Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors plus endocrine therapy (ET) represents the standard first-line treatment for patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, there is no definitive consensus on the preferred second-line treatment option. The PALMIRA trial investigated whether palbociclib rechallenge with an alternative ET would improve the antitumor activity in patients progressing after a first-line palbociclib-containing regimen.
This international, randomized, open-label, phase II study enrolled 198 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative ABC with disease progression after first-line palbociclib plus ET (aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant). Patients were eligible if they showed clinical benefit to the previous regimen (response or stable disease ≥24 weeks) or had progressed on a palbociclib-based therapy in the adjuvant setting. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to either palbociclib rechallenge plus second-line ET (fulvestrant or letrozole) or second-line ET alone. Stratification factors were previous ET and visceral involvement. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).
Between April 2019 and October 2022, 136 and 62 patients were randomly assigned to palbociclib plus ET or ET alone, respectively. Median investigator-assessed PFS was 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.6 to 6.1) with palbociclib plus ET versus 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.2) with ET alone (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.07]; P = .149). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were higher with palbociclib plus ET (47.4% v 10.0%), without new safety signals.
Palbociclib rechallenge plus an alternative ET did not significantly improve PFS compared with ET alone in patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative ABC progressing on a first-line palbociclib-based ET regimen.
Our site participated in this study, where patients were tested for ESR1 mutations via circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Those who tested positive were switched to camizestrant (Cami), which demonstrated improved progression-free survival.
Vepdegestrant is an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) estrogen receptor (ER) degrader that directly utilizes the ubiquitin–proteasome system. It was compared to fulvestrant in patients who had received one prior line of hormonal therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Among patients with ESR1 mutations, Vepdegestrant demonstrated a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.0 months versus 2.1 months with fulvestrant. In the overall population, the median PFS was 3.8 months for Vepdegestrant and 3.6 months for fulvestrant, indicating that the drug showed particular efficacy in tumors harboring ESR1 mutations.
Elinzanitant, a neurokinin-targeted therapy, has been shown to reduce vasomotor symptoms compared to placebo. These symptoms are one of the reasons some of my patients discontinue aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy, so Elinzanitant presents a promising alternative to help manage these side effects. Additionally, Fezolinetant is already approved and available on the market.
The INAVO120 trial evaluated inavolisib + palbociclib–fulvestrant vs placebo + palbociclib–fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA-mutated, HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer progressing on or shortly after adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET). Inavolisib significantly improved overall survival (OS) (34.0 vs 27.0 mo) and progression-free survival (PFS) (17.2 vs 7.3 mo), with a higher objective response rate (ORR) (62.7% vs 28.0%) and longer DoR (19.2 vs 11.1 mo). Toxicities were manageable but included more hyperglycemia (63.4%), stomatitis (55.3%), GI, and ocular AEs. Bottom line: this triplet sets a new bar for first-line PIK3CA-mutant HR+ MBC, but we’ll need to stay vigilant about metabolic and mucosal side effects as we bring it into practice.
DON’T omit, there is still a benefit, especially in 6-10% patients.