Campone, Mario

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is approved both for high-risk early breast cancer as well as advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the first- and second-line setting. In MONARCH 2, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC with disease progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). In MONARCH 3, the addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.540; 95% CI, 0.418-0.698; p=0.000002) as initial therapy in HR+, HER2- ABC. At the last interim OS analysis (~252 events, at 5.8 years follow-up [FU]), a numerically favorable median OS difference (12.6 months) was observed (HR, 0.754; 95% CI, 0.584-0.974; p=0.0301, non-significant [NS]). Here, we present the final OS analysis of MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). Methods: MONARCH 3 is a randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study of abemaciclib + NSAI (anastrozole or letrozole) vs placebo + NSAI in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC without prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. OS was a gated secondary endpoint and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) an exploratory endpoint. Final OS analysis was planned after approximately 315 OS events had occurred in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with a split alpha between the ITT population and the subgroup with visceral disease (sVD) according to a prespecified graphical testing scheme. Kaplan-Meier method and stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used for time-to-event analyses. All reported p-values are two-sided. Results A total of 493 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib + NSAI (n=328) or placebo + NSAI (n=165). After a median FU of 8.1 years, 7% of patients were still receiving treatment in the abemaciclib arm vs 3% in the placebo arm. In the ITT population, 314 OS events were observed (198 deaths among 328 patients [60%] in the abemaciclib arm and 116 among 165 [70%] in the placebo arm; HR, 0.804; 95% CI, 0.637-1.015; p=0.0664, NS). Median OS was 66.8 months in the abemaciclib arm and 53.7 months in the placebo arm, a numerical difference of 13.1 months in the ITT population. In the sVD, 178 events were observed (113 deaths among 173 patients [65%] in the abemaciclib arm and 65 among 90 [72%] in the placebo arm; HR, 0.758; 95% CI, 0.558-1.030; p=0.0757, NS). Median OS was 63.7 months in the abemaciclib arm and 48.8 months in the placebo arm, a numerical difference of 14.9 months in the sVD. Consistent OS differences were observed across prespecified subgroups. PFS benefit was sustained (median 29.0 vs 14.8 months; HR, 0.535; 95% CI, 0.429-0.668; nominal p<0.0001) with substantial difference in 6-year PFS rates (23.3% vs 4.3% for abemaciclib vs placebo). CFS was also improved with abemaciclib vs placebo (median 46.7 vs 30.6 months; HR, 0.693; 95% CI, 0.557-0.863; nominal p=0.0010). No new safety signals were observed with longer term use. Conclusion In patients with HR+, HER2- ABC, abemaciclib in combination with a NSAI resulted in numerically longer OS compared to NSAI alone; however, statistical significance was not reached after a median FU of 8.1 years. The clinically meaningful improvement in median OS (>13 months) combined with the sustained significant improvement in median PFS (>14 months) and substantial extension in median CFS (>16 months) continue to support the use of abemaciclib in combination with NSAI as first-line therapy in ABC. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Masakazu Toi, Jens Huober, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Olivier Trédan, Inhae Park, Mario Campone, Shin-Cheh Chen, Luis Manual Manso, Shani Paluch-Shimon, Orit C. Freedman, Valerie Andre, Abhijoy Saha, Gertjan van Hal, Ashwin Shahir, Hiroji Iwata, Stephen RD Johnston, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Xavier Pivot, Sara Tolaney, Sara Hurvitz, Antonio Llombart. MONARCH 3: Final overall survival results of abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as first-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer [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 GS01-12.

