Curigliano, Giuseppe

6028 Background: RET alterations are targetable oncogenic drivers in multiple solid tumors and TCs. Pralsetinib is an oral, potent, selective RET inhibitor granted accelerated approval by the FDA for adults and children aged ≥12 y with advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive TC who require systemic therapy and are radioactive iodine-refractory, based on ARROW trial (NCT03037385) results. Accelerated approval for medullary TC (MTC) was withdrawn by the sponsor in 2023 due to recruitment challenges in the confirmatory trial. We report final efficacy and safety in ARROW patients with RET -altered TC and MTC. Methods: Phase 2 ARROW patients were enrolled from 84 sites in 13 countries. Primary end points were overall response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed in patients with advanced/metastatic TC and MTC who received ≥1 dose of pralsetinib (Efficacy Population [EP]). ORR and duration of response (DOR) were assessed in the Measurable Disease Population (MDP). Results: At the May 20, 2024, data lock, 28 patients with RET -altered TC and prior systemic treatment and 145 patients with RET -altered MTC received pralsetinib 400 mg/d (median treatment duration: 24.7 mo [TC]; and 35.4 mo [MTC]). In the TC and MTC groups, median age was 58 and 57 y; 39% and 64% were male; median (range) prior lines of treatment was 2 (1, 9) and 1 (1, 6). 53.8% of MTC patients had prior systemic treatment. In TC and MTC patients, ORRs (95% CI) were 91.7% (73.0, 99.0) and 68.2% (59.5, 76.0) (Table). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 27 (96%) TC and 142 (98%) MTC patients; 68% and 67% had grade ≥3. TRAEs in ≥35% of TC and MTC patients were increased AST (50% and 38%) and ALT (43% and 30%), decreased white blood cell count (39% and 30%), and anemia (39% each). Death due to a TRAE occurred in 1 TC patient (liver injury) and 1 MTC patient (pneumonia). Safety was consistent with prior reports. Conclusions: The final analysis of ARROW confirms that pralsetinib yields clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -altered TC and MTC with a manageable safety profile consistent with prior reports. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . Efficacy summary. All MTC MTCPrior Cabozantinib/Vandetanib MTC Treatment-Naïve TCPrior Systemic Treatment MDP, n 132 60 62 24 ORR, % (95% CI) 68.2(59.5, 76.0) 56.7(43.2, 69.4) 79.0(66.8, 88.3) 91.7(73.0, 99.0) Complete response, n (%) 12 (9.1) 2 (3.3) 7 (11.3) 4 (16.7) Partial response, n (%) 78 (59.1) 32 (53.3) 42 (67.7) 18 (75.0) DOR, median, mo (95% CI) 39.6(29.4, NE) 21.7(15.1, 34.8) NR(36.8, NE) NR(16.0, NE) DOR follow-up, median, mo (95% CI) 45.7(41.0, 48.4) 48.9(36.9, 58.7) 45.1(40.4, 47.8) 35.4(26.9, 40.0) EP, n 145 67 67 28 OS, median, mo (95% CI) NR(54.6, NE) 42.2(31.2, NE) NR(NE, NE) NR(25.4, NE) PFS, median, mo (95% CI) 37.2(27.5, 55.5) 24.9(19.9, 35.0) 55.3(36.8, NE) NR(14.7, NE) NE, not evaluable; NR, not reached.

