Manich, C. Saura

1001 Background: Imlunestrant (imlu) is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen receptor degrader. The EMBER-3 trial, in patients (pts) with ER+, HER2- ABC who had disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, showed significant progression free survival (PFS) improvement with imlu vs standard therapy (SOC, fulvestrant or exemestane) in pts with ESR1 mutations ( ESR1 m), and with imlunestrant+abemaciclib (imlu+abema) vs imlu in all pts, regardless of ESR1 m. Exploratory PRO analyses are presented here. Methods: EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at baseline (BL) and every 8 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified QLQ-C30 analysis used a longitudinal mixed model for repeated measures to calculate mean change from BL in pts with BL and ≥1 post-BL score. PRO-CTCAE (diarrhea frequency) was administered weekly, reporting 0 (never) to 4 (almost constantly). PRO-CTCAE (injection site reaction [ISR]) was administered to fulvestrant recipients weekly for 2 weeks post-injection, reporting yes/no (pain, swelling, redness). Descriptive analysis was used for PRO-CTCAE. Results: In pts with ESR1 m, imlu monotherapy was associated with many improved or maintained EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, whereas scores with SOC were declined or maintained. Specifically, pts with ESR1 m on imlu had improved global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QOL) and physical function (PF) scores, while scores with SOC declined (mean change differences between treatments: 9.9 [0.1, 19.7] and 6.2 [-0.8, 13.1], respectively). These PRO findings mirror the PFS findings in this group. In the overall population, GHS/QOL scores declined similarly with imlu vs SOC (mean change differences: 0.5 [-4.7, 5.7]), while PF scores were maintained with imlu vs a slight decline with SOC (mean change difference: 2.5 [-1.1, 6.1]). Most fulvestrant recipients (72%) reported ISR at any time while on treatment, with a mean of 31% during the first week of the first 6 cycles. Imlu+abema vs imlu showed broadly similar declines in all pts, with minimal mean change differences in GHS/QOL and PF scores (0.8 [-7.4, 5.9]; -2.2 [-6.6, 2.2], respectively). Pts reported similarly low rates of “frequent” or “almost constant” diarrhea with imlu (3%) and SOC (2%) and higher rates with imlu+abema (22%). Conclusions: PROs from EMBER-3 demonstrated that patients with ESR1 m had better GHS/QOL and PF with imlu vs SOC, mirroring efficacy results. While the frequency of CTCAE defined ISRs was low, the high rate of PRO-CTCAE ISR demonstrates that this clinically relevant adverse event is underappreciated by physicians. Additionally, all pts had generally comparable GHS/QOL and PF with imlu+abema vs imlu. Overall, these results support the efficacy and safety of imlu compared to existing SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04975308 .

TPS1125 Background: Despite the many available treatments for patients (pts) with HR+, HER2– recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (MBC), optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is unclear. One possible CDK4/6i resistance mechanism is increased expression of Aurora kinase A (AURKA), a key mitosis regulator associated with poor prognosis. Further implicated in CDK 4/6i resistance, high c-Myc or RB1 loss of function (LOF) are associated with transcriptional co-regulation or synthetic lethality, respectively, with AURKA. Alisertib is a highly selective, reversible, ATP-competitive, orally administered, small-molecule AURKA inhibitor with antiproliferative activity in HR+ BC-derived cell lines and BC xenograft models. Models with elevated AURKA or c-Myc expression, or RB1 LOF show greater alisertib sensitivity. Alisertib had activity in phase 1 and 2 trials, including objective response rates (ORRs) of 19.6–20% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.4–5.6 months alone or with fulvestrant in pts with HR+/HER2–, endocrine-resistant MBC. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, anemia, and leukopenia. Methods: ALISCA-Breast1 (NCT06369285) is a randomized phase 2 study. Primary objective: to determine the optimal alisertib dose administered with endocrine therapy (ET) based on AEs and serious AEs per CTCAE v5.0 and efficacy (ORR, duration of response, disease-control rate, PFS, overall survival). Secondary objectives: to identify biomarkers of efficacy and alisertib pharmacokinetics (PK). Key inclusion criteria: ≥18 years; ECOG performance status 0 or 1; confirmed HR+, HER2–, recurrent/metastatic breast adenocarcinoma not amenable to curative therapy; available tumor tissue for biomarker analyses; progression on or after ≥2 prior ET lines in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior CDK4/6i with ET in recurrent/metastatic setting. Key exclusion criteria: prior chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior AURKA-specific or pan-Aurora-targeted agents; unstable brain metastases. Eligible pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to alisertib 30 mg, 40 mg, or 50 mg orally twice daily on days 1−3, 8–10, and 15–17 every 28 days, plus physician’s choice of anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant, or tamoxifen not previously used in recurrent/metastatic setting or progressed upon in adjuvant setting; ≤50 pts will be enrolled per arm in the USA and Europe. All pts will undergo sparse PK sampling. Tumor tissue will be centrally assessed for biomarkers, including RB1, MYC, TP53, ESR1, PI3K/AKT pathway, HER2 and AURKA genomic alterations/expression levels. The study will determine the optimal alisertib dose to combine with ET and may identify biomarker(s) defining pts with the greatest benefit from alisertib-based therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT06369285 .