Bachelot, Thomas

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 Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) gene amplification and overexpression is associated with an adverse prognosis in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) breast cancer and is observed in ~10% of all invasive breast cancers. The phase 2 FOENIX-MBC2 study (NCT04024436) was designed to evaluate the effect of futibatinib, a highly selective and potent irreversible covalent inhibitor of FGFR1–4 (FDA-approved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma), used either alone or in combination with fulvestrant in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Here, we report final efficacy and safety data for the cohort of patients receiving futibatinib plus fulvestrant for HR+/HER2− breast cancer harboring high-level FGFR1 gene amplification. Methods: Patients were eligible if they had disease progression after prior therapy for advanced/metastatic disease, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, were fulvestrant-naïve, and had previously received 1–2 endocrine-containing therapies, ≤1 chemotherapy regimen, and a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor for advanced cancer (unless ineligible). High-level FGFR1 gene amplification, determined in tumor tissue using next-generation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or similar assays, was defined as FGFR1/centromere 8 ratio ≥5 or FGFR1 copy number ≥10 signals per cell. Local FGFR1 determination results were confirmed in tumor tissue by a central laboratory using FISH. Patients received oral futibatinib 20 mg once daily and standard fulvestrant dosing until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and overall safety. Results: Overall, 22 female patients were enrolled in this cohort. Patients were a median age of 58 years, had received a median of 3 lines of any prior systemic anticancer therapy, and had all received CDK4/6 inhibitor pretreatment. PFS at 6 months was observed in 10 (45.5%) patients (95% CI: 24.4, 67.8) and the median PFS was 7.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1, 7.6) months. Four patients had a confirmed partial response (ORR: 18.2%; 95% CI: 5.2, 40.3). The median duration of response was 6.3 (range: 3.3–12.8) months. All patients had ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), the most common being hyperphosphatemia (95.5%), alopecia (54.5%), constipation (45.5%), and dry mouth (40.9%). There were 5 (22.7%) patients with a Grade 3 TRAE (no Grade 4 or 5). TRAEs leading to study treatment interruption or reduction were seen in 9 (40.9%) and 15 (68.2%) patients, respectively. There were 2 (9.1%) patients who had TRAEs leading to study treatment discontinuation. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Futibatinib plus fulvestrant showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer with FGFR1 amplification progressing on prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, with a numerically higher ORR and doubling in PFS relative to historical fulvestrant results in post-CDK4/6 patients. The safety profile was consistent with those of the individual study drugs. Further biomarker work is ongoing. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Fabrice André, Nisha Unni, Marta Ferreira, Karthik Giridhar, Brooke Daniel, Marco Colleoni, Luis Costa, Thomas Bachelot, Ciara O’Brien, Gail Wright, Masashi Shimura, Gareth Tomlinson, Maciej Gil, Nicholas Turner. Final results from the phase 2, open-label FOENIX-MBC2 study: efficacy and safety of futibatinib in adult patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer harboring high-level FGFR1 gene amplification [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 RF01-04.

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.

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.