A randomized trial to assess the biological activity of short-term (pre-surgical) fulvestrant 500 mg plus anastrozole versus fulvestrant 500 mg alone or anastrozole alone on primary breast cancer

VERITAC-2: a Phase III study of vepdegestrant, a PROTAC ER degrader, versus fulvestrant in ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer

Vepdegestrant (ARV-471) is an oral PROTAC ER degrader that binds an E3 ubiquitin ligase and ER to directly trigger ubiquitination of ER and its subsequent proteasomal degradation. In a first-in-human Phase I/II study, vepdegestrant monotherapy was well tolerated with clinical activity in pretreated patients with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. The global, randomized Phase III VERITAC-2 study compares efficacy and safety of vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in adults with ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy. Progression-free survival by blinded independent central review (primary end point) will be assessed in the intention-to-treat population and ESR1 mutation-positive subpopulation. Secondary end points include overall survival, tumor response, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, and circulating tumor DNA biomarkers.Clinical trial registration: NCT05654623 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Neo-adjuvant therapies for ER positive/HER2 negative breast cancers: from chemotherapy to hormonal therapy, CDK inhibitors, and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy has been traditionally used as neo-adjuvant therapy in breast cancer for down-staging of locally advanced disease in all sub-types. In the adjuvant setting, genomic assays have shown that a significant proportion of ER positive/HER2 negative patients do not derive benefit from the addition of chemotherapy to adjuvant endocrine therapy. An interest in hormonal treatments as neo-adjuvant therapies in ER positive/HER2 negative cancers has been borne by their documented success in the adjuvant setting. Moreover, cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in ER positive/HER2 negative disease compared with other breast cancer subtypes in obtaining pathologic complete responses.

AREAS COVERED

Neo-adjuvant therapies for ER positive/HER2 negative breast cancers and associated biomarkers are reviewed, using a Medline survey. A focus of discussion is the prediction of patients that are unlikely to derive extra benefit from chemotherapy and have the highest probabilities of benefiting from hormonal and other targeted therapies.

EXPERT OPINION

Predictive biomarkers of response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal therapies are instrumental for selecting ER positive/HER2 negative breast cancer patients for each treatment. Chemotherapy remains the standard of care for many of those patients requiring neo-adjuvant treatment, but other neo-adjuvant therapies are increasingly used.

Targeting the Estrogen Receptor for the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Recent Advances and Challenges

Estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) is a well-established therapeutic target for the treatment of ER-positive (ER+) breast cancers. Despite the tremendous successes achieved with tamoxifen, a selective ER modulator, and aromatase inhibitors (AIs), resistance to these therapies is a major clinical problem. Therefore, induced protein degradation and covalent inhibition have been pursued as new therapeutic approaches to target ERα. This Perspective summarizes recent progress in the discovery and development of oral selective ER degraders (SERDs), complete estrogen receptor antagonists (CERANs), selective estrogen receptor covalent antagonists (SERCAs), and proteolysis targeting chimera (PROTAC) ER degraders. We focus on those compounds which have been advanced into clinical development.

Protein degraders enter the clinic - a new approach to cancer therapy

Heterobifunctional protein degraders, such as PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera (PROTAC) protein degraders, constitute a novel therapeutic modality that harnesses the cell's natural protein-degradation machinery - that is, the ubiquitin-proteasome system - to selectively target proteins involved in disease pathogenesis for elimination. Protein degraders have several potential advantages over small-molecule inhibitors that have traditionally been used for cancer treatment, including their event-driven (rather than occupancy-driven) pharmacology, which permits sub-stoichiometric drug concentrations for activity, their capacity to act iteratively and target multiple copies of a protein of interest, and their potential to target nonenzymatic proteins that were previously considered 'undruggable'. Following numerous innovations in protein degrader design and rigorous evaluation in preclinical models, protein degraders entered clinical testing in 2019. Currently, 18 protein degraders are in phase I or phase I/II clinical trials that involve patients with various tumour types, with a phase III trial of one initiated in 2022. The first safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetic data from these studies are now materializing and, although considerably more evidence is needed, protein degraders are showing promising activity as cancer therapies. Herein, we review advances in protein degrader development, the preclinical research that supported their entry into clinical studies, the available data for protein degraders in patients and future directions for this new class of drugs.

