Podcasts about esr1

In this episode of the Oncology Brothers podcast we navigated the rapidly evolving treatment landscape of Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. We were joined by Dr. Kevin Kalinsky, Director of the Breast Cancer Program at the Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, to discuss the implications of new targeted therapies, optimal sequencing strategies, and practical toxicity management. Listen us on: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/31BXhY9FM4gPWG10WgE11o Follow us on social media: •⁠  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@oncologybrothers •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ The discussion covered: • The critical role of NGS testing (tissue vs. liquid biopsy) in identifying PIK3CA, ESR1, AKT1 and PTEN alterations. • Frontline management of high-risk, endocrine-resistant disease with the inavolisib triplet (INAVO120) and its overall survival benefit. • Choosing between CDK4/6 inhibitors (abemaciclib vs. ribociclib) in de novo metastatic disease. • Post-CDK4/6 inhibitors on progression we covered, the use of oral SERDs (imlunestrant) and AKT inhibitors (capivasertib). • The "ADC explosion", sequencing T-DXd (DESTINY-Breast06), sacituzumab govitecan (TROPiCS-02), and datopotamab deruxtecan (TROPION-Breast01). • Clinical pearls for managing toxicities: stomatitis, hyperglycemia, rash, neutropenia, and ILD. Join us as we break down the latest data and provide actionable insights for the practicing oncologist. Don't forget to subscribe for more episodes in our breast cancer algorithm series! #MetastaticBreastCancer, #HRPositive, #ADCsequencing, #PIK3CA-AKT, #OncologyPodcast, #OncologyBrothers