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

Abstract Background Adjuvant abemaciclib (a CDK4 and 6 inhibitor) combined with ET resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk EBC in the monarchE trial, and is an approved adjuvant therapy for these patients. Here we present efficacy results from a pre-specified overall survival interim analysis (OS IA2) which was planned to occur 2 years (yrs) after the primary outcome analysis. Methods Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive ET for up to 10 yrs +/- abemaciclib for 2 yrs (study treatment period). High-risk EBC was defined as either ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALN), or 1-3 ALN with either Grade 3 disease and/or tumor ≥5 cm (Cohort 1). While the proliferation biomarker Ki-67 was centrally assessed in all pts with available tissue sample, an additional smaller group of pts with 1-3+ ALN and central Ki-67 ≥20% as the only high-risk feature were included (Cohort 2). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of both Cohort 1 (5120 pts) and Cohort 2 (517 pts). Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. Results At a median follow-up of 42 months, all pts were off abemaciclib. IDFS and DRFS data illustrate a sustained benefit beyond the treatment period. In the ITT population, the HR for IDFS was 0.664 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.762) and DRFS was 0.659 (95% CI: 0.567, 0.767). At 4 yrs, this reflected an improvement in IDFS rates from 79.4% to 85.8% (absolute difference 6.4%), and in DRFS rates from 82.5% to 88.4% (absolute difference 5.9%). The continued separation of the curves was associated with an increase in absolute benefit in IDFS 4-year rates compared to 2-and 3-year IDFS rates (absolute difference 2.8% and 4.8% respectively). While OS remained immature, there was a lower number of deaths observed in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared to the ET alone arm (157 [5.6%] vs 173 [6.1%], HR 0.929 [95% CI: 0.748, 1.153], p = 0.503), suggesting that the robust benefit in IDFS and DRFS began to translate into a numerically favorable OS HR. As previously described, within Cohort 1, a Ki-67 index of ≥20% was associated with a worse prognosis, but similar abemaciclib treatment effects were observed regardless of Ki-67 index. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion The clinically meaningful benefit of adjuvant abemaciclib added to ET in HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC persists beyond completion of abemaciclib therapy, yielding an increase in absolute IDFS and DRFS benefit at 4 yrs. While OS remains immature at this time, the lower number of deaths in the abemaciclib arm compared to the ET arm suggest that a survival signal favoring abemaciclib is emerging. Citation Format: Stephen Johnston, Masakazu Toi, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Priya Rastogi, Mario Campone, Patrick Neven, Chiun Sheng Huang, Jens Huober, Georgina Garnica Jaliffe, Irfan Cicin, Sara Tolaney, Matthew P. Goetz, Hope Rugo, Elżbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Lucia Del Mastro, Chikako Shimizu, Ran Wei, Ashwin Shahir, Maria Munoz, Belen San Antonio, Valerie Andre, Nadia Harbeck, Miguel Martín. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer: results from a pre-planned monarchE overall survival interim analysis, including 4-year efficacy outcomes [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 GS1-09.

3519 Background: An understanding of the mechanisms of acquired resistance to CDK4 & 6 inhibitors, either alone or with endocrine therapy (ET), is an unmet need. Abemaciclib is a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor approved for treatment of HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here we evaluated acquired genomic alterations detected in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients (pts) treated with abemaciclib + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or placebo + AI in MONARCH 3 or abemaciclib monotherapy in nextMONARCH 1. Methods: MONARCH 3 randomized postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC with no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting to abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H) or placebo + AI. nextMONARCH 1 randomized women with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on or after prior ET and CT to abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H) + tamoxifen, abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H), or abemaciclib (200 mg Q12H) + loperamide. Plasma from pts in the abemaciclib or placebo + AI arms (MONARCH 3) or abemaciclib monotherapy arms (nextMONARCH 1) was analyzed by the Guardant360 assay to identify potential tumor-related genomic alterations including point mutations, indels, amplifications, and fusions acquired at EOT in comparison with baseline. Results: For MONARCH 3, commonly acquired alterations at EOT included ESR1 (17%), TP53 (10%), EGFR (8%), FGFR1 (7%), and PDGFRA (7%) in the abemaciclib + AI arm, and ESR1 (31%), TP53 (10%), and BRCA1 (7%) in the placebo + AI arm. Acquired alterations more frequent for abemaciclib + AI pts included RB1 (6%), MYC (5%), and AR (5%), compared to 0% in the placebo + AI arm (p = 0.008 RB1; p = 0.015 MYC or AR). In contrast, acquired ESR1 alterations were less frequent with abemaciclib + AI vs placebo + AI (17% vs 31%, p = 0.038). In nextMONARCH 1, the most commonly acquired alterations with abemaciclib monotherapy were in TP53 (10%), EGFR (9%), RB1 (9%), MYC (9%), and MET (8%). In addition, acquired alterations in ESR1 (6%) and AR (3%) were also found. PIK3CA alterations were not frequently acquired (abemaciclib + AI 1%, placebo + AI 6%, abemaciclib monotherapy 5%). Conclusions: Acquired genomic alterations potentially associated with emerging mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib alone or in combination with AI may include RB1, MYC, or AR alterations, while the acquisition of ESR1 alterations was less common in pts treated with abemaciclib + AI compared to placebo + AI. These findings are hypothesis-generating and provide insight into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib vs ET. Clinical trial information: NCT02246621, NCT02747004 .

