. Plourde, Simon Jenkins, Phil Mayer, David J Portman, Matthew Goetz. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of lasofoxifene (LAS) monotherapy and combined with abemaciclib (Abema) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-18-05.

Abstract Introduction: Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancers commonly acquire constitutively active mutations in the ERα-encoding gene (ESR1), resulting in endocrine therapy (ET) resistance. In the phase 2, ELAINE 2 study (NCT04432454), LAS (a breast ER antagonist) combined with Abema provided a median progression-free survival (PFS) of ~13 months (mos) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 66% in patients with endocrine-resistant, ER+/HER2- mBC and ESR1 mutations (mESR1; Damodaran. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:suppl16;1057). Our objective was to describe baseline genomic alterations co-occuring with mESR1 and treatment responses to LAS plus Abema in patients with these concurrent genomic alterations. Methods: Women (age ≥18 yrs) with ER+/HER2- mBC that progressed after prior ET and CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) with an mESR1 detected in blood using the Sysmex-Inostics SafeSeq circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) test were enrolled in ELAINE 2. Oral LAS 5 mg/day and Abema (provided by Eli Lilly and Co) 150 mg BID were taken until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The Guardant360 CDx test was used to identify and describe baseline genomic alterations in ctDNA (including mESR1). Median PFS and CBR were assessed in patients with mESR1 and co-existing baseline genomic alterations. For patients who withdrew before disease progression, their last observation time was used as the progression time for PFS estimation. Data were summarized descriptively with no formal hypothesis testing. Results: Of the 29 patients (median age 60 yrs) enrolled, mutations in ESR1 were identified in 26 by Guardant360; all these 26 patients had received prior CDK4/6i, 21 (81%) prior fulvestrant, and 12 (46%) prior chemotherapy for mBC. Alterations in 39 genes were concurrently identified with mESR1, including TP53 mutations (n=11), PIK3CA mutations (n=8), CCND1 amplifications (n=6), and FGFR1 amplifications (n=5); co-amplification of CCND1 and FGFR1 was identified in 3 patients. LAS plus Abema treatment was associated with a CBR of 73% and a median PFS of 12.9 mos in the 26 patients with mESR1 (Table). CBRs were 63% in the co-occurring PIK3CA mutation subgroup and 64% in the TP53 mutation subgroup; median PFS times were 7.8 and 8.3 mos, respectively. All patients in the CCND1 and FGFR1 amplification subgroups achieved clinical benefit (CBR 100%) and the median PFS was 16.6 mos for both subgroups. In patients with mESR1 and co-alterations in ≥2 other genes of interest (PIK3CA, FGFR1, CCND1, TP53, ERBB2, CCNE1, or RB1), CBR was 83% and median PFS was 16.6 mos. Conclusion: Using Guardant360 ctDNA profiling from patients in ELAINE 2, we demonstrate that other baseline genomic alterations are frequently detected concurrently with mESR1 in the endocrine resistant setting, but without apparent compromise on the efficacy of LAS plus Abema. These results should be interpreted with caution considering the small numbers of patients and the exploratory nature of the analysis. The ELAINE 2 study suggests the potential of LAS plus Abema for treating ESR1-mutated, ER+/HER2- mBC in the post-CDK4/6i setting. This will be further evaluated in the larger, registrational, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study (NCT05696626) that compares LAS plus Abema with fulvestrant plus Abema. Table. Treatment response by genomic alterations concurrent with ESR1 mutations (n=26). aFor patients who withdrew before disease progression, the last observation time was used as the progression time for PFS estimation. bOther genes of interest include PIK3CA, FGFR1, CCND1, TP53, ERBB2, CCNE1, or RB1. CBR, clinical benefit rate; mPFS, median progression-free survival. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Massimo Cristofanilli, Matthew Goetz, Ciara O'Sullivan, Gary Riordan, Hope Rugo, Daniel Stover, Seth Wander, Dominic Carroll, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman, Einav Nili-Gal Yam. Baseline genomic alterations and the activity of lasofoxifene (LAS) plus abemaciclib (Abema) in patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC): the ELAINE 2 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-14-09.

Abstract Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene, an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, had potent activity in mBC xenograft models expressing ESR1 mutations, either as a single agent or combined with a CDK4/6i. Subsequently, two phase 2 studies evaluated lasofoxifene in women with ER+/HER2- metastatic BC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 months; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with lasofoxifene monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant, with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S1387). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 months, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:suppl 16; abstr 1057). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib versus fulvestrant plus abemaciclib. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 years; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or metastatic BC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/metastatic BC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive lasofoxifene 5 mg/day plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID, or fulvestrant 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then 4 weekly plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit for genomic analyses. Outcomes with lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and fulvestrant/abemaciclib will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 months for lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and 7 months for fulvestrant/abemaciclib (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 months at 125 global sites. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Seth Wander, Thomas Bachelot, Gerald Batist, Javier Cortés, Massimo Cristofanilli, Giuseppe Curigliano, Alexandre de Nonneville, Einav Nili-Gal Yam, Komal Jhaveri, Cynthia Ma, Heather Parsons, Hope Rugo, Sarah Sammons, Daniel Stover, Chris Twelves, Aditya Bardia, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman, Senthil Damodaran. Trial in progress: Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating locally advanced or ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-18-12.