Integrating new oral selective oestrogen receptor degraders in the breast cancer treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Oral SERDs are under extensive development to overcome fulvestrant main limitations, including intramuscular-only formulation and poor performance in early-stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative breast cancer. This review summarizes the most relevant evidence published so far and envisions the potential integration of oral SERDs in the therapeutic algorithm of HR+/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Amcenestrant and giredestrant, two of the most promising oral SERDs, recently failed to show a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pivotal trials. Conversely, elacestrant demonstrated significant PFS superiority over standard-of-care endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant) in MBC. Additionally, it did not show unusual side effects observed with other oral SERDs, like bradycardia, hematotoxicity and vision impairment, and proved to be effective also in case of ESR1 -mutant endocrine-resistant breast cancer. Combination trials of oral SERDs with target agents, such as CDK4/6-inhibitors, are ongoing. Finally, some window-of-opportunity trials showed promising on-target activity in early-stage for this drug class.

SUMMARY

Promising results from early-phase trials are not translating into sufficient clinical benefit in pivotal trials of main oral SERDs in monotherapy, except for elacestrant. Whether oral SERDs might become the backbone for combination strategies in MBC or the preferred (neo)adjuvant endocrine agents is under evaluation.

Molecular Biomarker Expression in Window of Opportunity Studies for Oestrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Simple Summary

Window of opportunity (WoO) trials allow the opportunity to assess the use of drugs in breast cancer research before treatment has commenced. The aim of this review of the literature is to review WoO trials in patients with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer to help guide treatment. This will be useful for patients who receive drug treatment before surgery, or as an alternative to surgery in older, more frail adults.

Abstract

Window of opportunity (WoO) trials create the opportunity to demonstrate pharmacodynamic parameters of a drug in vivo and have increasing use in breast cancer research. Most breast cancer tumours are oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+), leading to the development of multiple treatment options tailored towards this particular tumour subtype. The aim of this literature review is to review WoO trials pertaining to the pharmacodynamic activity of drugs available for use in ER+ breast cancer in order to help guide treatment for patients receiving neoadjuvant and primary endocrine therapy. Five databases (EMBASE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies. Studies performed in treatment-naïve patients with histologically confirmed ER+ breast cancer were included if they acquired pre- and post-treatment biopsies, compared measurement of a proteomic biomarker between these two biopsies and delivered treatment for a maximum mean duration of 31 days. Fifteen studies were eligible for inclusion and covered six different drug classes: three endocrine therapies (ETs) including aromatase inhibitors (AIs), selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), selective oestrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) and three non-ETs including mTOR inhibitors, AKT inhibitors and synthetic oestrogens. Ki67 was the most frequently measured marker, appearing in all studies. Progesterone receptor (PR) and ER were the next most frequently measured markers, appearing five and four studies, respectively. All three of these markers were significantly downregulated in both AIs and SERDs; Ki67 alone was downregulated in SERMs. Less commonly assessed markers including pS6, pGSH3B, FSH and IGF1 were downregulated while CD34, pAKT and SHBG were significantly upregulated. There were no significant changes in the other biomarkers measured such as phosphate and tensin homolog (PTEN), Bax and Bcl-2.WoO studies have been widely utilised within the ER+ breast cancer subtype, demonstrating their worth in pharmacodynamic research. However, research remains focused upon routinely measured biomarkers such ER PR and Ki67, with an array of less common markers sporadically used.

Pharmacogenomics of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal breast cancer and additional mechanisms of anastrozole action

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) reduce breast cancer recurrence and prolong survival, but up to 30% of patients exhibit recurrence. Using a genome-wide association study of patients entered on MA.27, a phase III randomized trial of anastrozole versus exemestane, we identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in CUB And Sushi multiple domains 1 (CSMD1) associated with breast cancer–free interval, with the variant allele associated with fewer distant recurrences. Mechanistically, CSMD1 regulates CYP19 expression in an SNP- and drug-dependent fashion, and this regulation is different among 3 AIs: anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. Overexpression of CSMD1 sensitized AI-resistant cells to anastrozole but not to the other 2 AIs. The SNP in CSMD1 that was associated with increased CSMD1 and CYP19 expression levels increased anastrozole sensitivity, but not letrozole or exemestane sensitivity. Anastrozole degrades estrogen receptor α (ERα), especially in the presence of estradiol (E2). ER⁺ breast cancer organoids and AI- or fulvestrant-resistant breast cancer cells were more sensitive to anastrozole plus E2 than to AI alone. Our findings suggest that the CSMD1 SNP might help to predict AI response, and anastrozole plus E2 serves as a potential new therapeutic strategy for patients with AI- or fulvestrant-resistant breast cancers.