JCO PO author Dr. Foldi at UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine shares insights into the JCO PO article, "Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Detection of Progression and Treatment Response Monitoring in Patients With Metastatic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast." Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Foldi discuss how serial ctDNA testing in patients with mILC is feasible and may enable personalized surveillance and real-time therapeutic monitoring. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello, and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I am your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma. Today, we are thrilled to be joined by Dr. Julia Foldi, Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Hematology-Oncology at University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the Magee-Womens Hospital of the UPMC. She is also the lead and corresponding author of the JCO Precision Oncology article entitled "Personalized Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Detection of Progression and Treatment Response Monitoring in Patients with Metastatic Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Julia, welcome to our podcast, and thank you for joining us today. Dr. Julia Foldi: Thank you so much for having me. It is a pleasure. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Again, your manuscript and project address a few interesting things, so we will start with the basics, since we have a broad audience that comprises trainees, community oncologists, and obviously precision medicine experts as well. So, let us start with invasive lobular breast carcinoma. I have been out of fellowship for several years now, and I do not know much about invasive lobular carcinoma. Could you tell us what it is, what some of the genomic characteristics are, why it is different, and why it is important to have a different way to understand disease biology and track disease status with this type of breast cancer? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, thank you for that question. It is really important to frame this study. So, lobular breast cancers, which we shorten to ILC, are the second most common histologic subtype of breast cancer after ductal breast cancers. ILC makes up about 10 to 15 percent of all breast cancers, so it is relatively rare, but in the big scheme of things, because breast cancer is so common, this represents actually over 40,000 new diagnoses a year in the US of lobular breast cancers. What is unique about ILC is it is characterized by loss of an adhesion molecule, E-cadherin. It is encoded by the CDH1 gene. What it does is these tumors tend to form discohesive, single-file patterns and infiltrate into the tumor stroma, as opposed to ductal cancers, which generally form more cohesive masses. As we generally explain to patients, ductal cancers tend to form lumps, while lobular cancers often are not palpable because they infiltrate into the stroma. This creates several challenges, particularly when it comes to imaging. In the diagnostic setting, we know that mammograms and ultrasounds have less sensitivity to detect lobular versus ductal breast cancer. When it comes to the metastatic setting, conventional imaging techniques like CT scans have less sensitivity to detect lobular lesions often. One other unique characteristic of ILC is that these tumors tend to have lower proliferation rates. Because our glucose-based PET scans depend on glucose uptake of proliferating cells, often these tumors also are not avid on conventional FDG-PET scans. It is a challenge for us to monitor these patients as they go through treatment. If you think about the metastatic setting, we start a new treatment, we image people every three to four cycles, about every three months, and we combine the imaging results with clinical assessment and tumor markers to decide if the treatment is working. But if your imaging is not reliable, sometimes even at diagnosis, to really detect these tumors, then really, how are we following these patients? This is really the unique challenge in the metastatic setting in patients with lobular breast cancer: we cannot rely on the imaging to tell if patients are responding to treatment. This is where liquid biopsies are really, really important, and as the field is growing up and we have better and better technologies, lobular breast cancer is going to be a field where they are going to play an important role. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for that easy-to-understand background. The second aspect that I would like to have some context on, to help the audience understand why you did what you did, is ctDNA, tumor informed and non-informed. Could you tell us what these subtypes of liquid biopsies are and why you chose a tumor informed assay for your study? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, it is really important to understand these differences. As you mentioned, there are two main platforms for liquid biopsy assays, circulating tumor DNA assays. I think what is more commonly used in the metastatic setting are non-tumor informed assays, or agnostic assays. These are generally next-generation sequencing-based assays that a lot of companies offer, like Guardant, Tempus, Caris, and FoundationOne. These do not require tumor tissue; they just require a blood sample, a plasma sample, essentially. The next-generation sequencing is done on cell-free DNA that is extracted from the plasma, and it is looking for any cell-free DNA and essentially, figuring out what part of the cell-free DNA comes from the tumor is done through a bioinformatics approach. Most of these assays are panel tests for cancer-associated mutations that we know either have therapeutic significance or biologic significance. So, the results we receive from these tests generally read out specific mutations in oncogenic genes, or sometimes things like fusions where we have specific targeted drugs. Some of the newer assays can also read out tumor fraction; for example, the newest generation Guardant assay that is methylation-based, they can also quantify tumor fraction. But the disadvantage of the tumor agnostic approach is that it is a little bit less sensitive. Opposed to that, we have our tumor informed tests, and these require tumor tissue. Essentially, the tumor is sequenced; this can either be whole exome or whole genome sequencing. The newer generation assays are now using whole genome sequencing of the tumor tissue, and a personalized, patient-specific panel of alterations is essentially barcoded on that tumor tissue. This can be either structural variants or it can be mutations, but generally, these are not driver mutations, but sort of things that are present in the tumor tissue that tend to stay unchanged over time. For each particular patient, a personalized assay, if you want to call it a fingerprint or barcode, is created, and then that is what then is used to test the plasma sample. Essentially, you are looking for that specific cancer in the blood, that barcode or fingerprint in the blood. Because of this, this is a much more sensitive way of looking for ctDNA, and obviously, this detects only that particular tumor that was sequenced originally. So, it is much more sensitive and specific to that tumor that was sequenced. You can argue for both approaches in different settings. We use them in different settings because they give us different information. The tumor agnostic approach gives us mutations, which can be used to determine what the next best therapy to use is, while the tumor informed assay is more sensitive, but it is not going to give us information on therapeutic targets. However, it is quantified, and we can follow it over time to see how it changes. We think that it is going to tell us how patients respond to treatment because we see our circulating tumor DNA levels rise and fall as the cancer burden increases or decreases. We decided to use the tumor informed approach in this particular study because we were really interested in how to determine if patients are having response to treatment versus if they are going to progress on their treatment, more so than looking for specific mutations. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: When you think about these tumor informed assays and you think about barcoding the mutations on the original tumor that you try to track or follow in subsequent blood samples, plasma samples, in your experience, if you have done it in non-lobular cancers, do you think shedding from the tumor has something to do with what you capture or how much you capture? Dr. Julia Foldi: Absolutely. I think there are multiple factors that go into whether someone has detectable ctDNA or not, and that has to do with the type of cancer, the location, right, where is the metastatic site? This is something that we do not fully understand yet: what are tumors that shed more versus not? There is also clearance of ctDNA, and so how fast that clearance occurs is also something that will affect what you can detect in the blood. ctDNA is very short-lived, only has a half-life of hours, and so you can imagine that if there is little shedding and a lot of excretion, then you are not going to be detecting a lot of it. In general, in the metastatic setting, we see that we can detect ctDNA in a lot of cases, especially when patients are progressing on treatment, because we imagine their tumor burden is higher at that point. Even with the non-tumor informed assays, we detect a lot of ctDNA. Part of this study was to actually assess: what is the proportion of patients where we can have this information? Because if we are only going to be able to detect ctDNA in less than 50 percent of patients, then it is not going to be a useful method to follow them with. Because this field is new and we have not been using a lot of tumor informed assays in the metastatic setting, we did not really know what to expect when we set out to look at this. We did not know what was going to be the baseline detection rate in this patient population, so that was one of the first things that we wanted to answer. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Excellent. Now going to this manuscript in particular, what was the research question, what was the patient population, and what was the strategy that you used to investigate some of these questions? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, we partnered with Natera, and the reason was that their Signatera tumor-informed assay was the first personalized, tumor-informed, really an MRD assay, minimal residual disease detection assay. It has been around the longest and has been pretty widely used commercially already, even though some of our data is still lacking. but we know that people are using this in the real world. We wanted to gather some real-world data specifically in lobular patients. So, we asked Natera to look at their database of commercial Signatera testing and look for patients with stage 4 lobular breast cancer. The information all comes from the submitting physicians sending in pathologic reports and clinical notes, and so they have that information from the requisitions essentially that are sent in by the ordering physician. We found 66 patients who were on first-line or close to first-line endocrine-based therapies for their metastatic lobular breast cancer and had serial collections of Signatera tests. The way we defined baseline was that the first Signatera had to be sent within three months of starting treatment. So, it is not truly baseline, but again, this is a limitation of looking at real-world data is that you are not always going to get the best time point that you need. We had over 350 samples from those 66 patients, again longitudinal ctDNA samples, and our first question was what is the baseline detection rate using this tumor informed assay? Then, most importantly, what is the concordance between changes in ctDNA and clinical response to treatment? That is defined by essentially radiologic response to treatment. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Interesting. So, what were some of your observations in terms of ctDNA dynamics, whether baseline levels made a difference, whether subsequent levels at different time points made a difference, or subsequent levels at, let us say, cycle three made a difference? Were there any specific trends that you saw? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, first, at baseline, 95 percent of patients had detectable ctDNA, which is, I think, a really important data point because it tells us that this can be a really useful test. If we can detect it in almost all patients before they start treatment, we are going to be able to follow this longitudinally. And again, these were not true baseline samples. So, I think if we look really at baseline before starting treatment, almost all patients will have detectable ctDNA in the metastatic setting. The second important thing we saw was that disease progression correlated very well with increase in ctDNA. So, in most patients who had disease progression by imaging, we saw increase in ctDNA. Conversely, in most patients who had clinical benefit from their treatment, so they had a response or stable disease, we saw decrease in ctDNA levels. It seems that what we call molecular response based on ctDNA is tracking very nicely along with the radiographic response. So, those were really the two main observations. Again, this is a small cohort, limited by its real-world nature and the time points that ctDNA assay was sent was obviously not mandated. This is a real-world data set, and so we could not really look at specific time points like you asked about, let us say, cycle three of therapy, right? We did not have all of the right time points for all of the patients. But what we were able to do was to graph out some specific patient scenarios to illustrate how changes in ctDNA correlate with imaging response. I can talk a little bit about that. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: That was going to be my question. Did you see patients who had serial monitoring using the tumor informed ctDNA assay where the assay became positive a few months before the imaging? Did you have any of those kinds of observations? Dr. Julia Foldi: Yes, so I think this is where the field is going: are we able to use this technology to maybe detect progression before it becomes clinically apparent? Of course, there are lots of questions about: does that really matter? But it seems like, based on some of the patient scenarios that we present in the paper, that this testing can do that. So, we had a specific scenario, and this is illustrated in a figure in the paper, really showing the treatment as well as the changes in ctDNA, tumor markers, and also radiographic response. So, this particular patient was on first-line endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitor with palbociclib. Initially, she had a low-level detectable ctDNA. It became undetectable during treatment, and the patient had a couple of serial ctDNA assays that were negative, so undetectable. And then we started, after about seven months on this combination therapy, the ctDNA levels started rising. She actually had three serial ctDNA assays with increasing level of ctDNA before she even had any imaging tests. And then around the time that the ctDNA peaked, this patient had radiographic evidence of progression. There was also an NGS-based assay sent to look for specific mutations at that point. The patient was found to have an ESR1 mutation, which is very common in this patient population. She was switched to a novel oral SERD, elacestrant, and the ctDNA fell again to undetectable within the first couple months of being on elacestrant. And then a very similar thing happened: while she was on this second-line therapy, she had three serial negative ctDNA assays, and then the fourth one was positive. This was two months before the patient had a scan that showed progression again. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: And Julia, like you mentioned, this is a small sample size, limited number of patients, in this case, one patient case scenario, but provides insights into other important aspects around escalation or de-escalation of therapy where perhaps ctDNA could be used as an integral biomarker rather than an exploratory biomarker. What are some of your thoughts around that and how is the breast cancer space? I know like in GI and bladder cancer, there has been a significant uptrend in MRD assessments for therapeutic decision making. What is happening in the breast cancer space? Dr. Julia Foldi: So, super interesting. I think this is where a lot of our different fields are going. In the breast cancer space, so far, I have seen a lot of escalation attempts. It is not even necessarily in this particular setting where we are looking at dynamics of ctDNA, but in the breast cancer world, of course, we have a lot of data on resistance mutations. I mentioned ESR1 mutation in a particular patient in our study. ESR1 mutations are very common in patients with ER-positive breast cancer who are on long-term endocrine therapy, and ESR1 mutations confer resistance to aromatase inhibitors. So, that is an area that there has been a lot of interest in trying to detect ESR1 mutations earlier and switching therapy early. So, this was the basis of the SERENA-6 trial, which was presented last year at ASCO and created a lot of excitement. This was a trial where patients had non-tumor-informed NGS-based Guardant assay sent every three to six months while they were on first-line endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. If they had an ESR1 mutation detected, they were randomized to either continue the same endocrine therapy or switch to an oral SERD. The trial showed that the population of patients who switched to the oral SERD did better in terms of progression-free survival than those who stayed on their original endocrine therapy. There are a lot of questions about how to use this in routine practice. Of course, it is not trivial to be sending a ctDNA assay every three to six months. The rate of detection of these mutations was relatively low in that study; again, the incidence increases in later lines of therapy. So, there are a lot of questions about whether we should be doing this in all of our first-line patients. The other question is, even the patients who stayed on their original endocrine therapy were able to stay on that for another nine months. So, there is this question of: are we switching patients too early to a new line of therapy by having this escalation approach? So, there are a lot of questions about this. As far as I know, at least in our practice, we are not using this approach just yet to escalate therapy. Time will tell how this all pans out. But I think what is even more interesting is the de-escalation question, and I think that is where tumor informed assays like Signatera and the data that our study generated can be applied. Actually, our plan is to generate some prospective data in the lobular breast cancer population, and I have an ongoing study to do that, to really be able to tease out the early ctDNA dynamics as patients first start on endocrine therapy. So, this is patients who are newly diagnosed, they are just starting on their first-line endocrine therapy, and measure, with sensitive assays, measure ctDNA dynamics in the first few months of therapy. In those patients who have a really robust response, that is where I think we can really think about de-escalation. In the patients whose ctDNA goes to undetectable after just a few weeks of therapy with just an endocrine agent, they might not even need a CDK4/6 inhibitor in their first-line treatment. So, that is an area where we are very interested in our group, and I know that other groups are looking at this too, to try to de-escalate therapy in patients who clear their ctDNA early on. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you so much. Well, lots of questions, but at the same time, progress comes through questions asked, and your project is one of those which is asking an interesting question in a rarer cancer and perhaps will lead to subsequent improvement in how we monitor these individuals and how we escalate or de-escalate therapy. Hopefully, we will get to see more of what you are working on in subsequent submissions to JCO Precision Oncology and perhaps talk more about it in a couple of years and see how the space and field is moving. Thanks again for sharing your insights. I do want to take one to two quick minutes talking about you as an investigator, Julia. If you could speak to your career pathway, your journey, the pathway to mentorship, the pathway to being a mentor, and how things have shaped for you in your personal professional growth. Dr. Julia Foldi: Sure, yeah, that is great. Thank you. So, I had a little bit of an unconventional path to clinical medicine. I actually thought I was going to be a basic scientist when I first started out. I got a PhD in Immunology right out of college and was studying not even anything cancer-related. I was studying macrophage signaling in inflammatory diseases, but I was in New York City. This was right around the time that the first checkpoint inhibitors were approved. Actually, some of my friends from my PhD program worked in Jim Allison's lab, who was the basic scientist responsible for ipilimumab. So, I got to kind of first-hand experience the excitement around bringing something from the lab into the clinic that actually changed really the course of oncology. And so, I got very excited about oncology and clinical medicine. So, I decided to kind of switch gears from there and I went back to medical school after finishing my PhD and got my MD at NYU. I knew I wanted to do oncology, so I did a research track residency and fellowship combined at Yale. I started working early on with the breast cancer team there. At the time, Lajos Pusztai was the head of translational research there at Yale, and I started working with him early in my residency and then through my fellowship. I worked on several trials with him, including a neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor trial in triple-negative breast cancer patients. During my last year in fellowship, I received a Conquer Cancer Young Investigator Award to study estrogen receptor heterogeneity using spatial transcriptomics in this subset of breast cancers that have intermediate estrogen receptor expression. From there, I joined the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh in 2022. So, I have been there about almost four years at this point. My interests really shifted slowly from triple-negative breast cancers towards ER-positive breast cancers. When I arrived in Pittsburgh, I started working very closely with some basic and translational researchers here who are very interested in estrogen signaling and mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy, and there is a large group here interested in lobular breast cancers. During my training, I was not super aware even that lobular breast cancer was a unique subtype of breast cancers, and that is, I think, changing a little bit. There is a lot more awareness in the breast cancer clinical and research community about ILC being a unique subtype, but it is not even really part of our training in fellowship, which we are trying to change. But I have become a lot more aware of this because of the research team here and through that, I have become really interested also on the clinical side. And so, we do have a Lobular Breast Cancer Research Center of Excellence here at the University of Pittsburgh and UPMC, and I am the leader on the clinical side. We have a really great team of basic and translational researchers looking at different aspects of lobular breast cancers, and some of the work that I am doing is related to this particular manuscript we discussed and the next steps, as I mentioned, a prospective study of early ctDNA dynamics in lobular patients. I also did some more clinical research work in collaboration with the NSABP looking at long-term outcomes of patients with lobular versus ductal breast cancers in some of their older trials. And so, that is, in a nutshell, a little bit about how I got here and how I became interested in ILC. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you for sharing those personal insights and personal journey. I am sure it will inspire other trainees, fellows, and perhaps junior faculty in trying to find their niche. The path, as you mentioned, is not always straight; it often tends to be convoluted. And then finding an area that you are interested in, taking things forward, and being persistent is often what matters. Dr. Julia Foldi: Thank you so much for having me. It was great. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It was great chatting with you. And thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In today's episode, our discussion features Aditya Bardia, MD, MPH, FASCO. Dr Bardia is a professor in the Department of Medicine in the Division of Hematology/Oncology, the director of Translational Research Integration, and a member of Signal Transduction and Therapeutics at the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles, California.In our exclusive interview, Dr Bardia discussed key findings from the phase 3 lidERA Breast Cancer study (NCT04961996) showing the invasive disease–free survival superiority of giredestrant (GDC-9545) over standard endocrine therapy in patients with estrogen receptor–positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Our discussion also covered the ongoing phase 3 INAVO123 trial (NCT06790693), which is investigating inavolisib (Itovebi) plus CDK4/6 inhibitors and letrozole in patients with endocrine-sensitive, PIK3CA-mutated breast cancer. Dr Bardia also emphasized the importance of testing for ESR1 and PIK3CA mutations in order to better personalize treatment.

