Detection of bladder invasion and pelvic lymph node metastases in a patient with primary prostate cancer

The Present And Future Of Endocrine Therapy In Breast Cancer

In an interview with Targeted Oncology, Erika Hamilton, MD, discussed emerging endocrine therapies that are advancing breast cancer treatment.

Endocrine therapies for breast cancer are rapidly evolving, with several promising agents emerging. According to Erika Hamilton, MD, oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) and proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), in particular, are transforming the treatment landscape for breast cancer, especially in the post-CDK4/6 inhibitor setting.

Elacestrant (Orserdu) is an oral SERD that is FDA approved for patients with ESR1 mutations, and camizestrant, another SERD, has demonstrated superior efficacy compared with fulvestrant and may soon be available for broader use.1,2 Additionally, PROTACs like vepdegestrant (ARV-471) offer a new mechanism for degrading the estrogen receptor (ER) and are currently being tested in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors.3

Several ongoing clinical trials are also exploring novel strategies, including first-line therapies combined with CDK4/6 inhibitors and treatment in adjuvant settings with curative intent. The results of these studies could potentially shift the current treatment paradigms.

"With all these trials ongoing, we will certainly have a rich dataset to improve our endocrine therapies," explained Hamilton, director of breast cancer research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, in an interview with Targeted OncologyTM.

In the interview, Hamilton discussed how these therapies offer new hope for patients with breast cancer by improving progression-free survival and potentially delaying the need for more toxic treatments like chemotherapy.

3D rendered medically accurate illustration of breast cancer: © SciePro - stock.Adobe.Com

Targeted Oncology: What are some of the most promising emerging endocrine therapies in breast cancer?

Hamilton: There are quite a few emerging endocrine therapies. We have 1 FDA-approved oral SERD, elacestrant, that is restricted currently to patients with ESR1 mutations, but there are a lot more coming. The other to have randomized data was camizestrant. It essentially looked at 2 different doses of camizestrant, but it easily beat fulvestrant. I think we know we are going to see data in multiple settings with that drug coming.

One of the other classes that is getting talked about quite a lot are the PROTACs or proteolysis-targeting chimeras. It is a different way to degrade estrogen through proteasome and ubiquitination of the target the estrogen receptor. The one farthest along is ARV-471, and we have seen data from the phase 1 trial, as well as in combination with palbociclib [Ibrance], and that is also currently enrolling in registrational trials.

There are other newer agents coming, and then I like to call it the word salad of endocrine therapy. But we have CERANs, complete estrogen receptor antagonists; we have SERMs, newer selective estrogen receptor modulators; we have SERCAs, selective estrogen receptor covalent antagonists—a lot of different drugs coming to essentially work for patients.

How are novel endocrine therapies improving treatment for metastatic breast cancer?

What we are seeing is that CDK4/6 [inhibitors] are really the mainstay of our treatment. In the first line, they extended progression-free survival by almost a year, improving overall survival in many cases. However, post-CDK4/6 [inhibitor], drugs we used to [rely on], like fulvestrant, are not performing as well as they used to. Now, we have 2 randomized trials in that second-line, post-CDK4/6 [inhibitor] setting, where fulvestrant gives us a progression-free survival of less than 2 months, which is certainly not good enough for our patients.

I think the unmet clinical needs are for these patients whose tumors remain endocrine sensitive. We need better endocrine therapy so they can remain on endocrine therapies or endocrine combinations and delay having to move to other treatments with more toxicities, such as chemotherapy.

What upcoming developments in the space are you most excited about?

There are a lot of trials ongoing. First, there are multiple companies developing novel endocrine agents, and they are diversifying their approaches. The area that will likely be actionable first is the second-line, post-CDK [inhibitor] space. However, there are also ongoing trials in the first-line setting in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors as a switch strategy for positive [circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)], with results expected to read out relatively soon.

Additionally, there are adjuvant trials for curative breast cancer [treatment] that may replace our traditional endocrine backbones. These trials come in 2 varieties: comparing the new agents up front with aromatase inhibitors and using a switch strategy after 2 to 5 years on an aromatase inhibitor. With all these trials ongoing, we will certainly have a rich dataset to improve our endocrine therapies.

Can you describe the different classes of endocrine therapies and how they compare to one another?

Tamoxifen [Soltamox] is our oldest endocrine agent, and that is a SERM, a selective estrogen receptor modulator. We also have aromatase inhibitors. This is our mainstay of endocrine therapy, I would say. Then there is fulvestrant, which is an intramuscular injection form of a SERD. We now have new SERDs coming, and they are different because they are oral, not intramuscular, and have better activity. One of them is approved, elacestrant, for patients with ESR1 mutations, and there are many more oral SERDs on the way.

