O’Sullivan, Ciara C.

This editorial reviews the many opportunities and obstacles associated with ePRO integration in oncology

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

ImportanceCombination therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i: palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) and endocrine therapy (ET) has been a major advance for the treatment of hormone receptor–positive (HR+), ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative (ERBB2−) advanced or metastatic breast cancer.ObservationsRandomized phase 3 studies demonstrated that the addition of CDK4/6i reduced the hazard risk of disease progression by approximately half compared with hormonal monotherapy (an aromatase inhibitor, tamoxifen, or fulvestrant) in the first-line (1L) and/or second-line (2L) setting. Hence, the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved 3 CDK4/6i, in both 1L and 2L settings. However, differences among the CDK4/6i regarding mechanisms of action, adverse effect profiles, and overall survival (OS) are emerging. Both abemaciclib and ribociclib have demonstrated efficacy in high-risk HR+ early breast cancer. While ET with or without CDK4/6i is accepted as standard treatment for persons with advanced HR+ ERBB2− metastatic breast cancer, several key issues remain. First, why are there discordances in OS in the metastatic setting and efficacy differences in the adjuvant setting? Additionally, apart from HR status, there are few biomarkers predictive of response to CDK4/6i plus ET, and these are not used routinely. Despite the clear OS advantage noted in the 1L and 2L metastatic setting with some CDK4/6i, a subset of patients with highly endocrine-sensitive disease do well with ET alone. Therefore, an unanswered question is whether some patients can postpone CDK4/6i until the 2L setting, particularly if financial toxicity is a concern. Finally, given the lack of endocrine responsiveness following progression on some CDK4/6i, strategies to optimally sequence treatment are needed.Conclusions and RelevanceFuture research should focus on defining the role of each CDK4/6i in HR+ breast cancer and developing a biomarker-directed integration of these agents.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

TPS1115 Background: The current first-line (1L) standard of care (SOC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) and a taxane. Despite advances in 1L SOC, most patients progress during maintenance therapy with T + P. Tucatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved in combination with T and capecitabine for adults with HER2+ MBC, with and without brain metastases (BM). In HER2CLIMB, the addition of tucatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2+ MBC and was well tolerated. Adding tucatinib also reduced the risk of disease progression or death in patients with untreated and/or active BM (Murthy et al. 2020, Curigliano et al. 2021). HER2CLIMB-05 investigates whether adding tucatinib to 1L SOC as maintenance therapy will extend PFS while maintaining quality of life (QOL). Methods: HER2CLIMB-05 (NCT05132582) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating tucatinib plus T + P as maintenance therapy for HER2+ MBC. Approximately 650 patients will be enrolled. Eligible patients will have advanced HER2+ disease, no progression on 4–8 cycles of prior 1L SOC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 or 1, and no or asymptomatic BM. Exclusion criteria include prior treatment with anti-HER2 and/or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor TKI (prior SOC for early BC is permitted) or inability to undergo contrast magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either tucatinib or placebo twice daily, with T + P once every 21 days. Patients with hormone receptor-positive disease may receive endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS (key endpoint), PFS by Blinded Independent Central Review (BICR), time to deterioration of health-related QOL, central nervous system PFS, safety, and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. PFS and OS will be compared using a 2-sided stratified log-rank test between treatment groups. Time-to-event endpoints will be summarized using the Kaplan–Meier method. PK and safety data will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment is ongoing in the US, Canada, Brazil, APAC and EU countries with additional sites planned. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 .

1057 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET), particularly aromatase inhibitors (AIs), for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer can lead to acquired ESR1 mutations ( mESR1) driving endocrine resistance and tumor progression. Treatments for mBC with mESR1 are limited, especially after progression on ET/cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) combinations. In ELAINE 2, LAS, a next-generation ET (breast ER antagonist) plus Abema had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of ~13 mos, objective response rate (ORR) of 33%, and 24-wk clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 62% with a favorable safety profile in patients with resistant mESR1 mBC (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:16 suppl 1022). Here, we report ELAINE 2 data with longer patient follow up (Jan 31, 2023). Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, single-arm study, 29 women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that progressed on prior ET took oral LAS 5 mg/day and Abema 150 mg BID until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability; secondary included PFS, CBR, and ORR. Data were summarized descriptively with no formal hypothesis testing. Results: Patients (median age 60 yrs) had received a median of 2 prior therapy lines for mBC; all but one had prior CDK4/6i exposure and 14 (48%) had prior chemotherapy for mBC. LAS/Abema was well tolerated with primarily grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse events (most commonly diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting). One treatment withdrawal occurred due to grade 2 diarrhea. No deaths occurred. LAS dose was not reduced; Abema dose was reduced to 100 mg BID in 6 (21%) patients. Median PFS was 56.0 wks (~13 mos) and CBR 65.5% (95% CI, 47.3‒80.1). Median overall survival was not estimable. In 18 patients with measurable lesions, ORR was 55.6% (95% CI, 33.7‒75.4), with median time to response of 5.7 mos and median duration of response of 6.4 mos. Seventy-six percent, 56%, and 39% of patients were progression free at 6, 12, and 18 mos, respectively. Three (10%) patients had scan-identified venous thromboembolic events, with one symptomatic pulmonary embolism and one symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. In 26 patients with evaluable baseline and wk 4 ctDNA, ESR1 mutant allele fraction decreased from baseline to wk 4 in 81% of patients and was not detected in 54%. Conclusions: With longer ELAINE 2 follow up, LAS/Abema continues to be well tolerated with clinically meaningful efficacy in women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that had progressed on ET and CDK4/6is. Decreases in mESR1 ctDNA suggest effective target engagement of LAS. The PFS (median ~13 mos) and ORR (56%) with LAS/Abema are promising and a confirmatory phase 3 study (ELAINE 3) will begin in 2023. If ELAINE 2 results are confirmed, the combination of LAS and Abema would address a critical unmet need, providing a practice changing option for treating mESR1 breast cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04432454 .