Did you know that as MBC patients get treated with multiple lines of ET, the percentage of patients who develop an ESR1 mutation increases? Credit available for this activity expires: 1/26/27 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/current-and-future-oral-serd-strategies-management-er-2026a100022b?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Featuring perspectives from Dr Angela DeMichele, Dr Komal Jhaveri, Dr Erica Mayer, Dr Hope S Rugo and Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) 1985 NCI Consensus Conference on Early Breast Cancer: Sir Richard Peto, FRS (2:01) Current Role of Genomic Assays in Treatment Decision-Making for Localized Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive Breast Cancer — Dr DeMichele (5:13) Case: A premenopausal woman in her mid 40s with an ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) after partial mastectomy/radiation therapy who enrolls in the prospective, observational FLEX study: MammaPrint® low risk — Laurie Matt-Amaral, MD, MPH (15:30) Case: A premenopausal woman in her mid 40s after modified radical mastectomy for T2N0 ER-positive, HER2-negative IDC with an Oncotype DX® Recurrence Score (RS®) of 19 — Swati Vishwanathan, MD Case: A woman in her mid 60s with locally advanced (19 cm) ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) Stage IIIB mucinous carcinoma breast cancer and an RS of 18 — Alan B Astrow, MD (22:40) Role of CDK4/6 Inhibitors and Other Novel Strategies in Therapy for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Localized Breast Cancer — Dr Jhaveri (30:18) Case: A woman in her mid 50s with ER-positive, HER2-negative Stage IIB, T2N1 IDC after neoadjuvant dose-dense AC-T, lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation therapy — Eleonora Teplinsky, MD (42:14) Case: A woman in her mid 60s with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with a surgically removed solitary lung metastasis after 4 years of adjuvant letrozole — Eric Fox, DO (46:32) Evolving Up-Front Treatment Paradigm for HR-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer (mBC) — Dr Rugo (49:45) Case: A woman in her early 80s with Type 2 diabetes, well controlled hypertension and recurrent ER-positive, HER2-negative mBC after 4 years of adjuvant letrozole — Sunil Gandhi, MD (1:02:30) Clinical Utility of Agents Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway for Patients with Progressive HR-Positive mBC — Dr Mayer (1:06:37) Case: A woman in her late 60s with ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+), PIK3CA-mutant mBC with disease progression after 2 years of adjuvant letrozole — Laila Agrawal, MD (1:20:22) Case: A woman in her early 60s with ER-positive, HER2-low PIK3CA-mutant mBC and disease progression on first-line palbociclib/fulvestrant — Dr Teplinsky (1:26:36) Results from the Global Phase III lidERA Breast Cancer Trial of Giredestrant versus Standard Endocrine Therapy as Adjuvant Treatment for ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Localized Breast Cancer (1:31:48) Current and Future Role of Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degraders for Progressive HR-Positive mBC — Dr Wander (1:42:30) Case: A woman in her early 100s with locally advanced ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with disease progression on letrozole, now with an ESR1 mutation — Dr Astrow (1:57:51) CME information and select publications

Featuring perspectives from Dr Javier Cortés, Dr Rita Nanda, Prof Peter Schmid and Dr Priyanka Sharma, including the following topics:  Introduction (0:00) Case: A woman in her early 80s with multiple comorbidities and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) develops bone-only metastases 4 months after declining capecitabine for post-neoadjuvant residual disease — Justin Favaro, MD, PhD (1:50) Case: A woman in her mid 70s with ER-negative, HER2-low (IHC 1+), PIK3CA-mutated, PD-L1-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after receiving 3 cycles of neoadjuvant paclitaxel/carboplatin/pembrolizumab, which was discontinued — Alan Astrow, MD (6:47) Previously Untreated Metastatic TNBC (mTNBC) — Prof Schmid (10:47)  Case: A woman in her early 80s with multiregimen-recurrent ER-positive, HER2-low (IHC 1+) ESR1-mutant mBC receives sacituzumab govitecan — Jennifer Yannucci, MD (27:19) Case: The role of datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) for patients with ER-positive, HER2-low mBC who experienced disease progression on prior trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) — Ranju Gupta, MD; Case: A woman in her late 70s with bilateral recurrence in the lungs of ER-negative, HER2-low (IHC 1+) breast cancer (PD-L1 TPS 20%) receives Dato-DXd with durvalumab on protocol — Yanjun Ma, MD, PhD (31:35) Integrating Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) into the Management of Endocrine-Resistant Hormone Receptor-Positive mBC — Dr Sharma (36:31) Case: A woman in her early 70s with recurrent ER-negative, HER2-low (IHC 2+) mBC receives sacituzumab govitecan and achieves complete remission — Dr Gupta; Case: Management of neutropenia associated with sacituzumab govitecan — Gigi Chen, MD (50:30) Case: A woman in her late 60s with recurrent ER-negative, HER2-low (IHC 1+) mBC (HER2 V69L mutation) receives T-DXd and achieves a complete response but develops Grade 1 interstitial lung disease — Dr Gupta; Case: Management of T-DXd-related side effects — Laila Agrawal, MD (54:10) Selection and Sequencing of Therapy for Relapsed/Refractory mTNBC — Dr Nanda (58:59) Case: A woman in her early 40s with multiregimen-recurrent ER-positive, HER2-low mBC who has experienced severe nausea with past treatments is about to initiate T-DXd — Atif M Hussein, MD, MMM (1:12:40) Tolerability and Other Practical Considerations with ADCs and Other Cytotoxic Agents for mBC — Dr Cortés (1:18:10) CME information and select publications