Abstract Background: Combination treatments of CDK4 & 6 inhibitors (CDK4 & 6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) have improved outcomes in patients with HR-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Aside from estrogen receptor positivity (ER+), predictive biomarkers of clinical benefit from CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET remain elusive. We assessed clinical outcomes by genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients treated with abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) versus placebo plus NSAI in the Phase 3 study MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). Methods: MONARCH 3 randomized 493 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting to treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI or placebo plus NSAI. Biomarker analysis of baseline ctDNA was an exploratory objective; plasma was analyzed by the Guardant360 next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay to identify potential tumor-related (i.e., somatic) genomic alterations including point mutations (SNV), indels, amplifications, and fusions in over 70 cancer-related genes. Genomic alterations detected in baseline ctDNA were associated with clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Baseline ctDNA results were available for 295 patients (201 abemaciclib; 94 placebo) with 83% of patients harboring one or more detectable genomic alterations. Commonly altered genes of interest (% frequency) detected in baseline ctDNA included: PIK3CA (38%); TP53 (26%); EGFR (15%); FGFR1 (12%); NF1 (12%); MYC (9%); CCND1 (9%); ESR1 (5%).Overall, patients treated with placebo plus NSAI who harbored detectable ctDNA genomic alterations had shorter median PFS compared to patients without detectable genomic alterations, as shown in the Table (14.9 months [95% CI: 11.0-23.1] vs 19.2 months [95% CI 9.4-NR]). Moreover, genomic alterations in EGFR, FGFR1, MYC, and CCND1 were associated with median PFS <12 months with placebo plus NSAI. However, consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the addition of abemaciclib to NSAI benefitted these genomic subgroups, regardless of ctDNA gene alterations. Additional genomic results, including alterations in cell cycle-associated genes, will be presented. Conclusions: In this exploratory subgroup analysis, the presence of detectable ctDNA genomic alterations was associated with shorter PFS with placebo plus NSAI. Consistently, abemaciclib added to NSAI improved outcomes for genomically identified subgroups. In contrast to prior studies, there was no subgroup (e.g., patients harboring FGFR1 alterations) that did not derive benefit from abemaciclib, supporting the efficacy of abemaciclib, including in difficult to treat tumors. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigations in clinical studies of CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET. TableAbemaciclib + NSAIPlacebo + NSAIEvents, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Events, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Hazard Ratio (95% CI)OVERALLITT population170 / 32828.2 (23.7 - 33.9)123 / 16514.8 (11.2 - 19.2)0.52 (0.42 - 0.66)TR population93 / 20138.7 (31.1 - NR)71 / 9416.5 (11.7 - 23.1)0.45 (0.33 - 0.61)Any Gene AlterationDetected83 / 16634.1 (27.2 - 40.0)62 / 7914.9 (11.0 - 23.1)0.47 (0.34 - 0.66)Not detected10 / 35NR (36.4 - NR)9 / 1519.2 (9.40 - NR)0.31 (0.13 - 0.78)TP53Detected29 / 5327.0 (14.1 - NR)19 / 2315.4 (5.7 - 30.4)0.53 (0.30 - 0.95)Not detected64 / 14839.9 (34.1 - NR)52 / 7117.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.42 (0.29 - 0.60)EGFRDetected10 / 26NR (32.4 - NR)16 / 1710.9 (2.1 - 24.7)0.20 (0.09 - 0.47)Not detected83 / 17536.4 (27.7 - NR)55 / 7717.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.52 (0.37 - 0.73)FGFR1Detected15 / 2532.8 (10.1 - NR)10 / 117.6 (1.9 - 15.4)0.37 (0.16 - 0.85)Not detected78 / 17639.9 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8319.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)NF1Detected10 / 2435.9 (27 - NR)8 / 1014.6 (1.6 - 33.4)0.33 (0.13 - 0.84)Not detected83 / 17738.7 (30.8 - NR)63 / 8417.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.47 (0.33 - 0.65)MYCDetected11 / 1720.1 (5.5 - NR)9 / 106.5 (1.2 - 15.7)0.33 (0.13 - 0.86)Not detected82 / 18438.9 (32.9 - NR)62 / 8419.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)CCND1Detected8 / 1632.8 (5.5 - NR)10 / 107.2 (3.6 - 9.0)0.28 (0.10 - 0.77)Not detected85 / 18538.7 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8417.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.48 (0.34 - 0.67)n = number of patients with events; N = total number of patients in the corresponding population and treatment arm; NR = not reached. TR population consists of patients in the ITT population from whom a valid baseline ctDNA result has been obtained. Citation Format: Matthew P Goetz, J. Thaddeus Beck, Mario Campone, Sara Hurvitz, Seock-Ah Im, Stephen Johnston, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, Miguel Martin, Joohyuk Sohn, Masakazu Toi, Lacey M Litchfield, Hillary T Graham, Hong Wang, Sameera R Wijayawardana, Valerie M Jansen, Angelo Di Leo. Efficacy of abemaciclib based on genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA from the MONARCH 3 study of abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-06.

