Article

Giredestrant Shows Numerical PFS Benefit Vs Endocrine Monotherapy in ER+ Metastatic Breast Cancer

Author(s):

Giredestrant provided a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in progression-free survival over physician’s choice of endocrine therapy in patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, according to data from the phase 2 acelERA BC study.

Miguel Martin

Miguel Martin

Giredestrant (GDC-9545) provided a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) over physician’s choice of endocrine therapy (PCET) in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, according to data from the phase 2 acelERA BC study (NCT04576455).

Data presented at the 2022 ESMO Congress indicated that the median PFS with giredestrant (n = 151) was 5.6 months per investigator assessment vs 5.4 months with PCET (n = 152) in this patient population (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.60-1.10; P = .1757). The 6-month PFS rates in the investigative and control arms were 46.8% and 39.6%, respectively.

A consistent treatment effect with giredestrant was observed across most subgroups evaluated, with a more pronounced effect observed in those whose tumors harbored ESR1 mutations. In this subset, the median PFS with giredestrant (n = 51) was 5.3 months vs 3.5 months with PCET (n = 39; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03; P = .0610).

“Overall, these data support the continued investigation of giredestrant in other studies,” lead study author Miguel Martin, of the Hospital Gregorio Maranon, Universidad Complutense, said in a presentation of the data.

The trial enrolled a total of 303 post- or pre-/perimenopausal patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative locally advanced, metastatic breast cancer. Patients were required to have previously received 1 or 2 lines of systemic therapy for their disease, including 1 endocrine therapy, up to 1 targeted therapy, and up to 1 chemotherapy agent.

Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral giredestrant at 30 mg daily or PCET in the form of fulvestrant (Faslodex) or an aromatase inhibitor. Patients were stratified based on whether they had visceral or non-visceral disease, whether they had or had not received previous CDK4/6 inhibitors, or whether they had previous fulvestrant or not.

The key end points of the trial were investigator-assessed PFS by RECIST v1.1 criteria, overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), PFS by ESR1 mutational status, safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

In the total population, the median age was 60 years, with 99.7% of patients being female and 83% postmenopausal. Moreover, 52% of patients had an ECOG performance status of 0. Regarding race, 41% were Asian and 56% were White. Most patients were from Asia (40%) and Europe (37%) and had visceral (68%) or measurable (93%) disease.

Regarding prior treatment, 71% of patients received 1 prior line and 28% received 2 prior lines. Seventy-seven percent of patients received an aromatase inhibitor in the form of fulvestrant (19%) or tamoxifen (17%). Forty-two percent of patients received a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and 36% of patients received this kind of agent as their last prior line of therapy. Thirty-two percent of patients received chemotherapy; 24% received this modality as their last prior line of treatment.

Additional data showed that giredestrant elicited a confirmed ORR of 12.6% (95% CI, 7.75%-18.95%) vs 7.2% (95% CI, 3.67%-12.58%) with PCET (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% CI, 0.86-4.07). The median DOR in the investigative and control arms were not yet reached (95% CI, 5.55–not evaluable [NE]) and 7.39 months (95% CI, 7.39-NE), respectively.

The clinical benefit rate with giredestrant was 31.8% (95% CI, 24.46%-39.85%) vs 21.1% (95% CI, 14.87%-28.40%) with PCET (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.06-3.04).

Regarding safety, giredestrant was well tolerated. The safety profile of selective estrogen receptor degrader was comparable to that observed with PCET; the toxicities were consistent with the known risks that come with endocrine treatment.

Eighty-five percent of patients in the giredestrant arm experienced adverse effects (AEs) vs 71% of those in the PCET arm; these effects were grade 3 or 4 in 17% and 12% of patients, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 4% of those in the investigative arm vs 3% of those in the control arm. Serious toxicities were reported in 9% and 8% of patients, respectively; serious TRAEs occurred in 2% and 1% of patients, respectively. One percent of patients in each arm experienced a grade 5 AE.

The most common treatment-emergent toxicities included hepatotoxicity, musculoskeletal pain, arthralgia, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, dizziness, hot flushes, bradycardia, renal toxicity, QT prolongation, and venous thromboembolism.

“Grade 3/4 TRAEs, serious AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were balanced across the arms,” the study authors concluded.

Reference

Jimenez MM, Lim E, Mac Gregor MC, et al. Giredestrant (GDC-9545) vs physician choice of endocrine monotherapy (PCET) in patients (pts) with ER+, HER2– locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (LA/mBC): primary analysis of the phase II, randomised, open-label acelERA BC study. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(suppl 7):S633-S634. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.07.250

Related Videos
Margaret E. Gatti-Mays, MD, MPH, FACP
Sunil Adige, MD
Seth Wander, MD, PhD
Nicholas P. McAndrew, MD, MSCE
Xichun Hu, MD, PhD
Hope Rugo, MD, FASCO, and Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FASCO
Cynthia X. Ma, MD, PhD
Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH
Hope Rugo, MD, FASCO, and Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FASCO
Virginia Kaklamani, MD