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Hope Rugo discuss advances in antibody-drug conjugates for various breast cancer types as well as treatment strategies in the new era of oral SERDs for HR-positive breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Dr. Hope Rugo, an internationally renowned breast medical oncologist and my colleague here at City of Hope, where she leads the Women's Cancers Program and serves as division chief of breast medical oncology. Dr. Rugo is going to share with us exciting advances in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that are expanding treatment options in various breast cancer types. She'll also address some of the complex questions arising in the new era of oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders) that are revolutionizing treatment in the hormone receptor-positive breast cancer space. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Rugo, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to switch to first names if you don't mind.  The first topic is actually a really exciting one, Hope, and this is antibody-drug conjugates. I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but I actually started my training at UCLA, I was a med student and resident there, and it was in Dennis Slamon's lab. I worked very closely with Mark Pegram and a handful of others. This is right around the time I think a lot of HER2-directed therapies were really evolving initially in the clinics. Now we've got antibody-drug conjugates. Our audience is well-familiar with the mechanism there but tell us about how ADCs have really started to reshape therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, this is a really great place to start. I mean, we have had such major advances in breast cancer just this year, I think really changing the paradigm of treating patients. But HER2-positive disease, we've been used to having sequenced success of new agents. And I think the two biggest areas where we've made advances in HER2-positive disease, which were remarkably advanced this year in 2025, have been in antibody-drug conjugates with trastuzumab deruxtecan and with new oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have less of a target on EGFR and more on HER2, so they have an overall more tolerable toxicity profile and therefore a potentially better efficacy in the clinic. At least that's what we're seeing with these new strategies that we couldn't really pursue in the past because of toxicities of the oral TKIs. So, although our topic is ADCs, I'm going to include the TKI because it's so important in our thinking about treating HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, we've seen these remarkable improvements in progression-free and overall survival in the second-line setting with T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, compared to T-DM1. And then sequencing ADCs with giving T-DXd after T-DM1 was better than an oral tyrosine kinase or a trastuzumab combination with standard chemotherapy. That was DESTINY-Breast03 and DESTINY-Breast02. So, then we've had other trials since then, and T-DXd has moved into the early-stage setting, which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the next big trial for T-DXd in HER2-positive disease was moving it to the first-line setting to supplant what has become an established treatment for now quite a long time: the so-called CLEOPATRA regimen, which used the combined antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab with a taxane as first-line therapy. And then we've proceeded on with maintenance with ongoing HP for patients with responding or stable disease. And we'd seen long-term data showing, you know, at 8 years there was a group of patients whose cancers had never progressed and continued improved overall survival. So, T-DXd was studied in DESTINY-Breast09, either alone or in combination with pertuzumab compared to THP. The patient population had received a little bit more prior treatment, but interestingly, not a lot compared to CLEOPATRA. And they designed the trial to be T-DXd continued until progression with or without pertuzumab versus THP, which would go for six cycles and then stop around six cycles, and then stop and continue HP. Patients who had hormone receptor-positive disease could use hormone therapy, and this is one of the issues with this dataset because, surprisingly in this dataset and one other I'll mention, very few patients took hormone therapy. And even in the maintenance trial, the HER2CLIMB-05, less than 50% took hormone therapy as maintenance. This is kind of shocking to me and highlights an area of really important education, that outcome is improved when you add endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive metastatic disease in the maintenance phase, and it's a really important part of treatment. But suffice it to say, you know, you're kind of studying continued chemo versus stopping chemo in maintenance. And T-DXd, as we all expected, in combination with pertuzumab was superior to THP in terms of progression-free survival, really remarkably improved. And you could stop the chemo with toxicity, but most people continued it with T-DXd. Again, not a lot of people got hormone therapy, which is an issue, and you stop the chemo in the control arm. So, this has brought up a lot of interest in trying to use T-DXd as an induction and then go to maintenance, much as we do with the CLEOPATRA regimen with hormone therapy. But it brings up another issue. So first, T-DXd is superior; it's a great treatment. Not everybody needs to have it because we don't know whether it's better to give T-DXd first or second with progression - that we need a little bit longer follow-up. But just earlier this week, interestingly, the third week of December, the U.S. FDA approved T-DXd in the DESTINY-Breast09 approach with pertuzumab. So as I mentioned earlier, there was a T-DXd-alone arm; that arm has not yet reported. So very interesting, we don't know if you need pertuzumab or not. So what about the maintenance? That's the other area where we've made a huge advance here. So, we all want to stop chemo and we want to stop T-DXd. You don't want somebody being nauseated for two years while they're on treatment, and also there's a small number of patients with mostly de novo metastatic HER2-positive disease who are cured of their disease. We'd like to expand that, and I think these new drugs give us the opportunity to improve the number of patients who might be cured from metastatic disease. So the first maintenance study we saw was adding palbociclib, the CDK4/6 inhibitor, to endocrine therapy and HP, essentially. There, we had a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival difference of 15.2 months: 29 to 44 months, really huge. At San Antonio this year, we saw data with this oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor tucatinib, already showed it was great in a triplet, but as maintenance in combination with HP, it showed also a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival. But the numbers were all shifted down. So in PATINA, the control arm was in the 24-month range; here it was the tucatinib-HP arm that was in the 25 months and 16 months for control. So there was a differential benefit in ER-negative and ER-positive disease. So I think we're all thinking that our ideal approach moving forward would be to give T-DXd to most patients, we see how they do, and treat to best response. And then, stop the T-DXd, start HP, trastuzumab, pertuzumab for ER-negative, with tucatinib for ER-positive with palbociclib. We also have early data that suggests that both approaches may reduce the development of brain metastases, an issue in HER2-positive disease, and delay time to progression of brain metastases as seen in HER2CLIMB-05 in very early data - small numbers, but still quite intriguing that you might delay progression of brain metastases with tucatinib that clearly has efficacy in the brain.  So, I think that this is a hugely exciting advance for our patients, and these approaches are quickly moving into the early stage setting. T-DXd compared to standard chemo, essentially followed by THP, so a sequenced approach resulted in more pathologic complete responses than a standard THP-AC-type neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd alone for eight cycles wasn't better, and that's interesting. We still need the sequenced non-cross-resistant chemo. But I think even more importantly, the data from DESTINY-Breast05 looking at T-DXd versus T-DM1 in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy showed a remarkable improvement in invasive disease-free survival with T-DXd versus T-DM1, and quite early. It was a high-risk population, higher risk than the T-DM1 trial with KATHERINE, but earlier readout with a remarkable improvement in outcome. We expect to be FDA approved sometime in the first half of 2026. So then we'll get patients who've already had T-DXd who get metastatic disease. But my hope is that with T-DXd, maybe with tucatinib in the right group of patients or even sequenced in very high-risk disease, that we could cure many more patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer and cure a subset, a greater subset of patients with de novo metastatic disease. Dr. Monty Pal: That's brilliant. And you tackled so many questions that I was going to follow up with there: brain metastases, etc. That was sort of looming in my mind. I mean, general thoughts on an ADC versus a TKI in the context of brain mets? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it's an interesting question because T-DXd has shown quite good efficacy in this setting. And tucatinib, of course, had a trial where they took patients with new brain mets, so a larger population than we've seen yet for the T-DXd trials, and saw that not only did they delay progression of brain metastases and result in shrinkage of existing untreated brain mets, but that patients who develop a new brain met, they could stay on the same assigned treatment. They got stereotactic radiation, and then the patients who were on tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine had a further delay in progression of brain mets compared to those on the placebo arm, even after treatment of a new one that developed on treatment. So, I think it's hard. I think most of us for a lot of brain mets might start with the tucatinib approach, but T-DXd is also a very important treatment. You know, you're kind of trading off a diarrhea, some liver enzyme elevations with tucatinib versus nausea, which you really have to work on managing because it can be long-delayed nausea, and this risk of ILD, interstitial lung disease, that's about 12%, with most but not all trials showing a mortality rate from interstitial lung disease of just under 1 percent. In the early-stage setting, it was really interesting to see that with T-DXd getting four cycles in the neoadjuvant setting, a lot less ILD noted than the patients who got up to 14 cycles, as I think they got a median of 10 cycles in the post-surgical setting, there was a little bit more ILD. But I think we're going to be better and better at finding this earlier and preventing mortality by just stopping drug and treating earlier with steroids. Dr. Monty Pal: And this ILD issue, it always seems to resurface. There are drugs that I use in my kidney cancer clinic, everolimus, common to perhaps the breast cancer clinic as well, pembrolizumab, where I think the pattern of pneumonitis is quite different, right? What is your strategy for recognizing pneumonitis early in this context? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, it is, and you know, having done the very early studies in everolimus where we gave it in the neoadjuvant setting and we're like, "Hmm, the patient came in with a cough. What's going on?" You know, we didn't know. And you have mouth sores, you know, we were learning about the drug as we were giving it. What we don't do with everolimus and CDK4/6 inhibitors, for example, is grade 1 changes like radiation pneumonitis, we don't stop, we don't treat it. We only treat for symptoms. But because of the mortality associated with T-DXd, albeit small, we stop drug for grade 1 imaging-only asymptomatic pneumonitis, and some of us treat with a half dose of steroids just to try and hasten recovery. We've actually now published or presented a couple of datasets from trials, a pooled analysis and a real-world analysis, that have looked at patients who were retreated after grade 1 pneumonitis or ILD and tolerated drug very well and none of them died of interstitial lung disease, which was really great to see because you can retreat safely and some of these patients stayed on for almost a year benefiting from treatment. So, there's a differential toxicity profile with these drugs and there are risk factors which clearly have identified those at higher risk: prior ILD, for example. A French group said smoking; other people haven't found that, maybe because they smoked more in France, I don't know. And being of Japanese descent is quite interesting. The studies just captured that you were treated in Japan, but I think it's probably being of Japanese descent with many drugs that increases your risk of ILD. And, you know, older patients, people who have hypoxia, those are the patients. So, how do we do this? With everolimus, we don't have specific monitoring. But for T-DXd we do; we do every nine weeks to start with and then every 12 weeks CT scans because most of the events occur relatively early. Somebody who's older and at higher risk now get the first CT at six weeks. Dr. Monty Pal: This is super helpful. And I have to tell you, a lot of these drugs are permeating the bladder cancer space which, you know, is ultimately going to be a component of my practice, so thank you for all this. We could probably stay on this topic of HER2-positive disease forever. I'm super interested in that space still. But let me shift gears a little bit and talk about triple-negative breast cancer and this evolving space of HR-positive, HER2-low breast cancer. I mean, tell us about ADCs in that very sort of other broad area. Dr. Hope Rugo: So triple-negative disease is the absolute hardest subset of disease that we have to treat because if you don't have a great response in the early stage setting, the median survival is very short, you know, under two years for the majority of TNBCs, with the exception of the small percentage of low proliferative disease subsets. The co-question is what do we do for these patients and how do we improve outcome? And sacituzumab govitecan has been one strategy in the later line setting that was shown to improve progression-free and overall survival, the Trop-2 ADC. We had recently three trials presented with the two ADCs, sacituzumab govitecan and the other Trop-2 ADC that's approved for HR-positive disease, datopotamab deruxtecan. And they were studied in the first-line setting. Two trials with SG, sacituzumab govitecan, those trials, one was PD-L1 positive, ASCENT-04. That showed that SG with a checkpoint inhibitor was superior, so pembrolizumab was superior to the standard KEYNOTE-355 type of treatment with either a taxane or gemcitabine and carboplatin with pembrolizumab for patients who have a combined positive score for PD-L1, 10 or greater. So, these are patients who are eligible for a checkpoint inhibitor, and SG resulted in an improved progression-free survival.  The interesting thing about that dataset is that few patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor, which is fascinating because we give it to everybody now. But access is an issue and timing of the study enrollment was an issue. The other thing which I think we've all really applauded Gilead for is that there was automatic crossover. So, you could get from the company, to try and overcome some of the enormous disparities worldwide in access to these life-saving drugs, you could get SG through the company for free once you had blinded independent central review confirmation of disease progression. Now, a lot of the people who got the SG got it through their insurance, they didn't bill the company, but 80 percent of patients in the control arm received SG in the second-line setting. So that impacts your ability to look at overall survival, but it's an incredibly important component of these trials. So then at ESMO, we saw the data from SG and Dato-DXd in the first-line metastatic setting for patients who either had PD-L1-negative disease or weren't eligible for an immunotherapy. For the Dato study, TROPION-Breast02, that was 10 percent of the patients who had PD-L1-positive disease but didn't get a checkpoint inhibitor, and for the ASCENT-03 trial population it was only 1 percent. Importantly, the trials allowed patients who relapsed within a year of receiving their treatment with curative intent, and the Dato study, TB-02, allowed patients who relapsed while on treatment or within the first six months, and that was 15 percent of the 20 percent of early relapsers. The ASCENT trial, ASCENT-03, had 20 percent who relapsed between 6 and 12 months. The drugs were better than standard of care chemotherapy, the ADCs in both trials, which is very nice. Different toxicity profiles, different dosing intervals, but better than standard of care chemotherapy in the disease that's hardest for us to treat. And importantly, when you looked at the subset of early relapsers, those patients also did better with the ADC versus chemotherapy, which is incredibly important. And we were really interested in that 15 percent of patients who had early relapse. I actually think that six months thing was totally contrived, invented, you know, categorization and doesn't make any sense, and we should drop it. But the early relapsers were 15 percent of TB-02 and Dato was superior to standard of care chemo. We like survival, but the ASCENT trial again allowed the crossover to an approved ADC that improved survival and 80 percent of patients crossed over. In the Dato trial, they did not allow crossover, they didn't provide Dato, which isn't approved for TNBC but is for HR-positive disease, and they didn't allow, of course, pay for SG. So very few patients actually crossed over in their post-treatment data and in that study, they were able to show a survival benefit. So actually, I think in the U.S. where we can use approved drugs already before there's a fixed FDA approval, that people are already switching to use SG or Dato in the first-line setting for metastatic TNBC that's both PD-L1 positive for SG and PD-L1 negative for both drugs. And I think understanding the toxicity profiles of the two drugs is really important as well as the dosing interval to try and figure out which drug to use. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. Brilliant. Well, I'm going to shift gears a little bit. ADCs are a topic, again, just like HER2-positive disease we could stay on forever. Dr. Hope Rugo: Huge. Yes. Dr. Monty Pal: But we're going to shift gears to another massive topic, which is oral SERDs. In broad strokes, right, this utilization of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the context of HR-positive breast cancer is obviously, you know, a paradigm that's been well established at this point. Where do we sequence in oral SERDs? Where do they fit into this paradigm? Dr. Hope Rugo: Ha! This is a rapidly changing area; we keep changing what we're saying every other minute. And I think that there are three areas of great interest. So one is patients who develop ESR1 mutations that allow constitutive signaling through the estrogen receptor, even when there's not estrogen around, and that is a really important mutation that is subclonal; it develops under the pressure of treatment in about 40 percent of patients. And it doesn't happen when you first walk in the door. And what we've seen is that oral SERDs as single agents are better than standard single-agent endocrine therapy in that setting. The problem that we've had with that approach is that we're now really interested in giving targeted agents with our endocrine therapies, not just in the first-line setting where CDK4/6 inhibitors are our standard of care with survival benefit for ribociclib and, you know, survival benefit in subsets with other CDK4/6 inhibitors, and abemaciclib with a numeric improvement. So we give it first line. The question is, what do you do in the second-line setting? Because of the recent data, we now believe that oral SERDs should be really given with a targeted agent. And some datasets which were recently presented, which I think have helped us with that, have been EMBER-3 and then the most recently evERA BC, or evERA Breast Cancer, that looked at the oral SERD giredestrant with everolimus compared to standard of care endocrine therapy with everolimus, where 100 percent of patients received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and showed a marked improvement in progression-free survival, including in the subsets of patients with a short response, 6-12 months of prior response to CDK4/6 inhibitor and in those who had a PIK3CA pathway mutation. The thing is that the benefit looks like it's much bigger in the ESR1 mutant population, although response was better, PFS wasn't better in the wild type. So, we're still trying to figure that out. We also saw EMBER-3 with imlunestrant and abemaciclib as a second line. Not everybody had had a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor; they compared it to imlunestrant alone, but still the data was quite striking and seemed to cross the need for ESR1 mutations. And then lastly, we saw data from the single arms of the ELEVATE trial looking at elacestrant with everolimus and abemaciclib and showed these really marked progression-free survival data, even though single-arm, that crossed the mutation status. At least for the everolimus combination, abemaciclib analysis is still to come in the mutated subgroups. But really remarkable PFS, much longer.  Single-agent fulvestrant after CDK4/6 inhibitor AI has a PFS in like the three-month range and in some studies, maybe close to five months. These are all at 10-plus months and really looking very good. And so those questions are, is it ESR1 mutation alone? Is it all comers? We'd like all comers, right? We believe in the combination approach and we're learning more about combinations with drugs like capivasertib and other drugs as we move forward. Everybody now wants to combine their targeted agent with an oral SERD because they're clearly here to stay with quite remarkable data. The other issue, so the second issue in the metastatic setting is, does it make a difference if we change to an oral SERD before radiographic imaging evidence of progression? And that was the question asked in the SERENA-6 trial where patients had serial monitoring for the presence of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA. And those who had them without progression on imaging could be randomized to switch to camizestrant with the same CDK4/6 inhibitor or stay on their same AI CDK4/6 inhibitor. And they showed a difference in progression-free survival that markedly favored camizestrant. But interestingly, the people who were on the standard control arm had an ESR1 mutation, we think AIs don't work, they stayed on for nine more months. The patients who were on the camizestrant stayed on for more than 16 months. And they presented some additional subset data which showed the same thing: follow-up PFS data, PFS2, all beneficial in SERENA-6 at the San Antonio [Breast Cancer Symposium]. So, we're still a little bit unclear about that. They did quality of life, and pain was markedly improved. They had a marked delayed time to progression of pain in the camizestrant arm. So this is all a work in progress, trying to understand who should we switch without progression to an oral SERD based on this development of this mutation that correlates with resistance. And, you know, it's interesting because the median time to having a mutation was 18 months and the median time to switch was almost 24 months. And then there were like more than 3,000 patients who hadn't gotten a mutation, hadn't switched, and were still okay. So screening everybody is the big question, and when you would start and who you would change on and how this affects outcome. Patients didn't have access to camizestrant in the control arm, something we can't fix but we have experimental drugs. We're actually planning a trial, I hope in collaboration with the French group Unicancer, and looking at this exact question. You know, if you switch and you change the CDK4/6 inhibitor and then you also allow crossover, what will we see? Dr. Monty Pal: We're coming right to the tail end of our time here, and I could probably go on for another couple of hours with you here. But if you could just give us maybe one or two big highlights from San Antonio, any thoughts to leave our audience with here based on this recent meeting? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, I talked about a lot of those new data already from San Antonio, and the one that I'd really like to mention which I think was, you know, there were a lot of great presentations including personalized screening presented from the WISDOM trial by my colleague Laura Esserman, fascinating and really a big advance. But lidERA was the big highlight, I think, outside of the HER2CLIMB-05 which I talked about earlier in HER2-positive disease. And this study looked at giredestrant, the oral SERD versus standard of care endocrine therapy as treatment for medium and high-risk early-stage breast cancer. And what they showed, which I think was really remarkable with just about a three-year median follow-up, was an improvement in invasive disease-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.7. I mean, really quite remarkable and so early. It looked as though this was all driven by the high-risk group, which makes sense, not the medium risk, it's too early. And also that there was a bigger benefit in patients who were on tamoxifen compared to giredestrant versus AI, but for both groups, the confidence intervals didn't cross 1. There's even a trend towards overall survival, even though it's way too early. I think that, you know, really well-tolerated oral drug that could improve outcome in early-stage disease, this is the first advance we've seen in over two decades in the treatment of early-stage hormone receptor-positive disease with just endocrine therapy. I think we think that we don't want to give up CDK4/6 inhibitors because we saw a survival benefit with abemaciclib and a trend with giving ribociclib in the NATALEE trial. So we're thinking that maybe one approach would be to give CDK4/6 inhibitors and then switch to an oral SERD or to have enough data to be able to give oral SERDs with these CDK4/6 inhibitors for early-stage disease. And that's all in the works, you know, lots of studies going on. We're going to see a lot of data with both switching 8,000 patients with an imlunestrant switching trial, an elacestrant trial going on, and safety data with giredestrant with abemaciclib and soon to come ribociclib. So, this is going to change everything for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, and I hope cure more patients of the most common subset of the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. Dr. Monty Pal: Super exciting. It's just remarkable to hear how this has evolved since 25 years ago, which is really the last time I sort of dabbled in breast cancer.  Thank you so much, Hope, for joining us today. These were fantastic insights. Appreciate you being on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and really want to thank you personally for your remarkable contribution to the field of breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you very much, and thanks for talking with me today. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it. And thanks a lot to our listeners today as well. You'll find links to all the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Monty Pal @montypal Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx  

