Circulating tumor DNA dynamics in advanced breast cancer treated with CDK4/6 inhibition and endocrine therapy.
ABSTRACT: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels may predict response to anticancer drugs, including CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy combinations (CDK4/6i+ET); however, critical questions remain unanswered such as which assay or statistical method to use. Here, we obtained paired plasma samples at baseline and week 4 in 45 consecutive patients with advanced breast cancer treated with CDK4/6i+ET. ctDNA was detected in 96% of cases using the 74-gene Guardant360 assay. A variant allele fraction ratio (VAFR) was calculated for each of the 79 detected mutations between both timepoints. Mean of all VAFRs (mVAFR) was computed for each patient. In our dataset, mVAFR was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS). Baseline VAF, on-treatment VAF or absolute changes in VAF were not associated with PFS, nor were CA-15.3 levels at baseline, week 4 or the CA-15.3 ratio. These findings demonstrate that ctDNA dynamics using a standardized multi-gene panel and a unique methodological approach predicts treatment outcome. Clinical trials in patients with an unfavorable ctDNA response are needed.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2-) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported.<h4>Methods</h4>The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2- BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed.<h4>Results</h4>CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent-kinases 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) represents the standard treatment for luminal-metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, prospective head-to-head comparisons are still lacking for 1st line (L) options, and it is still crucial to define the best strategy between 1st and 2nd L.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>717 consecutive luminal-MBC pts treated between 2008 and 2020 were analyzed at the Oncology Department of Aviano and Udine, Italy. Differences about survival outcomes (OS, PFS and PPS) were tested by log-rank test. The attrition rate (AR) between 1st and 2ndL was calculated.<h4>Results</h4>At 1<sup>st</sup>L, pts were treated with ET (49%), chemotherapy (CT) (31%) and ET-CDKi (20%) while, at 2<sup>nd</sup>L, 33% received ET, 33% CT and 8% ET-CDKi. Overall AR was 10%, 7% for CT, 8% for ET and 17% for ET-CDKi. By multivariate analysis, 1<sup>st</sup>L ET-CDK4/6i showed a better mPFS1 and OS. Moreover, 2<sup>nd</sup>L ET-CDK4/6i demonstrated better mPFS2 compared to ET and CT. Notably, 1<sup>st</sup>L ET-CDKi resulted in higher mPFS than 2ndL ET-CDKi. Intriguingly, 1<sup>st</sup>L ET-CDK4/6i was associated with worse mPPS compared to CT and ET. Secondarily, 1<sup>st</sup>L ET-CDK4/6i followed by CT had worse OS compared to 1<sup>st</sup>L ET-CDK4/6i followed by ET. Notably, none of baseline characteristics at 2<sup>nd</sup>L influenced 2<sup>nd</sup>L treatment choice (ET vs. CT) after ET-CDKi.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our real-world data demonstrated that ET-CDKi represents the best option for 1<sup>st</sup>L luminal-MBC compared to ET and CT. Also, the present study pointed out that 2<sup>nd</sup>L ET, potentially combined with other molecules, could be a feasible option after CDK4/6i failure, postponing CT on later lines.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>There are no established molecular biomarkers for patients with breast cancer receiving combination endocrine and CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). We aimed to determine whether genomic markers in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can identify patients at higher risk of early progression on fulvestrant therapy with or without palbociclib, a CDK4/6i.<h4>Methods</h4>PALOMA-3 was a phase III, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled trial of palbociclib plus fulvestrant (n?=?347) vs placebo plus fulvestrant (n?=?174) in patients with endocrine-pretreated estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Pretreatment plasma samples from 459 patients were analyzed for mutations in 17 genes, copy number in 14 genes, and circulating tumor fraction. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared in patients with circulating tumor fraction above or below a prespecified cutoff of 10% and with or without a specific genomic alteration. All statistical tests were 2-sided.<h4>Results</h4>Patients with high ctDNA fraction had worse PFS on both palbociclib plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17 to 2.24; P = .004) and placebo plus fulvestrant (HR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.59; P = .004). In multivariable analysis, high-circulating tumor fraction was associated with worse PFS (HR = 1.20 per 10% increase in tumor fraction, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.32; P < .001), as was TP53 mutation (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.27 to 2.65; P = .001) and FGFR1 amplification (HR = 2.91, 95% CI = 1.61 to 5.25; P < .001). No interaction with treatment randomization was observed.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Pretreatment ctDNA identified a group of high-risk patients with poor clinical outcome despite the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition. These patients might benefit from inclusion in future trials of escalating treatment, with therapies that may be active in these genomic contexts.