Abstract Background: Breast cancer incidence and mortality rates are increased in patients’ older than 65 years. However, there are limited reports on age-specific efficacy, safety, and drug tolerability, particularly in elderly patients older than 75 years old. Abemaciclib demonstrated clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer patients in the Phase 3 studies, MONARCH 2 and 3. Here we report exploratory subgroup analyses of MONARCH 2 and 3 to provide age-specific outcomes. Methods: In MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703), patients progressing while on prior ET received abemaciclib (or placebo) plus fulvestrant; in MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621), postmenopausal women with no prior systemic therapy for recurrent or metastatic breast cancer received abemaciclib (or placebo) plus letrozole or anastrozole. Exploratory outcome analyses of MONARCH 2 and 3 studies were performed for three age groups (women aged <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years). Using pooled safety data, we performed age-specific subgroup analyses of the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with either ET or ET plus abemaciclib. To assess the impact of age on efficacy, a subgroup analysis of PFS was performed using a Cox model for each trial independently. Results: Pooled safety data were available for 1152 patients treated in MONARCH 2 and 3 trials, including 59.7% pts <65 years, 28.7% pts between 65 and 74 years, and 11.5% pts ≥ 75 years. Of those, 768 women received abemaciclib plus ET and 384 women received placebo plus ET. The most frequent TEAE was diarrhea and the most common Grade ≥3 TEAE was neutropenia. While diarrhea (any grade) occurred with similar incidence in abemaciclib-treated patients across age groups, clinically relevant diarrhea (Grade 2/3) was higher in the elderly (<65, 39.5%; 65-74, 45.2%; ≥75, 55.4%); however, in the ≥75 group, diarrhea (Grade 2/3) incidence was also higher for placebo plus ET (<65, 6.8%; 65-74, 4.5%; ≥75, 16.0%). Similarly, nausea and decreased appetite were moderately higher (by 10-20%) in the 2 abemaciclib-treated elderly subgroups. Fatigue (any grade) was higher in the 2 abemaciclib-treated elderly subgroups (<65, 34.8%; 65-74, 48.4%; ≥75, 51.8%), while no differences were found across the 3 placebo subgroups. In contrast, the rates of Grade 3/4 neutropenia did not differ as a function of age in either the abemaciclib plus ET arm (<65, 25.8%; 65-74, 27.4%; ≥75, 18.1%) or placebo plus ET arm. For efficacy, a consistent PFS benefit was observed with abemaciclib plus ET versus placebo plus ET across all three age-specified subgroups in both studies (Table). Conclusion: Abemaciclib in combination with ET demonstrates a tolerable safety profile and consistent efficacy benefit across all age subgroups examined, supporting the use of this combination in elderly patient populations. Despite the limited number of patients in the ≥75 group with potentially confounding comorbidities, the safety data suggest that patient education and appropriate management of toxicities, including dose adjustments and use of supportive medication for gastrointestinal toxicities, could maximize the benefit of abemaciclib. Table: Age-specified PFS outcomes from MONARCH 2 and 3MONARCH 2MONARCH 3Age GroupAbemaciclib + ETPlacebo + ETHR (95% CI)P-value *Abemaciclib + ETPlacebo + ETHR (95% CI)P-value *Events/NEvents/NEvents/NEvents/N<65140/29192/1330.52 (0.40, 0.68)0.69581/18065/910.48 (0.35, 0.67)0.63465-7461/11442/600.63 (0.43, 0.94)40/10631/540.64 (0.40, 1.02)≥7521/4123/300.62 (0.34, 1.11)17/4212/200.54 (0.26, 1.13)Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ET, endocrine therapy; HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression-free survival.*P-value corresponds to the interaction test between age and treatment. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Meena Okera, Hans Wildiers, Mario Campone, Eva-Maria Grischke, Luis Manso, Valerie Anne Marie Andre, Amy Lee Chong, Belen San Antonio, Masakazu Toi, George W Sledge Jr. Safety and efficacy of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) in elderly patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+, HER2-) advanced breast cancer: An age-specific subgroup analysis of MONARCH 2 and 3 trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-10.