A germline variation within the CSMD1 gene predicts aromatase inhibitor response in breast cancer.

Proliferation and AKT Activity Biomarker Analyses after Capivasertib (AZD5363) Treatment of Patients with ER+ Invasive Breast Cancer (STAKT)

PURPOSE

The STAKT study examined short-term exposure (4.5 days) to the oral selective pan-AKT inhibitor capivasertib (AZD5363) to determine if this drug can reach its therapeutic target in sufficient concentration to significantly modulate key biomarkers of the AKT pathway and tumor proliferation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

STAKT was a two-stage, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, "window-of-opportunity" study in patients with newly diagnosed ER⁺ invasive breast cancer. Stage 1 assessed capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. (recommended monotherapy dose) and placebo, and stage 2 assessed capivasertib 360 and 240 mg b.i.d. Primary endpoints were changes from baseline in AKT pathway markers pPRAS40, pGSK3β, and proliferation protein Ki67. Pharmacologic and pharmacodynamic properties were analyzed from blood sampling, and tolerability by adverse-event monitoring.

RESULTS

After 4.5 days' exposure, capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. (n = 17) produced significant decreases from baseline versus placebo (n = 11) in pGSK3β (H-score absolute change: -55.3, P = 0.006) and pPRAS40 (-83.8, P < 0.0001), and a decrease in Ki67 (absolute change in percentage positive nuclei: -9.6%, P = 0.031). Significant changes also occurred in secondary signaling biomarker pS6 (-42.3, P = 0.004), while pAKT (and nuclear FOXO3a) also increased in accordance with capivasertib's mechanism (pAKT: 81.3, P = 0.005). At doses of 360 mg b.i.d. (n = 5) and 240 mg b.i.d. (n = 6), changes in primary and secondary biomarkers were also observed, albeit of smaller magnitude. Biomarker modulation was dose and concentration dependent, and no new safety signals were evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Capivasertib 480 mg b.i.d. rapidly modulates key biomarkers of the AKT pathway and decreases proliferation marker Ki67, suggesting future potential as an effective therapy in AKT-dependent breast cancers.

A Randomized, Open-label, Presurgical, Window-of-Opportunity Study Comparing the Pharmacodynamic Effects of the Novel Oral SERD AZD9496 with Fulvestrant in Patients with Newly Diagnosed ER+ HER2- Primary Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Fulvestrant, the first-in-class selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader (SERD), is clinically effective in patients with ER⁺ breast cancer, but it has administration and pharmacokinetic limitations. Pharmacodynamic data suggest complete ER degradation is not achieved at fulvestrant's clinically feasible dose. This presurgical study (NCT03236974) compared the pharmacodynamic effects of fulvestrant with AZD9496, a novel, orally bioavailable, nonsteroidal, potent SERD, in treatment-naïve patients with ER⁺ HER2^- primary breast cancer awaiting curative intent surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive AZD9496 250 mg twice daily from day 1 for 5-14 days, or fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1. On-treatment imaging-guided core tumor biopsies were taken between day 5 and 14 and compared with pretreatment diagnostic biopsies. The primary objective was to compare the effects of AZD9496 and fulvestrant on ER expression. Secondary objectives included changes in progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki-67 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships and safety.

RESULTS

Forty-six women received treatment (AZD9496 n = 22; fulvestrant n = 24); 35 paired biopsies were evaluable (AZD9496 n = 15; fulvestrant n = 20). The least square mean estimate for ER H-score reduction was 24% after AZD9496 versus 36% after fulvestrant treatment (P = 0.86). AZD9496 also reduced PR H-scores (-33.3%) and Ki-67 levels (-39.9%) from baseline, but was also not superior to fulvestrant (PR: -68.7%, P = 0.97; Ki-67: -75.4%, P = 0.98). No new safety findings were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first presurgical study to demonstrate that an oral SERD affects its key biological targets. However, AZD9496 was not superior to fulvestrant at the dose tested.