El Dr. Mauricio Lema, hemato-oncólogo adscrito a la Clínica de Oncología Astorga en Medellín, Colombia, presentó una actualización integral sobre los avances más relevantes en oncología para 2025, con énfasis en cáncer de mama y cáncer de pulmón. Su intervención destacó los resultados de los estudios DESTINY-Breast09, DESTINY-Breast05 y DESTINY-Breast11 en enfermedad HER2 positiva, así como los avances en enfermedad luminal con biomarcación por ESR1 y el papel emergente de camizestrant y nuevos SERD. En cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas, subrayó la madurez del CheckMate 816 con beneficio claro en supervivencia global a 5 años, además de los resultados de supervivencia global de los estudios FLAURA2 y MARIPOSA en EGFR mutado, y el impacto de nuevas terapias dirigidas como sacituzumab tiromutecán, cefavertinib y zongertinib. Finalmente, abordó la revolución terapéutica en cáncer de pulmón de células pequeñas con el estudio DeLLphi-304 y el uso de tarlatamab, así como datos preliminares del estudio IMforte. Su intervención se llevó a cabo durante el 9° Congreso Nacional de Actualización en Hematología y Oncología de la ACHO, realizado del 14 al 16 de noviembre de 2025 en Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.Fecha de grabación: 15 de noviembre de 2025Referencia:Este contenido se basa en la interpretación crítica de la evidencia científica disponible, así como en la experiencia clínica del o los ponentes como profesionales de la salud en instituciones de referencia.Para profundizar en los conceptos discutidos, se recomienda al profesional de la salud consultar literatura científica vigente, guías clínicas internacionales y la normatividad aplicable en su país.

Featuring an interview with Dr Priyanka Sharma, including the following topics: Patient-reported outcomes from the SERENA-6 trial of camizestrant with a CDK4/6 inhibitor for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and ESR1 mutations emerging during first-line endocrine-based therapy (0:00) Mayer E et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the SERENA-6 trial of camizestrant (CAMI) + CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) for emergent ESR1m during first-line (1L) endocrine-based therapy and ahead of disease progression in patients (pts) with HR+/HER2– advanced breast cancer (ABC). ESMO 2025;Abstract 486MO. Imlunestrant and abemaciclib versus fulvestrant and abemaciclib for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: An indirect treatment comparison of 3 Phase III trials (3:00) Bidard FC et al. Imlunestrant plus abemaciclib versus fulvestrant plus abemaciclib in estrogen receptor positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC): An indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of three phase 3 trials. ESMO 2025;Abstract 496P . Giredestrant in the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer: The Phase III evERA Breast Cancer and EMPRESS trials (5:39) Mayer E 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. ESMO 2025;Abstract LBA16. Llombart-Cussac A et al. Preoperative window-of-opportunity study with giredestrant or tamoxifen (tam) in premenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) and Ki67≥10% early breast cancer (EBC): The EMPRESS study. ESMO 2025;Abstract 294MO. Capivasertib/fulvestrant as first- and second-line endocrine-based therapy for PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered HR-positive advanced breast cancer in the CAPItello-291 trial and gedatolisib/fulvestrant with or without palbociclib for HR-positive, HER2-negative, PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer in the VIKTORIA-1 trial.(10:25) Rugo HS et al. Capivasertib plus fulvestrant as first and second-line endocrine-based therapy in PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analysis from the phase 3 CAPItello-291 trial. ESMO 2025;Abstract 526P. Hurvitz SA et al. Gedatolisib (geda) + fulvestrant ± palbociclib (palbo) vs fulvestrant in patients (pts) with HR+/ HER2-/PIK3CA wild-type (WT) advanced breast cancer (ABC): First results from VIKTORIA-1. ESMO 2025;Abstract LBA17. CME information and select publications