Purpose Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy. Methods MONARCH 3 is a double-blind, randomized phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in 493 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients received abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily continuous schedule) plus either 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole, daily. The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included response evaluation and safety. A planned interim analysis occurred after 189 events. Results Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72; P = .000021; median: not reached in the abemaciclib arm, 14.7 months in the placebo arm). In patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 59% in the abemaciclib arm and 44% in the placebo arm ( P = .004). In the abemaciclib arm, diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect (81.3%) but was mainly grade 1 (44.6%). Comparing abemaciclib and placebo, the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21.1% v 1.2%), diarrhea (9.5% v 1.2%), and leukopenia (7.6% v 0.6%). Conclusion Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor was effective as initial therapy, significantly improving progression-free survival and objective response rate and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.

Abstract Background: Ixabepilone, an epothilone B analog, has demonstrated single-agent activity in metastatic and neoadjuvant settings. The PACS08 trial aimed to compare adjuvant FEC100-Docetaxel regimen to FEC100-Ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC) composed of patients presenting with triple-negative (TN) [i.e. estrogen receptor (ER)-/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2-] or ER+/PR-/HER2- tumor, which are subgroups significantly associated with worse prognosis. Patients and methods: Between 2007 and 2010, 762 patients with unilateral TNBC (n=592, 78%) or node-positive ER+/PR-/HER2- BC (n=170, 22%) were enrolled. Recruitment was interrupted due to BMS decision to stop ixabepilone development in adjuvant setting. Main inclusion criteria were: age<70 years, normal cardiac, hepatic, haematological and renal functions. Arm A: pts received 3 cycles of FEC100 (F and C, each at 500 mg/m2, E 100 mg/m2, every 3 weeks) followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks); Arm B, Ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 replaced Docetaxel. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and endocrine therapy was given to ER+ pts. ER, PR and HER2 status were validated by a central pathology review on 754 cases and Immunohistochemical detection of Ki67, EGFR, cytokeratins (CK) 5/6 and 14, was performed on tissue microarray (TMA). Results: Main pts characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms. As of September 2014, the median follow-up was 36 months. The safety profile indicates that Docetaxel is more often associated to significant haematological toxicities whereas both neurotoxicities and haematological toxicities are reported in Ixabepilone arm. Log-Rank tests indicate no difference between two arms in terms of both DFS and OS (HR=1.2, 95%CI (0.864-1.728), p=0.256 and HR=1.8, 95%CI (0.751-1.855), p=0.473, respectively). Pathological analysis of the PACS08 collection showed that TNBC displayed significantly higher proliferative activity as shown by mitotic count and Ki67 index (p<0.001). As compared to ER+/PR-/HER2- subgroup, TNBC showed distinct characteristics, and displayed a so-called basal-like phenotype in 80%. Further efficacy analyses are ongoing in order to study whether chemotherapy may have better prognosis according to pathological characteristics including tumor lymphocytic infiltrate. These additional data will be available for the SABCS2015 meeting. Conclusions: Our results indicate that Ixabepilone doesn't show higher efficiency compared to Docetaxel in adjuvant setting in poor prognosis early breast cancer. We have an unusual biological collection associated to our clinical data which will allow us to correlate efficacy data to breast cancer subgroups. Other several translational researches are still ongoing. Citation Format: Campone M, Lacroix-Triki M, Roca L, Spielmann M, Wildiers H, Cottu P, Kerbrat P, Levy C, Mayer F, Bachelot T, Wiston T, Eymard J-C, Uwer L, Machiels J-P, Verhoeven D, Jaubert D, Facchini T, Orfeuvre H, Canon J-L, Asselain B, Lemonnier J, Roché H. UCBG intergroup: 3-years efficacy results of the Unicancer-PACS08 trial including poor prognosis patients treated with docetaxel or ixabepilone in adjuvant setting. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-12-06.

