The primary end point was investigated-assessed PFS per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), safety, and patient-reported outcomes.
Per the statistical plan of the study, a 2-sided stratified log-rank test was employed, with the HR estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model. The primary analysis was planned to occur after approximately 620 investigator-assessed PFS events occurred. The study was designed to detect an HR of 0.77 with 89% power, and the statistical significance boundary for efficacy was defined as an HR of 0.85.
Following an interim analysis, the P-value boundary for the primary analysis was 0.0456.
The data cutoff was January 30, 2026, at which point the median follow-up was 52.2 months (range, 0.4-63.5) in the giredestrant arm and 52.1 months (range, 0.3-62.6) in the letrozole arm.
Turner remarked that baseline characteristics were balanced between arms.
What other efficacy data were presented?
No difference in OS was seen with giredestrant vs letrozole. The median OS was not evaluable (NE) in either the giredestrant (95% CI, NE-NE) or letrozole (95% CI, 61.3 months-NE) arms (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83-1.28; P = .7767). The 24- and 36-month OS rates in the giredestrant arm were 84.9% and 74.1%, respectively. These respective rates in the letrozole arm were 84.2% and 74.1%.
The ORR was 60.2% with giredestrant (n = 465) vs 58.8% with letrozole (n = 469). Within the giredestrant arm, the rates of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 4.1%, 56.1%, 31.4%, and 4.5%, respectively; 2 patients (0.4%) were NE and 16 (3.4%) had missing data. In the letrozole arm, the rates of CR, PR, SD, and PD were 4.5%, 54.4%, 30.9%, and 6.2%, respectively; 2 patients (0.4%) were NE and 17 (3.6%) had missing data.
The clinical benefit rates were 82.6% and 82.1% with giredestrant and letrozole, respectively.
The median DOR was 38.5 months (95% CI, 30.4-48.7) in the giredestrant arm (n = 280) vs 30.4 months (95% CI, 25.3-36.1) in the letrozole arm (n = 276).
How was the safety profile of the giredestrant regimen characterized?
“AEs [adverse effects], serious AEs, grade 3 to 4 AEs, related AEs, and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were similar between treatment arms,” Turner said. “Giredestrant plus palbociclib was well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and no unexpected findings.”
The mean dose intensity in the investigational arm was 98.2% (SD, 4.1) with giredestrant and 81.3% (SD, 16.9) with palbociclib. In the control arm, the mean dose intensity was 98.9% (SD, 6.2) with letrozole and 81.8% (SD, 16.9) with palbociclib.
The most common treatment-emergent AEs that occurred in at least 15% of patients in both arms, in order of frequency were neutropenia, anemia, decreased white blood cell count, arthralgia, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, COVID-19, constipation, decreased platelet count, leukopenia, increased aspartate aminotransferase levels, back pain, alopecia, increased alanine aminotransferase levels, decreased appetite, headache, cough, and hot flush.
The median treatment duration was 29.8 months (range, 0-63.4) with giredestrant and 28.3 months (range, 0-63.4) with palbociclib in the investigational arm. In the control arm, the median treatment duration was 25.2 months (range, 0.2-62.6) with letrozole and 24.2 months (range, 0.2-62.6) with palbociclib.
Musculoskeletal pain (38.9%; 38.0%), hepatotoxicity (25.7%; 28.5%), and bradycardia (11.7%; 1.8%) were evaluated as selected AEs and were present in both the giredestrant and letrozole arms, respectively.
Are next steps planned given the outcome?
Giredestrant will be evaluated vs fulvestrant (Faslodex) in combination with physician’s choice of CDK4/6 inhibitor in the frontline setting in the ongoing pionERA BC trial (NCT06065748) in patients whose disease has relapsed on adjuvant endocrine therapy or those who have a treatment-free interval of less than 12 months.
“Further exploration is needed to assess which patients may benefit from giredestrant in the first-line setting,” Turner concluded.
Disclosures: Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche; and research funding from AstraZeneca (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst), Inivata (Inst), InVitae (Inst), Merck Sharpe and Dohme (Inst), Natera (Inst), Personalis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), and Roche (Inst).
Supported in part by AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo, content independently developed by OncLive.
References
- Turner N, et al. Giredestrant (GIRE) + palbociclib (PALBO) vs letrozole (LET) + PALBO as first-line (1L) therapy in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ER+, HER2– LA/mBC): primary analysis of the phase III persevERA BC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2026;44(suppl 17):LBA1006. doi:10.1200/JCO.2026.44.17_suppl.LBA1006
- Bardia A, Schmid P, Martín M, et al. Giredestrant vs standard-of-care endocrine therapy as adjuvant treatment for patients with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: results from the global phase III lidERA Breast Cancer trial. Presented at: 2025 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 9-12, 2025; San Antonio, TX. Abstract GS1-10.
- Mayer E, Tolaney SM, Martin M, et al. Giredestrant (GIRE), an oral selective oestrogen receptor (ER) antagonist and degrader, + everolimus (E) in patients (pts) with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ER+, HER2– aBC) previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (i): primary results of the phase III evERA BC trial. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract LBA16.