AT THE 2016 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
CHICAGO (FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS) – Mutation of the estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) gene, one of the mechanisms whereby tumors become resistant to endocrine therapy, may be prognostic but not predictive in women with hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer that has progressed on this therapy, two studies showed.
In a cohort of women who had experienced progression on a first-line aromatase inhibitor, those with ESR1 mutations detected in circulating cell-free DNA at the time of progression had a 70% higher risk of progression-free survival events and a 90% higher risk of death thereafter. But the presence of this mutation did not predict benefit from subsequent therapy.
Similarly, in an analysis of women who had experienced progression on prior endocrine therapy and were treated on the randomized PALOMA-3 trial with fulvestrant plus either palbociclib (a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor) or placebo, adding the drug reduced the risk of progression-free survival events similarly, by about 50%, regardless of the presence of ESR1 mutations before starting therapy.
Findings in context
These new findings can help guide decisions about which patients should be tested for ESR1 mutations, according to invited discussant Sarat Chandarlapaty, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
“Putting it all together … we see ESR1 mutations arise in the metastatic setting subclonally with prolonged exposure to low-estrogen environments,” he said. “If we are going to do testing, it makes sense to do it in the setting in which there is prior exposure to an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic ER-positive breast cancer.”
The studies’ results also help clarify what the finding of an ESR1 mutation means for patient prognosis and choice of next therapy, Dr. Chandarlapaty said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“It’s clear from two large studies that ESR1 mutation prognosticates poorer and shorter survival, so just the finding alone may aid as sort of a clinical risk assessment for physicians,” he said. “For the question of prediction, I would say the weight of evidence—even though the clinical studies are small—all the way from biology to clinic is that ESR1-mutant patients are unlikely to benefit from a second-line aromatase inhibitor.”
However, “the question of whether testing should be made available in practice on the basis of this particular clinical decision is more complicated,” Dr. Chandarlapaty said. “For one, is second-line aromatase inhibitor alone a widely used option? Secondly, does the adoption now of palbociclib in the first-line setting change the biology and the nature of resistance at this later line – in other words, are we going to see patients going on to a second-line aromatase inhibitor after they’ve had a prior aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib?”
Mutations after progression on first-line aromatase inhibitors
In the first study, Florian Clatot, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Centre Henri Becquerel, University of Normandy, Rouen, France, and colleagues retrospectively studied 144 women who had experienced progression on a first-line aromatase inhibitor.
The investigators used digital droplet polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing to screen for four ESR-1 mutations in circulating cell-free DNA collected before, at the time of, and after the progression.
Overall, 30.6% of women were found to have at least one of these mutations at the time of progression, Dr. Clatot reported. The prevalence was higher the longer women had been on the aromatase inhibitor.
After progression, most women went on to receive chemotherapy or alternative endocrine therapy with either the selective estrogen receptor modulator tamoxifen or the estrogen receptor antagonist fulvestrant (Faslodex). With a median follow-up of 40 months, multivariate analyses showed that the group with ESR1 mutations at progression had higher risks of subsequent progression-free survival events (hazard ratio, 1.7; P = .008) and death (hazard ratio, 1.9; P = .002).
However, the mutations were not predictive: Women having one fared more poorly, whether given chemotherapy or given tamoxifen or fulvestrant.
Kinetic analyses showed that 75% of the ESR1 mutations seen at progression were already detectable in the 3 and even 6 months before that event. “Most of the mutations detected before progression increased while aromatase inhibitor therapy was ongoing,” Dr. Clatot commented. “These results suggest that the preclinical detection of ESR1 circulating mutation may [be of] clinical interest.”
Most women who had mutations at progression saw a decrease in the amount detectable over the subsequent 3 months with therapy, including to the point of not being detectable in about half of cases with a reduction. All of those having an increase in mutational burden had progression on their next therapy, compared with only about 40% of those having a decrease in burden.
“Taken together, these results suggest that the selection pressure provided by aromatase inhibitor exposure is one of the main mechanisms of ESR1 mutation increase,” concluded Dr. Clatot. “ESR1 mutations are a strong and independent marker of poor prognosis but do not have any predictive value with the treatments used in our cohort.”
Mutations after progression on prior endocrine therapy
In the second study, Nicholas C. Turner, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at the Royal Marsden Hospital and Institute of Cancer Research, London, and colleagues analyzed data from a subset of 395 women from PALOMA-3.
The randomized phase III trial tested fulvestrant combined with palbociclib (Ibrance), an oral inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, or placebo. All of the women enrolled had experienced progression on prior endocrine therapy in the adjuvant, advanced, or metastatic setting.
The investigators looked for 12 ESR1 mutations in circulating tumor DNA from baseline plasma samples using the BEAMing (beads, emulsion, amplification, magnetics) digital PCR technique and droplet digital PCR screening.
Overall, 27% of the women had ESR1 mutations before starting therapy on the trial, Dr. Turner reported. Mutations were seen in those who had received a prior aromatase inhibitor, but not in those who had received only prior tamoxifen. “So it’s quite clear these mutations are not a mechanism of resistance to tamoxifen, suggesting that tamoxifen must have at least some activity against these mutations,” he commented.
In addition, ESR1 mutations were more common in patients who had been sensitive versus not to prior endocrine therapy of any type (30.3% vs. 12.8%) and in patients who had been sensitive versus not specifically to prior aromatase inhibitor therapy (34.6% vs. 11.1%).
Stratified analyses showed that palbociclib was similarly superior to placebo in terms of progression-free survival whether patients were positive for an ESR1 mutation (9.4 vs. 4.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .0052) or negative (9.5 vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; P less than .0001).
“Detection of estrogen receptor mutations was strongly associated with acquired resistance to prior aromatase inhibitors,” Dr. Turner said.
“Palbociclib offered high efficacy regardless of the estrogen receptor mutation status,” he added. “And because in this patient population estrogen receptor mutations are detected frequently, the combination of palbociclib and fulvestrant presents an attractive treatment option for patients who have been previously treated with and progressed on aromatase inhibitors.”
