Suman, Vera J.

Lenalidomide is a derivative of thalidomide and belongs to the class of drugs known as the immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). The IMiDs have played a large role in improving the survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma. In particular, lenalidomide is currently standard of care in the newly diagnosed setting, in the maintenance setting post-autologous stem cell transplant, as well as in the relapsed/refractory setting. While the combination of lenalidomide and various proteasome inhibitors has proven particularly effective, there are emerging data demonstrating the effectiveness of lenalidomide in combination with other important classes of drugs including the monoclonal antibodies. Recent studies have provided insight into the molecular target of lenalidomide and the other IMiDs, although there is still much to be learned regarding the mechanisms by which lenalidomide affects the myeloma cell and the immune system. Here we review the molecular mechanisms of action, side effects, and the results of the clinical trials which have led to the widespread incorporation of lenalidomide into the myeloma therapeutic armamentarium.

Abstract Lessons Learned Everolimus does not have sufficient activity to justify its use as single agent in metastatic melanoma. Patients treated with 10 mg per day dose were most likely to require dose reductions. Everolimus appeared to reduce the numbers of regulatory T cells in approximately half of the treated patients; unfortunately, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Background Everolimus (RAD-001) is an orally active rapamycin analogue shown in preclinical data to produce cytostatic cell inhibition, which may be potentially beneficial in treating melanoma. We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of everolimus in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma (MM). Methods This study included two cohorts; cohort 1 received 30 mg of everolimus by mouth (PO) weekly, and cohort 2 was dosed with 10 mg of everolimus PO daily. The endpoints of the study were safety, 16-week progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and measures of immunomodulatory/antiangiogenic properties with therapy. Tumor samples before therapy and at week 8 of treatment were analyzed. Peripheral blood plasma or mononuclear cell isolates collected prior to therapy and at weeks 8 and 16 and at time of tumor progression were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor and regulatory T-cell (Treg) measurements. Results A total of 53 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 (n = 24) and cohort 2 (n = 29). Only 2 patients of the first 20 patients enrolled in cohort 2 had treatment responses (25%; 95% confidence interval, 8.6%–49.1%); this result did not allow full accrual to cohort 2, as the study was terminated for futility. Median OS was 12.2 months for cohort 1 versus 8.1 months in cohort 2; no PFS advantage was seen in either group (2.1 months vs. 1.8 months). Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 myocardial ischemia (3.4%); grade 3 fatigue, mucositis, and hyperglycemia (10.3%); and anorexia and anemia (6.9%). Everolimus significantly reduced the number of Tregs in approximately half of the treated patients; however, these effects were not correlated with clinical outcomes. Conclusion Everolimus does not have sufficient single-agent activity in MM; however, we have identified evidence of biological activity to provide a potential rationale for future combination studies.

