Phase I trial to evaluate the addition of alisertib to fulvestrant in women with endocrine-resistant, ER+ metastatic breast cancer

Mitotic kinases are emerging therapeutic targets against metastatic breast cancer

This review aims to outline mitotic kinase inhibitors' roles as potential therapeutic targets and assess their suitability as a stand-alone clinical therapy or in combination with standard treatments for advanced-stage solid tumors, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Breast cancer poses a significant global health risk, with TNBC standing out as the most aggressive subtype. Comprehending the role of mitosis is crucial for understanding how TNBC advances from a solid tumor to metastasis. Chemotherapy is the primary treatment used to treat TNBC. Some types of chemotherapeutic agents target cells in mitosis, thus highlighting the need to comprehend the molecular mechanisms governing mitosis in cancer. This understanding is essential for devising targeted therapies to disrupt these mitotic processes, prevent or treat metastasis, and improve patient outcomes. Mitotic kinases like Aurora kinase A, Aurora Kinase B, never in mitosis gene A-related kinase 2, Threonine-Tyrosine kinase, and Polo-kinase 1 significantly impact cell cycle progression by contributing to chromosome separation and centrosome homeostasis. When these kinases go awry, they can trigger chromosome instability, increase cell proliferation, and activate different molecular pathways that culminate in a transition from epithelial to mesenchymal cells. Ongoing clinical trials investigate various mitotic kinase inhibitors as potential biological treatments against advanced solid tumors. While clinical trials against mitotic kinases have shown some promise in the clinic, more investigation is necessary, since they induce severe adverse effects, particularly affecting the hematopoietic system.

Blockade of tumor cell-intrinsic PD-L1 signaling enhances AURKA-targeted therapy in triple negative breast cancer

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15-20% of all breast cancers and mainly affects pre-menopausal and minority women. Because of the lack of ER, PR or HER2 expression in TNBC, there are limited options for tailored therapies. While TNBCs respond initially to standard of care chemotherapy, tumor recurrence commonly occurs within 1 to 3 years post-chemotherapy and is associated with early organ metastasis and a high incidence of mortality. One of the major mechanisms responsible for drug resistance and emergence of organ metastasis is activation of epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) reprogramming. EMT-mediated cancer cell plasticity also promotes the enrichment of cancer cells with a CD44high/CD24low and/or ALDHhigh cancer stem-like phenotype [cancer stem cells (CSCs)], characterized by an increased capacity for tumor self-renewal, intrinsic drug resistance, immune evasion and metastasis. In this study we demonstrate for the first time a positive feedback loop between AURKA and intra-tumoral PD-L1 oncogenic pathways in TNBC. Genetic targeting of intra-tumoral PD-L1 expression impairs the enrichment of ALDHhigh CSCs and enhances the therapeutic efficacy of AURKA-targeted therapy. Moreover, dual AURKA and PD-L1 pharmacological blockade resulted in the strongest inhibition of tumor growth and organ metastatic burden. Taken together, our findings provide a compelling preclinical rationale for the development of novel combinatorial therapeutic strategies aimed to inhibit cancer cell plasticity, immune evasion capacity and organ metastasis in patients with advanced TNBC.

The two sides of chromosomal instability: drivers and brakes in cancer

Chromosomal instability (CIN) is a hallmark of cancer and is associated with tumor cell malignancy. CIN triggers a chain reaction in cells leading to chromosomal abnormalities, including deviations from the normal chromosome number or structural changes in chromosomes. CIN arises from errors in DNA replication and chromosome segregation during cell division, leading to the formation of cells with abnormal number and/or structure of chromosomes. Errors in DNA replication result from abnormal replication licensing as well as replication stress, such as double-strand breaks and stalled replication forks; meanwhile, errors in chromosome segregation stem from defects in chromosome segregation machinery, including centrosome amplification, erroneous microtubule-kinetochore attachments, spindle assembly checkpoint, or defective sister chromatids cohesion. In normal cells, CIN is deleterious and is associated with DNA damage, proteotoxic stress, metabolic alteration, cell cycle arrest, and senescence. Paradoxically, despite these negative consequences, CIN is one of the hallmarks of cancer found in over 90% of solid tumors and in blood cancers. Furthermore, CIN could endow tumors with enhanced adaptation capabilities due to increased intratumor heterogeneity, thereby facilitating adaptive resistance to therapies; however, excessive CIN could induce tumor cells death, leading to the "just-right" model for CIN in tumors. Elucidating the complex nature of CIN is crucial for understanding the dynamics of tumorigenesis and for developing effective anti-tumor treatments. This review provides an overview of causes and consequences of CIN, as well as the paradox of CIN, a phenomenon that continues to perplex researchers. Finally, this review explores the potential of CIN-based anti-tumor therapy.

