Plasma ESR1 Mutations and the Treatment of Estrogen Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (25) ◽  
pp. 2961-2968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Fribbens ◽  
Ben O’Leary ◽  
Lucy Kilburn ◽  
Sarah Hrebien ◽  
Isaac Garcia-Murillas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Estrogen Receptor Positive ◽  
Esr1 Mutations ◽  
The Impact

Purpose ESR1 mutations are selected by prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in advanced breast cancer. We assessed the impact of ESR1 mutations on sensitivity to standard therapies in two phase III randomized trials that represent the development of the current standard therapy for estrogen receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. Materials and Methods In a prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed ESR1 mutations in available archived baseline plasma from the SoFEA (Study of Faslodex Versus Exemestane With or Without Arimidex) trial, which compared exemestane with fulvestrant-containing regimens in patients with prior sensitivity to nonsteroidal AI and in baseline plasma from the PALOMA3 (Palbociclib Combined With Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor–Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer After Endocrine Failure) trial, which compared fulvestrant plus placebo with fulvestrant plus palbociclib in patients with progression after receiving prior endocrine therapy. ESR1 mutations were analyzed by multiplex digital polymerase chain reaction. Results In SoFEA, ESR1 mutations were found in 39.1% of patients (63 of 161), of whom 49.1% (27 of 55) were polyclonal, with rates of mutation detection unaffected by delays in processing of archival plasma. Patients with ESR1 mutations had improved progression-free survival (PFS) after taking fulvestrant (n = 45) compared with exemestane (n = 18; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; P = .02), whereas patients with wild-type ESR1 had similar PFS after receiving either treatment (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.67; P = .77). In PALOMA3, ESR1 mutations were found in the plasma of 25.3% of patients (91 of 360), of whom 28.6% (26 of 91) were polyclonal, with mutations associated with acquired resistance to prior AI. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib improved PFS compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in both ESR1 mutant (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.74; P = .002) and ESR1 wild-type patients (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.70; P < .001). Conclusion ESR1 mutation analysis in plasma after progression after prior AI therapy may help direct choice of further endocrine-based therapy. Additional confirmatory studies are required.

Fulvestrant ('Faslodex')--a new treatment option for patients progressing on prior endocrine therapy.

2002 ◽  
pp. 267-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Morris ◽  
A Wakeling
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Postmenopausal Women ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive

Since its introduction more than 30 years ago, tamoxifen has been the most widely used endocrine therapy for the treatment of women with advanced breast cancer. More recently, a number of alternative endocrine treatments have been developed, including several selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and, most recently, fulvestrant ('Faslodex'). Fulvestrant is an estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist, which, unlike the SERMs, has no known agonist (estrogenic) effect and downregulates the ER protein. Tamoxifen is effective and well tolerated, although the non-steroidal AIs, anastrozole and letrozole, are more effective treatments for advanced disease than tamoxifen. Fulvestrant has recently gained US Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women with disease progression following antiestrogen therapy. In two global phase III clinical trials fulvestrant was at least as effective and as equally well tolerated as anastrozole for the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced and metastatic breast cancer. In a retrospective analysis of the combined data from these trials, mean duration of response was significantly greater for fulvestrant compared with anastrozole. These new hormonal treatments expand the choice of endocrine therapy for women with advanced breast cancer and offer new options for sequencing and combining treatments.

scholarly journals Alpelisib Plus Fulvestrant in PIK3CA-Altered and PIK3CA-Wild-Type Estrogen Receptor–Positive Advanced Breast Cancer

JAMA Oncology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e184475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dejan Juric ◽  
Filip Janku ◽  
Jordi Rodón ◽  
Howard A. Burris ◽  
Ingrid A. Mayer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Estrogen Receptor Positive

