Citations

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 Accelerated approval for medullary TC (MTC) was withdrawn by the sponsor in 2023 due to recruitment challenges in the confirmatory trial.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.

Abstract Background: Male breast cancer (MaBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast cancer cases. Our previous studies suggest that MaBC is biologically distinct from female breast cancer (FeBC), exhibiting a unique mutational profile and immune-genomic microenvironment. While the impact of these molecular alterations on site-specific metastases has been explored in FeBC, it remains poorly understood in MaBC. This gap limits accurate risk stratification and prediction of disease trajectory in male patients. In this study, we investigated site-specific genomic and immune alterations across metastatic sites in MaBC. Methods: 238 MaBC samples were tested by NGS (592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq) and WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). We performed analysis in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) subtypes which are most common in male. HR+HER2- was defined as estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive and HER2 IHC 1+ or 2+ with negative chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) assay. Immune cells were estimated using WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Gene expression profiles were analyzed for T-cell inflamed score, interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) score and MAPK Activation Score. We classified patients by site of biopsy/specimen site. Statistical significance was assessed with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, p&lt;0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: Our cohort included 86 HR+HER2- MaBC samples biopsied from primary breast cancer (pBC) (n=39), bone (n=15), liver (n=8), lung (n=8), lymph nodes (n=7), and skin (n=9) mets. We report here only the data on statistically significant differences, but the overall landscape has been depicted across all defined-sites investigated. pBC showed a significantly lower prevalence of PIK3CA mutations (23.6% vs. 53.3%, p&lt;0.05) compared to bone mets. ESR1 mutations were absent in pBC but present in 25% of liver and 25% of lung mets (all comparisons p&lt;0.05). Immune profiling revealed reduced infiltration of M2 macrophages (4.3% vs. 6%, p&lt;0.05) and neutrophil (2.2% vs. 6.9%, p&lt;0.05) in pBC relative to bone Mets. Further, CD4+ T cells were lower in pBC compared to lymph nodes (0% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). pBC had lower expression of immune checkpoint genes (PDCD1LG2, HAVCR2 and CD47) compared to other mets. pBC exhibited lower MAPK pathway activation score (-1.6 vs. 0.17, p=0.03) and a trend toward lower T cell-inflamed gene expression scores (-65 vs. 8, p=0.06) compared to bone mets. Bone mets had higher infiltration of M2 macrophage compared to lung (6% vs. 4.4%, p&lt;0.05) and lymph node (6% vs. 4.5%, p&lt;0.05). Neutrophil infiltration was elevated in bone versus liver (6.9% vs. 2%, p&lt;0.05) but T regulatory cells were lower in bone compared to lymph nodes (1% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). Bone showed reduced expression of CD47 (median TPM 50.6 vs. 109.9, p&lt;0.05) compared to skin. Further bone had lower IFN-gamma scores (-0.41 vs. -0.17, p&lt;0.05) compared to lymph node. Data on prior number and types of cancer treatment to give a context to the findings will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our study highlights that each MaBC metastatic site harbors a unique genomic and immune landscape that can influence tumor behavior and potentially impact patient prognosis. Better understanding of metastatic site-specific molecular features in larger cohorts can help in the future research efforts and guiding treatment decisions. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, P. Advani, P. Barreto Coelho, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Site specific Genomic and Immune Landscapes Underpinning in metastatic Male Breast Cancer [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 PS2-08-04.

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 Background: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are increasingly used in the treatment of breast cancer due to their superior efficacy compared to conventional chemotherapy. The management of male breast cancer is largely extrapolated from clinical data in females and evidence regarding the efficacy of ADCs in men remains limited. This study aimed to compare survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients treated with ADCs across the spectrum of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Methods: We included total of 2,954 (Male: 34, Female: 2,920 breast cancer samples) from patients who underwent treatment with ADCs. We excluded patients with triple-negative breast cancer status due to the rarity of this subtype in males and the worse prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer, so that the cohorts would be more homogeneous without overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer in females. We categorized patients by HER2 status as: HER2-null (if there was 0% stain on HER2 IHC), HER2-ultra low (if HER2 IHC was 0 but with stain 1-10%), HER2-low (if HER2 IHC was 1+ or 2+ with a negative chromogenic in situ hybridization [CISH] assay), and HER2-positive (if HER2 IHC was 3+ or 2+ with a positive CISH assay). Real-world median overall survival was derived from insurance claims and calculated from the start of first ADC with either trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) or trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) or sacituzumab govitecan (SG) to last contact using Kaplan-Meier. Statistical significance was assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U. Results: The distribution of sex by HER2 expression group was: HER2-null: 8 males vs 612 females; HER2-ultra low 6 males vs 467 females; HER2-low 11 males vs 903 females; HER2-positive 9 males vs 938 females. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or SG in the HER2-null cohort was 21.31 months in males vs 15.72 months in females (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 - 2.01, p=0.67); in the HER2-ultra low cohort was 17.73 months in males vs 14.47 months in females (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.26 - 2.63, p=0.76); in the HER2-low cohort was 11.08 months in males vs 18.62 months in females (HR 1.53, 95% CI 0.63 - 3.7; p=0.34). In the HER2-positive cohort, 5/9 males (55.5%) and 544/938 females (58%) were treated with T-DXd. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or T-DM1 in the HER2-positive cohort was 36.55 months in males vs 46.52 months in females (HR 1.77, 95% CI 0.84 - 3.74, p=0.12). Conclusions: In this study, survival appears to be comparable between males and females with breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression when both are treated with ADCs, although the survival in the HER2-positive cohort appears numerically lower in males, consistent with data on HER2-positive MaBC. An important limitation is the small sample size of the male breast cancer cohorts, and the lack of a categorization of HER2 in HR+ vs HR-, for the small MaBC sample size. However, to our knowledge this is the first analysis evaluating outcomes of men treated with ADCs across the spectrum of HER2 expression. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, S. Gandhi, S. Chumsri, S. Graff, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Comparative efficacy of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in male versus female breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression [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 PS4-01-13.