1005 Background: In the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582), TUC + maintenance HP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs control treatment (Tx) (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients (pts) with HER2+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here we report additional efficacy and safety outcomes by stratified subgroups. Methods: Pts with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction Tx (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or PBO BID + HP. Randomization was stratified by diagnosis ( de novo /recurrent), hormone receptor (HR) status (positive/negative), and presence or history of brain metastases (BM; yes/no). Endocrine therapy (ET) is permitted for pts with HR+ disease. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Confirmed objective response rate (cORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety were evaluated in stratified subgroups. Results: Among pts assigned to TUC + HP (n = 326) or PBO + HP (n = 328), ∼69% had de novo MBC, ∼53% had HR+ status with ∼45% having received concurrent ET, and ∼12% had baseline BM. At data cutoff (Sep 5, 2025), median PFS was longer with TUC than PBO + HP in all stratified subgroups; TUC + HP consistently improved cORR vs PBO + HP (Table). Safety outcomes in subgroups aligned with the overall population. Conclusions: TUC + HP demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy vs PBO + HP in pts with de novo or recurrent disease, HR+ or HR− disease, and baseline BM or not, with no new safety signals identified. Results were consistent with the overall population and support TUC + HP as a potential new maintenance therapy across pts with HER2+ MBC. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . Efficacy outcomes. Overall De novo Recurrent HR+ (± ET) † HR− BM (yes) BM (no) TUC+HP(n=326) PBO+HP(n=328) TUC+HP(n=227) PBO+HP(n=226) TUC+HP(n=99) PBO+HP(n=102) TUC+HP(n=168) PBO+HP(n=176) TUC+HP(n=158) PBO+HP(n=152) TUC+HP(n=41) PBO+HP(n=40) TUC+HP(n=285) PBO+HP(n=288) Median PFS, mos (95% CI) 24.9(21.3−NE) 16.3(12.6−18.7) 28.9(22.7−NE) 16.8(12.9−19.2) 21.3(15.6−27.2) 12.7(8.3−18.1) 25.0(16.5−NE) 18.1(13.0−20.8) 24.9(19.4−NE) 12.6(9.4−16.8) 8.5(4.2−16.5) 4.2(2.2−8.1) 27.2(24.3−NE) 18.1(14.8−20.7) cORR*, % (95% CI) 22.6(18.0−27.8) 15.2(11.3−19.7) 26.1(20.2−32.7) 18.5(13.5−24.4) 15.1(8.5−24.0) 7.0(2.6−14.6) 20.1(14.0−27.5) 12.9(8.2−19.0) 25.2(18.4−33.0) 17.9(11.8−25.5) 15.0(5.7−29.8) 8.3(1.8−22.5) 23.8(18.7−29.5) 16.1(11.9−12.1) Median DOR*, mos (95% CI) 20.9(16.4−NE) 16.9(12.3−NE) NR(16.4−NE) 16.3(10.4−NE) 17.9(8.3−NE) NR(7.2−NE) 20.9(12.6−NE) 18.7(7.8−NE) NR(8.6−NE) 14.5(10.4−NE) 12.6(8.1−NE) 16.3(12.5−NE) 20.9(16.4−NE) 18.7(10.4−NE) *ORR and DOR were assessed in patients with target or non-target lesions at baseline. † Data on HR+ w/ ET will be presented.

1042 Background: The primary analysis of the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582) showed the addition of TUC to 1L maintenance HP yielded a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (per investigator) versus control treatment (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients with HER2+ MBC. Here we report our findings from an in-depth safety analysis of HER2CLIMB-05. Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction treatment (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or placebo (PBO) BID, both in combination with HP. The safety analysis set included all randomly assigned patients who received ≥1 dose of any study treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory values, and TUC/PBO dose modifications and discontinuations were examined. Results: Among patients in the safety analysis set (TUC arm = 326; PBO arm = 324), median treatment durations of TUC and PBO were 17.1 months (range: 0.4–36.5) and 15.5 months (range: 0.5–41.3), respectively. Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 42.3% of patients in the TUC arm and 24.4% in the PBO arm; the most frequent G ≥3 TEAEs in the TUC arm were elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 13.5%) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST; 7.1%). TUC was discontinued in 13.5% of patients due to a TEAE. Cardiac TEAEs were similar between TUC and PBO arms (4.3% vs 6.2%). TEAEs of hepatic events (43.6% vs 15.7%) and diarrhea (72.7% vs 51.2%) occurred at higher incidence in the TUC arm versus the PBO arm (Table). In the TUC arm, increased ALT (28.2%) and AST (25.8%) accounted for the majority of hepatic TEAEs. Most hepatic and diarrhea TEAEs were managed with TUC dose modifications and/or discontinuation; 7.7% of patients discontinued TUC due to hepatic TEAEs and 1.5% discontinued due to diarrhea (Table). Among the patients with a TEAE of diarrhea, 57.7% and 29.9%, respectively, in the TUC and PBO arms used antidiarrheals; the most used medication was loperamide. Further details of the in-depth safety analysis will be presented. Conclusions: TUC addition to 1L HP maintenance therapy may be an effective option for HER2+ MBC with a clinically manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . TEAEs* Any Any hepatic Increased ALT/AST Diarrhea Arm TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO Any G, % 99.1 96.6 43.6 15.7 28.2/25.8 7.1/9.0 72.7 51.2 G ≥3 42.3 24.4 18.1 1.2 13.5/7.1 0.6/0.6 6.1 4.0 Any G: Median time to onset (days) 34.5 85.0 11.0 32.0 Median time to resolution (days) 25.0 22.0 2.0 5.0 Any G: TUC/PBO dose hold, % 49.4 25.3 19.3 2.5 12.6/4.0 0.6/0.6 8.6 3.4 TUC/PBO dose reduction, % 29.1 11.1 16.3 0.9 11.7/2.8 0.3/0.6 6.4 3.1 TUC/PBO discontinuation, % 13.5 2.2 7.7 0 4.0/0.3 0/0 1.5 0.9 *As of data cutoff, Sep 5, 2025.