Evaluation of Alisertib Alone or Combined With Fulvestrant in Patients With Endocrine-Resistant Advanced Breast Cancer: The Phase 2 TBCRC041 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC is unknown.

Objective

To assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (<10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.

Interventions

Alisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Improvement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.

Results

All 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000.

Emerging roles of Aurora-A kinase in cancer therapy resistance

Aurora kinase A (Aurora-A), a serine/threonine kinase, plays a pivotal role in various cellular processes, including mitotic entry, centrosome maturation and spindle formation. Overexpression or gene-amplification/mutation of Aurora-A kinase occurs in different types of cancer, including lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer. Alteration of Aurora-A impacts multiple cancer hallmarks, especially, immortalization, energy metabolism, immune escape and cell death resistance which are involved in cancer progression and resistance. This review highlights the most recent advances in the oncogenic roles and related multiple cancer hallmarks of Aurora-A kinase-driving cancer therapy resistance, including chemoresistance (taxanes, cisplatin, cyclophosphamide), targeted therapy resistance (osimertinib, imatinib, sorafenib, etc.), endocrine therapy resistance (tamoxifen, fulvestrant) and radioresistance. Specifically, the mechanisms of Aurora-A kinase promote acquired resistance through modulating DNA damage repair, feedback activation bypass pathways, resistance to apoptosis, necroptosis and autophagy, metastasis, and stemness. Noticeably, our review also summarizes the promising synthetic lethality strategy for Aurora-A inhibitors in RB1, ARID1A and MYC gene mutation tumors, and potential synergistic strategy for mTOR, PAK1, MDM2, MEK inhibitors or PD-L1 antibodies combined with targeting Aurora-A kinase. In addition, we discuss the design and development of the novel class of Aurora-A inhibitors in precision medicine for cancer treatment.

Comparison of the genomic alterations present in tumor samples from patients with metastatic inflammatory versus non-inflammatory breast cancer reveals AURKA as a potential treatment target

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare but aggressive subtype of breast cancer, mainly characterized using primary tumor samples. Here, using public datasets, we compared the genomic alterations in primary and metastatic samples from patients with metastatic IBC versus patients with metastatic non-IBC. We observed a higher frequency of AURKA amplification in IBC. We further showed that AURKA amplification was associated with increased AURKA mRNA expression, which we demonstrated was higher in IBC. Finally, higher protein expression of AURKA was associated with worse prognosis in patients with IBC. These findings deserve further investigation given the existence of AURKA-inhibitors.

BCL-xL inhibition potentiates cancer therapies by redirecting the outcome of p53 activation from senescence to apoptosis

Cancer therapies trigger diverse cellular responses, ranging from apoptotic death to acquisition of persistent therapy-refractory states such as senescence. Tipping the balance toward apoptosis could improve treatment outcomes regardless of therapeutic agent or malignancy. We find that inhibition of the mitochondrial protein BCL-xL increases the propensity of cancer cells to die after treatment with a broad array of oncology drugs, including mitotic inhibitors and chemotherapy. Functional precision oncology and omics analyses suggest that BCL-xL inhibition redirects the outcome of p53 transcriptional response from senescence to apoptosis, which likely occurs via caspase-dependent down-modulation of p21 and downstream cytostatic proteins. Consequently, addition of a BCL-2/xL inhibitor strongly improves melanoma response to the senescence-inducing drug targeting mitotic kinase Aurora kinase A (AURKA) in mice and patient-derived organoids. This study shows a crosstalk between the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway and cell cycle regulation that can be targeted to augment therapeutic efficacy in cancers with wild-type p53.

