Citations

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Two years of adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) resulted in a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) that persisted beyond the 2-year treatment period in patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Here, we report 5-year efficacy results from a prespecified overall survival (OS) interim analysis. In the intent-to-treat population, with a median follow-up of 54 months, the benefit of abemaciclib was sustained with hazard ratios of 0.680 (95% CI, 0.599 to 0.772) for IDFS and 0.675 (95% CI, 0.588 to 0.774) for DRFS. This persistence of abemaciclib benefit translated to continuous separation of the curves with a deepening in 5-year absolute improvement in IDFS and DRFS rates of 7.6% and 6.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 6% and 5.3% at 4 years and 4.8% and 4.1% at 3 years. With fewer deaths in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared with the ET-alone arm (208 v 234), statistical significance was not reached for OS. No new safety signals were observed. In conclusion, abemaciclib plus ET continued to reduce the risk of developing invasive and distant disease recurrence beyond the completion of treatment. The increasing absolute improvement at 5 years is consistent with a carryover effect and further supports the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk EBC.

Abstract Background: Dysregulated Notch signalling contributes to breast cancer development and progression, but validated tools to measure the level of Notch signalling in breast cancer subtypes and in response to systemic therapy are largely lacking. A transcriptomic signature of Notch signalling would thus be warranted, and in this report, we have established such a classifier. Methods: To generate the signature, we first identified Notch-regulated genes from six basal-like breast cancer cell lines subjected to elevated and reduced Notch signalling by culturing on immobilized Notch ligand Jagged1 or blockade of Notch by g-secretase inhibitors, respectively. From this cadre of Notch-regulated genes, we developed candidate transcriptomic signatures that were trained on a breast cancer patient dataset (the TCGA-BRCA cohort) and a broader breast cancer cell line cohort and sought to validate in independent data sets. Results: An optimal 20-gene transcriptomic signature was selected. We validated the signature on two independent patient datasets (METABRIC and Oslo2) and it showed an improved coherence score and tumour specificity compared with previously published signatures. Furthermore, the signature score was particularly high for basal-like breast cancer, indicating an enhanced level of Notch signalling in this subtype. The signature score was increased after neoadjuvant treatment in the PROMIX and BEAUTY patient cohorts, and a lower signature score generally correlated with better clinical outcome. Conclusions: The 20-gene transcriptional signature has the potential to better stratify patients and to evaluate the response of future Notch-based therapies for breast cancer. Citation Format: Eike-Benjamin Braune, Felix Geist, Xiaojia Tang, Krishna Kalari, Judy Boughey, Liewei Wang, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Antonino B. D’Assoro, James N. Ingle, Matthew P. Goetz, Kang Wang, Theodoros Foukakis, Anita Seshire, Dirk Wienke, Urban Lendahl. Identification of a Notch transcriptomic signature for breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B013.

Abstract Purpose: To identify potential predictors of response and resistance mechanisms in patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib ± endocrine therapy (ET), baseline and acquired genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were analyzed and associated with clinical outcomes. Experimental Design: MONARCH 3: postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting were randomly assigned to abemaciclib or placebo plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). nextMONARCH: women with HR+, HER2− metastatic breast cancer that progressed on/after prior ET and chemotherapy were randomly assigned to abemaciclib alone (two doses) or plus tamoxifen. Baseline and end-of-treatment plasma samples from patients in MONARCH 3 and nextMONARCH (monotherapy arms) were analyzed to identify somatic genomic alterations. Association between genomic alterations and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was assessed. Results: Most patients had ≥1 genomic alteration detected in baseline ctDNA. In MONARCH 3, abemaciclib+NSAI was associated with improved mPFS versus placebo+NSAI, regardless of baseline alterations. ESR1 alterations were less frequently acquired in the abemaciclib+NSAI arm than placebo+NSAI. Acquired alterations potentially associated with resistance to abemaciclib ± NSAI included RB1 and MYC. Conclusions: In MONARCH 3, certain baseline ctDNA genomic alterations were prognostic for ET but not predictive of abemaciclib response. Further studies are warranted to assess whether ctDNA alterations acquired during abemaciclib treatment differ from other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Findings are hypothesis generating; further exploration is warranted into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib and ET. See related commentary by Wander and Bardia, p. 2008

PURPOSE BMI affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors are given at a fixed dose, irrespective of BMI or weight. This preplanned analysis of the global randomized PALLAS trial investigates the impact of BMI on the side-effect profile, treatment adherence, and efficacy of palbociclib. METHODS Patients were categorized at baseline according to WHO BMI categories. Neutropenia rates were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Time to early discontinuation of palbociclib was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risk models. Unstratified Cox models were used to investigate the association between BMI category and time to invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). 95% CIs were derived. RESULTS Of 5,698 patients included in this analysis, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) overweight, and 1,730 (30.4%) obese at baseline. In the palbociclib arm, higher BMI was associated with a significant decrease in neutropenia (unadjusted odds ratio for 1-unit change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94; adjusted for age, race ethnicity, region, chemotherapy use, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at baseline, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95). This translated into a significant decrease in treatment discontinuation rate with higher BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for 10-unit change, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). There was no significant improvement in iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET in any weight category (normal weight HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; overweight HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; and obese HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.30) in this analysis early in follow-up (31 months). CONCLUSION This preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial demonstrates a significant impact of BMI on side effects, dose reductions, early treatment discontinuation, and relative dose intensity. Additional long-term follow-up will further evaluate whether BMI ultimately affects outcome.

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.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Breast Cancer address all aspects of management for breast cancer. The treatment landscape of metastatic breast cancer is evolving constantly. The therapeutic strategy takes into consideration tumor biology, biomarkers, and other clinical factors. Due to the growing number of treatment options, if one option fails, there is usually another line of therapy available, providing meaningful improvements in survival. This NCCN Guidelines Insights report focuses on recent updates specific to systemic therapy recommendations for patients with stage IV (M1) disease.