Abstract Background: The current standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) consists of induction chemotherapy combined with trastuzumab (TRAS) and pertuzumab (PERT) followed by maintenance therapy with TRAS + PERT. Although this regimen has been associated with sustained disease control, most patients eventually experience disease progression. The HER2CLIMB-05(NCT05132582) study is investigating the efficacy and safety of adding tucatinib to TRAS + PERT as maintenance therapy in patients with HER2+ MBC after completion of 1L chemotherapy-based induction therapy. Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+MBC without evidence of progression after 1L induction therapy with 4 to 8cycles of a taxane combined with TRAS + PERT, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 or 1, and no or asymptomatic brain metastases (BM) were enrolled in HER2CLIMB-05. Contrast-enhanced brain magnetic resonance imaging was performed at screening and regular intervals during the study. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either tucatinib 300 mg or placebo twice daily, in combination with either TRAS (6 mg/kg IV or 600 mg SC) plus PERT (420 mg/kg IV) or a SC fixed-dose combination of TRAS, PERT, and hyaluronidase administered every 21 days. Endocrine therapy was permitted for patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), PFS by blinded independent central review, investigator-assessed central nervous system (CNS)-PFS, and safety. Results: Between March 2022 and July 2024, 654 patients were randomly assigned to receive tucatinib (n = 326) or placebo (n = 328) with1L maintenance therapy. All patients were female (median age: 54 years [range, 24-83]);45.0% were White, 35.2% were Asian, 2.9% were Black/African American, and 19.3%were Hispanic/Latino(a)/Spanish origin. Most patients had ECOG PS of 0 (64.1%)and de novo metastatic disease (69.3%). At baseline, 12.4% of patients had presence or history of BM and 52.6% had hormone receptor-positive MBC. As of September5, 2025, PFS was statistically significantly improved with the addition of tucatinib versus placebo to 1L maintenance therapy (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.641 [95%confidence interval (CI), 0.514-0.799]; 2-sided P &lt; 0.0001). All prespecified patient subgroups demonstrated a PFS benefit with tucatinib combination 1L maintenance therapy consistent with the overall population and regardless of presence or absence of BM at baseline or hormone-receptor status. OS is still immature (observed number of deaths = 51;tucatinib arm versus control arm HR = 0.539 [95% CI, 0.303-0.957; 2-sided P= 0.032]). In the safety analysis set, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the tucatinib arm (n = 326) were diarrhea (72.7%), nausea (33.1%), and elevated liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase: 28.2%; aspartate aminotransferase:25.8%), of which 6.1%, 0.9%, 13.5%, and 7.1% were, respectively, grade ≥ 3. In the tucatinib arm, 13.5% of patients discontinued tucatinib due to TEAEs. Conclusions: In the HER2CLIMB-05 trial, the addition of tucatinib to TRAS + PERT as 1L maintenance therapy demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS with a manageable safety profile in patients with HER2+ MBC. Citation Format: E. Hamilton, G. Curigliano, M. Martin, F. Lerebours, J. Tsurutani, M. Savard, K. Jerzak, X. Hu, L. Martins de Aquino Pimentel, C. O'Sullivan, E. Tokunaga, A. Okines, C. Huang, W. Jacot, J. Sohn, E. Cronemberger Silva, V. Mueller, S. Yang, G. Granata, Q. Shen, L. Santarpia, V. Dieras Her2climb-05: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study of tucatinib versus placebo in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab as maintenance therapy for her2+ metastatic breast cancer [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 GS1-01.

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.