Abstract PS12-08: MORPHEUS Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: interim analysis of a Phase Ib/II, study of fulvestrant ± atezolizumab and abemaciclib triplet treatment in patients metastatic disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Endocrine therapy (ET) is the mainstay of treatment for metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR+ BC). ET resistance and disease progression are expected, thus novel therapies, like cancer immunotherapy, are needed. Prior data suggest that abemaciclib (abema), a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, has immunomodulatory activity. In the MORPHEUS HR+ BC study (NCT03280563), atezolizumab (atezo; anti–programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) was tested in combination with fulvestrant (FUL), with and without abema, in patients (pts) with HR+ metastatic BC. We present 24-week interim analyses. METHODS Pts with measurable disease progression during first- or second-line therapy for metastatic or inoperable locally advanced HR+ BC and prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor were randomized to receive FUL (control) or FUL + atezo (1200 mg intravenous every 3 weeks) or FUL + atezo + abema (150 mg twice a day); prior FUL was not permitted. Pts were treated until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v1.1 and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. Baseline tumor samples were analyzed for PD-L1 expression (SP263), CD8 T cell infiltration, and gene expression by RNAseq. RESULTS As of Dec 2022, 40, 31, and 25 pts (38, 30, and 20 evaluable pts) were randomized to atezo + abema + FUL, atezo + FUL, and FUL, respectively. Pts were followed for ≥ 24 weeks. Demographics were similar among the groups, with most pts receiving prior palbociclib (palbo) as part of their only prior metastatic therapy. Details and best confirmed ORRs are shown in the table. Median PFS was 6.34 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.52, 16.03) in the atezo + abema + FUL arm, 3.15 months (95% CI 1.51, 7.79) in the atezo + FUL arm, and 1.95 months (95% CI 1.45, 4.93) in the FUL arm. The hazard ratio of atezo + abema + FUL vs FUL was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24, 0.78). Safety data are shown in the table. Mild/moderate (grade 1/2) interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis (7.7%) was observed in the atezo + abema + FUL arm. At baseline, tumors exhibited low prevalence of PD-L1 (median immune cells: 0.5%, tumor cells: 0%) and CD8 infiltration (12% inflamed phenotype), which did not associate with response in any arm. RNAseq analysis indicated that response to atezo + abema + FUL was strongly associated with low baseline expression levels of proliferation and metabolism signatures and trended with high expression of some immune signatures. CONCLUSIONS The triplet therapy of atezo + abema + FUL showed improved ORR and PFS compared with FUL monotherapy in the second- or third-line setting post-CDK4/6 inhibitor. This combination of atezo + abema + FUL was tolerable, with no unexpected safety signals, including no high-grade ILD/pneumonitis. Efficacy and safety Data are number of patients (%), unless otherwise specified. * Patient was treated in the second line and incorrectly included in this group. Abema, abemaciclib; AE, adverse event; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; atezo, atezolizumab; CDK4/6, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6; CI, confidence interval; ful, fulvestrant; irAE, immune-related adverse event; L, line; ORR, objective response rate; PFS, progression-free survival; TRAE, treatment-related adverse event. Citation Format: Kyung Hae Jung, Seock-Ah Im, Denise Yardley, Sara Hurvitz, Keun Seok Lee, Amir Sonnenblick, Shlomit Shachar, Antoinette Tan, Elizabeth Comen, Einav Gal-Yam, Adam Brufsky, Hope Rugo, Jing Zhu, Kelly DuPree, Vanessa Breton, Fiona Young, Richard Schwab, Edward Cha, Melinda Telli. MORPHEUS Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: interim analysis of a Phase Ib/II, study of fulvestrant ± atezolizumab and abemaciclib triplet treatment in patients metastatic disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PS12-08.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".