Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
•Lasofoxifene showed antitumor activity in patients with ESR1-mutated mBC that progressed on an AI plus a CDK4/6i.•Lasofoxifene numerically improved PFS (5.6 versus 3.7 months) and clinical benefit rate (37% versus 22%) versus fulvestrant.•Lasofoxifene was well-tolerated with no unexpected safety signals.•Lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, including Y537S MAF, in more patients than fulvestrant, exhibiting target engagement.•Lasofoxifene may be a promising endocrine therapy backbone for ESR1-mutated mBC in a post-CDK4/6i setting. BackgroundAcquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts.Patients and methodsIn this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability.ResultsA total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients.ConclusionsLasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation. Acquired estrogen receptor alpha (ER/ESR1) mutations commonly cause endocrine resistance in ER+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene, a novel selective ER modulator, stabilizes an antagonist conformation of wild-type and ESR1-mutated ER-ligand binding domains, and has antitumor activity in ESR1-mutated xenografts. In this open-label, randomized, phase II, multicenter, ELAINE 1 study (NCT03781063), we randomized women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2−) mBC that had progressed on an aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) to oral lasofoxifene 5 mg daily or IM fulvestrant 500 mg (days 1, 15, and 29, and then every 4 weeks) until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety/tolerability. A total of 103 patients received lasofoxifene (n = 52) or fulvestrant (n = 51). The most current efficacy analysis showed that lasofoxifene did not significantly prolong median PFS compared with fulvestrant: 24.2 weeks (∼5.6 months) versus 16.2 weeks (∼3.7 months; P = 0.138); hazard ratio 0.699 (95% confidence interval 0.434-1.125). However, PFS and other clinical endpoints numerically favored lasofoxifene: clinical benefit rate (36.5% versus 21.6%; P = 0.117), objective response rate [13.2% (including a complete response in one lasofoxifene-treated patient) versus 2.9%; P = 0.124], and 6-month (53.4% versus 37.9%) and 12-month (30.7% versus 14.1%) PFS rates. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasofoxifene were nausea, fatigue, arthralgia, and hot flushes. One death occurred in the fulvestrant arm. Circulating tumor DNA ESR1 mutant allele fraction (MAF) decreased from baseline to week 8 in 82.9% of evaluable lasofoxifene-treated versus 61.5% of fulvestrant-treated patients. Lasofoxifene demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity versus fulvestrant and was well tolerated in patients with ESR1-mutated, endocrine-resistant mBC following progression on AI plus CDK4/6i. Consistent with target engagement, lasofoxifene reduced ESR1 MAF, and to a greater extent than fulvestrant. Lasofoxifene may be a promising targeted treatment for patients with ESR1-mutated mBC and warrants further investigation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".