MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P5-03-01: Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating ER+/HER2-, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation

2025· article· en· W4411286445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew P. Goetz, Seth A. Wander, Thomas Bachelot, Giuseppe Curigliano, Alexandre de Nonneville, Einav Nili Gal‐Yam, Sarah Sammons, Sherry Shen, Chris Twelves, Paul V. Plourde, David Portman, Senthil Damodaran

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Breast Cancer Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetastatic breast cancerOncologyBreast cancerPhases of clinical researchCancerInternal medicineOpen labelRandomized controlled trialClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Most patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) will ultimately develop resistance to treatment. A large unmet medical need exists especially when resistance occurs following a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. In the ELAINE 1 trial, LAS monotherapy provided numerically greater progression-free survival ([PFS] median, 5.6 mos vs 3.7 mos; HR 0.669 [95% CI, 0.445-1.125]; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) compared with the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), and a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1141-1151). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial showed that LAS combined with abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ∼13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1131-1140). Based on these promising earlier-phase data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Other recent results from postMONARCH confirmed superior efficacy of fulv/Abema versus fulv/placebo (median PFS, 6.0 mos vs 5.3 mos; HR 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57-0.95], nominal P=0.02) in non-biomarker–selected mBC that progressed on a prior CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (Kalinsky K, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42[suppl 17]: abstract LBA1001 [slides]). The ELAINE 3, global trial will compare LAS/Abema with fulv/Abema in a post-CDK4/6i, ESR1-mutation–selected mBC population. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Study enrollment is currently underway at sites in the United States, Canada, France, Italy, Israel, and Spain, and is planned for expansion into Australia, Belgium, China, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR); key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test with an expected PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis. To achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025, the target sample size is 400 patients. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 mos. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Seth A Wander, Thomas Bachelot, Giuseppe Curigliano, Alexandre de Nonneville, Einav Nili Gal-Yam, Sarah L Sammons, Sherry Shen, Chris Twelves, Paul V Plourde, David J Portman, Senthil Damodaran. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating ER+/HER2-, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-03-01.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.400 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicAdvanced Breast Cancer TherapiesFrench-language works237,207