Abstract Purpose: Preoperative aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy has demonstrated efficacy in hormone receptor (HR)-positive postmenopausal breast cancer. However, many patients have disease that is either intrinsically resistant to AIs or that responds initially but develops resistance after prolonged exposure. We have shown that patients with breast tumors expressing the deregulated forms of cyclin E [low molecular weight forms (LMW-E)] have poor overall survival. Herein, we hypothesize that LMW-E expression can identify HR-positive tumors that are unresponsive to neoadjuvant AI therapy due to the inability of AIs to induce a cytostatic effect. Experimental Design: LMW-E was examined in breast cancer specimens from 58 patients enrolled in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1031, a neoadjuvant AI clinical trial. The mechanisms of LMW-E–mediated resistance to AI were evaluated in vitro and in vivo using an inducible model system of cyclin E (full-length and LMW-E) in aromatase-overexpressing MCF7 cells. Results: Breast cancer recurrence-free interval was significantly worse in patients with LMW-E–positive tumors who received AI neoadjuvant therapy, compared with those with LMW-E negative tumors. Upon LMW-E induction, MCF7 xenografts were unresponsive to letrozole in vivo, resulting in increased tumor volume after treatment with AIs. LMW-E expression overcame cell-cycle inhibition by AIs in a CDK2/Rb-dependent manner, and inhibition of CDK2 by dinaciclib reversed LMW-E–mediated resistance, whereas treatment with palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, did not. Conclusions: Collectively, these findings suggest that cell-cycle deregulation by LMW-E mediates resistance to AIs and a combination of CDK2 inhibitors and AIs may be an effective treatment in patients with HR-positive tumors that express LMW-E. Clin Cancer Res; 23(23); 7288–300. ©2017 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: Hyperactivation of AKT is common and associated with endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. The allosteric pan-AKT inhibitor MK-2206 induced apoptosis in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer under estrogen-deprived condition in preclinical studies. This neoadjuvant phase II trial was therefore conducted to test the hypothesis that adding MK-2206 to anastrozole induces pathologic complete response (pCR) in PIK3CA mutant ER+ breast cancer. Experimental Design: Potential eligible patients with clinical stage II/III ER+/HER2− breast cancer were preregistered and received anastrozole (goserelin if premenopausal) for 28 days in cycle 0 pending tumor PIK3CA sequencing. Patients positive for PIK3CA mutation in the tumor were eligible to start MK-2206 (150 mg orally weekly, with prophylactic prednisone) on cycle 1 day 2 (C1D2) and to receive a maximum of four 28-day cycles of combination therapy before surgery. Serial biopsies were collected at preregistration, C1D1 and C1D17. Results: Fifty-one patients preregistered and 16 of 22 with PIK3CA-mutant tumors received study drug. Three patients went off study due to C1D17 Ki67 >10% (n = 2) and toxicity (n = 1). Thirteen patients completed neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. No pCRs were observed. Rash was common. MK-2206 did not further suppress cell proliferation and did not induce apoptosis on C1D17 biopsies. Although AKT phosphorylation was reduced, PRAS40 phosphorylation at C1D17 after MK-2206 persisted. One patient acquired an ESR1 mutation at surgery. Conclusions: MK-2206 is unlikely to add to the efficacy of anastrozole alone in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer and should not be studied further in the target patient population. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 6823–32. ©2017 AACR.

Purpose Endoxifen is a tamoxifen metabolite with potent antiestrogenic activity. Patients and Methods We performed a phase I study of oral Z-endoxifen to determine its toxicities, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity. Eligibility included endocrine-refractory, estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. An accelerated titration schedule was applied until moderate or dose-limiting toxicity occurred, followed by a 3+3 design and expansion at 40, 80, and 100 mg per day. Tumor DNA from serum (circulating cell free [cf); all patients] and biopsies [160 mg/day and expansion]) was sequenced. Results Of 41 enrolled patients, 38 were evaluable for MTD determination. Prior endocrine regimens during which progression occurred included aromatase inhibitor (n = 36), fulvestrant (n = 21), and tamoxifen (n = 15). Patients received endoxifen once daily at seven dose levels (20 to 160 mg). Dose escalation ceased at 160 mg per day given lack of MTD and endoxifen concentrations > 1,900 ng/mL. Endoxifen clearance was unaffected by CYP2D6 genotype. One patient (60 mg) had cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity (pulmonary embolus). Overall clinical benefit rate (stable > 6 months [n = 7] or partial response by RECIST criteria [n = 3]) was 26.3% (95% CI, 13.4% to 43.1%) including prior tamoxifen progression (n = 3). cfDNA mutations were observed in 13 patients ( PIK3CA [n = 8], ESR1 [n = 5], TP53 [n = 4], and AKT [n = 1]) with shorter progression-free survival ( v those without cfDNA mutations; median, 61 v 132 days; log-rank P = .046). Clinical benefit was observed in those with ESR1 amplification (tumor; 80 mg/day) and ESR1 mutation (cfDNA; 160 mg/day). Comparing tumor biopsies and cfDNA, some mutations ( PIK3CA, TP53, and AKT) were undetected by cfDNA, whereas cfDNA mutations ( ESR1, TP53, and AKT) were undetected by biopsy. Conclusion In endocrine-refractory metastatic breast cancer, Z-endoxifen provides substantial drug exposure unaffected by CYP2D6 metabolism, acceptable toxicity, and promising antitumor activity.

