Leo, Angelo Di

PURPOSE This guideline updates recommendations of the ASCO guideline on chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is either endocrine-pretreated or hormone receptor (HR)–negative. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations. RESULTS The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and retained 14 articles. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–positive MBC may be offered the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–negative MBC should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment, although combination regimens may be offered for life-threatening disease. Patients with triple-negative MBC who have received at least two prior therapies for MBC should be offered treatment with sacituzumab govitecan. Patients with triple-negative MBC with germline BRCA mutations previously treated with chemotherapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative MBC for whom chemotherapy is being considered should be offered single–agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy, although combination regimens may be offered for highly symptomatic or life-threatening disease. Patients with HR-positive MBC with disease progression on an endocrine agent may be offered treatment with either endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy or single-agent chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive MBC with germline BRCA mutations no longer benefiting from endocrine therapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. No recommendation regarding when a patient's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

TPS624 Background: Abemaciclib (LY2835219), a cell cycle inhibitor of CDK4/CDK6, demonstrated a clinically manageable safety profile and single-agent anti-tumor activity in MBC; all tumor responses were observed in hormone receptor positive (HR+) disease (Tolaney SM, Rosen LS, Beeram M, et al. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 2014, Abstract P5-19-13). Non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI, letrozole and anastrazole), approved in the first-line setting for postmenopausal women with HR+ MBC, are being evaluated in combination with abemaciclib for safety and tolerability in a phase Ib study (NCT02057133) and in the present study (NCT02246621) to assess clinical efficacy. Methods: MONARCH 3 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of abemaciclib + NSAI vs placebo + NSAI in locoregionally recurrent (not amenable to curative treatment) breast cancer or MBC, with no prior systemic therapy in this disease setting. Patients will be randomized 2:1, and stratified by nature of disease (visceral vs bone-only metastases vs other) and prior (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitor vs other vs none). Abemaciclib 150 mg or placebo will be given continuously PO every 12 hours until progression, along with anastrozole 1 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg once daily at the investigator’s discretion, and assessments will occur every 28 days. Postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- disease, a disease-free interval > 12 mos after completion of (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy, ECOG PS ≤ 1, adequate organ function, and measurable disease or nonmeasurable bone-only disease (RECIST v1.1) are eligible. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS); a key secondary endpoint is overall survival (OS). The study has 80% power to detect an increase in PFS of approximately 40% (hazard ratio = 0.714). Assuming a median PFS of 10 mos in the control arm, this corresponds to a 4-mo increase in the median PFS. PFS and OS will be hierarchically tested to maintain an overall type I error rate of 2.5%. Enrollment began November 2014; planned enrollment is 450 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02246621.