Abstract Purpose: PACS 01 trial demonstrated that the sequential adjuvant chemotherapy with FEC100 followed by docetaxel (D) significantly improves disease-free and overall survival in node-positive(N+) early breast cancer (BC). However, Triple negative (TN) and ER+/ PR-/HER2− subgroups are significantly associated to a worse prognosis even after adjunction of D. As Ixabepilone (Ixa) has notable preclinical and clinical activity in these subgroups, the PACS 08 trial aims to compare standard FEC100-D regimen to 3 cycles of FEC100 followed by 3 cycles of Ixa. We report the preliminary results of the toxicity profile. Patients and methods: Patients (pts) had localized resectable unilateral ER-/PR-/HER2− or ER+/PR-/HER2− BC. Main inclusion criteria were: age<70 years, normal cardiac, hepatic, haematological and renal functions. Arm A: pts received 3 cycles of FEC100 (F and C, each at 500 mg/m2, E 100 mg/m2, every 3 weeks) followed by 3 cycles of D (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks); Arm B, Ixa 40 mg/m2 replaced D. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and endocrine therapy was given to ER+ pts. A 5% absolute difference in disease-free survival at 5 years is the main statistical end-point. Results: Between October 2007 and September 2010, 762 pts with TNBC or ER+/PR-/HER2− BC were enrolled. Recruitment was interrupted due to BMS decision to stop Ixa development in adjuvant setting. Main pts characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms: median age 53 years, postmenopausal 57.8%, conservative surgery 68.4%, node positive 59.5%. A total of 755 pts were evaluable for safety. Treatment was completed for 93.4% and 86.1% of pts in arms A and B, respectively. During FEC100 sequence, toxicities were well balanced between the two arms. From cycle 4, whereas Gr3/4 sensory neurotoxicity (12pts; 3.5%) and thrombopenia (7pts; 2%) were reported in Ixa arm, none of these toxicities was reported in the D arm (p0.001). There were significantly more Gr3/4 neutropenia on day 21 in Ixa arm (13pts, 6.6% vs 4pts, 1.9%; p<10.005). No significant difference was observed for febrile neutropenia. Fewer cutaneous toxicities were observed in Ixa arm (2pts, 0.6% vs 10pts, 2.6%; p<0.05). No significant difference was observed neither for motor neurotoxicity or hepatic function between two arms. More pts discontinued treatment in Ixa arm compared to D arm (49pts (13%) vs 26pts (7%), p<0.05). Main reasons were Gr3/4 haematological adverse events (AE) and Gr3/4 neurotoxicities for Ixa arm and due to GR3/4 haematological AE for D arm. One non expected Gr4 bullous dermatitis was reported during the first Ixa cycle. 2 deaths due to septic shock occured in Ixa arm (both at cycle 4 for a 56- and a 66-year-old woman). However, according to the IDMC no obvious precipitating factor questioning the Ixa arm was identified. Conclusion: Our results indicate that D arm is more often associated to significant haematological toxicities, whereas both neurotoxicities and haematological toxicities are reported in the Ixa arm. Although significantly more pts discontinued treatment due to adverse events in Ixa arm compared to D arm, Ixa may still represent a promising therapeutic option for pts in the adjuvant setting especially for poor prognosis BC. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-18-04.