Additionally, we have PROTACs, which work by using an E3 ligase molecule to bind the target—in this case, the estrogen receptor. This leads to the ubiquitination of the estrogen receptor, marking it for degradation by the proteasome. I tell my patients it "chews up" the estrogen receptor and "spits it out."

We also have a novel SERM called lasofoxifene [Fablyn], which is a tamoxifen-like drug. It offers some advantages in terms of adverse effects because it does not act as a full antiestrogen throughout the body—it acts as a proestrogen in some areas and an antiestrogen in others.

Finally, there are CERANs, SERCAs, and other new agents, all of which essentially work to block estrogen's interaction with cancer cells. They either lower estrogen levels so there is nothing to bind, get rid of estrogen receptors on the cell surface, or block estrogen receptors so that estrogen cannot bind to them.

How do you approach treatment after progression on first-line therapy in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer?

It is way more complicated than it used to be. There are a few actionable things. Does the patient have an ESR1 mutation? If so, they are eligible for elacestrant, our oral SERD. Do they have a PIK3CA or PTEN mutation? Then they are eligible for fulvestrant in combination with alpelisib [Piqray]. We also still have PARP inhibitors that are actionable for patients with BRCA alterations.

For those with what I call a "bland profile," where there are no actionable mutations, we are not very happy with what fulvestrant alone offers. So, we have the option of using fulvestrant with everolimus, an older combination, or we have more data from the MONARCH-E trial [NCT03155997] suggesting there may be a benefit to continuing CDK4/6 inhibitors in the second line. Specifically, in a switch strategy, if someone received palbociclib or ribociclib [Kisqali] in the first line, you might consider abemaciclib [Verzenio] in combination with fulvestrant in the second-line setting. What used to be pretty straightforward, where many patients got fulvestrant, has become much more complicated in recent years.

How important is it to continue targeting estrogen receptors after progression on endocrine therapy?

It is really important. There are many patients whose tumors continue to be sensitive to endocrine agents. One of the biggest unmet clinical needs right now is that we do not have a reliable way to predict which patients fall into this category. Some patients post-CDK4/6 [therapy] may not benefit from further endocrine therapies, even though their tumors are still ER positive. They may or may not have an ESR1 mutation, but we lack a strong assay to determine whose tumor remains endocrine sensitive and whose does not.

From my experience working with all these classes of agents through clinical trials at Sarah Cannon, I have seen patients stay on these novel agents for up to 2 years. It is hard to argue against trying additional endocrine therapies, with close follow-up, because some patients achieve meaningful disease control for a significant amount of time without having to move on to more toxic treatments like chemotherapy.

What are the treatment options for patients who progress on CDK4/6 inhibitors?

For patients we suspect are endocrine resistant—such as those who progressed on their CDK4/6 inhibitor within 6 months, when the average progression-free survival should have been closer to 24 months—this indicates that the cancer may no longer be responding to estrogen axis modulation. In these cases, we are likely moving on to antibody-drug conjugates [ADCs], which are new and have shown promise. We now have 2 ADCs approved for ER-positive breast cancer: fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki [Enhertu; T-DXd], a HER2-targeting ADC for those with low HER2 expression, and sacituzumab govitecan [Trodelvy], a TROP2-targeting ADC. It is definitely a rapidly evolving field.

What are the next steps for research in the field?

One of the takeaways is that genomic profiling patients' tumors is here. It used to be something we talked about being actionable in the future, and now, with ESR1, PI3K, BRCA, PTEN, this is actionable, and so we do need to think about after CDK4/6 [therapy] getting this mutation data, whether this is from either tissue or a blood-based assay, and thinking about which of the options our patient in front of us may qualify for.

REFERENCES: 1. FDA approves elacestrant for ER-positive, HER2-negative, ESR1-mutated advanced or metastatic breast cancer. News Release. FDA. January 27, 2023. Accessed October 23, 2024. Https://bit.Ly/3WHsEq8 2. Oliveira M, Pominchuk D, Nowecki Z, et al. Camizestrant, a next generation oral SERD vs fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with advanced ER-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: Results of the randomized, multi-dose Phase 2 SERENA-2 trial. 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 6-10, 2022; San Antonio, Texas; abstract GS3-02. Accessed December 8, 2022. 3. Arvinas and Pfizer's vepdegestrant (ARV-471) receives FDA fast track designation for the treatment of patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer. News release. Arvinas, Inc. February 5, 2024. Accessed October 23, 2024. Http://tinyurl.Com/4hp95z77

Texas AG Ken Paxton Sues Pediatrician Accused Of Providing Hormone Treatment To 21 Teens

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed the state's first lawsuit against a doctor under a law banning gender-affirming care for minors.

