Cortés, J.

Abstract The addition of two years (yrs) of adjuvant abemaciclib to ET resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival (OS) over ET in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. At 7 yrs, abemaciclib+ET demonstrated sustained IDFS and DRFS benefits ([HR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.82), and (HR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.84)]). Higher nodal involvement (N2 or N3) is an independent prognostic factor for worse outcomes in EBC. However, previous monarchE data highlight that pts with limited nodal disease (1-3 axillary lymph nodes (ALN)) are at high recurrence risk when additional clinical risk factors are present, such as high-grade (G) tumor and/or large tumor size. Here, we show subgroup analyses by ALN.monarchE is a phase 3, open-label, randomized trial in pts with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive ET for at least 5 yrs +/- abemaciclib for 2 yrs (treatment (tx) period). High-risk EBC was defined as either 1-3 ALN (N1) with G3 disease and/or tumor ≥5 cm or, ≥4 ALN (N2: 4-9, N3: ≥10) (Cohort 1 (C1)). A smaller group of pts were enrolled with N1, G≤2, tumor size <5 cm, and central Ki-67 ≥20% (C2). IDFS, DRFS and OS were assessed in C1 by ALN (N1, N2, N3) using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method, and unstratified Cox proportional hazard model including interaction effect between tx arm and ALN. Of 5120 randomized pts in C1, 1761 (34.4%) had N1, 2223 (43.4%) had N2, and 1123 (21.9%) had N3 disease. At this analysis (data cut off:15Jul2025), in the ET arm, a comparable number of patients with N1 and N2 disease had IDFS events at 6 yrs (21.6% and 25.4%), while event no. in the N3 subgroup was notably higher (38.1%). A similar trend was observed in DRFS and OS (Table). With a median follow-up time of 76.8 months in C1, the addition of abemaciclib to ET reduced the risk of developing an IDFS event by 24.8% (N1), 31.5% (N2) and 27.4% (N3) compared to ET. The absolute improvements in IDFS rates at 6 yrs were 4.6% (N1), 6.9% (N2), and 8.1% (N3). Reductions in the risk of developing DRFS events were 25.2% (N1), 31.2% (N2), and 25.7% (N3), with corresponding 6yr absolute benefit of 3.8% (N1), 6.4% (N2), and 6.8% (N3). Abemaciclib+ET consistently reduced the risk of death compared to ET across ALN subgroups by 12.3% (N1), 15.5% (N2), and 26.8% (N3), which resulted in absolute improvements in OS of 1.4% (N1), 1.6% (N2), and 2.7% (N3). Baseline disease characteristics, IDFS and DRFS KM curves by ALN will be presented. In the ET arm, pts with N1 + ≥1 additional risk factor had recurrence and death risks comparable to pts with N2, while pts with N3 had poorer prognosis. The addition of adjuvant abemaciclib to ET led to a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of recurrence and death regardless of nodal burden, confirming the consistent and sustained benefit of 2 yrs of tx with abemaciclib and supporting its use in eligible pts with node-positive high-risk EBC. Citation Format: J. Cortes, S. R. D. Johnston, M. Martín, S. M. Tolaney, M. Goetz, H. Rugo, J. Sohn, O. Ozyilkan, M. Henriques Abreu, M. Zaiss, K. Maia Vianna, H. Melgaard Nielsen, A. Chan, H. Kalofonos, S. Morales, B. San Antonio, M. Munoz, B. R Grimes, S. Amdur, P. Neven. monarchE: subgroup analysis of adjuvant abemaciclib + endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, high-risk early breast cancer by nodal status [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 PS1-08-08.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Two years of adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) resulted in a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) that persisted beyond the 2-year treatment period in patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Here, we report 5-year efficacy results from a prespecified overall survival (OS) interim analysis. In the intent-to-treat population, with a median follow-up of 54 months, the benefit of abemaciclib was sustained with hazard ratios of 0.680 (95% CI, 0.599 to 0.772) for IDFS and 0.675 (95% CI, 0.588 to 0.774) for DRFS. This persistence of abemaciclib benefit translated to continuous separation of the curves with a deepening in 5-year absolute improvement in IDFS and DRFS rates of 7.6% and 6.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 6% and 5.3% at 4 years and 4.8% and 4.1% at 3 years. With fewer deaths in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared with the ET-alone arm (208 v 234), statistical significance was not reached for OS. No new safety signals were observed. In conclusion, abemaciclib plus ET continued to reduce the risk of developing invasive and distant disease recurrence beyond the completion of treatment. The increasing absolute improvement at 5 years is consistent with a carryover effect and further supports the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk EBC.

Abstract Purpose: To identify potential predictors of response and resistance mechanisms in patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib ± endocrine therapy (ET), baseline and acquired genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were analyzed and associated with clinical outcomes. Experimental Design: MONARCH 3: postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting were randomly assigned to abemaciclib or placebo plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). nextMONARCH: women with HR+, HER2− metastatic breast cancer that progressed on/after prior ET and chemotherapy were randomly assigned to abemaciclib alone (two doses) or plus tamoxifen. Baseline and end-of-treatment plasma samples from patients in MONARCH 3 and nextMONARCH (monotherapy arms) were analyzed to identify somatic genomic alterations. Association between genomic alterations and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was assessed. Results: Most patients had ≥1 genomic alteration detected in baseline ctDNA. In MONARCH 3, abemaciclib+NSAI was associated with improved mPFS versus placebo+NSAI, regardless of baseline alterations. ESR1 alterations were less frequently acquired in the abemaciclib+NSAI arm than placebo+NSAI. Acquired alterations potentially associated with resistance to abemaciclib ± NSAI included RB1 and MYC. Conclusions: In MONARCH 3, certain baseline ctDNA genomic alterations were prognostic for ET but not predictive of abemaciclib response. Further studies are warranted to assess whether ctDNA alterations acquired during abemaciclib treatment differ from other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Findings are hypothesis generating; further exploration is warranted into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib and ET. See related commentary by Wander and Bardia, p. 2008

Purpose This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.