Would you keep treating with CDK4/6 inhibitors and just switch endocrine therapy after failing first line ET+CDK4/6 inhibitor? This trial says YES.
Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Although preclinical and clinical data demonstrate a benefit in changing ET and continuing a CDK4/6i at progression, no randomized prospective trials have evaluated this approach.
In this investigator-initiated, phase II, double-blind placebo-controlled trial in patients with HR+/HER2– MBC whose cancer progressed during ET and CDK4/6i, participants switched ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from ET used pre-random assignment and randomly assigned 1:1 to the CDK4/6i ribociclib versus placebo. PFS was the primary end point, defined as time from random assignment to disease progression or death. Assuming a median PFS of 3.8 months with placebo, we had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 (corresponding to a median PFS of at least 6.5 months with ribociclib) with 120 patients randomly assigned using a one-sided log-rank test and significance level set at 2.5%.
Of the 119 randomly assigned participants, 103 (86.5%) previously received palbociclib and 14 participants received ribociclib (11.7%). There was a statistically significant PFS improvement for patients randomly assigned to switched ET plus ribociclib (median, 5.29 months; 95% CI, 3.02 to 8.12 months) versus switched ET plus placebo (median, 2.76 months; 95% CI, 2.66 to 3.25 months) HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.85); P = .006. At 6 and 12 months, the PFS rate was 41.2% and 24.6% with ribociclib, respectively, compared with 23.9% and 7.4% with placebo.
In this randomized trial, there was a significant PFS benefit for patients with HR+/HER2– MBC who switched ET and received ribociclib compared with placebo after previous CDK4/6i and different ET.
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.
Adding Palbociclib did not help, revealing that there is no need to continue with different hormonal therapy than the one used in first line. It also added more toxicity.