1057 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET), particularly aromatase inhibitors (AIs), for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer can lead to acquired ESR1 mutations ( mESR1) driving endocrine resistance and tumor progression. Treatments for mBC with mESR1 are limited, especially after progression on ET/cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) combinations. In ELAINE 2, LAS, a next-generation ET (breast ER antagonist) plus Abema had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of ~13 mos, objective response rate (ORR) of 33%, and 24-wk clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 62% with a favorable safety profile in patients with resistant mESR1 mBC (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:16 suppl 1022). Here, we report ELAINE 2 data with longer patient follow up (Jan 31, 2023). Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, single-arm study, 29 women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that progressed on prior ET took oral LAS 5 mg/day and Abema 150 mg BID until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability; secondary included PFS, CBR, and ORR. Data were summarized descriptively with no formal hypothesis testing. Results: Patients (median age 60 yrs) had received a median of 2 prior therapy lines for mBC; all but one had prior CDK4/6i exposure and 14 (48%) had prior chemotherapy for mBC. LAS/Abema was well tolerated with primarily grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse events (most commonly diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting). One treatment withdrawal occurred due to grade 2 diarrhea. No deaths occurred. LAS dose was not reduced; Abema dose was reduced to 100 mg BID in 6 (21%) patients. Median PFS was 56.0 wks (~13 mos) and CBR 65.5% (95% CI, 47.3‒80.1). Median overall survival was not estimable. In 18 patients with measurable lesions, ORR was 55.6% (95% CI, 33.7‒75.4), with median time to response of 5.7 mos and median duration of response of 6.4 mos. Seventy-six percent, 56%, and 39% of patients were progression free at 6, 12, and 18 mos, respectively. Three (10%) patients had scan-identified venous thromboembolic events, with one symptomatic pulmonary embolism and one symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. In 26 patients with evaluable baseline and wk 4 ctDNA, ESR1 mutant allele fraction decreased from baseline to wk 4 in 81% of patients and was not detected in 54%. Conclusions: With longer ELAINE 2 follow up, LAS/Abema continues to be well tolerated with clinically meaningful efficacy in women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that had progressed on ET and CDK4/6is. Decreases in mESR1 ctDNA suggest effective target engagement of LAS. The PFS (median ~13 mos) and ORR (56%) with LAS/Abema are promising and a confirmatory phase 3 study (ELAINE 3) will begin in 2023. If ELAINE 2 results are confirmed, the combination of LAS and Abema would address a critical unmet need, providing a practice changing option for treating mESR1 breast cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04432454 .

Abstract Introduction: Use of long-term endocrine therapy (ET) for ER+ breast cancer often leads to acquired ESR1 mutations (mutESR1), causing endocrine resistance, tumor progression, and poor prognosis. An unmet clinical need exists for treating ER+ mBC patients with mutESR1, particularly after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). ELAINE 2 is an open-label, phase 2, multicenter trial evaluating safety and efficacy of lasofoxifene (LAS [selective estrogen receptor modulator]) plus abemaciclib (Abema [CDK4/6i], provided by Eli Lilly) in patients with ER+/HER2- and mutESR1 mBC who progressed after prior ET. Preliminary data with LAS plus Abema showed median progression-free survival of 55.7 wks, objective response rate of 50%, and 24-wk clinical benefit (CB) rate of 69%, with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. Here, we report ESR1 ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) and correlations of ESR1 MAF changes with CB. Methods: ELAINE 2 patients with detectable ctDNA mutESR1 at baseline (BL) were analyzed. Oral LAS 5 mg/day and Abema 150 mg BID were taken until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. ctDNA was assessed by the Sysmex-Inostics SafeSeq assay—which detects mutESR1 at low allele fractions—at BL, every 4 wks, and end of treatment. MAF changes from BL to wk 4 were characterized as decreased (decrease in ESR1 MAF or none detected [ND]), increased (increase in MAF), or equivocal (in polyclonal patients [>1 mutESR1] with some MAF increasing and decreasing trends). Correlations of MAF change at 4 wks with CB at 24 wks were explored. Results: 29 patients (median of 2 prior metastatic therapies: 97% CDK4/6i, 79% fulvestrant, 48% chemotherapy) had BL mutESR1 of Y537S (66%), D538G (45%), Y537N (28%), and other less frequently detected mutations; 14 (48.3%) patients were polyclonal. 26 of 29 patients had evaluable BL and wk-4 ctDNA results: 21 patients had decreased MAF (81% [54% with ND]), 3 (12%) had increased, and 2 (8%) had equivocal ESR1 MAF changes (Table). CB at 24 wks was seen in 17 patients with a decrease, 2 with an increase, and 1 with equivocal MAF change. A sensitivity of 89.5% and specificity of 20% were calculated for predicting CB based on direction of ESR1 MAF change. The positive predictive value (PPV) for CB with decreased MAF was 81% and the negative predictive value (NPV) for an increased MAF was 33%. Of the 14 (54%) patients with ND ESR1 MAF, 13 had CB resulting in 87% sensitivity, 50% specificity, 93% PPV, and 33% NPV. Conclusion: In ELAINE 2, 81% of patients had decrease/cleared (ND) mutESR1 after 4 wks of LAS plus Abema, which correlated with clinical benefit. All mutESR1 detected appear targeted with this therapy. High sensitivity and favorable PPV were observed in patients with decreased MAF, and even more so in those with ND MAF; however, increased MAF was less specific and not as predictive of treatment failure. Our results indicate that ESR1 liquid biopsy evaluation may be an adequate non-invasive surrogate marker for monitoring patients on treatment. Further study in a larger population of women with endocrine-resistant mBC and acquired mutESR1 is warranted to explore this potential for monitoring treatment response or resistance to this novel LAS-Abema combination. Table. Change from baseline to week 4 in ESR1 MAF and clinical benefit at 24 weeks. CI, confidence interval; MAF, mutant allele fraction; ND, none detected; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value. *Sensitivity and specificity analyses do not include equivocal results. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Halle Moore, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Paul V. Plourde, Gary Riordan, Hillary S. Sloane, Debu Tripathy, Dominic Carroll, David J Portman. Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib in the ELAINE 2 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-05-02.