Abstract Background: Combination treatments of CDK4 & 6 inhibitors (CDK4 & 6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) have improved outcomes in patients with HR-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Aside from estrogen receptor positivity (ER+), predictive biomarkers of clinical benefit from CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET remain elusive. We assessed clinical outcomes by genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients treated with abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) versus placebo plus NSAI in the Phase 3 study MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). Methods: MONARCH 3 randomized 493 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting to treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI or placebo plus NSAI. Biomarker analysis of baseline ctDNA was an exploratory objective; plasma was analyzed by the Guardant360 next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay to identify potential tumor-related (i.e., somatic) genomic alterations including point mutations (SNV), indels, amplifications, and fusions in over 70 cancer-related genes. Genomic alterations detected in baseline ctDNA were associated with clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Baseline ctDNA results were available for 295 patients (201 abemaciclib; 94 placebo) with 83% of patients harboring one or more detectable genomic alterations. Commonly altered genes of interest (% frequency) detected in baseline ctDNA included: PIK3CA (38%); TP53 (26%); EGFR (15%); FGFR1 (12%); NF1 (12%); MYC (9%); CCND1 (9%); ESR1 (5%).Overall, patients treated with placebo plus NSAI who harbored detectable ctDNA genomic alterations had shorter median PFS compared to patients without detectable genomic alterations, as shown in the Table (14.9 months [95% CI: 11.0-23.1] vs 19.2 months [95% CI 9.4-NR]). Moreover, genomic alterations in EGFR, FGFR1, MYC, and CCND1 were associated with median PFS <12 months with placebo plus NSAI. However, consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the addition of abemaciclib to NSAI benefitted these genomic subgroups, regardless of ctDNA gene alterations. Additional genomic results, including alterations in cell cycle-associated genes, will be presented. Conclusions: In this exploratory subgroup analysis, the presence of detectable ctDNA genomic alterations was associated with shorter PFS with placebo plus NSAI. Consistently, abemaciclib added to NSAI improved outcomes for genomically identified subgroups. In contrast to prior studies, there was no subgroup (e.g., patients harboring FGFR1 alterations) that did not derive benefit from abemaciclib, supporting the efficacy of abemaciclib, including in difficult to treat tumors. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigations in clinical studies of CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET. TableAbemaciclib + NSAIPlacebo + NSAIEvents, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Events, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Hazard Ratio (95% CI)OVERALLITT population170 / 32828.2 (23.7 - 33.9)123 / 16514.8 (11.2 - 19.2)0.52 (0.42 - 0.66)TR population93 / 20138.7 (31.1 - NR)71 / 9416.5 (11.7 - 23.1)0.45 (0.33 - 0.61)Any Gene AlterationDetected83 / 16634.1 (27.2 - 40.0)62 / 7914.9 (11.0 - 23.1)0.47 (0.34 - 0.66)Not detected10 / 35NR (36.4 - NR)9 / 1519.2 (9.40 - NR)0.31 (0.13 - 0.78)TP53Detected29 / 5327.0 (14.1 - NR)19 / 2315.4 (5.7 - 30.4)0.53 (0.30 - 0.95)Not detected64 / 14839.9 (34.1 - NR)52 / 7117.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.42 (0.29 - 0.60)EGFRDetected10 / 26NR (32.4 - NR)16 / 1710.9 (2.1 - 24.7)0.20 (0.09 - 0.47)Not detected83 / 17536.4 (27.7 - NR)55 / 7717.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.52 (0.37 - 0.73)FGFR1Detected15 / 2532.8 (10.1 - NR)10 / 117.6 (1.9 - 15.4)0.37 (0.16 - 0.85)Not detected78 / 17639.9 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8319.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)NF1Detected10 / 2435.9 (27 - NR)8 / 1014.6 (1.6 - 33.4)0.33 (0.13 - 0.84)Not detected83 / 17738.7 (30.8 - NR)63 / 8417.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.47 (0.33 - 0.65)MYCDetected11 / 1720.1 (5.5 - NR)9 / 106.5 (1.2 - 15.7)0.33 (0.13 - 0.86)Not detected82 / 18438.9 (32.9 - NR)62 / 8419.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)CCND1Detected8 / 1632.8 (5.5 - NR)10 / 107.2 (3.6 - 9.0)0.28 (0.10 - 0.77)Not detected85 / 18538.7 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8417.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.48 (0.34 - 0.67)n = number of patients with events; N = total number of patients in the corresponding population and treatment arm; NR = not reached. TR population consists of patients in the ITT population from whom a valid baseline ctDNA result has been obtained. Citation Format: Matthew P Goetz, J. Thaddeus Beck, Mario Campone, Sara Hurvitz, Seock-Ah Im, Stephen Johnston, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, Miguel Martin, Joohyuk Sohn, Masakazu Toi, Lacey M Litchfield, Hillary T Graham, Hong Wang, Sameera R Wijayawardana, Valerie M Jansen, Angelo Di Leo. Efficacy of abemaciclib based on genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA from the MONARCH 3 study of abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-06.