Did you know that the prevalence of acquired ESR1 mutations increases after exposure to endocrine therapy? Credit available for this activity expires: 11/26/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/advancing-copd-care-through-precision-medicine-and-patient-2025a1000x00?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Featuring an interview with Dr Erika Hamilton, including the following topics: General overview of the mechanisms of action of endocrine-targeted therapies for breast cancer (0:00) Downregulation of estrogen receptor expression levels with endocrine therapy; therapeutic benefit of selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) and proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) in ESR1 wild-type and ESR1-mutant breast cancer (5:11) Mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy (10:08) Efficacy and toxicities observed with SERDs and PROTACs for HR-positive breast cancer (15:26) Other applications for PROTACs (24:24) Emerging data from the Phase III evERA trial (27:38) Perspectives on clinical investigator and general medical oncologist practice pattern survey results (30:51) CME information and select publications

Featuring a slide presentation and related discussion from Dr Erika Hamilton, including the following topics: Mechanisms of endocrine resistance; incidence of ESR1 mutations in breast cancer (0:00) Testing methods for ESR1 mutations in patients with breast cancer; therapeutic options for patients with ESR1-mutant breast cancer (3:59) General overview of proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs); comparison of PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degraders and selective ER degraders (7:39) Early-phase data with vepdegestrant monotherapy or in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors in ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) (11:54) Phase III VERITAC-2 trial of vepdegestrant versus fulvestrant in ER-positive, HER2-negative mBC previously treated with endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor (17:48) Ongoing clinical trials evaluating vepdegestrant in novel combinations or treatment settings; other clinical applications of PROTACs (26:08) CME information and select publications

ADCs as first-line treatment? ESR1 monitoring before progression? Local therapy for CNS disease? Experts tackle today's toughest decisions. Credit available for this activity expires: 11/14/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/charting-course-metastatic-breast-cancer-care-optimizing-2025a1000v4s?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Featuring an interview with Prof Patrick Neven, including the following topics: Emergence of ESR1 mutations in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (0:00) Observed toxicity profile of oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) (3:57) Emerging data with novel oral SERD combinations (6:31) Challenges for a general medical oncologist in breast cancer (8:41) Sequencing and selection of therapies in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (12:16) Evaluating the strategy of switching to an oral SERD during first-line endocrine therapy upon "molecular progression" (23:16) CME information and select publications

Is your patient progressing on an aromatase inhibitor (AI)? Fine-tune ddPCR/NGS testing to detect resistance and optimize oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) success. Credit available for this activity expires: 11/04/2026 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/esr1-mutation-testing-breast-cancer-setting-standard-2025a1000u0f?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

In metastatic breast cancer, resistance to therapy remains one of the most challenging aspects to care. A key driver of resistance in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease is the ESR1 mutation, a genetic change that alters the estrogen receptor and limits the effectiveness of certain standard therapies. In this episode, CANCER BUZZ speaks with Eleonara Teplinsky, MD, FASCO, head of breast and gynecologic medical oncology at Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care, about how the ESR1 mutation shapes treatment decisions and explains communication strategies, such as the "lock-and-key" model. Then CANCER BUZZ speaks with Maimah Karmo, president and CEO of Tigerlily Foundation about the importance of communicating with patients in ways that foster clarity and compassion through relatable analogies. Guest: Eleonora Teplinsky, MD, FASCO Medical Oncologist Valley Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Care Paramus, NJ Maimah Karmo President/CEO Tigerlily Foundation "If you had molecular testing of your tumor done at the time of diagnosis, that may not be enough. If there is disease progression, we might need to repeat it. So it's really important to stress that there are points in the disease course where we're going to be checking for these biomarkers." - Teplinsky "The more that we can know about the tumor, how it's going to behave, what treatment it may or may not respond to, really can help us." - Teplinsky "Having a physician that is a true partner with the patient, that has a relationship, that's trusted, and that feels safe and secure, it's really, really critical." - Karmo Resources: Unlocking the Conversation: Navigating ESR1 Mutations in Metastatic Breast Cancer

As part of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of experts about key takeaways from different late-breaking abstracts, oral presentations, and other sessions focused on potential advancements across cancer care. Presenting investigators highlighted updated results from clinical trials evaluating novel therapeutic strategies across different cancer populations, including breast cancer and lung cancer.  Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 Trial Sara A. Hurvitz, MD, FACP, the Smith Family Endowed Chair in Women's Health and senior vice president and director of the Clinical Research Division at the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, and tumor chair in breast oncology for the ONCOLOGY® editorial advisory board, first discussed findings from the phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 trial (NCT05501886). Her presentation highlighted how VIKTORIA-1 was “the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival [PFS] with PAM inhibition” for patients with PIK3CA wild-type advanced breast cancer. Data from the trial showed that gedatolisib plus fulvestrant (Faslodex) and palbociclib (Ibrance) produced a median PFS of 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.2-16.6) vs 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.3) with fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.17-0.35; P

Did you know that approximately 50% of breast cancer patients who have been exposed to an aromatase inhibitor (AI) over time in the metastatic setting develop an ESR1 mutation? Credit available for this activity expires: 10/17/26 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/1003008?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

Send us a textIn our Season 11 opening episode, we're bringing you the latest updates from the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting on metastatic breast cancer. Dr. Ashley Schreier, breast oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, breaks down key research and explains what it could mean for people living with MBC.Topics include:Research results for hormone therapy options like camizestrantThe role of ESR1 mutation testingResults from treatment combinations like Enhertu and Perjeta, and Trodelvy and KeytrudaHow to navigate clinical trial accessTips for staying hopeful while exploring treatment optionsWhether you're a patient, caregiver, or advocate, this episode is packed with insights to help you stay informed and empowered.

Featuring case presentations and related discussion from Dr Sara A Hurvitz and Dr Sara M Tolaney, including the following topics: Case: A woman in her mid 50s with localized HR-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer — Dr Tolaney (0:00) Case: A woman in her mid 40s with localized HR-positive breast cancer with a germline BRCA2 mutation — Dr Tolaney (7:08) Case: A woman in her early 30s with HR-negative, HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer with one isolated liver metastasis — Dr Tolaney (11:30) Case: A woman in her early 50s with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer — Dr Tolaney (17:52) Case: A woman in her early 30s with localized HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer — Dr Hurvitz (31:49) Case: A woman in her early 60s with HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with concurrent PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations — Dr Hurvitz (40:39) Case: A woman in her early 40s with recurrent HR-positive advanced breast cancer with a PIK3CA mutation — Dr Hurvitz (51:28) Case: A woman in her early 50s with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer eligible for the SERENA-6 switching strategy — Angela DeMichele, MD, MSCE (58:41) CME information and select publications

Dr. Juan Carlos Samamé, oncólogo médico de Lima, Perú, y vicepresidente de la Latin American Breast Cancer Association (LABCA), da la bienvenida al Dr. Javier Pascual, oncólogo médico del Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria de Málaga, España, y coautor del estudio SERENA-6 (Camizestrant como terapia de primera línea en cáncer de mama luminal avanzado con mutación emergente de ESR1),con quien discutirá los principales resultados:1. ¿En qué consiste el estudio SERENA-6 y cuáles fueron sus objetivos y características principales?2. ¿Porqué, en la primera determinación a los tres o cuatro meses de inicio, cerca de un 55-60% de pacientes tratadas con ciclinas ya presentaba la mutación ESR1?3. ¿Podrían los resultados observados en el SERENA-6 estar relacionados con el tipo de inhibidor de ciclina empleado y cómo se comparan con lo reportado en el estudio PADA-1?4. Sobre la ténica de ctDNA (biopsia líquida): ¿cómo se percibe su acceso en la práctica clínica y cuál es su posicionamiento como biomarcador en este tipo de pacientes para la toma de decisiones terapéuticas?Entre otros. Fecha de grabación: 17 de septiembre de 2025.  Referencia principal:https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2502929Referencia: Este contenido se basa en la interpretación crítica de la evidencia científica disponible, así como en la experiencia clínica del o los ponentes como profesionales de la salud en instituciones de referencia. Para profundizar en los conceptos discutidos, se recomienda al profesional de la salud consultar literatura científica vigente, guías clínicas internacionales y la normatividad aplicable en su país.

Love the episode? Send us a text!In this special episode of Breast Cancer Conversations, host Laura Carfang speaks with Dr. Troso  about the evolving role of DNA testing in breast cancer care. Together, they break down the three main types of testing:Hereditary genetic testing: Identifying inherited mutations such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 (among others) that increase cancer risk and influence prevention and treatment decisions.Somatic (tumor) testing: Analyzing mutations within the tumor itself—such as PIK3CA or ESR1 mutations—to guide targeted therapies and manage resistance in advanced disease.Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing: Also known as a liquid biopsy, this emerging tool uses blood tests to detect cancer DNA fragments. It holds promise for monitoring recurrence, guiding treatment earlier, and advancing clinical trials.Tune into this Special! 