Estrogen Receptor Bio-Activities Determine Clinical Endocrine Treatment Options in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

In estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer therapy, estrogen receptors (ERs) are the major targeting molecules. ER-targeted therapy has provided clinical benefits for approximately 70% of all breast cancer patients through targeting the ERα subtype. In recent years, mechanisms underlying breast cancer occurrence and progression have been extensively studied and largely clarified. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, microRNA regulation, and other ER downstream signaling pathways are found to be the effective therapeutic targets in ER+ BC therapy. A number of the ER+ (ER+) breast cancer biomarkers have been established for diagnosis and prognosis. The ESR1 gene mutations that lead to endocrine therapy resistance in ER+ breast cancer had been identified. Mutations in the ligand-binding domain of ERα which encoded by ESR1 gene occur in most cases. The targeted drugs combined with endocrine therapy have been developed to improve the therapeutic efficacy of ER+ breast cancer, particularly the endocrine therapy resistance ER+ breast cancer. The combination therapy has been demonstrated to be superior to monotherapy in overall clinical evaluation. In this review, we focus on recent progress in studies on ERs and related clinical applications for targeted therapy and provide a perspective view for therapy of ER+ breast cancer.

Second-Generation Antimitotics in Cancer Clinical Trials

Mitosis represents a promising target to block cancer cell proliferation. Classical antimitotics, mainly microtubule-targeting agents (MTAs), such as taxanes and vinca alkaloids, are amongst the most successful anticancer drugs. By disrupting microtubules, they activate the spindle assembly checkpoint (SAC), which induces a prolonged delay in mitosis, expected to induce cell death. However, resistance, toxicity, and slippage limit the MTA's effectiveness. With the desire to overcome some of the MTA's limitations, mitotic and SAC components have attracted great interest as promising microtubule-independent targets, leading to the so-called second-generation antimitotics (SGAs). The identification of inhibitors against most of these targets, and the promising outcomes achieved in preclinical assays, has sparked the interest of academia and industry. Many of these inhibitors have entered clinical trials; however, they exhibited limited efficacy as monotherapy, and failed to go beyond phase II trials. Combination therapies are emerging as promising strategies to give a second chance to these SGAs. Here, an updated view of the SGAs that reached clinical trials is here provided, together with future research directions, focusing on inhibitors that target the SAC components.

Mini review: The FDA-approved prescription drugs that target the MAPK signaling pathway in women with breast cancer

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer and the prevalent type of malignancy among women. Multiple risk factors, including genetic changes, biological age, dense breast tissue, and obesity are associated with BC. The mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) signaling pathway has a pivotal role in regulating biological functions such as cell proliferation, differentiation, apoptosis, and survival. It has become evident that the MAPK pathway is associated with tumorigenesis and may promote breast cancer development. The MAPK/RAS/RAF cascade is closely associated with breast cancer. RAS signaling can enhance BC cell growth and progression. B-Raf is an important kinase and a potent RAF isoform involved in breast tumor initiation and differentiation. Depending on the reasons for cancer, there are different strategies for treatment of women with BC. Till now, several FDA-approved treatments have been investigated that inhibit the MAPK pathway and reduce metastatic progression in breast cancer. The most common breast cancer drugs that regulate or inhibit the MAPK pathway may include Farnesyltransferase inhibitors (FTIs), Sorafenib, Vemurafenib, PLX8394, Dabrafenib, Ulixertinib, Simvastatin, Alisertib, and Teriflunomide. In this review, we will discuss the roles of the MAPK/RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway in BC and summarize the FDA-approved prescription drugs that target the MAPK signaling pathway in women with BC.

Aurora kinase inhibitors: a patent review (2014-2020)

Introduction: Aurora kinases are a family of serine/threonine kinases, and promote mitotic spindle assembly by regulating centrosome duplication and separation. Aurora kinases are overexpressed in a variety of tumor cell lines, thus, the use of Aurora kinase small-molecule inhibitors has become a potential treatment option for cancer.Areas covered: As a continuing review of Aurora kinase inhibitors and their patents published in 2009, 2011 and 2014. Herein, we updated the information for Aurora kinase inhibitors in clinical trials and the patents filed from 2014 to 2020. PubMed, Scopus, SciFinder, and www.clinicaltrials.gov databases were used for searching the clinical information and patents of Aurora kinase inhibitors.Expert opinion: Even though Aurora A or B selective as well as pan inhibitors show preclinical and clinical efficacy, so far, no Aurora kinase inhibitor has been approved for clinical use. Preliminary evidence suggested that highly selective Aurora kinase or multi-target inhibitors as a single agent as well as in combination therapy are still the current main development trend of Aurora kinase inhibitors.

