Imlunestrant with or without Abemaciclib in Advanced Breast Cancer

Author(s): Komal L. Jhaveri, M.D.1, Patrick Neven, M.D.2, Monica Lis Casalnuovo, M.D.3, Sung-Bae Kim, M.D.4, Eriko Tokunaga, M.D.5, Philippe Aftimos, M.D.6, Cristina Saura, M.D.7, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, M.D.8, Nadia Harbeck, M.D.9, Lisa A. Carey, M.D.10, Giuseppe Curigliano, M.D.11,12 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1781-2518, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, M.D.13, Elgene Lim, M.D.14, María de la Luz García Tinoco, M.D.15, Joohyuk Sohn, M.D.16 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2303-2764, André Mattar, M.D., Ph.D.17, Qingyuan Zhang, M.D.18, Chiun-Sheng Huang, M.D.19, Chih-Chiang Hung, M.D.20, Jorge Luis Martinez Rodriguez, M.D.21, Manuel Ruíz Borrego, M.D.22, Rikiya Nakamura, M.D.23, Kamnesh R. Pradhan, M.D.24, Christoph Cramer von Laue, Ph.D.24, Emily Barrett, M.Sc.24, Shanshan Cao, Ph.D.24, Xuejing Aimee Wang, Ph.D.24, Lillian M. Smyth, M.D.24, and François-Clément Bidard, M.D.25 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5932-8949, for the EMBER-3 Study Group*
Source: DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2410858

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Imlunestrant (novel oral SERD) was active in patients with an ESR1 mutations, but otherwise did not offer a benefit in this population of women with ER+ HER2-neg MBC. Overall survival (OS) data is pending with further follow up.

Background

Imlunestrant is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen-receptor (ER) degrader that delivers continuous ER inhibition, even in cancers with mutations in the gene encoding ERα (ESR1).

Methods

In a phase 3, open-label trial, we enrolled patients with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer that recurred or progressed during or after aromatase inhibitor therapy, administered alone or with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive imlunestrant, standard endocrine monotherapy, or imlunestrant–abemaciclib. Primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival with imlunestrant as compared with standard therapy among patients with ESR1 mutations and among all patients and with imlunestr Schumann–abemaciclib as compared with imlunestrant among all patients who had undergone randomization concurrently.

Results

Overall, 874 patients underwent randomization, with 331 assigned to imlunestrant, 330 to standard therapy, and 213 to imlunestrant–abemaciclib. Among 256 patients with ESR1 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months with imlunestrant and 3.8 months with standard therapy. The estimated restricted mean survival time at 19.4 months was 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8 to 9.1) with imlunestrant and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 6.2) with standard therapy (difference, 2.6 months; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.9; P<0.001). In the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months with imlunestrant and 5.5 months with standard therapy (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P=0.12). Among 426 patients in the comparison of imlunestrant–abemaciclib with imlunestrant, the median progression-free survival was 9.4 months and 5.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 17.1% with imlunestrant, 20.7% with standard therapy, and 48.6% with imlunestrant–abemaciclib.

Conclusions

Among patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, treatment with imlunestrant led to significantly longer progression-free survival than standard therapy among those with ESR1 mutations but not in the overall population. Imlunestrant–abemaciclib significantly improved progression-free survival as compared with imlunestrant, regardless of ESR1-mutation status. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EMBER-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04975308.)

Author Affiliations

1 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; 2 University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 3 Hospital María Curie, Buenos Aires; 4 Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 5 National Hospital Organization Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, Japan; 6 Institut Jules Bordet, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Brussels; 7 Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona; 8 Baylor University Medical Center, Texas Oncology, U.S. Oncology, Dallas; 9 Breast Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich University Hospital, Munich, Germany; 10 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill; 11 University of Milan, Milan; 12 European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan; 13 Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Valencia, Spain; 14 Garvan Institute of Medical Research and University of New South Wales, Sydney; 15 Hospital de Oncología, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Mexico City; 16 Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; 17 Mastology Department, Women’s Health Hospital, São Paulo; 18 Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China; 19 National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei; 20 Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; 21 Filios Alta Medicina, Monterrey, Mexico; 22 Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Seville, Spain; 23 Department of Breast Surgery, Chiba Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan; 24 Eli Lilly, Indianapolis; 25 Institut Curie and University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines–Paris-Saclay University, Paris

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

The Pathologic Response Evaluation and Detection in Circulating Tumor-DNA Study: Ultrasensitive Circulating Tumor-DNA Assessment of Breast Cancer Minimal Residual Disease

Primary objective not met, ctDNA clearance post- neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) cannot reliably predict pathologic complete response (pCR) and shouldn't be used to defer surgery. But the prognostic data are striking: post-NAT ctDNA positivity independently predicted recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (HR 8.9), and the postsurgical landmark analysis is essentially binary, 100% of ctDNA-positive patients recurred while 94% of ctDNA-negative patients were disease-free at 5 years (HR 128). Not practice-changing yet pending prospective utility trials, but this strongly validates ultrasensitive ctDNA as a prognostic tool and a smart enrollment biomarker for future escalation/de-escalation trials.

Read More »

Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant TQB2102 in Locally Advanced or Early Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Positive Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase II Trial

The QUIWI study used quizartinib, a FLT3 drug added to standard chemo induction/consolidation in FLT-negative acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients. There was a meaningful overall survival (OS) improvement across all age and risk groups including the NPM1+ population. They purposefully used a higher dose to achieve what is felt to be off-target TKI activity in familiar pathways of KIT, PDGRF…etc.

Read More »

Sacituzumab Govitecan plus Pembrolizumab for Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

This really feels like a first-line practice changer in PD-L1+ MTNBC—the sacituzumab govitecan/pembrolizumab combination delivering a 3.4-month progression-free survival (PFS) improvement and pushing median PFS past 11 months is quite meaningful. Mature overall survival (OS) data will be interesting to see. Remember to watch closely and consider screening for drug-induced interstitial lung disease(ILD).

Read More »