Abstract Significant endocrine therapy–resistant tumor proliferation is present in ≥20% of estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) primary breast cancers and is associated with disease recurrence and death. Here, we uncover a link between intrinsic endocrine therapy resistance and dysregulation of the MutL mismatch repair (MMR) complex (MLH1/3, PMS1/2), and demonstrate a direct role for MutL complex loss in resistance to all classes of endocrine therapy. We find that MutL deficiency in ER+ breast cancer abrogates CHK2-mediated inhibition of CDK4, a prerequisite for endocrine therapy responsiveness. Consequently, CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) remain effective in MutL-defective ER+ breast cancer cells. These observations are supported by data from a clinical trial where a CDK4/6i was found to strongly inhibit aromatase inhibitor–resistant proliferation of MutL-defective tumors. These data suggest that diagnostic markers of MutL deficiency could be used to direct adjuvant CDK4/6i to a population of patients with breast cancer who exhibit marked resistance to the current standard of care. Significance: MutL deficiency in a subset of ER+ primary tumors explains why CDK4/6 inhibition is effective against some de novo endocrine therapy–resistant tumors. Therefore, markers of MutL dysregulation could guide CDK4/6 inhibitor use in the adjuvant setting, where the risk benefit ratio for untargeted therapeutic intervention is narrow. Cancer Discov; 7(10); 1168–83. ©2017 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1047

Abstract Estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer is treated with endocrine therapy but intrinsic resistance occurs in ~1/3 of patients and acquired resistance in ~1/5 of the remainder. While many resistance mechanisms have been explored, therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance in the clinical setting have seen mixed outcomes, and appear most effective in the acquired resistance setting. Understanding mechanisms of resistance and finding therapeutic strategies to target them, therefore, remain important challenges facing breast cancer researchers. In this study we systematically examine the role of DNA damage repair defects in inducing endocrine therapy resistance, a relatively understudied question of recent interest. We use in silico analysis of clinical datasets, in vitro experiments evaluating endocrine therapy resistance in response to DDR dysregulation in multiple breast cancer celllines, and in vivo validation using cellline xenograft and patient-derived xenograft models. We also use gene expression microarrays and RPPA data from cell lines, patient-derived xenografts and primary ER+ breast tumors to uncover therapeutic options that are validated in vitro and in vivo and corroborated by clinical trial data. The results of this study uncover an intriguing link between mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, specifically of the MutL complex (MLH1/3, PMS1/2), and poor prognosis in ER+ disease. We find a direct role for MutL loss in endocrine therapy resistance in vitro and in vivo by knocking down multiple MutL genes using CRISPR and stable shRNA approaches validated using standard rescue experiments. We identify the underlying mechanism: MutL deficiency in ER+ breast cancer abrogates Chk2-mediated feedback inhibition of CDK4/6 that appears necessary for endocrine therapy responsiveness. Consequently, pharmacological targeting of CDK4/6 in vitro and in vivo significantly inhibits growth of endocrine therapy resistant MutL-deficient ER+ breast cancer cells. These results are corroborated by data from a neoadjuvant clinical trial demonstrating that cell cycle regulation of MutL-mutant tumors tends to be estrogen-independent but sensitive to CDK4/6 inhibitors. The results of this study provide important biological and clinically relevant insights. 1) MMR deficiency is unexpectedly causal to intrinsic endocrine therapy resistance 2) This causal effect appears to be mediated by abrogation of cell cycle checkpoint activation in response to endocrine therapy 3) MMR deficiency in a subset of ER+ tumors explains why CDK4/6 inhibition is effective against some de novo endocrine therapy resistant tumors. While there are currently no biomarkers to guide the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors for ER+ breast cancer, markers of MMR dysregulation could identify patients in whom CDK4/6 inhibition should be used to prevent disease recurrence. Citation Format: Svasti Haricharan, Jacob Schmelz, Cheryl Schmidt, Purba Singh, Kimberly R. Holloway, Meenakshi Anurag, Shunqiang Li, Shyam M. Kavuri, Shixia Huang, Dean P. Edwards, Vera Suman, Kelly Hunt, John A. Olson, Jeremy Hoog, Cynthia X. Ma, Matthew N. Bainbridge, Matthew J. Ellis. Mismatch repair defects and endocrine therapy resistance in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 489. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-489