Abstract PD15-01: Impact of <i>ESR1</i> mutations on endocrine therapy (ET) plus alpelisib benefit in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), <i>PIK3CA</i>-mutated, advanced breast cancer (ABC) who progressed on or after prior cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in the BYLieve trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Endocrine-based therapy is the standard of care for patients (pts) with HR+ ABC. Acquired ESR1 mutations (mut) have been reported in up to 56% of pts with HR+ ABC progressing after prior treatment with ET, and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) in particular. Alpelisib (ALP) is an α-selective PI3K inhibitor and degrader approved in combination with fulvestrant (FUL) for the treatment of HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA-mut ABC. The primary analysis of Cohorts A and B of the Phase II BYLieve trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ALP + ET in the post-CDK4/6i setting. We assessed the association between progression-free survival (PFS) and baseline ESR1 mut among pts in Cohorts A and B of the BYLieve trial. Methods: Cohorts A and B of the BYLieve trial included pre-/postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2-, PIK3CA-mut ABC who received CDK4/6i + AI (Cohort A) or CDK4/6i + FUL (Cohort B) as immediate prior therapy. Pts in Cohort B may have also received prior AI therapy. Pts received ALP 300 mg PO QD + FUL 500 mg IM Q28D and C1D15 (Cohort A) or ALP 300 mg PO QD + LET 2.5 mg PO QD (Cohort B). ESR1 mut was analyzed as an exploratory endpoint, using an error-corrected sequencing ctDNA assay (Novartis PanCancer gene-panel), in baseline plasma samples from pts with centrally confirmed PIK3CA mut in tumor tissue from Cohorts A and B. PFS by mut status was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. P values provided are nominal. No multiplicity adjustments were made, therefore, statistical interpretation should be made with caution. Results: 127 pts with ≥6 mo follow-up (median follow-up: 11.7 mo) were enrolled in Cohort A as of the 17 December 2019 data cut-off and 126 pts with ≥6 mo follow-up (median follow-up: 15.0 mo) were enrolled in Cohort B as of the 14 August 2020 data cut-off. 103 (81.7%) pts in Cohort B progressed on prior AI therapy (adjuvant/metastatic setting). 102 pts from Cohort A and 97 pts from Cohort B had available plasma samples and were included in this analysis. Similar outcomes were observed in this analysis and in the overall population (Table 1). At baseline, 26% (27/102) of pts in Cohort A and 26% (25/97) of pts in Cohort B had ESR1 mut detected. In Cohort A (ALP + FUL), a numerically lower PFS was observed in pts with ESR1-mut disease, but the wide confidence interval (CI) suggests no difference in risk of progression between those with and without ESR1 mut. In Cohort B (ALP + LET), pts with ESR1-mut disease had a shorter PFS compared with those without ESR1-mut disease. A possible limitation is that baseline characteristics of these subgroups may not be balanced. Conclusion: Similar proportion of pts had ESR1-mut disease at baseline in both cohorts. All pts in Cohort A progressed on prior CDK4/6i + AI and most pts enrolled in Cohort B also progressed on prior AI therapy. This analysis suggests that pts with ESR1 mut tend to have lower PFS than those without a mut, and that ALP + LET might be less effective in pts with ESR1 mut. This adds to prior data that ESR1 mut reduce the efficacy of AI-based combination therapy. In pts with ESR1 mut detected after prior CDK4/6i therapy, ALP + FUL (the approved combination for PIK3CA-mut ABC) warrants consideration as an alternative treatment option. Studies of ALP in combination with new oral, selective estrogen-receptor degraders are also ongoing. Table 1.Median PFS in BYLieve Cohorts A and B.Cohort A (ALP + FUL)Cohort B (ALP + LET)Overall (mFASa), N1,2121115mPFS, months (95% CI)7.3 (5.6-8.3)5.7 (4.5, 7.2)Patients with available plasma samples for ESR1-mutation testing,b N10297mPFS, months (95% CI)7.37 (5.60-8.67)5.70 (3.77-7.33)With ESR1 mutation (n=27)With ESR1 mutation (n=25) Without ESR1 mutation (n=72)mPFS, months (95% CI)5.55 (3.75-8.54)8.28 (5.45-9.46)4.57 (3.06-5.65)7.03 (4.50-8.31)Hazard ratio (95% CI)0.76 (0.44-1.33)0.55 (0.32-0.92)P value (nominal)0.30.02ALP, alpelisib; FUL, fulvestrant; LET, letrozole; mFAS, modified full analysis set; mPFS, median progression-free survival. . aPatients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and had centrally confirmed PIK3CA mutation by a Novartis-designated laboratory were included in the mFAS. bOnly includes patients with centrally confirmed PIK3CA mutation in tumor tissue.1. Rugo HS, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(4):489-498; 2. Rugo HS, et al. SABCS 2020. Poster PD2-07. Citation Format: Nick Turner, Hope S Rugo, Eva M Ciruelos, Manuel Ruiz-Borrego, Pamela Drullinsky, Florence Lerebours, Aleix Prat, Thomas Bachelot, Stephen Chia, Alejandro Balbin, Mukta Joshi, Estelle Roux, Christina H Arce, Murat Akdere, Dejan Juric. Impact of ESR1 mutations on endocrine therapy (ET) plus alpelisib benefit in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), PIK3CA-mutated, advanced breast cancer (ABC) who progressed on or after prior cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in the BYLieve trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD15-01.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".