Abstract Background: The current first-line (1L) standard of care (SOC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) and a taxane. Despite advances in 1L SOC, most patients (pts) progress during maintenance therapy with T+P. Tucatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved in combination with T and capecitabine for adults with HER2+ MBC, with and without brain metastases (BM). In HER2CLIMB, the addition of tucatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in pts with HER2+ MBC and was well tolerated. Adding tucatinib also reduced the risk of disease progression or death in pts with untreated and/or active BM (Murthy et al. 2020, Curigliano et al. 2021). HER2CLIMB-05 investigates whether adding tucatinib to 1L SOC as maintenance therapy will extend PFS while maintaining quality of life (QOL). Methods: HER2CLIMB-05 (NCT05132582) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating tucatinib plus T+P as maintenance therapy for HER2+ MBC. Approximately 650 pts will be enrolled. Eligible pts will have advanced HER2+ disease, no progression on 4-8 cycles of prior 1L SOC, ECOG Performance Status of 0 or 1, and no or asymptomatic BM. Exclusion criteria include prior treatment with anti-HER2 and/or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor TKI (prior SOC for early BC is permitted) or inability to undergo contrast magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either tucatinib or placebo twice daily, with T+P once every 21 days. Pts with HR+ disease may receive endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS (key endpoint), PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR), time to deterioration of health-related QOL, central nervous system PFS, safety, and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. PFS and OS will be compared using a 2-sided stratified log-rank test between treatment groups. Time-to-event endpoints will be summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method. PK and safety data will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment is ongoing in the US, Canada, and several EU and APAC countries, with additional sites planned. This abstract was previously presented at ESMO-BC 2022, FPN (Final Publication Number): 415, by Veronique Dieras (reused with permission). Citation Format: Erika Hamilton, Junji Tsurutani, Joohyuk Sohn, Giuseppe Curigliano, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Miguel Martín, Konstantinos Tryfonidis, Libero Santarpia, Shan Yang, Veronique Dieras. Phase 3 study of tucatinib or placebo in combination with trastuzumab and pertuzumab as maintenance therapy for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (HER2CLIMB-05, trial in progress) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT065.

Abstract Background Multiple preclinical studies have shown cytotoxic synergy involving combinations of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) inhibitors, but such combinations have proven too toxic in clinical trials. Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) achieved similar intratumoral exposure with better antitumor activity than the conventional TOP1 inhibitor irinotecan in preclinical models. Tumor targeted delivery of TOP1 inhibitor using nal-IRI and an intermittent schedule of administration of PARP inhibitor may provide a tolerable combination. Methods A phase I study was performed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of nal-IRI and the PARP inhibitor veliparib in patients with solid tumors resistant to standard treatments. Nal-IRI was administered on days 1 and 15 and veliparib on days 5-12 and 19-25 in 28-day cycles. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled across 3 dose levels. Five patients encountered dose–limiting toxicities, including grade 3 diarrhea lasting more than 72 h in 3 patients and 1 patient each with grade 4 diarrhea and grade 3 hyponatremia. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities included diarrhea (50% of patients), nausea (16.6%), anorexia, and vomiting (11.1% each) (Table 1). There was no difference in frequencies of adverse events based on UGT1A1*28 status or prior opioid use (Table 1). Conclusion The clinical trial was terminated due to high frequency of unacceptable gastrointestinal toxicities, which precluded dose escalation of veliparib in combination with nal-IRI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631733).

ImportanceAurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (<10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.InterventionsAlisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).Main Outcomes and MeasuresImprovement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.ResultsAll 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000