Efficacy and Safety of Weekly Paclitaxel With or Without Oral Alisertib in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Elevated expression of AURKA adversely affects prognosis in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative and triple-negative breast cancer and is associated with resistance to taxanes.

OBJECTIVE

To compare paclitaxel alone vs paclitaxel plus alisertib in patients with ER-positive and ERBB2-negative or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this randomized clinical trial conducted with the US Oncology Network, participants were randomized to intravenous (IV) paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day cycle or IV paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 plus oral alisertib 40 mg twice daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 on a 28-day cycle. Stratification was by prior neo or adjuvant taxane and by line of metastatic therapy. Eligible patients were those who had undergone endocrine therapy, 0 or 1 prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC, more than 12 months treatment-free interval from neo or adjuvant taxane therapy, and with measurable or evaluable lytic bone-disease. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through May 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary end points of overall survival (OS), overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, safety, and analysis of archival breast cancer tissues for molecular markers associated with benefit from alisertib.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients were randomized, including with 86 randomized to paclitaxel and 88 patients randomized to paclitaxel plus alisertib, and 169 patients received study treatment. The final cohort included 139 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 62 (27-84) years with ER-positive and ERBB2-negative MBC, with 70 randomized to paclitaxel and 69 randomized to paclitaxel plus alisertib. The TNBC cohort closed with only 35 patients enrolled due to slow accrual and were not included in efficacy analyses. The median (IQR) follow-up was 22 (10.6-25.1) months, and median (IQR) PFS was 10.2 (3.8-15.7) months with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs 7.1 (3.8-10.6) months with paclitaxel alone (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.84; P = .005). Median (IQR) OS was 26.3 (12.4-37.2) months for patients who received paclitaxel plus alisertib vs 25.1 (11.0-31.4) months for paclitaxel alone (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.58-1.38; P = .61). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56 patients (84.8%) receiving paclitaxel plus alisertib vs 34 patients (48.6%) receiving paclitaxel alone. The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events with paclitaxel plus alisertib vs paclitaxel alone were neutropenia (50 patients [59.5%] vs 14 patients [16.4%]), anemia (8 patients [9.5%] vs 1 patient [1.2%]), diarrhea (9 patients [10.7%] vs 0 patients), and stomatitis or oral mucositis (13 patients [15.5%] vs 0 patients). One patient receiving paclitaxel plus alisertib died of sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found that the addition of oral alisertib to a reduced dose of weekly paclitaxel significantly improved PFS compared with paclitaxel alone, and toxic effects with paclitaxel plus alisertib were manageable with alisertib dose reduction. These data support further evaluation of alisertib in patients with ER-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02187991.

High KDM1A Expression Associated with Decreased CD8+T Cells Reduces the Breast Cancer Survival Rate in Patients with Breast Cancer

Background: Lysine-specific demethylase 1A (KDM1A) plays an important role in epigenetic regulation in malignant tumors and promotes cancer invasion and metastasis by blocking the immune response and suppressing cancer surveillance activities. The aim of this study was to analyze survival, genetic interaction networks and anticancer immune responses in breast cancer patients with high KDM1A expression and to explore candidate target drugs. Methods: We investigated clinicopathologic parameters, specific gene sets, immunologic relevance, pathway-based networks and in vitro drug response according to KDM1A expression in 456 and 789 breast cancer patients from the Hanyang university Guri Hospital (HYGH) and The Cancer Genome Atlas, respectively. Results: High KDM1A expression was associated with a low survival rate in patients with breast cancer. In analyses of immunologic gene sets, high KDM1A expression correlated with low immune responses. In silico flow cytometry results revealed low abundances of CD8+T cells and high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in those with high KDM1A expression. High KDM1A expression was associated with a decrease in the anticancer immune response in breast cancer. In pathway-based networks, KDM1A was linked directly to pathways related to the androgen receptor signaling pathway and indirectly to the immune pathway and cell cycle. We found that alisertib effectively inhibited breast cancer cell lines with high KDM1A expression. Conclusions: Strategies utilizing KDM1A may contribute to better clinical management/research for patients with breast cancer.