Paxton is accusing Dr. May Lau, a pediatrician at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, of providing gender-transitioning treatments and falsifying medical records and prescriptions to do it.

The lawsuit claims Lau prescribed testosterone to at least 21 patients between the ages of 14 and 17.

MORE NEWS ON THE FOX LOCAL APP

It also accuses Lau of putting a puberty-blocking device into a 15-year-old and falsely billed the patient's insurance for an endocrine disorder instead of gender dysmorphia.

The filing is Paxton's first attempt to sue a doctor under Senate Bill 14, which passed in 2023.

The law prevents doctors from prescribing hormones and other gender-affirming care to minors.

"Texas passed a law to protect children from these dangerous unscientific medical interventions that have irreversible and damaging effects," Paxton said in a statement. "Doctors who continue to provide these harmful 'gender transition' drugs and treatments will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

If Lau is found guilty, her medical license could be revoked.

Paxton is also asking for $1 million, plus civil penalties.

View comments

Rise In PSA Levels May Predict Treatment Response In Prostate Cancer

The rate at which PSA rises after hormonal therapy for prostate cancer is a key factor in determining the effectiveness of the treatment.

The rate at which PSA levels rise after hormonal therpay for prostate cancer can predict treatment response.

For patients with recurrent and advanced prostate cancer, hormonal therapies may prove to be a viable option in both intermittent and continuous administration; however, the rate at which PSA rises is an important risk stratification factor, as presented by an expert at the CURE® Educated Patient® Prostate Cancer Summit.

Dr. Rahul Aggarwal, an associate director for clinical sciences at the University of California San Francisco presented information regarding hormonal therapies for recurrent and advanced prostate cancer at the summit. Agarwal discussed the mechanisms, eligibility, administration and side effects of various drugs including Lupron (leuprolide), Zoladex (goserelin), Firmagon (degarelix), Orgovyx (relugolix) and first/second generation antiandrogens.

According to the National Cancer Institute, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a protein made by the prostate gland and found in the blood. Men with prostate cancer may have higher than normal PSA blood levels.

In addition, Aggarwal suggested that combination hormone therapy should be the standard of care for all patients with metastatic (spreading) prostate cancer as all four hormonal agents have shown prolonged survival compared to Lupron alone in randomized phase 3 studies. He also referenced a phase 3 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine suggesting that, for patients with low-volume metastatic prostate cancer, discussing whether to treat the primary tumor in the prostate may be essential.

"So, my take home points here is that PSA nadir [how low PSA drops after six, up to 12 months after the start of therapy] and the volume of metastatic disease provide this prognostic information for our patients, as well as help guide decision making in terms of our therapy," Aggarwal said. "Every patient should be offered intensified therapy with ADT plus an oral hormonal agent, with a choice of therapy dependent on those factors, such as side effect profile, medical conditions, drug, drug interactions, etc."

As mentioned in the presentation, common side effects for patients include hot flashes, fatigue, breast growth, joint pain, low bone density, insulin resistance, weight gain, decreased muscle, mood/cognitive changes and sexual side effects. Side effects that occur when administered abiraterone/prednisone include, hypertension, low blood potassium, fluid overload, elevated liver enzymes and elevated blood sugar. Side effects that occur during second generation antiandrogens include fall risk, nausea/decreased appetite, fracture and seizure, which is rare.

"When a patient goes on androgen deprivation, this certainly can be a life-changing event with many side effects. The good news is we have strategies to really try to help manage many of these side effects," Aggarwal said.

Among low-risk patients, Aggarwal suggested that a detectable and rising PSA level does not imply starting immediate hormone therapy for every patient; however, those with a higher risk are recommended to start androgen deprivation.

"This is clearly a scary time [for] patients starting treatment, we really try to get a sense of saying, 'Well, we expect your PSA to drop.' But then the next question is, well, for how long? What are my longer-term outcomes and the nadir PSA? How low it drops after six, up to 12 months after the start of therapy actually gives us a lot of information about how sensitive the prostate cancer is to therapy, and provides a pretty good prediction tool for what the long-term outcomes are going to look like."

Aggarwal suggested that patients with longer PSA doubling time and a slower-moving PSA surveillance, are recommended for hormonal therapy.

Regarding length of treatment, a seminal study performed more than 10 years ago, and findings of which were published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed no difference with intermittent versus continuous hormone therapy for rising PSA patients; suggesting that researchers were able to potentially improve quality of life during that period of time when patients were not on therapy. "We absolutely think about intermittent hormone therapy, even in the higher-risk setting," Aggarwal stated.

For more news on cancer updates, research and education, don't forget to subscribe to CURE®'s newsletters here.

---