Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial

M. P. Goetz*, N. A. Bagegni, G. Batist, A. Brufsky, M. A. Cristofanilli, S. Damodaran, B. R. Daniel, G. F. Fleming, W. J. Gradishar, S. L. Graff, M. T. Grosse Perdekamp, E. Hamilton, S. Lavasani, A. Moreno-Aspitia, T. O'Connor, T. J. Pluard, H. S. Rugo, S. L. Sammons, L. S. Schwartzberg, D. G. StoverG. A. Vidal, G. Wang, E. Warner, R. Yerushalmi, P. V. Plourde, D. J. Portman, E. N. Gal-Yam

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: 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. Patients and methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1141-1151
Number of pages11
JournalAnnals of Oncology
Volume34
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2023

Keywords

  • ESR1 mutation
  • breast cancer
  • ctDNA
  • fulvestrant
  • lasofoxifene
  • selective estrogen receptor modulator

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Oncology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lasofoxifene versus fulvestrant for ER+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation: results from the randomized, phase II ELAINE 1 trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this