Aurora-A kinase oncogenic signaling mediates TGF-β-induced triple-negative breast cancer plasticity and chemoresistance

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBCs) account for 15–20% of all breast cancers and represent the most aggressive subtype of this malignancy. Early tumor relapse and progression are linked to the enrichment of a sub-fraction of cancer cells, termed breast tumor-initiating cells (BTICs), that undergo epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and typically exhibit a basal-like CD44^high/CD24^low and/or ALDH1^high phenotype with critical cancer stem-like features such as high self-renewal capacity and intrinsic (de novo) resistance to standard of care chemotherapy. One of the major mechanisms responsible for the intrinsic drug resistance of BTICs is their high ALDH1 activity leading to inhibition of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. In this study, we demonstrated that aurora-A kinase (AURKA) is required to mediate TGF-β-induced expression of the SNAI1 gene, enrichment of ALDH1^high BTICs, self-renewal capacity, and chemoresistance in TNBC experimental models. Significantly, the combination of docetaxel (DTX) with dual TGF-β and AURKA pharmacologic targeting impaired tumor relapse and the emergence of distant metastasis. We also showed in unique chemoresistant TNBC cells isolated from patient-derived TNBC brain metastasis that dual TGF-β and AURKA pharmacologic targeting reversed cancer plasticity and enhanced the sensitivity of TNBC cells to DTX-based-chemotherapy. Taken together, these findings reveal for the first time the critical role of AURKA oncogenic signaling in mediating TGF-β-induced TNBC plasticity, chemoresistance, and tumor progression.

Influence of gene expression on survival of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Approximately 10%‐20% of patients with clinically localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) at time of surgery will subsequently experience metastatic progression. Although considerable progression was seen in the systemic treatment of metastatic ccRCC in last 20 years, once ccRCC spreads beyond the confines of the kidney, 5‐year survival is less than 10%. Therefore, significant clinical advances are urgently needed to improve overall survival and patient care to manage the growing number of patients with localized ccRCC. We comprehensively evaluated expression of 388 candidate genes related with survival of ccRCC by using TCGA RNAseq (n = 515), Total Cancer Care (TCC) expression array data (n = 298), and a well characterized Moffitt RCC cohort (n = 248). We initially evaluated all 388 genes for association with overall survival using TCGA and TCC data. Eighty‐one genes were selected for further analysis and tested on Moffitt RCC cohort using NanoString expression analysis. Expression of nine genes (AURKA, AURKB, BIRC5, CCNE1, MK167, MMP9, PLOD2, SAA1, and TOP2A) was validated as being associated with poor survival. Survival prognostic models showed that expression of the nine genes and clinical factors predicted the survival in ccRCC patients with AUC value: 0.776, 0.821 and 0.873 for TCGA, TCC and Moffitt data set, respectively. Some of these genes have not been previously implicated in ccRCC survival and thus potentially offer insight into novel therapeutic targets. Future studies are warranted to validate these identified genes, determine their biological mechanisms and evaluate their therapeutic potential in preclinical studies.

How Different Are the Molecular Mechanisms of Nodal and Distant Metastasis in Luminal A Breast Cancer?

Lymph node status is one of the best prognostic factors in breast cancer, however, its association with distant metastasis is not straightforward. Here we compare molecular mechanisms of nodal and distant metastasis in molecular subtypes of breast cancer, with major focus on luminal A patients. We analyze a new cohort of 706 patients (MMCI_706) as well as an independent cohort of 836 primary tumors with full gene expression information (SUPERTAM_HGU133A). We evaluate the risk of distant metastasis, analyze targetable molecular mechanisms in Gene Set Enrichment Analysis and identify relevant inhibitors. Lymph node positivity is generally associated with NF-κB and Src pathways and is related to high risk (OR: 5.062 and 2.401 in MMCI_706 and SUPERTAM_HGU133A, respectively, p < 0.05) of distant metastasis in luminal A patients. However, a part (≤15%) of lymph node negative tumors at the diagnosis develop the distant metastasis which is related to cell proliferation control and thrombolysis. Distant metastasis of lymph node positive patients is mostly associated with immune response. These pro-metastatic mechanisms further vary in other molecular subtypes. Our data indicate that the management of breast cancer and prevention of distant metastasis requires stratified approach based on targeted strategies.

Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer: The Role of Estrogen Receptor Stability

Therapy of hormone receptor positive breast cancer (BCa) generally targets estrogen receptor (ER) function and signaling by reducing estrogen production or by blocking its interaction with the ER. Despite good long-term responses, resistance to treatment remains a significant issue, with approximately 40% of BCa patients developing resistance to ET. Mutations in the gene encoding ERα, ESR1, have been identified in BCa patients and are implicated as drivers of resistance and disease recurrence. Understanding the molecular consequences of these mutations on ER protein levels and its activity, which is tightly regulated, is vital. ER activity is in part controlled via its short protein half-life and therefore changes to its stability, either through mutations or alterations in pathways involved in protein stability, may play a role in therapy resistance. Understanding these connections and how ESR1 alterations could affect protein stability may identify novel biomarkers of resistance. This review explores the current reported data regarding posttranslational modifications (PTMs) of the ER and the potential impact of known resistance associated ESR1 mutations on ER regulation by affecting these PTMs in the context of ET resistance.

Preclinical and Dose-Finding Phase I Trial Results of Combined Treatment with a TORC1/2 Inhibitor (TAK-228) and Aurora A Kinase Inhibitor (Alisertib) in Solid Tumors

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rational combination of TORC1/2 inhibitor TAK-228 and Aurora A kinase inhibitor alisertib in preclinical models of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and to conduct a phase I dose escalation trial in patients with advanced solid tumors.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

TNBC cell lines and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models were treated with alisertib, TAK-228, or the combination and evaluated for changes in proliferation, cell cycle, mTOR pathway modulation, and terminal cellular fate, including apoptosis and senescence. A phase I clinical trial was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors treated with escalating doses of alisertib and TAK-228 using a 3+3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD).

RESULTS

The combination of TAK-228 and alisertib resulted in decreased proliferation and cell-cycle arrest in TNBC cell lines. Treatment of TNBC PDX models resulted in significant tumor growth inhibition and increased apoptosis with the combination. In the phase I dose escalation study, 18 patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled. The MTD was alisertib 30 mg b.i.d. days 1 to 7 of a 21-day cycle and TAK-228 2 mg daily, continuous dosing. The most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, nausea, rash, mucositis, and alopecia.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of TAK-228 to alisertib potentiates the antitumor activity of alisertib in vivo, resulting in increased cell death and apoptosis. The combination is tolerable in patients with advanced solid tumors and should be evaluated further in expansion cohorts with additional pharmacodynamic assessment.

The role of Aurora-A in human cancers and future therapeutics

Aurora-A is a mitotic serine/threonine-protein kinase and an oncogene. In normal cells, Aurora-A appears from G2 phase and localizes at the centrosome, where it participates in centrosome replication, isolation and maturation. Aurora-A also maintains Golgi apparatus structure and spindle assembly. Aurora-A undergoes ubiquitination-mediated degradation after the cell division phase. Aurora-A is abnormally expressed in tumor cells and promotes cell proliferation by regulating mitotic substrates, such as PP1, PLK1, TPX2, and LAST2, and affects other molecules through a non-mitotic pathway to promote cell invasion and metastasis. Some molecules in tumor cells also indirectly act on Aurora-A to regulate tumor cells. Aurora-A also mediates resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and is involved in tumor immunotherapy. Clinical trials of Aurora-A molecular inhibitors are currently underway, and clinical transformation is just around the corner.