Abstract Background Whether outcomes of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-associated breast cancer differ compared with sporadic tumors is controversial. We explored the impact of gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) status beyond established prognostic features. Methods We conducted 2 retrospective, matched cohort studies comparing gBRCA1/2 PV carriers and noncarriers with HER2-negative, stage I-III breast cancer (Clinical Outcomes Quality Database [COQD] cohort: 185 carriers, 555 noncarriers; Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study [YWS] cohort: 113 carriers, 226 noncarriers). Matching factors were age, stage, hormone receptor status, and year of diagnosis. Clinicopathological features, treatments, and survival outcomes were compared between carriers and noncarriers. Results Most patients in COQD had stage I-II disease (87.2%), and more carriers than noncarriers had genetic testing before diagnosis (33% vs 5.6%, P &lt; .001). In YWS, 22.7% of patients had stage III tumors, and few were tested before diagnosis (14.8% of carriers vs 1.7% of noncarriers; P &lt; .001). Carriers in COQD received chemotherapy more often than noncarriers (81.1 vs 67.0%, P &lt; .001), including platinum (P = .010); the proportion was similar for carriers and noncarriers in YWS. After adjusting for chemotherapy, relapse-free survival was longer in carriers than noncarriers in COQD (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.48 [95% CI = 0.26 to 0.87], P = .016), and a favorable trend was observed for other survival outcomes in both cohorts. Triple-negative tumors appeared to drive the differences. Conclusions We observed a trend toward improved outcomes in gBRCA1/2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. These findings suggest that carriers should not receive more aggressive treatment solely based on their germline mutation status. Prospective clinical trials in this population are warranted.

RET fusions appear in 1%-2% of non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). The results from the ARROW study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03037385 ) supported US Food and Drug Administration approval of pralsetinib, an oral selective RET inhibitor, for metastatic RET -altered NSCLC and RET fusion–positive thyroid cancers. ARROW was a phase I/II open-label study of pralsetinib 400 mg once daily in RET fusion–positive NSCLCs. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Key secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). At data lock (May 20, 2024), 281 patients initiated pralsetinib (median treatment duration, 15.0 months). ORR (measurable disease patients; n = 259) was 78% (95% CI, 69 to 86) for treatment-naïve patients and 63% (95% CI, 54 to 71) for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Median OS was 44.3 months (95% CI, 30.9 to 53.1), 50.1 months (95% CI, 28.3 to not reached) in treatment-naïve patients, and 39.7 months (95% CI, 27.8 to 53.2) in prior platinum patients. Common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were anemia (21%), hypertension (15%), and decreased neutrophils (13%). Three treatment-related deaths occurred (pneumonia, n = 2; interstitial lung disease and rhabdomyolysis, n = 1 each). Safety was consistent with previous ARROW reports; no hypersensitivity was reported in patients receiving prior immunotherapies. Pralsetinib produced robust, durable responses with manageable safety in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with RET fusion–positive NSCLCs, confirming previous findings with longer follow-up.

