Mutations in ESR1 are the most common mechanism of acquired resistance to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor for advanced breast cancer. Camizestrant, a next-generation selective estrogen-receptor (ER) degrader and complete ER antagonist, has shown antitumor activity in ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
We tested patients with advanced breast cancer with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative tumors for ESR1 mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) once every 2 to 3 months. All the patients had received at least 6 months of first-line therapy with an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib). Patients who were found to have an ESR1 mutation and did not have radiologic progression were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to switch to camizestrant (75 mg once daily) with a continued CDK4/6 inhibitor plus placebo in place of an aromatase inhibitor or to continue to receive an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus placebo in place of camizestrant. The primary outcome was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Research Summary First-Line Camizestrant for Emerging ESR1-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer
A total of 3256 patients were tested for an ESR1 mutation. The 315 eligible patients were assigned to switch to camizestrant (157 patients) or to continue to receive an aromatase inhibitor (158 patients). At an interim analysis at a median follow-up of 12.6 months, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7 to 18.2) in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.5) in the aromatase-inhibitor group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.60; P
In patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation that emerged during treatment, those who were switched to camizestrant with continuation of a CDK4/6 inhibitor during first-line therapy had significantly longer progression-free survival than those who maintained the aromatase-inhibitor combination. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SERENA-6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04964934.)
Progression-free survival (PFS) was statistically significantly improved with addition of tucatinib versus placebo 24.9 v 16.3 months regardless of the presence/absence of BM or hormone receptor status.
1467 pts with RS > 25 and 551 with clinically (neoadjuvant cohort in ADAPT-HR+/HER2-) or pathologically N2, (longer) docetaxel-based CTx showed better distant, invasive disease-free survival in N2-3 pts patients with RS ≤25, OS was also shown in pts with RS>25 anthracycline regimens did not show a significant survival difference in high-risk HR+/HER2 whether used in neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. So may be no anthracycline for HR+ve pts who are high risk 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.
Gedatolisib potently targets all four class I PI3K isoforms and mTORC1 and mTORC2 to comprehensively block the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. PFS was 9.3 m in the gedatolisib-triplet group vs 2.0 m in the fulvestrant group (hazard ratio) HR 0.24, and 7.4 m in the gedatolisib-doublet group HR 0.33 v fulvestrant.
This is impressive. However, there is no reported placebo trastuzumab deruxtecan arm, so this is not truly a “no chemotherapy” regimen. It is important to remember that deruxtecan is itself a chemotherapy agent. So, this is really comparing deruxtecan vs taxol or more accurately, a comparison of chemotherapy delivery systems.