Abstract Introduction: Acquired ESR1 mutations (mutESR1) after long-term endocrine therapy drive treatment resistance, metastasis, and poor prognosis for patients (pts) with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene (LAS), a selective estrogen receptor modulator, alone or with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) reduced tumor growth better than fulvestrant (Fulv) in mutESR1 BC xenograft models. ELAINE 1 is a randomized trial of LAS vs Fulv in pts with mutESR1 and prior progression on aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6i. Preliminary results (ESMO 2022) showed that LAS prolonged median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared with Fulv with a favorable safety profile. Here, we report changes in ESR1 ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) from baseline to 8 wks and their associations with clinical benefit (CB) and mPFS. Methods: ELAINE 1 pts were randomized to oral LAS 5 mg daily or IM Fulv 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, then every 4 wks, until disease progression or severe toxicity. ctDNA mutESR1 mutations (baseline and 8 wks) were assessed using the Sysmex Inostics OncoBeam or SafeSeq assays—which detect mutESR1 at low allele fractions. MAF changes from baseline to wk 8 were characterized as decreased (decrease in ESR1 MAF or fully cleared), increased (increase in MAF), or equivocal (polyclonal patients [>1 mutESR1] with some increasing and decreasing MAF trends); correlations with PFS and CB were explored. Efficacy measures included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and CB at 24 wks (CB defined as response or stable disease ≥24 wks). Results: 103 pts received LAS (n=52) or Fulv (n=51). Most common baseline ESR1 variants detected were D538G (56%), Y537S (39%), Y537N (29%), E380Q (22%); 56 (54%) pts were polyclonal. Of the 61 pts with evaluable baseline and wk 8 ctDNA, LAS decreased mutESR1 MAF in 29/35 pts (83% [11 complete clearance]) while Fulv decreased mutESR1 MAF in 16/26 pts (61.5% [6 complete clearance]) (Table). mPFS with LAS was 8 and 4 mos for pts with decreased/cleared MAF and increased MAF, respectively, and with Fulv was 4.5 and 2.8 mos, respectively (Table). LAS decreased the common mutESR1 variants more frequently than Fulv (median relative change -87.1% vs -14.7%). In pts with decreased MAF, CB was observed in 16/29 LAS pts (55%) and 4/16 Fulv pts (25%). The predictiveness of ESR1 MAF clearance for CB was also explored. Of 11 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking LAS, 10 achieved CB, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.9%. In contrast, 2/6 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking Fulv had CB for a PPV of 33.3%. Sensitivity for predicting CB based on direction of ESR1 MAF change was 94% with LAS and 80% with Fulv. In pts with Y537S MAF (n=33), LAS decreased Y537S in 13/15 (87%), with a median relative MAF decrease of 89%. In marked contrast, Fulv increased Y537S MAF in 11/18 pts (61%), corresponding to an MAF relative increase of 82%. LAS and Fulv resulted in complete clearance of Y537S MAF in 33% and 6% of pts, respectively. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that LAS more effectively decreased or cleared mutESR1 than Fulv. Further, mutESR1 clearance was associated with prolonged PFS and more CB in LAS but not Fulv pts, suggesting that LAS results in robust mutESR1 target engagement. Taken together, our data suggest mutESR1 as a potential liquid biomarker for predicting response to LAS in mutESR1, endocrine-resistant mBC pts. Table. Change from baseline to week 8 in ESR1 MAF and clinical benefit at 24 weeks. CI, confidence interval; MAF, mutant allele fraction; ND, none detected; PFS, progression-free survival. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Einav Gal-Yam, Daniel Stover, Sarah L. Sammons, Stephanie L. Graff, Grace Wang, Massimo Cristofanilli, Gary Riordan, Hillary S. Sloane, Dominic Carroll, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman. Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with lasofoxifene or fulvestrant in the ELAINE 1 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-05-04.