Anastrozole plus fulvestrant vs. anastrozole alone for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

For patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer, whether the combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant is more effective than anastrozole alone is controversial. Our meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the two therapies.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant studies in Embase, the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary outcomes were the disease control rate (DCR), the objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Five articles based on 4 randomized controlled trials containing 2146 patients were identified in our meta-analysis. The combination group had better efficacy in the endpoints of OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99, p = 0.03) and PFS (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.97, p = 0.02). Regarding the ORR, DCR, total AEs and grade 3-5 AEs, we found no difference between the two treatments. The combination group showed a clearly higher rate of treatment discontinuations (95% CI 1.05-3.60, p = 0.03) and AEs leading to death (95% CI 1.12-9.11, p = 0.03). The subgroup analysis of AEs showed an increased incidence of extremity or muscle pain, hematologic effects, gastrointestinal disorders, and hot flashes in the combination group.

CONCLUSIONS

For HR-positive advanced breast cancer patients, the combination of anastrozole and fulvestrant appears to be superior to anastrozole alone in extending PFS and OS, despite relatively serious AEs.

Combined Inhibition of STAT3 and DNA Repair in Palbociclib-Resistant ER-Positive Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors are currently used in combination with endocrine therapy to treat advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Although this treatment doubles time to progression compared with endocrine therapy alone, about 25%-35% of patients do not respond, and almost all patients eventually acquire resistance. Discerning the mechanisms of resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition is crucial in devising alternative treatment strategies.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Palbociclib-resistant cells (MCF-7 and T47D) were generated in a step-wise dose-escalading fashion. Whole-exome sequencing, genome-wide expression analysis, and proteomic analysis were performed in both resistant and parental (sensitive) cells. Pathway alteration was assessed mechanistically and pharmacologically. Biomarkers of altered pathways were examined in tumor samples from patients with palbociclib-treated breast cancer whose disease progressed while on treatment.

RESULTS

Palbociclib-resistant cells are cross-resistant to other CDK4/6 inhibitors and are also resistant to endocrine therapy (estrogen receptor downregulation). IL6/STAT3 pathway is induced, whereas DNA repair and estrogen receptor pathways are downregulated in the resistant cells. Combined inhibition of STAT3 and PARP significantly increased cell death in the resistant cells. Matched tumor samples from patients with breast cancer who progressed on palbociclib were examined for deregulation of estrogen receptor, DNA repair, and IL6/STAT3 signaling, and results revealed that these pathways are all altered as compared with the pretreatment tumor samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Palbociclib resistance induces endocrine resistance, estrogen receptor downregulation, and alteration of IL6/STAT3 and DNA damage response pathways in cell lines and patient samples. Targeting IL6/STAT3 activity and DNA repair deficiency using a specific STAT3 inhibitor combined with a PARP inhibitor could effectively treat acquired resistance to palbociclib.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer as a Model for Translational Research

Neoadjuvant therapy, where patients receive systemic therapy before surgical removal of the tumour, can downstage tumours allowing breast-conserving surgery, rather than mastectomy. In addition to its impact on surgery, the neoadjuvant setting offers a valuable opportunity to monitor individual tumour response. The effectiveness of standard and/or potential new therapies can be tested in the neoadjuvant pre-surgical setting. It can potentially help to identify markers differentiating patients that will potentially benefit from continuing with the same or a different adjuvant treatment enabling personalised treatment. Characterising the molecular response to treatment over time can more accurately identify the significant differences between baseline samples that would not be identified without post-treatment samples. In this review, we discuss the potential and challenges of using the neoadjuvant setting in translational breast cancer research, considering the implications for improving our understanding of response to treatment, predicting therapy benefit, modelling breast cancer dormancy, and the development of drug resistance.