“She's triple negative and has a very, very aggressive tumor. Instead of going on spring break that year, she sat in our chemo room and got chemo. Her friends from college are good to try to keep her involved and try to surround her and encourage her, but they're right now in very, very different spots in their lives. She's fighting for her life; her friends are fighting for the grade they get in a class—and that's different,” ONS member Kristi Orbaugh, MSN, NP, AOCN®, AOCNP®, nurse practitioner at Community Hospital North Cancer Center in Indianapolis, IN, told Jaime Weimer, MSN, RN, AGCNS-BS, AOCNS®, manager of oncology nursing practice at ONS, during a conversation about metastatic breast cancer in adolescent and young adult patients. Music Credit: “Fireflies and Stardust” by Kevin MacLeod Licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0  This podcast is sponsored by Lilly and is not eligible for NCPD contact hours. ONS is solely responsible for the criteria, objectives, content, quality, and scientific integrity of its programs and publications. Episode Notes This episode is not eligible for NCPD. ONS Podcast™ episodes: Episode 368: Best Practices for Challenging Patient Conversations in Metastatic Breast Cancer Episode 354: Breast Cancer Survivorship Considerations for Nurses Episode 350: Breast Cancer Treatment Considerations for Nurses Episode 345: Breast Cancer Screening, Detection, and Disparities Episode 307: AYAs With Cancer: Financial Toxicity Episode 300: AYAs With Cancer: End-of-Life Care Planning ONS Voice articles: ‘Cancer Ghosting' May Add Another Layer of Emotional Burden for Patients Discoveries in Race-Related Breast Cancer Biomarkers May Improve Precision Treatments What Is HER-2-Low Breast Cancer? What Oncology Nurses Need to Know About Supporting AYAs With Cancer ONS books: Guide to Breast Cancer for Oncology Nurses Oncology Nursing Forum articles: An Integrative Review of the Role of Nurses in Fertility Preservation for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer Impact of Race and Area Deprivation on Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Outcomes Relations of Mindfulness and Illness Acceptance With Psychosocial Functioning in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Caregivers ONS huddle cards: Altered Body Image Fertility Preservation Sexuality Other ONS resources: Breast Cancer Learning Library Fertility Preservation in Individuals With Cancer ONS Biomarker Database American Cancer Society's breast cancer resources American Society of Clinical Oncology continuing education resources Elephants and Tea Life, Interrupted Livestrong National Cancer Institute's breast cancer resources Stupid Cancer Young Survival Coalition To discuss the information in this episode with other oncology nurses, visit the ONS Communities.  To find resources for creating an ONS Podcast club in your chapter or nursing community, visit the ONS Podcast Library. To provide feedback or otherwise reach ONS about the podcast, email pubONSVoice@ons.org. Highlights From This Episode “When we use ‘adolescent and young adult,' we're really talking about age 19–35. Some groups will say 15–39, but right around that age. When we think about that age, think about what all could be going on during those ages. Late teenagers, they may be going off to college, they may be graduating high school, trying to set up their own life, trying to become independent from mom and dad. If you're talking about early to mid 30s, you could be talking about young parents, young career folks. So, just setting that into place makes you realize this can be a very tumultuous time for folks.” TS 2:06 “Unfortunately, this group tends to have more aggressive subtypes. We see more triple-negative in this group. We see more hormone-negative, HER2-positive in this group. Normal breast cancer cells should be stimulated by hormone. They are stimulated by hormones. So when you have a breast cancer cell that is not driven by hormones, it's much more difficult to treat. We tend to see more aggressiveness in these tumors. We also see a higher incidence in non-Caucasian folks in this age group compared to the older age groups.” TS 4:53 “I think we have gotten much better about understanding the importance of fertility preservation and getting reproductive endocrinologists in, sooner rather than later. If we have earlier-stage cancers and we have patients that want to try to preserve eggs, preserve fertility, sperm banking. … If you have that time to talk to them—maybe a 21-year-old—the primary thing on her mind is not how many children she wants to have one day. Maybe she's not even thought about having kids yet. It's still a question you need to [ask]. Do you want to try to preserve fertility? Do you want to try to harvest some eggs? That's a conversation that needs to be had and is very, very important for that age group.” TS 10:35 “One thing that helps is if you can get them [into] reputable support groups with people their own age that are going through what they're going through. Someone else that doesn't have hair, someone else that isn't going to make it to the big board meeting or isn't going to get the promotion this year because they've had to take a medical leave. Someone else that understands it differently.” TS 16:47 “In breast cancer, many of those biomarkers just get reflexed. And what I mean by reflexed is a breast cancer pathology comes through, or a breast cancer specimen comes through, and it just automatically gets tested for X, Y, Z. HER2 and of course ER/PR. Now we understand that we don't just need to know whether they're HER2 positive or HER2 negative. We need to know: What is the IHC score? And even if the IHC score is zero, is there any membrane staining? And then we need to know what's their ESR1, their PTEN, their AKT, their PIK3CA. Those are so important to know.” TS 18:11 “I think it's important to try to remember what our priorities were when we were in our 20s—what our priorities were when we were starting out as young mothers or starting out our career. Because that's where these folks are. … I can't imagine in the midst of college, when I'm trying to be independent, to suddenly have to be at home and rely on my mom to take me to my chemo appointment. … So I think one really important bias is to remember where they are in the developmental stages of life. They're not 40-something. They haven't lived X amount of life, and we need to take a step back and try to remember when we were their age, what was important to us? Where were our priorities at that point? And then hear them when they're telling us what's important to them.” TS 29:22 “From a female standpoint … we frequently throw these patients into menopause or have early menopausal symptoms, and I think we forget how devastating that can be. … They now are at higher risk for osteopenia or osteoporosis. … And then we tell people, ‘Be as normal as possible, get back and do those normal things.' Well, they're in a relationship, and they want to be intimate [but] suddenly having sexual intercourse is incredibly painful. Or if it's not painful, sometimes they've just lost pure interest in that. They don't feel confident about their body. All of those things need to be addressed because patients are trying to live each day as normally as possible.” TS 31:55 

When do you first test for ESR1 mutation in hormone receptor (HR)-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC)? Credit available for this activity expires: 8/7/26 Earn Credit / Learning Objectives & Disclosures: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/1002782?ecd=bdc_podcast_libsyn_mscpedu

In this episode, Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO, and Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH, discuss the most clinically relevant data in breast cancer presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including: DESTINY-Breast09: phase III trial of trastuzumab deruxtecan with or without pertuzumab vs THP as first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced/metastatic breast cancerASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19: phase III trial of first-line sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1–positive advanced TNBCSERENA-6: phase III trial of ctDNA-guided switch to camizestrant plus CDK4/6i vs continued AI plus CDK4/6i following ESR1 mutation emergence in HR-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancerINAVO120: OS from phase III study of first-line inavolisib/PBO plus palbociclib plus fulvestrant in PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive/HER2-negative, endocrine-resistant advanced breast cancerPresenters:Kevin Kalinsky, MD, MS, FASCO​Professor of Medicine​Louisa and Rand Glenn Family Chair in Breast Cancer Research​Winship Cancer Institute​Emory UniversityAtlanta, Georgia​Sara M. Tolaney, MD, MPH​Chief, Breast Oncology​Dana-Farber Cancer Institute​Associate Professor of Medicine​Harvard Medical School​Boston, Massachusetts​Content based on an online CME program supported by independent educational grants from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Inc, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lilly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.Link to full program: https://bit.ly/4lFS4BC

In this episode, CancerNetwork® spoke with breast oncologists Heather McArthur, MD; Erika Hamilton, MD; Hope Rugo, MD; and Paolo Tarantino, MD, PhD, about advances in breast cancer. These developments included recent drug approvals and ongoing research for therapeutic approaches, particularly in the areas of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) and CDK4/6 inhibitors, based on presentations they gave at the 25th Annual International Congress on the Future of Breast Cancer (IBC) East in New York City. Initially, McArthur, Komen Distinguished Chair in Clinical Breast Cancer Research at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, discussed immunotherapy use in high-risk triple-negative and HER2-positive disease, the evolving role of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibition in HER2-negative breast cancer, and potentially transformative advancements in early breast cancer treatment.  She highlighted the FDA approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer, promising clinical trials in estrogen receptor (ER)–positive high-risk early-stage breast cancer, and data from an investigator-initiated trial to treat HER2-positive disease. Additionally, she highlighted an 8.5% improvement in pathological complete response with pembrolizumab added to immunotherapy in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-756 trial (NCT03725059), adding that a further event-free survival benefit may complicate the landscape for CDK4/6 inhibition based on lung and liver toxicities associated with the coadministration of these inhibitors with immunotherapy.1 McArthur expressed further excitement for ADC-based combinations for triple-negative disease, as well as in the high-risk residual disease setting. In addition, she highlighted potential advancements in de-escalation strategies and further considerations for ADCs in the HER2-positive and hormone receptor (HR)–positive spaces. Then, Hamilton, director of Breast Cancer and Gynecologic Cancer Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, highlighted emerging therapies for early breast cancer, as well as her use of datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (dato-DXd; Datroway) and fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) given their recent approvals in various breast cancer subtypes. She also touched upon challenges with respect to the implementation of new therapies for early breast cancer into clinical practice. She initially highlighted new data from the phase 3 VERITAC-2 trial (NCT05654623) presented at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting.2 Specifically, findings showed that vepdegestrant, an oral proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC), exhibited an efficacy advantage over fulvestrant (Faslodex) in patients with ESR1-mutant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic disease. Moreover, she highlighted data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast09 (NCT04784715) of T-DXd in various combinations for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.3 Hamilton further highlighted her implementation of T-DXd into clinical practice, citing her use of the agent in patients with metastatic disease, including those with HER2-low and HER2-ultralow breast cancer. She further differentiated dato-DXd from T-DXd, suggesting that they were different classes of drugs due to their different targets: TROP2 vs HER2. She concluded by highlighting an unmet need regarding sustained benefit from endocrine therapy in HR-positive disease, as well as for ADC sequencing and mechanisms of resistance. Afterward, Rugo, division chief of Breast Medical Oncology, Women's Cancer Program Director, and professor in the Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research at City of Hope, discussed efficacy and safety considerations for CDK4/6 inhibitors in early breast cancer treatment. Specifically, she highlighted their high tolerability despite adverse effects and costs associated with their use. Rugo further touched upon a reduction of recurrence rates associated with CDK4/6 inhibition, although longer-term follow-up data were warranted to optimize the duration of therapy and elucidate survival outcomes. Finally, Tarantino, a research fellow at the Dana-Farber Institute, concluded by discussing sequencing strategies for ADCs, as well as which breast cancer settings or patient populations will experience the greatest impact with this treatment modality. Tarantino discussed his use of the “sandwich strategy,” where he switches the mechanism of action of treatment after using a TOPO1 ADC. Furthermore, Tarantino highlighted data from the DESTINY-Breast09 and phase 3 ASCENT-04 (NCT06100874) trials, which displayed the enhanced efficacy of 2 ADC combination therapies.4 He concluded by discussing future considerations for combining multiple ADCs. References 1. Cardoso F, O'Shaughnessy J, Liu Z, et al. Pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in high-risk, early-stage, ER+/HER2- breast cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2025;31(2):442-448. doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03415-7 2. Hamilton E, De Laurentiis M, Jhaveri K, et al. Vepdegestrant, a PROTAC estrogen receptor (ER) degrader, vs fulvestrant in ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer: results of the global, randomized, phase 3 VERITAC-2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1000. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA1000 3. Tolaney S, Jiang Z, Zhang Q, et al. Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) + pertuzumab (P) vs taxane + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (THP) for first-line (1L) treatment of patients (pts) with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC): interim results from DESTINY-Breast09. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA1008. 4. Tolaney SM, de Azambuja E, Kalinsky K, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) + pembrolizumab (pembro) vs chemotherapy (chemo) + pembro in previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Primary results from the randomized phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA109. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA109