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AI) demonstrated efficacy with a tolerable safety profile as initial treatment for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer in the MONARCH 3 trial. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the updated progression-free survival (PFS) with 12 months of additional follow-up was 28.2 versus 14.8 months (HR [95% CI]: 0.525 [0.415, 0.665]; p<.0001) in the abemaciclib plus AI versus placebo plus AI arms, respectively. Here we report data from the additional 12 months of follow-up on tumor response for the ITT population and exploratory subgroups previously identified as significantly prognostic (Di Leo et al. 2018). Methods: In MONARCH 3, a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 493 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting, received an AI (anastrozole or letrozole) plus abemaciclib or placebo. From the October 31, 2018 cutoff, secondary endpoints including objective response rate ([ORR], complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), time to response (TTR), and duration of response ([DoR], time from a confirmed CR or PR until disease progression or death) were assessed in the ITT population and exploratory subgroups previously reported as significantly prognostic. Waterfall plots will be used to illustrate the magnitude of change in tumor size for each subgroup (to be presented). Results: In patients with measurable disease, the ORR was 62.5% (95% CI: 56.7, 68.2) in the abemaciclib plus AI arm and 44.7% (95% CI: 36.2, 53.2) in the placebo plus AI arm (p≤.001). Additional follow-up confirmed that all prognostic subgroups received benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to AI, consistent with the ITT population, as evidenced by change in ORR, with the largest effects observed in subgroups of patients with liver metastases, progesterone receptor-negative tumors, high grade tumors, or treatment-free interval of <36 months (Table). Median TTR was similar between the two treatment arms (abemaciclib plus AI: 3.62 months; placebo plus AI: 3.65 months), and this was generally consistent across subgroups. Responses were more durable in the abemaciclib plus AI arm (median DoR: 32.71 months; 95% CI: 25.74, -) versus the placebo plus AI arm (median DoR: 17.49 months; 95% CI: 11.61, 22.19), including in poor prognostic subgroups. Conclusions: Extended follow-up in the MONARCH 3 trial further confirmed that the addition of abemaciclib to AI is associated with durable tumor responses, including those in patients with clinically poor prognostic characteristics. References: Di Leo A et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018;4:41. Clinical trial information: NCT02246621 This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company Table: Objective Response RateAbemaciclib + AIPlacebo + AIORR ChangeNn (%)Nn (%)%Measurable disease population269168 (62.5)13259 (44.7)17.8Liver metastasesYes4727 (57.45)306 (20.00)37.45No222141 (63.51)10253 (51.96)11.55Progesterone receptor statusNegative6137 (60.66)298 (27.59)33.07Positive206130 (63.11)10351 (49.51)13.60Treatment-free interval<36 months3117 (54.84)225 (22.73)32.11≥36 months7442 (56.76)3216 (50.00)6.76Tumor gradeHigh5739 (68.42)2811 (39.29)29.13Intermediate/ Low13992 (66.19)7535 (46.67)19.52ECOG PS111275 (66.96)5022 (44.00)22.96015793 (59.24)8237 (45.12)14.12Bone-only diseaseNo256162 (63.28)12253 (43.44)19.84YesNA*NA*NA*NA*NA*N= total number of patients in each subgroup; n= number of responder patients; NA=not applicable*Response rate not reported for bone-only disease because majority of lesions were not measurable Citation Format: Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Stephen Johnston, Miguel Martin, Jens Huober, Masakazu Toi, Valerie AnneMarie Andre, Holly Rene Martin, Molly Catherine Hardebeck, Angelo Di Leo, Matthew Philip Goetz. Updated subgroup tumor response of abemaciclib plus aromatase inhibitor for hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (MONARCH 3) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-09.