Project description:Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) may reveal dynamic tumor status during therapy. We conducted serial ctDNA analysis to investigate potential association with clinical outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients receiving chemotherapy. Tissue KRAS/NRAS wild-type mCRC patients were enrolled and treated with first-line cetuximab-containing chemotherapy. ctDNA isolated from plasma were analyzed by next generation sequencing (NGS) with 16 targeted gene panel. Among 93 patients, 84 (90.3%) had at least 1 somatic mutation in baseline ctDNA samples (average 2.74). Five patients with KRAS or NRAS hotspot mutation in the ctDNA showed significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.029). Changes in average variant allele frequency (VAF) in ctDNA showed significant correlation with tumor size change at the time of first response evaluation (p = 0.020) and progressive disease (PD) (p = 0.042). Patients whose average VAF decreased below cutoff (< 1%) at the first evaluation showed significantly better PFS (p < 0.001), and the average VAF change further discriminated the PFS in the patients in partial response (p = 0.018). At the time of PD, 54 new mutations including KRAS and MAP2K1 emerged in ctDNA. ctDNA sequencing can provide mutation profile that could better reflect tumor mutation status and predict treatment outcome.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>There is currently no clinical trial data regarding the efficacy of everolimus exemestane (EE) following prior treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i). This study assesses the use and efficacy of everolimus exemestane in patients with metastatic HR+ HER2- breast cancer previously treated with endocrine therapy (ET) or endocrine therapy + CDK4/6i.<h4>Methods</h4>Retrospective analysis of electronic health record-derived data for HR+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer from 2012 to 2018. The proportion of patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the median duration of EE prior to next line of treatment (TTNT) by line of therapy was calculated. OS for patients receiving EE first-line, second-line, or third-line, indexed to the date of first-line therapy initiation and stratified by prior treatment received, was calculated with Kaplan-Meier method with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Six hundred twenty-two patients received EE first-line (n?=?104, 16.7%), second-line (n?=?273, 43.9%) or third-line (n?=?245, 39.4%). Median TTNT was 8.3?months, 5.5?months, and 4.8?months respectively. Median TTNT of EE second-line was longer following prior ET alone compared to prior ET + CDK4/6i (6.2?months (95% CI 5.2, 7.3) vs 4.3?months (95% CI 3.2, 5.7) respectively, p?=?0.03). Similarly, EE third-line following ET alone vs ET + CDK4/6i in first- or second-line resulted in median TTNT 5.6?months (95% CI 4.4, 6.9) vs 4.1?months (95% CI 3.6, 6.1) respectively, although this was not statistically significant (p?=?0.08). Median OS was longer for patients who received EE following prior ET + CDK4/6i. EE second-line following ET + CDK 4/6i vs ET alone resulted in median OS 37.7?months vs. 32.7?months (p?=?0.449). EE third-line following ET + CDK4/6i vs prior ET alone resulted in median OS 59.2?months vs. 40.8?months (p?<?0.010). This difference in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy.<h4>Conclusion</h4>This study suggests that EE remains an effective treatment option after prior ET or ET + CDK4/6i use. Median TTNT of EE was longer for patients who received prior ET, whereas median OS was longer for patients who received prior ET + CDK4/6i. However, this improvement in OS was not statistically significant when indexed to the start of EE therapy suggesting that OS benefit is primarily driven by prior CDK4/6i use. EE remains an effective treatment option regardless of prior treatment option.
Project description:The introduction of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) has revolutionized the treatment landscape for patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and has become the new standard treatment. However, resistance to this combined therapy inevitably develops and represents a major clinical challenge in the management of ER+ ABC. Currently, elucidation of the resistance mechanisms, identification of predictive biomarkers, and development of novel effective combined targeted treatments to overcome the resistance are active areas of research. Given the heterogeneity of the resistance mechanisms towards combined CDK4/6i and ET, identification of a single universal predictive biomarker of resistance is unlikely. Novel approaches are being explored, including examination of multiple genetic alterations in circulating cell-free tumor DNA in liquid biopsies from ABC patients with disease progression on combined CDK4/6i and ET treatment. Here, we review the molecular basis of the main known resistance mechanisms towards combined CDK4/6i and ET and associated potential biomarkers. As inhibiting key molecules in the pathways driving resistance may play an important role in the selection of therapeutic strategies for patients who experience disease progression on combined CDK4/6i and ET, we also review preclinical and early phase clinical data on novel combination therapies for these patients.
Project description:PI3K and CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) are targeted therapies approved to treat advanced breast cancer; CDK4/6is are more widely used. Here, we discuss trials that examine PI3K inhibitors with novel drug combinations, including a CDK4/6i, given data implicating the pathway in CDK 4/6 resistance.<i>See related articles by Lu et al., p. 408, and Tolaney et al., p. 418</i>.