Clinical utility of fulvestrant in the treatment of breast cancer: a report on the emerging clinical evidence

Fulvestrant is the first selective estrogen receptor (ER) downregulator available in clinical practice. It is a pure antiestrogen with no agonistic effects, leading to degradation of ER alpha, with activity in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer (BC) models. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies and several postmarketing clinical trials led to the definition of the optimal dose at 500 mg intramuscularly on days 1, 15, and 29 and then every 28 days. Targeting ER alpha, fulvestrant is a cornerstone of treatment in luminal BCs, whose growth is largely driven by the ER pathway. In endocrine therapy-naïve patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2− advanced BC (ABC), fulvestrant yielded significantly longer progression-free survival compared to anastrozole in the Phase III FALCON study. Due to its mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic properties, fulvestrant is an ideal backbone for combination therapies. Preclinical studies have shown synergism with drugs acting on signaling pathways involved in the development of endocrine resistance, among which the cyclin D/cyclin-dependent kinase 4-6/retinoblastoma pathway and the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, contributing to overcoming or delaying endocrine resistance. In the Phase III PALOMA-3 trial, a combination of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib with fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival over fulvestrant alone in women with hormone receptor positive, HER2− ABC progressing during prior endocrine therapy. This led to approval of the combination in this clinical setting. Similar results were obtained with abemaciclib and ribociclib. Combination with pan-PI3K inhibitors, though showing some efficacy, was hampered by the toxicity of these agents, and studies in combinations with more selective inhibitors of the α-catalytic subunit of PI3K are ongoing. Fulvestrant has shown partial activity also in patients with tumors harboring mutations of the ESR1 gene. It is thus a key drug in the treatment of ABC, whose role in combination with new targeted agents is still evolving.

IPET study: an FLT-PET window study to assess the activity of the steroid sulfatase inhibitor irosustat in early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Steroid sulfatase (STS) is involved in oestrogen biosynthesis and irosustat is a first generation, irreversible steroid sulfatase inhibitor. A pre-surgical window-of-opportunity study with irosustat was undertaken in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer to assess the effect of irosustat on tumour cell proliferation as measured by 3'-deoxy-3'-[18F] fluorothymidine uptake measured by PET scanning (FLT-PET) and Ki67.

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with untreated ER+ early breast cancer were recruited, and imaged with FLT-PET at baseline and after at least 2 weeks treatment with irosustat, 40 mg once daily orally. The primary endpoint was changed in FLT uptake; secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability of irosustat, changes in tumoral Ki67 and steroidogenic enzymes expression and circulating steroid hormone levels.

RESULTS

Thirteen women were recruited, and ten started irosustat for 2 weeks, followed by repeat FLT-PET scans in eight. Defining response as decreases of ≥20% in standardized uptake value (SUV) or ≥30% in Ki, 1 (12.5% (95% CI 2-47%, p = 0.001)) and 3 (43% (95% CI 16-75%, p = <0.001) patients, respectively, responded. 6 out of 7 patients had a Ki67 reduction (range = -19.3 to 76.4%), and median percentage difference in Ki67 was 52.3% (p = 0.028). In one patient with a low baseline STS expression, a 19.7% increase in Ki67 was recorded. STS decreases were seen in tumours with high basal STS expression, significant decreases were also noted in aromatase, and 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 and 2. Irosustat was generally well tolerated with all adverse event CTCAE Grade ≤2.

CONCLUSIONS

Irosustat resulted in a significant reduction in FLT uptake and Ki67, and is well tolerated. These data are the first demonstrating clinical activity of irosustat in early breast cancer. Baseline expression of STS may be a biomarker of sensitivity to irosustat.

Development of a Ki-67-based clinical trial assay for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy response monitoring in breast cancer

PURPOSE

The recent publication of the ACOSOG Z1031 trial results demonstrated that Ki-67 proliferation marker-based neoadjuvant endocrine therapy response monitoring could be used for tailoring the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in ER+HER2-negative breast cancer patients. In this paper, we describe the development of the Ki-67 clinical trial assay used for this study.

METHODS

Ki-67 assay assessment focused on reproducing a 2.7% Ki-67 cut-point (CP) required for calculating the Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index and a 10% CP for poor endocrine therapy response identification within the first month of neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. Image analysis was assessed to increase the efficiency of the scoring process. Clinical outcome concordance for two independent Ki-67 scores was the primary performance metric.