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

PURPOSE The HER2CLIMB-05 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05132582 ) is investigating the efficacy and safety of adding tucatinib to trastuzumab and pertuzumab as first-line (1L) maintenance therapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression post induction therapy and no or asymptomatic brain metastases (BM) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to tucatinib (300 mg) or placebo twice a day combined with trastuzumab/pertuzumab. The primary end point is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points include overall survival (OS), PFS per blinded independent central review, CNS-PFS, and safety. RESULTS Between March 2022 and July 2024, 654 patients were randomly assigned to tucatinib (n = 326) and placebo (n = 328) arms. All patients were female (median age, 54 years), 69.3% had de novo MBC, 52.6% were hormone receptor–positive, and 12.4% had presence/history of baseline BM. In this primary analysis, PFS was statistically significantly improved with addition of tucatinib versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.641 [95% CI, 0.514 to 0.799]; P < .0001; median PFS: 24.9 v 16.3 months); a PFS benefit was seen regardless of the presence/absence of BM or hormone receptor status. OS data remain immature. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the tucatinib arm were diarrhea (72.7%), nausea (33.1%), and elevated liver enzymes (ALT: 28.2%; AST: 25.8%), of which 6.1%, 0.9%, 13.5%, and 7.1%, respectively, were grade ≥3. In the tucatinib arm, 13.5% discontinued tucatinib because of TEAEs. CONCLUSION Tucatinib addition to trastuzumab and pertuzumab demonstrated improvement in PFS with no new safety signals identified and may be an option for 1L maintenance therapy in patients with HER2+ MBC.

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 .

3116 Background: Pralsetinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that selectively and potently targets oncogenic RET fusion and mutation proteins. RET fusions or mutations are present in various tumor types. We report the final results from the phase 2 portion of ARROW, a phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, dose-expansion study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pralsetinib (NCT03037385) in patients with RET fusion-positive solid tumors other than non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and thyroid cancer. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years of age with a pathologically documented, definitively diagnosed advanced solid tumor with an oncogenic RET fusion or mutation, had previously received standard of care appropriate for their tumor type, and were not eligible for any other study groups. Overall response rate (ORR) and safety were primary endpoints of the study. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The final database lock was May 20, 2024. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled with 11 different solid tumor histologies. Twenty-six (90%) received prior systemic therapy. Median age was 58 years (range 25-75); 59% were female. Twenty-eight patients were included in the efficacy analysis. ORR (by RECIST) was 46.4% (13/28); 10.7% (3/28) achieved complete response (pancreatic cancer, n=2; cancer of unknown primary, n=1) and 35.7% (10/28) achieved partial response. Median PFS was 7 months (95% CI: 3.9, 12.8). Median DOR was 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.5, 25.1). Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI: 6.8, 25.2). Twenty-five (86%) patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 19/29 (66%) reported TRAEs ≥grade 3. The most common TRAEs included increased aspartate aminotransferase (11/29; 38%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10/29; 35%), and anemia (9/29; 31%). Four (13.8%) patients experienced hypertension, and 1 (3.4%) patient had ≥grade 3 hypertension. No new safety risks were identified; AEs remained manageable with supportive care and/or dose modifications. Conclusions: In the phase 2 portion of this trial, responses were observed in many tumor types (Table). Pralsetinib demonstrated robust and durable anti-tumor activity with an ORR of 46.4%. These data validate RET fusions as a tissue-agnostic target with sensitivity to RET inhibition and activity beyond NSCLC and thyroid cancer, further supporting the promising potential of pralsetinib to address the unmet medical need in these patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . Overall response rate by tumor type. Cancer Type (patient n) ORRn (%) Pancreatic (5) 5 (100) Cancer of unknown primary (1) 1 (100) Neuroendocrine (3) 2 (67) Sarcoma (3) 2 (67) Head and neck (2) 1 (50) Small cell lung (2) 1 (50) Hepatobiliary (4) 1 (25) Colorectal (5), gastric (1), ovarian (1), thymic (1) 0

AbstractBackgroundThe management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus.MethodsDuring the 14th Breast‐Gynecological and Immuno‐Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer.Results and ConclusionsThe consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de‐escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.