Damodaran, Senthil

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.

Abstract Purpose: Intratumoral injection of Clostridium novyi-nontoxic (C. novyi-NT), lacking alpha-toxin, germinates and subsequently replicates in the tumor hypoxic regions, causing cell lysis and inflammation. This phase Ib study investigated the safety and synergistic effects of pembrolizumab and C. novyi-NT in advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Patients with injectable solid tumors received one intratumoral C. novyi-NT injection (day 8) across four dose cohorts (3 × 104 to 100 × 104 spores) with pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, day 0–24 months). Sixteen patients were enrolled with a median age of 62.5 years, and the most common tumor types were breast cancer and melanoma. Results: The combination therapy demonstrated a manageable safety profile, with one grade 3 dose-limiting toxicity of abscess formation and the remainder of treatment-related adverse events in ≥10% of patients being grade 1 or 2 injection site reaction (25%), pyrexia (19%), pruritus (13%), leukopenia (13%), and anemia (13%). The maximum tolerated dose was determined to be pembrolizumab intravenously at 200 mg every 3 weeks and a single dose of 100 × 104C.novyi-NT spores intratumorally on day 8. The confirmed overall objective response rate of 25% was observed among four patients with nonkeratinizing undifferentiated nasopharyngeal squamous carcinoma, human papilloma virus–positive squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue, vulvar melanoma, and chordoma. Among these patients, we obtained three partial responses and one complete response. The median duration of the response was 10.93 months, and stable disease was observed in 69% of patients. Conclusions: This study highlights the potential of the C. novyi-NT and pembrolizumab combination as a promising therapeutic strategy for treatment-refractory solid tumors.

Abstract Chemotherapy regimens for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) combine agents without knowing which agents drive response. Consequently, predictors derived from multi-agent regimens cannot be assumed to generalize to individual drugs or other regimens, motivating development of treatment-matched predictors. Here, we used TNBC patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) treated with carboplatin, docetaxel, or the combination to deconvolute drug-specific responses and identify associated molecular features. Combination treatment rarely improved upon the best single agent, with enhanced responses in only 13% of PDXs and antagonism in a comparable fraction. Proteogenomic analyses identified high cytokeratin-5 (KRT5) as a general marker of chemotherapy responsiveness and KRT5 immunohistochemistry discriminated responsive PDXs (AUROC, 0.83). To train treatment-specific predictors, we integrated these data with independent PDX and clinical cohorts with responses assessed after anthracycline-free platinum, taxane, or platinum-taxane therapy, ensuring response corresponded to the modeled treatment. Four feature selection strategies yielded largely nonoverlapping biomarker panels converging on treatment-relevant pathways. On independent test data, RNA-based predictors of complete response (CR) to platinum-based (carboplatin or cisplatin) and taxane-based (docetaxel or paclitaxel) chemotherapy achieved AUROCs of 0.80 and 0.86, respectively. For platinum-taxane regimens (carboplatin plus docetaxel or paclitaxel), proteomic-guided feature selection generated a 10-biomarker, protein- informed RNA predictor of pathologic complete response (pCR) that outperformed RNA-only feature selection and achieved an AUROC of 0.85 in an independent clinical cohort, while retaining practicality as an RNA-based assay. Treatment-matched integration of multi-omic PDX and clinical datasets provides a framework for chemotherapy-specific predictors with clinically relevant performance, supporting biomarker-guided precision selection and treatment optimization for patients with TNBC. Statement of significance Integration of multi-omic data from patient-derived xenografts with treatment-matched clinical cohorts yielded three retrospectively validated predictors of platinum, taxane, and platinum+taxane response, enabling biomarker-guided chemotherapy selection for patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

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 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.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.