RESULTS

Discordant scores led to a triage approach where cases with complex histological features that software algorithms could not resolve were flagged for visual point counting (17%). The final Ki-67 scoring approach was run on T1/2 N0 cases from the P024 and POL trials (N = 58). The percent positive agreement for the 2.7% CP was 87.5% (95% CI 61.7-98.5%); percent negative agreement 88.9% (95% CI: 65.3-98.6%). Minor discordance did not affect the ability to predict similar relapse-free outcomes (Log-Rank P = 0.044 and P = 0.055). The data for the 10% early triage CP in the POL trial were similar (N = 66), the percentage positive agreement was 100%, and percent negative agreement 93.55% (95% CI: 78.58-99.21%). The independent survival predictions were concordant (Log-rank P = 0.0001 and P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed an efficient and reproducible Ki-67 scoring system that was approved by the Clinical Trials Evaluation Program for NCI-supported neoadjuvant endocrine therapy trials. Using the methodology described here, investigators are able to identify a subgroup of patients with ER+HER2-negative breast cancer that can be safely managed without the need of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Fulvestrant plus targeted agents versus fulvestrant alone for treatment of hormone-receptor positive advanced breast cancer progressed on previous endocrine therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To compare the addition of targeted agents to fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in hormone-receptor positive advanced breast cancer progressed on previous endocrine therapy; a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials was performed. The PubMed, Embase databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant publications reporting randomized controlled trials between January 2000 and June 2016. Progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and toxicity were assessed. Eight trials with a total of 2,470 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with fulvestrant alone, combination therapy improved PFS (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.72-0.87; P = 0.00), increased ORR (RR = 1.70; 95% CI 1.30-2.21; P = 0.00), and showed a trend of increase in DCR (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 0.96-1.69, P = 0.09). In network analysis, only CD4/6 and PI3K/m-TOR inhibitors showed significant treatment effects with a P-score of 0.9999 and 0.7615, respectively. Patients treated with combination therapy developed more grade 3 or greater toxic effects (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.13-1.36; P = 0.00). Combining targeted agents with fulvestrant showed benefit but with increased toxicity in patients with advanced breast cancer compared with fulvestrant alone. Biomarkers for treatment optimization are lacking. The CD4/6 and PI3K/m-TOR pathways merit further investigation.

Randomized phase 2 neoadjuvant trial evaluating anastrozole and fulvestrant efficacy for postmenopausal, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer patients: Results of the UNICANCER CARMINA 02 French trial (UCBG 0609)

BACKGROUND

Treatment strategies for locally advanced breast cancer in elderly patients too frail to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the introduction of new classes of drugs in the early 2000s have led to the consideration of endocrine therapy as a neoadjuvant treatment for younger hormone receptor (HR)-positive, postmenopausal patients not eligible for primary breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, phase 2, randomized trial designed to evaluate as its primary objective the clinical response rate after up to 6 months of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) alone in HR-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative patients with 1 mg of anastrozole (arm A) or 500 mg of fulvestrant (arm B). Secondary objectives included the BCS rate, tumor response assessment (breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging), pathological response (Sataloff classification), safety profile, relapse-free survival (RFS), and predictive markers of responses and outcomes.

RESULTS

From October 2007 to April 2011, 116 women (mean age, 71.6 years) with operable infiltrating breast adenocarcinoma (T2-T4, N0-N3, M0) were randomized to receive anastrozole or fulvestrant. The clinical response rates at 6 months were 52.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%-64%) in arm A and 36.8% (95% CI, 25%-49%) in arm B. BCS was performed for 57.6% of arm A patients and 50% of arm B patients. The RFS rates at 3 years were 94.9% in arm A and 91.2% in arm B. The Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index status was significantly predictive of RFS. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Both drugs are effective and well tolerated as NET in postmenopausal women with HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. NET could be considered a treatment option in this subpopulation. Cancer 2016;122:3032-3040. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The ALTERNATE trial: assessing a biomarker driven strategy for the treatment of post-menopausal women with ER+/Her2- invasive breast cancer

The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group has designed a phase III neoadjuvant clinical trial (ALTERNATE trial) which randomizes women with cT2-4 N0-3 M0 ER+/Her2- invasive breast cancer to either anastrozole, fulvestrant or its combination to assess a biomarker-driven treatment strategy to identify women with a low risk of disease recurrence. This strategy incorporates the findings that: higher expression of the proliferation marker, Ki67, after 2 weeks of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), is associated with poor recurrence-free survival, and that patients with surgical findings of pT1/2, pN0 disease, Ki67 ≤2.7% and ER Allred score of 3-8 after neoadjuvant ET have extremely low recurrence rates. We present a description and rationale for the design of this trial.

Biological effects of fulvestrant on estrogen receptor positive human breast cancer: short, medium and long-term effects based on sequential biopsies

We report the first study of the biological effect of fulvestrant on ER positive clinical breast cancer using sequential biopsies through to progression. Thirty-two locally/systemically advanced breast cancers treated with first-line fulvestrant (250 mg/month) were biopsied at therapy initiation, 6 weeks, 6 months and progression and immunohistochemically-analyzed for Ki67, ER, EGFR and HER2 expression/signaling activity. This series showed good fulvestrant responses (duration of response [DoR] = 25.8 months; clinical benefit = 81%). Ki67 fell (p < 0.001) in 79% of tumours by 6 months and lower Ki67 at all preprogression time-points predicted for longer DoR. ER and PR significantly decreased in all tumours by 6 months (p < 0.001), with some declines in ER (serine 118) phosphorylation and Bcl-2 (p = 0.007). There were modest HER2 increases (p = 0.034, 29% tumours) and loss of any detectable EGFR phosphorylation (p = 0.024, 50% tumours) and MAP kinase (ERK1/2) phosphorylation (p = 0.019, 65% tumours) by 6 months. While ER remained low, there was some recovery of Ki67, Bcl-2 and (weakly) EGFR/MAPK activity in 45-67% patients at progression. Fulvestrant's anti-proliferative impact is related to DoR, but while commonly downregulating ER and indicators of its signaling and depleting EGFR/MAPK signaling in some patients, additional elements must determine response duration. Residual ER at fulvestrant relapse explains reported sensitivity to further endocrine therapies. Occasional modest treatment-induced HER2 and weakly detectable EGFR/HER2/MAPK signaling at relapse suggests targeting of such activity might have value alongside fulvestrant in some patients. However, unknown pathways must drive relapse in most. Ki67 has biomarker potential to predict fulvestrant outcome and as a quantitative measure of response.

Knockdown of the Inhibitor of Apoptosis BRUCE Sensitizes Resistant Breast Cancer Cells to Chemotherapeutic Agents

Background and objectives

Management of patients with breast cancer often fails because of inherent or acquired resistance to chemotherapy. BRUCE (BIR repeat containing ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme) is a member of the inhibitor of apoptosis protein (IAP) family. It has various cellular functions including suppression of apoptosis and promotion of cytokinesis. Furthermore, it pays a critical role in promotion of DNA damage repair and preservation of genome stability, a new function recently reported by our group. Although BRUCE is expressed in breast cancer cell lines, its expression in human primary breast tumors and its contribution to chemoresistance in breast cancers has not been explored. Chemotherapeutic drugs are used in the treatment of breast cancer patients. However, they are not effective to all patients and patients often develop resistance. Consequently we explored if BRUCE protein level, as judged by immunohistochemistry (IHC), is higher in primary breast tumors than normal breast tissue. We also examined if depletion of BRUCE, using a lentiviral shRNA approach, enhances cell sensitivity to multiple chemotherapeutic agents, including cisplatin, an agent that induces DNA damage by generating DNA cross-links, and taxol, a microtubule stabilizer and mitotic inhibitor. The reason for including these two chemotherapeutic agents in this study is that they hit two essential cellular processes of DNA repair and cytokinesis in which BRUCE plays critical roles.

Results and methods

IHC analysis of BRUCE revealed significantly higher levels of BRUCE in primary breast tumors than normal breast tissue. Knockdown of BRUCE protein expression by lentiviral shRNA resulted in increased sensitivity to cisplatin in the resistant breast cancer MDB-MD-231 cell line. Moreover, depletion of BRUCE in this cell line achieved a more profound level of cell killing when coupled to low doses of cisplatin and taxol combined, rather than either drug used alone.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that elevated protein levels of BRUCE in breast tumors may contribute to chemoresistance in breast cancer patients. In support of this suggestion, our data demonstrate that a reduction in BRUCE expression in breast cancer cell lines increases the toxicity of several chemotherapeutic agents. In all likelihood, the contribution of increased BRUCE levels to chemoresistance are likely due to its roles in suppression of apoptosis, promotion of cytokinesis and facilitation of DNA damage repair. These observations suggest that therapeutic suppression of BRUCE could improve chemosensitivity in chemo-resistant breast cancer patients. Therefore, future development of effective inhibitors of BRUCE could benefit patients with high BRUCE expression and chemoresistance.

A good drug made better: the fulvestrant dose-response story

Sequential use of endocrine therapies remains the cornerstone of treatment for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, before the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy for unresponsive disease. Fulvestrant is an estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer after failure of prior antiestrogen therapy. Initially approved at a monthly dose of 250 mg, the recommended fulvestrant dose was revised to 500 mg (500 mg/mo plus 500 mg on day 14 of month 1) after demonstration of improved progression-free survival versus fulvestrant 250 mg. We have reviewed the dose-dependent effects of fulvestrant, both from a retrospective combined analysis of dose-dependent reduction of tumor biomarkers in the presurgical setting (3 previously reported studies: Study 18, Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women with Estrogen-Sensitive Tumors, and Trial 57) and from a review of clinical studies for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Analysis of presurgical data revealed a consistent dose-dependent effect for fulvestrant on tumor biomarkers, with increasing fulvestrant dose resulting in greater reductions in ER, progesterone receptor, and Ki67 labeling index. The dose-dependent biological effect corresponds with the dose-dependent clinical efficacy observed in the treatment of advanced breast cancer after failure of prior antiestrogen therapy. Although it remains to be determined in a phase III trial, cross-trial comparisons suggest a dose-dependent relationship for fulvestrant as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer. Overall, biological and clinical data demonstrate a strong dose-dependent relationship for fulvestrant, supporting the efficacy benefit seen with fulvestrant 500 mg over the 250 mg dose.

Fulvestrant treatment alters MDM2 protein turnover and sensitivity of human breast carcinoma cells to chemotherapeutic drugs

The human homologue of mouse double minute 2 (MDM2) is overexpressed in tumors and contributes to tumorigenesis through inhibition of p53 activity. We investigated the effect of the anti-estrogen fulvestrant on MDM2 expression and sensitivity of estrogen receptor positive human breast cancer cell lines to chemotherapeutics. Fulvestrant down-regulated MDM2 through increased protein turnover. Fulvestrant blocked estrogen-dependent up-regulation of MDM2 and decreased basal expression of MDM2 in the absence of estradiol. As combinations of fulvestrant with doxorubicin, etoposide or paclitaxel were synergistic, altering cell cycle distribution and increasing cell death, this provides rationale for testing combinatorial chemotherapy with fulvestrant as a novel therapeutic strategy for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Understanding response and resistance to oestrogen deprivation in ER-positive breast cancer

Oestrogens (E) and oestrogen receptor alpha (ERα) play fundamental roles in the development and progression of more than three-quarters of breast cancers (BC). The ability to influence the natural history of BC by hormonal manipulation is well established and endocrine therapies represent the cornerstone of systemic management for women with ERα-positive disease. Endocrine agents abrogate oestrogenic signalling through distinct and incompletely overlapping mechanisms, either impeding the transcriptional activity of ERα or diminishing E-synthesis. In post-menopausal women, E-production is chiefly attributable to the enzymatic conversion of androgens in extra-gonadal tissues by the cytochrome P-450 superfamily member aromatase. Greater understanding of steroid biosynthesis has underpinned rational drug design and pharmacological development of potent and specific aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Contemporary agents induce profound E-suppression in post-menopausal women and are first-line neo-adjuvant, adjuvant and metastatic therapies, with greater efficacy and tolerability than tamoxifen. The principal qualifier for endocrine treatment, including AIs, remains ERα expression. However, it is increasingly apparent that ERα expression is not synonymous with sensitivity to treatment and insufficient to account for the considerable heterogeneity of response. Better predictive biomarkers of de novo resistance are required to improve patient selection and identify those poor-responders who may benefit from alternative or additional systemic treatment from the outset. Among patients who do respond well initially, many relapse during their clinical course and there is also an unmet need for biomarkers of acquired resistance. The majority of women who relapse on AIs continue to express functional ERα which remains a legitimate target for second-line endocrine therapy. Understanding and overcoming acquired resistance to AIs requires a greater appreciation of ERα biology and the mechanisms though which E-dependence can be subverted. In this article, we review the impact of therapeutic E-deprivation on the natural history of ERα-positive breast cancer. Consideration is given to established and emerging biomarkers and/or determinants of response and resistance to E-deprivation. In vitro and in vivo evidence of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the transition from sensitivity to resistance are reviewed in the context of current models of ERα activity and their potential translational relevance.