AMEERA-5: A randomized, double-blind phase III study of amcenestrant (SAR439859) + palbociclib versus letrozole + palbociclib for previously untreated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS1104-TPS1104
Author(s):  
Aditya Bardia ◽  
Javier Cortes ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Suzette Delaloge ◽  
Hiroji Iwata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS1104 Background: Selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) block estrogen receptor (ER) associated signaling and have created interest for treating patients (pts) with advanced ER+ breast cancer (BC). Fulvestrant is currently the only SERD available for advanced BC but requires intramuscular administration, limiting the applied dose, exposure and receptor engagement. Amcenestrant (SAR439859) is an oral SERD that binds with high affinity to both wild-type and mutant ER, blocking estradiol binding and promoting up to 98% ER degradation in preclinical studies. In the phase I AMEERA-1 study of pretreated pts with ER+/HER2- advanced BC, amcenestrant 150–600 mg once daily (QD) showed a mean ER occupancy of 94% with plasma concentrations > 100 ng/mL and a favorable safety profile (Bardia, 2019; data on file). Combination therapy with amcenestrant + palbociclib (palbo) was also evaluated as part of this ongoing phase I study. CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI), the gold standard for first line treatment for advanced breast cancer, prolong progression free survival (PFS) in pts with no prior treatment for ER+/HER2- advanced BC, but OS benefit has not been shown yet in postmenopausal pts. There remains a clinical need for more effective treatments in this setting. Methods: AMEERA-5 (NCT04478266) is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, double-blind phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant + palbo with that of letrozole + palbo in pts with advanced, locoregional recurrent or metastatic ER+/HER2- BC who have not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. The study includes men, pre/peri-menopausal (with goserelin) and post-menopausal women. Pts with progression during or within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy using any of the following agents are excluded: AI, selective estrogen receptor modulators, CDK4/6i. Pts are randomized 1:1 to either continuous amcenestrant 200 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg QD orally with matching placebos; both combined with palbo 125 mg QD orally (d1–21 every 28-d cycle). Randomization is stratified according to disease type (de novo metastatic vs recurrent disease), the presence of visceral metastasis, and menopausal status. The primary endpoint is investigator assessed progression free survival (PFS) (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, PFS2, objective response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics of amcenestrant and palbo, health-related quality of life, time to chemotherapy, and safety. Biomarkers will be measured in paired tumor biopsies and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) over time. Target enrolment = 1066 pts; enrolment as of 1/2021 = 33 pts. Bardia A, et al., J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (15 suppl):1054 Clinical trial information: NCT04478266 .

Megestrol acetate and aminoglutethimide/hydrocortisone in sequence or in combination as second-line endocrine therapy of estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group phase III trial.

1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 2494-2501 ◽  
Author(s):  
C A Russell ◽  
S J Green ◽  
J O'Sullivan ◽  
H E Hynes ◽  
G T Budd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time To Treatment Failure ◽  
Estrogen Receptor Positive

PURPOSE A phase III randomized trial was performed to determine whether combination hormonal therapy with aminoglutethimide (AG) and hydrocortisone (HC) plus megestrol acetate (MA) improved response rates, response duration, or increased survival over the sequential use of each hormone in women with estrogen receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had maintained stable disease for at least 6 months or responded to tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred eighty-eight postmenopausal women with progressive estrogen receptor-positive MBC were randomly selected to receive MA 40 mg four times daily (arm I), AG 250 mg four times daily with HC 40 mg daily in divided doses (arm II), versus the combination of MA plus AG given at the same dosages (arm III). Patients on arms I and II who progressed after an adequate trial were crossed over to the other treatment arm. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-five eligible patients were evaluated for response, time to treatment failure, and survival. Response was only reported for patients with measurable disease and was not statistically different among the three arms. There were two partial responses (PRs) on MA (6%), four complete responses (CRs) and six PRs on AG (24%), and eight PRs and three CRs on MA plus AG (23%) in 32, 42, and 48 measurable patients, respectively. Median times to treatment failure were also similar at 5, 4, and 7 months. Survival was also not statistically different among the three arms at 26, 27, and 26 months for arms I, II, and III, respectively. Toxicity was greater in the two AG arms with respect to fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and rash. CONCLUSION With the exception of toxicity, there is no response, time to treatment failure, or survival benefit for any one group when comparing MA, AG, or the combination at their stated doses in women with estrogen receptor-positive MBC who had previously responded to or stabilized with tamoxifen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document