Abstract Background: A recent exploratory subgroup analysis pooling data from over 1000 patients (pts) in MONARCH 2 (final analysis) and MONARCH 3 (interim analysis) demonstrated that pts with clinical characteristics that predict for worse outcome (e.g. liver metastases, progesterone receptor [PgR]-negative status, high-grade tumors) received the largest benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (ET). There is also interest in determining the extent to which abemaciclib improves progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with favorable prognostic factors (e.g. bone-only disease, long treatment-free interval [TFI]). Here we present an update of the subgroup analyses of the MONARCH 3 study using data from the preplanned final PFS analysis. Methods: Enrollment criteria and study designs were previously described (Sledge et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017; Goetz et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017). An exploratory pooled analysis was conducted using data from MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703) and the MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621) preplanned final PFS analysis to identify significant prognostic factors regardless of therapy received. Using the updated MONARCH 3 data, PFS and objective response rate (ORR) (in pts with measurable disease) were examined within the prognostic subgroups that had been previously identified as being statistically significant. Additionally, subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was used to evaluate the association between TFI following adjuvant ET and outcomes of NSAI alone or with abemaciclib. Results: Assessment of clinical factors from MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 (final PFS data) confirmed that the following factors remained significantly prognostic regardless of treatment received: bone-only disease, liver metastases, tumor grade, PgR status, and ECOG performance status. In MONARCH 3, prognosis was poor in pts with liver metastases, PgR-negative tumors, and high-grade tumors. While all subpopulations benefited from the addition of abemaciclib to ET regardless of prognosis, pts with these three poor prognostic factors received substantial benefit from abemaciclib, with PFS hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 and with differential improvement in ORR typically >30%. Furthermore, STEPP analysis of TFI (on the MONARCH 3 pts who had received adjuvant ET) demonstrated that pts who had a shorter TFI had a worse prognosis and received relatively greater benefit from abemaciclib plus NSAI than did pts with a longer TFI. Patients with bone-only disease or a long TFI also received benefit from abemaciclib, but to a relatively lesser extent (HR ranging from approximately 0.6 to 0.8). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis of the preplanned final PFS data from MONARCH 3 confirms previous findings that pts with poor prognostic factors may receive relatively greater benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to ET. Citation Format: Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Matthew P. Goetz, George W. Sledge, Miguel Martin, Yong Lin, Tammy Forrester, Ian C. Smith, Angelo Di Leo, Stephen Johnston. The benefit of abemaciclib in prognostic subgroups: An update to the pooled analysis of MONARCH 2 and 3 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT099.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is an orally administered, selective CDK4 & 6 inhibitor dosed on a continuous schedule. In patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC), abemaciclib demonstrated clinical activity as monotherapy in MONARCH 1 and efficacy with a generally tolerable safety profile in combination with fulvestrant in MONARCH 2. At the MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621) interim analysis, abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.543; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.409, 0.723; p=.000021) and objective response rate (ORR) (measurable disease: abemaciclib arm, 59.2%; placebo arm, 43.8%; p=.004) with a generally tolerable safety profile as initial treatment for HR+, HER2- ABC. Here we present the MONARCH 3 results from the preplanned final PFS analysis. Methods: MONARCH 3 is a double-blind, Phase 3 study of abemaciclib/placebo (150 mg, twice daily continuous schedule) + NSAI (1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole, daily) in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC who have had no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. Endocrine therapy (ET) naïve pts or pts with disease relapse >12 months after (neo)adjuvant ET were randomized 2:1 and stratified by metastatic site (visceral, bone-only, or other) and prior ET (aromatase inhibitor, no ET, or other). The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS. Additional objectives included ORR, clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), and safety and tolerability. The study was powered to 80% at 1-sided α=.025 assuming a HR of 0.67 in favor of abemaciclib + NSAI, with the final analysis at 240 PFS events. Results: 493 pts were randomized to abemaciclib + NSAI (n=328) or placebo + NSAI (n=165). At the final PFS analysis, 246 PFS events had occurred. Abemaciclib + NSAI significantly extended PFS (HR, 0.540; 95% CI, 0.418, 0.698; p=.000002; median: abemaciclib arm, 28.18 vs placebo arm, 14.76 months). PFS was improved across all subgroups. For pts with measurable disease, the ORR was 61.0% in the abemaciclib arm and 45.5% in the placebo arm (p=.003), and the CBR was 79.0% in the abemaciclib arm and 69.7% in the placebo arm (p=.037). The median DoR was 27.39 months in the abemaciclib arm compared to 17.46 months in the placebo arm. OS was immature at the time of analysis. Adverse events were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: Abemaciclib + NSAI demonstrated a generally tolerable safety profile and was an effective initial treatment for pts with HR+, HER2- ABC, significantly improving PFS and ORR. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Miguel Martin, Angelo Di Leo, Seock-Ah Im, Ahmad Awada, Tammy Forrester, Martin Frenzel, Joanne Cox, Susana Barriga, Masakazu Toi, Hiroji Iwata, Stephen Johnston. MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib as initial therapy for patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer - Results from the preplanned final PFS analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT040.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is an orally administered, selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 & 6 that is dosed on a twice daily continuous schedule. Abemaciclib has demonstrated clinical efficacy with a generally tolerable safety profile in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant in MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703) and in combination with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI) in MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). These analyses were conducted to evaluate if patient and disease characteristics may better inform in whom and when abemaciclib should be initiated to define optimal treatment strategies. Methods: MONARCH 2 and 3 enrolled patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. In MONARCH 2, patients whose disease had progressed while receiving endocrine therapy were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus fulvestrant. In MONARCH 3, patients were treated with abemaciclib/placebo plus NSAI as initial therapy for advanced disease. An exploratory pooled analysis of the two studies was performed to determine significant prognostic factors. Efficacy results (progression-free survival [PFS] and objective response rate [ORR] in patients with measurable disease) were examined for patient subgroups corresponding to each of the identified significant prognostic factors. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was performed to examine the association between treatment-free interval (TFI) following adjuvant endocrine therapy and outcomes of endocrine therapy alone or in combination with abemaciclib in MONARCH 3. Results: Analyses of clinical factors in over 1000 patients confirmed the following to have prognostic value: bone-only disease, liver metastases, tumor grade, progesterone receptor (PgR) status, and ECOG performance status. Prognosis was poor in patients with liver metastases, PgR-negative tumors, and high-grade tumors. While all subpopulations benefited from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy regardless of prognosis, substantial benefit of abemaciclib was observed in poor prognosis subgroups, characterized by large increases in PFS (hazard ratios = 0.4 to 0.5) and ORR (over 30%). In addition, STEPP analysis of TFI on a subset of the MONARCH 3 population showed that patients with the shortest TFI appeared to have a poorer prognosis and received more benefit from the addition of abemaciclib compared to patients with longer TFI. Conclusions: This exploratory analysis has provided data that could help optimize treatment strategies by identifying that patients with poor prognostic factors may receive greater benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy. Citation Format: Goetz MP, O'Shaughnessy J, Sledge Jr. GW, Martin M, Lin Y, Forrester T, Mockbee C, Smith IC, Di Leo A, Johnston S. The benefit of abemaciclib in prognostic subgroups: An exploratory analysis of combined data from the MONARCH 2 and 3 studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS6-02.

Purpose Abemaciclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with fulvestrant in women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy. Methods MONARCH 3 is a double-blind, randomized phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in 493 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Patients received abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily continuous schedule) plus either 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole, daily. The primary objective was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary objectives included response evaluation and safety. A planned interim analysis occurred after 189 events. Results Median progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.72; P = .000021; median: not reached in the abemaciclib arm, 14.7 months in the placebo arm). In patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 59% in the abemaciclib arm and 44% in the placebo arm ( P = .004). In the abemaciclib arm, diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect (81.3%) but was mainly grade 1 (44.6%). Comparing abemaciclib and placebo, the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (21.1% v 1.2%), diarrhea (9.5% v 1.2%), and leukopenia (7.6% v 0.6%). Conclusion Abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor was effective as initial therapy, significantly improving progression-free survival and objective response rate and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer.