Twelves, Chris

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: 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: Etirinotecan pegol (EP) is a long-acting Top1 inhibitor providing sustained levels of active metabolite throughout the entire chemotherapy cycle. The phase 3 BEACON trial compared EP to treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with advanced breast cancer, demonstrating a non-statistically significant 2.1 month difference in survival favoring EP in the intent to treat population. A novel aspect of the BEACON trial is to explore the utility of biomarkers measured in CTCs for predicting efficacy with EP. Pre- and post-treatment CTCs were isolated from blood of 77% of the 852 BEACON patients. Target-specific pharmacodynamic biomarkers for EP measured in CTCs were analyzed to identify patients most responsive to treatment with EP. Methods: Donation of blood samples for CTC analysis was voluntary. Participating BEACON patients had serial (baseline, Cycle 2 Day 1 [C2D1], Cycle 4 Day 1 [C4D1], End of Treatment) 7.5-mL whole blood samples drawn in EDTA tubes and shipped within 96 hours ambient to ApoCell (Houston, TX) for processing. PBMCs were separated by Ficoll® gradient, and CTCs were isolated using ApoStream® technology. Isolated cells were deposited on three slides and stained for DAPI, CD45, cytokeratin markers, as well as Top1, Top2, Ki67, γH2AX, Rad51, ABCG2, and TUNEL. Biomarkers were quantified by iCys® laser scanning cytometer equipped with image analysis software, and correlated with OS using Cox multiple regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. Results: The CTC substudy yielded 611 pre-treatment, 519 C2D1, 268 C4D1, and 431 End of Treatment samples. Among the successfully processed blood samples, 98% had detectable CTCs, with a median of 63, 46, 51, and 57 CTCs/mL at baseline, C2D1, C4D1, and End of Treatment, respectively. Cox regression analyses of CTC number and percentage of Top1, Top2, Ki67, or TUNEL positive CTCs identified a correlation for post-treatment number of Top1-positive CTCs with OS in patients receiving EP. To assess the impact of Top1-positive CTCs, patients were classified as Top1-High (> median) or Top1-Low (≤ median) based on the percent of Top1-positive CTCs at baseline. Among the Top1-High patients at baseline, significantly improved OS (HR 0.54, p=0.007) was observed for those who converted to Top1-Low after their first treatment with EP (C2D1), but not TPC (HR 1.12, p=0.613). These results suggest that decreased number of Top1-positive CTCs may reflect EP target engagement with Top1, as these patients derived the most benefit from treatment. Conclusions: CTC collection and analysis was successfully incorporated into the phase 3 BEACON study, with 77% patient participation. CTC detection rate using ApoStream® was high, permitting evaluation of biomarkers at baseline and post-treatment. Significantly improved OS was observed in patients who had a decreased number of Top1-positive CTCs following cycle 1 of EP. Citation Format: Rugo HS, Cortes J, Awada A, O'Shaughnessy J, Twelves C, Im S-A, Hannah AL, Lu L, Sy S, Caygill K, Zajchowski D, Davis DW, Hoch U, Perez EA. Early change in topoisomerase 1 (Top1) positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced breast cancer after treatment with etirinotecan pegol. [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 P1-13-02.

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

Abstract Background A Phase III trial (Study 301; NCT00337103) in MBC comparing eribulin (E) with capecitabine (C) showed a trend for improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.77, 1.00; P = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93, 1.25; P = 0.30) with E. In order to investigate this apparent discordance, post-hoc analyses assessed the effect of PPT and events defining disease progression on OS. Methods Pts with locally advanced or MBC who had received an anthracycline and a taxane (≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease), were randomized to E (554) or C (548). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The impact of PPT on OS was assessed by analysis of exploratory PPT subgroups. Analyses of OS sensitivity censoring at time of PPT, and OS adjusted by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, were performed. The relationship between OS and progression events (appearance of a “new” lesion or metastasis [NM]; increase in size of pre-existing lesions [IPEL]; or other [death, clinical progression, or censored]) was investigated using Cox regression. Results PPT was received by 70% and 62% of E and C pts, respectively. For E pts, there were no significant OS differences by PPT (Table 1). Excluding 56 pts (22 E, 34 C) who received anti-HER2 therapy as PPT from the intent-to-treat OS analysis, OS was longer with E (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76, 0.99; nominal P = 0.03). OS sensitivity analysis censoring at time of PPT was consistent with the overall study results (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03). Assessment of the overall effect of PPT, adjusting by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, showed that OS was longer with E (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75, 0.97; nominal P = 0.02). Progression due to NM or IPEL occurred in 271 and 147 of E pts, and 285 and 129 of C pts, respectively. Median OS was similar between arms in pts with IPEL and longer with E vs C in pts with NM (Table 2). Pts who progressed due to NM were at higher risk of death (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.84, 2.43; nominal P<0.01). Conclusions Treatment with C or any other PPT after progression on E did not account for the trend in OS benefit with E observed in the primary analysis. Pts who progressed with NM had a worse prognosis than those with IPEL. The appearance of NM was highly correlated with OS, and the apparent discordance between PFS and OS seems to be related to these different progression events. Tab 1: OS by PPT after EPPTAll ptsC as 1stOther than C as 1stC at any timeOther than C at any timeNoneN554221169275115164Median OS, months (95% CI)15.9 (15.2, 17.6)18.3 (15.8, 20.9)19.9 (17.6, 24.0)19.6 (17.6, 21.5)18.0 (15.4, 22.7)7.4 (6.2, 9.1) Tab 2: OS by progression event Progression event NMIPELOther ECECECN271285147129136134Median OS, months (95% CI)15.5 (14.2, 17.5)12.9 (11.3, 14.5)17.4 (14.4, 19.7)17.4 (15.3, 20.9)16.7 (14.8, 24.2)15.5 (11.7, 18.3)HR (95% CI)0.81 (0.68, 0.97)1.13 (0.87, 1.46)0.78 (0.59, 1.03)Nominal P -value0.020.350.08Time to NM or death, months (95% CI)5.8 (5.2, 6.5)5.2 (4.3, 5.9)NANAHR (95% CI)0.90 (0.77, 1.05)NANANominal P-value0.17NANA Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-13-03.