The Genomic Landscape of Intrinsic and Acquired Resistance to Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6 Inhibitors in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Mechanisms driving resistance to cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in hormone receptor-positive (HR⁺) breast cancer have not been clearly defined. Whole-exome sequencing of 59 tumors with CDK4/6i exposure revealed multiple candidate resistance mechanisms including RB1 loss, activating alterations in AKT1, RAS, AURKA, CCNE2, ERBB2, and FGFR2, and loss of estrogen receptor expression. In vitro experiments confirmed that these alterations conferred CDK4/6i resistance. Cancer cells cultured to resistance with CDK4/6i also acquired RB1, KRAS, AURKA, or CCNE2 alterations, which conferred sensitivity to AURKA, ERK, or CHEK1 inhibition. Three of these activating alterations-in AKT1, RAS, and AURKA-have not, to our knowledge, been previously demonstrated as mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6i in breast cancer preclinically or in patient samples. Together, these eight mechanisms were present in 66% of resistant tumors profiled and may define therapeutic opportunities in patients. SIGNIFICANCE: We identified eight distinct mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6i present in 66% of resistant tumors profiled. Most of these have a therapeutic strategy to overcome or prevent resistance in these tumors. Taken together, these findings have critical implications related to the potential utility of precision-based approaches to overcome resistance in many patients with HR⁺ metastatic breast cancer.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1079.

Combined inhibition of Aurora A and p21-activated kinase 1 as a new treatment strategy in breast cancer

Purpose

The serine-threonine kinases Aurora A (AURKA) and p21-activated kinase 1 (PAK1) are frequently overexpressed in breast tumors, with overexpression promoting aggressive breast cancer phenotypes and poor clinical outcomes. Besides the well-defined roles of these proteins in control of cell division, proliferation, and invasion, both kinases support MAPK kinase pathway activation and can contribute to endocrine resistance by phosphorylating estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). PAK1 directly phosphorylates AURKA and its functional partners, suggesting potential value of inhibiting both kinases activity in tumors overexpressing PAK1 and/or AURKA. Here, for the first time, we evaluated the effect of combining the AURKA inhibitor alisertib and the PAK inhibitor FRAX1036 in preclinical models of breast cancer.

Methods

Combination of alisertib and FRAX1036 was evaluated in a panel of 13 human breast tumor cell lines and BT474 xenograft model, with assessment of the cell cycle by FACS, and signaling changes by immunohistochemistry and Western blot. Additionally, we performed in silico analysis to identify markers of response to alisertib and FRAX1036.

Results

Pharmacological inhibition of AURKA and PAK1 synergistically decreased survival of multiple tumor cell lines, showing particular effectiveness in luminal and HER2-enriched models, and inhibited growth and ERα-driven signaling in a BT474 xenograft model. In silico analysis suggested cell lines with dependence on AURKA are most likely to be sensitive to PAK1 inhibition.

Conclusion

Dual targeting of AURKA and PAK1 may be a promising therapeutic strategy for treatment of breast cancer, with a particular effectiveness in luminal and HER2-enriched tumor subtypes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05329-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Phase I trial of alisertib with concurrent fractionated stereotactic re-irradiation for recurrent high grade gliomas

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We conducted a phase I trial of alisertib, an oral aurora kinase inhibitor, with fractionated stereotactic re-irradiation therapy (FSRT) for patients with recurrent high grade glioma (HGG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with recurrent HGG were enrolled from Feb 2015 to Feb 2017. Patients were treated with concurrent FSRT and alisertib followed by maintenance alisertib. Concurrent alisertib dose was escalated from 20 mg to 50 mg twice daily (BID).

RESULTS

17 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 11 months. Median FSRT dose was 35 Gy. There were 6, 6, 3, and 2 patients enrolled in 20 mg, 30 mg, 40 mg, and 50 mg cohort, respectively. Only one DLT was observed. One patient in the 20 mg cohort had severe headache (Grade 3) resolved with steroids. There was no non-hematological grade 3 or higher toxicity. There were two Grade 4 late toxicities (one with grade 4 neutropenia and leukopenia, one with pulmonary embolism). One patient developed radiation necrosis (Grade 3). Sixteen patients finished concurrent treatment and received maintenance therapy (median cycles was 3, range 1-9). OS for all cohorts at 6 months was 88.2% with median survival time of 11.1 months. PFS at 6 months was 35.3% with median time to progression of 4.9 months. The trial stopped early due to closure of alisertib program with only 2 of 3 planned patients enrolled in the 50 mg cohort.

CONCLUSION

Re-irradiation with FSRT combined with alisertib is safe and well tolerated for HGG with doses up to 40 mg BID. Although no DLT observed in the 50 mg cohort, this cohort was not fully enrolled and MTD was not reached. Clinical outcomes appear comparable to historical results. (NCT02186509).