Project description:<h4>Purpose</h4>Standard-of-care treatment for metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR<sup>+</sup>), HER2-negative (HER2<sup>-</sup>) breast cancer includes endocrine therapy (ET) combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). Optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6i is unknown. The TRINITI-1 trial investigated ribociclib, a CDK4/6i that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in two phase III trials, in combination with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR<sup>+</sup>, HER2<sup>-</sup> advanced breast cancer (ABC) after progression on a CDK4/6i.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase I/II study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> breast cancer. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at week 24 among patients with ET-refractory disease with progression on a CDK4/6i. Other endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis.<h4>Results</h4>Of 104 patients enrolled (phases I and II), 96 had prior CDK4/6i. Recommended phase II doses (all once daily days 1-28 of 28-day cycle) were ribociclib 300 mg, everolimus 2.5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 1) and ribociclib 200 mg, everolimus 5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 2). CBR among 95 efficacy-evaluable patients (phases I and II) at week 24 was 41.1% (95% confidence interval, 31.1-51.6), which met the primary endpoint (predetermined threshold: 10%). Common adverse events included neutropenia (69.2%) and stomatitis (40.4%). No new safety signals were observed; no grade 3/4 QTc prolongation was reported.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Preliminary TRINITI-1 safety and efficacy results support further investigation of CDK4/6 blockade and targeting of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway in patients with ET-refractory HR<sup>+</sup>/HER2<sup>-</sup> ABC after progression on a CDK4/6i.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The BYLieve trial (NCT03056755) confirmed efficacy and safety of alpelisib with fulvestrant for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-), PIK3CA-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC), after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as immediate prior therapy. Further analyses were performed to compare efficacy from BYLieve with effectiveness of standard treatment in the real-world setting.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Patients who progressed on a CDK4/6i plus AI and were treated with alpelisib with fulvestrant in BYLieve were matched with a real-world patient cohort who received standard-of-care from a deidentified clinico-genomics database (CGDB). Primary and secondary endpoints were to compare progression-free survival (PFS), estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the proportion of patients remaining progression-free at 6 months, respectively, between the two cohorts.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 855 patients with PIK3CA-mutant disease who had prior CDK4/6i plus hormone therapy were selected from the CGDB; further matching to 120 patients from BYLieve selected 95 patients without exposure to HER2-targeting agents, clinical study drug, or alpelisib. In unadjusted and postmatching results, primary and secondary endpoints favored treatment with alpelisib with fulvestrant in BYLieve more than standard treatments in the real-world cohort. Postadjustment, median PFS for patients treated with alpelisib in BYLieve was 7.3 versus 3.7 months in the real-world cohort, and 6-month PFS was 54.6% versus 40.1%, respectively.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Matched/weighted analysis comparing BYLieve with the real-world setting further supports the clinical benefit of alpelisib with fulvestrant for treatment of HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA-mutant ABC after CDK4/6i treatment.<h4>Implications for practice</h4>Approximately 40% of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) have PIK3CA-mutated tumors, which have been associated with endocrine therapy resistance. Alpelisib, an α-selective phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibitor, demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival in SOLAR-1 and demonstrated clinical efficacy in BYLieve when combined with fulvestrant. Data are limited in comparing the efficacy of alpelisib combined with fulvestrant with effectiveness of standard therapy after CDK4/6i treatment. Using real-world data, this is the first analysis comparing alpelisib combined with fulvestrant with standard treatments for HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA-mutant ABC in the post-CDK4/6i setting.
Project description:Abemaciclib is an oral, selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 & 6 inhibitor (CDK4 & 6i), approved for hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) as monotherapy for endocrine refractory disease, and with endocrine therapy (ET) for initial treatment and after progression on ET. Abemaciclib has also shown clinical activity in combination with ET in patients with high risk early BC (EBC). Here, we examined the preclinical attributes of abemaciclib and other CDK4 & 6i using biochemical and cell-based assays. <i>In vitro</i>, abemaciclib preferentially inhibited CDK4 kinase activity versus CDK6, resulting in inhibition of cell proliferation in a panel of BC cell lines with higher average potency than palbociclib or ribociclib. Abemaciclib showed activity regardless of <i>HER2</i> amplification and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (<i>PI3KCA</i>) gene mutation status. In human bone marrow progenitor cells, abemaciclib showed lower impact on myeloid maturation than other CDK4 & 6i when tested at unbound concentrations similar to those observed in clinical trials. Continuous abemaciclib treatment provided profound inhibition of cell proliferation, and triggered senescence and apoptosis. These preclinical results support the unique efficacy and safety profile of abemaciclib observed in clinical trials.