In this episode, OncLive On Air® partnered with Two Onc Docs to bring discussion of data from the phase 3 SERENA-6 trial (NCT04964934), which were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. SERENA-6 evaluated switching to camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor vs continuing with a standard-of-care aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the frontline setting in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer whose tumors harbor an emergent ESR1 mutation. Drs Armstrong and Tawagi highlighted key efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes from the study. They also noted the clinical implications of these findings, including how they might be currently applicable to clinical practice, as well as limitations of the research that warrant further investigation. 

This week's episode will be focusing on one of the 2025 plenary sessions: SERENA-6, Camizestrant, a novel selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) + CDK 4/6i for tx of emergent ESR1 during 1L endocrine-based therapy + ahead of progression in stage 4 HR+/Her-2 negative breast cancer.We discuss the trial design, endpoints, results, safety concerns, and how it fits into current practice.

Dr. Allison Zibelli and Dr. Rebecca Shatsky discuss advances in breast cancer research that were presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including a potential new standard of care for HER2+ breast cancer, the future of ER+ breast cancer management, and innovations in triple negative breast cancer therapy. Transcript Dr. Allison Zibelli: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm Dr. Allison Zibelli, your guest host of the podcast today. I'm an associate professor of medicine and a breast medical oncologist at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Jefferson Health. There was a substantial amount of exciting breast cancer data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, and I'm delighted to be joined by Dr. Rebecca Shatsky today to discuss some of these key advancements. Dr. Shatsky is an associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego and the head of breast medical oncology at the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, where she also serves as the director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Program and the Inflammatory and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Program.  Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode. Dr. Shatsky, it's great to have you on the podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks, Dr. Zibelli. It's wonderful to be here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, we're starting with DESTINY-Breast09, which was trastuzumab deruxtecan and pertuzumab versus our more standard regimen of taxane, trastuzumab pertuzumab for first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Could you tell us a little bit about the study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, absolutely. So, this was a long-awaited study. When T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, really hit the market, a lot of these DESTINY-Breast trials were started around the same time. Now, this was a global, randomized, phase 3 study presented by Dr. Sara Tolaney from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute of Harvard in Boston. It was assessing essentially T-DXd in the first-line setting for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in addition to pertuzumab. And that was randomized against our standard-of-care regimen, which was established over a decade ago by the CLEOPATRA trial, and we've all been using that internationally for at least the past 10 years. So, this was a large trial, and it was one-to-one-to-one of patients getting T-DXd plus pertuzumab, T-DXd alone, or THP, which mostly is used as docetaxel and trastuzumab and pertuzumab every three weeks for six cycles. And this was in over 1,000 patients; it was 1,159 patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. This was a very interesting trial. It was looking at the use of trastuzumab deruxtecan, but patients were started on this treatment for their first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer with no end date to their T-DXd. So, it was, you know, you were started on T-DXd every 3 weeks until progression. Now, CLEOPATRA is a little bit different than that, though, as we know. So, CLEOPATRA has a taxane plus trastuzumab and pertuzumab. But generally, patients drop the taxane after about six to seven cycles because, as we know, you can't be really on a taxane indefinitely. You get pretty substantial neuropathy as well as cytopenias, other things that end up happening. And so, in general, that regimen has sort of a limited time course for its chemotherapy portion, and the patients maintained after the taxane is dropped on their trastuzumab and their pertuzumab, plus or minus endocrine therapy if the investigator so desires. And the primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival by blinded, independent central review (BICR) in the intent-to-treat population. And then it had its other endpoints as overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, objective response rates, and duration of response, and of course, safety. As far as the results of this trial, so, I think that most of us key opinion leaders in breast oncology were expecting that this was going to be a positive trial. And it surely was. I mean, this is a really, really active drug, especially in HER2-positive disease, of course. So, the DESTINY-Breast03 data really established that, that this is a very effective treatment in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. And this trial really, again, showed that. So, there were 383 patients that ended up on the trastuzumab plus deruxtecan plus pertuzumab arm, and 387 got THP, the CLEOPATRA regimen. What was really interesting also to note of this before I go on to the results was that 52% of patients on this trial had de novo metastatic disease. And that's pretty unusual for any kind of metastatic breast cancer trial. It kind of shows you, though, just how aggressive this disease is, that a lot of patients, they present with de novo metastatic disease. It's also reflecting the global nature of this trial where maybe the screening efforts are a little bit less than maybe in the United States, and more patients are presenting as later stage because to have a metastatic breast cancer trial in the United States with 52% de novo metastatic disease doesn't usually happen. But regardless, the disease characteristics were pretty well matched between the two groups. 54% of the patients were triple positive, or you could say hormone-positive because whether they were PR positive or ER positive and PR negative doesn't really matter in this disease. And so, the interim data cutoff was February of this year, of 2025. So, the follow-up so far has been about 29 months, so the data is still really immature, only 38% mature for progression-free survival interim analysis. But what we saw is that T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it really improved progression-free survival. It had a hazard ratio that was pretty phenomenal at 0.56 with a confidence interval that was pretty narrow of 0.44 to 0.71. So, very highly statistically significant data here. The progression-free survival was consistent across all subgroups. Overall survival, very much immature at this time, but of course, the trend is towards an overall survival benefit for the T-DXd group. The median durable response with T-DXd plus pertuzumab exceeded 3 years. Now, importantly, though, I want to stress this, is grade 3 or above treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in both subgroups pretty equally. But there were 2 deaths in the T-DXd group due to interstitial lung disease. And there was a 12.1% adjudicated drug-induced interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis event rate in the T-DXd group and only 1%, and it was grade 1-2, in the THP group. So, that's really the caveat of this therapy, is we know that a percentage of patients are going to get interstitial lung disease, and that some may have very serious adverse events from it. So, that's always something I keep in the back of my mind when I treat patients with T-DXd. And so, overall, the conclusions of the trial were pretty much a slam dunk. T-DXd plus pertuzumab, it had a highly statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus the CLEOPATRA regimen. And that was across all subgroups for first-line metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer here. And so, yeah, the data was pretty impressive. Just to go into the overall response rate, because that's always super important as well, you had 85.1% of patients having a confirmed overall RECIST response rate in the T-DXd plus pertuzumab group and a 78.6 in the CLEOPATRA group. The complete CR rate, complete response was 15.1% in the T-DXd group and 8.5 in the CLEOPATRA regimen. And it was really an effective regimen in this group, of course. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, the investigators say at the end of their abstract that this is the new standard of care. Would you agree with that statement? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, that was a bold statement to make because I would say in the United States, not necessarily at the moment because the quality of life here, you have to think really hard about. Because one thing that's really important about the DESTINY-Breast09 data is that this was very much an international trial, and in many of the countries where patients enrolled on this, they were not able to access T-DXd off trial. And so, for them, this means T-DXd now or potentially never. And so, that is a really big difference whereas internationally, that may mean standard of care. However, in the US, patients have no issues accessing T-DXd in the second- or third-line settings. And right now, it's the standard of care in the second line in the United States, with all patients basically getting this second-line therapy except for some unique patients where they may be doing a PATINA trial regimen, which we saw at San Antonio Breast Cancer in 2024 of the triple-positive patients getting hormonal therapy plus palbociclib, which had a really great durable response. That was super impressive as well. Or there is the patient that the investigator can pick KADCYLA because the patient really wants to preserve their hair or maybe it's more indolent disease. But the quality of life on T-DXd indefinitely in the first-line setting is a big deal because, again, that CLEOPATRA regimen allows patients to drop their chemotherapy component about five to six months in. And with this, you're on a drug that feels very chemo-heavy indefinitely. And so, I think there's a lot more to investigate as far as what we're going to do with this data in the United States because it's a lot to commit a patient in the first-line metastatic setting. These de novo metastatic patients, some of them may be cured, honestly, on the HER2-targeting regimen. That's something we see these days. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, very interesting trial. I'm sure we'll be talking about this for a long time.  So, let's move on to SERENA-6, which was, I thought, a very interesting trial. This trial took patients with ER positive, advanced breast cancer after six months on an AI (aromatase inhibitor) and a CDK4/6 inhibitor. They did ctDNA every two to three months, and when they saw an ESR1 mutation emerge, they changed half of the patients to camizestrant plus CDK4/6 and kept the other half on the AI plus CDK4/6. Can you talk about that trial a little bit, please? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was a big trial at ASCO25. This was presented as a Plenary Session. So, this was camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor, and it could have been any of the three, so palbo, ribo, or abemaciclib in the first-line metastatic hormone-positive population, and patients were on an AI with that. They were, interestingly, tested by ctDNA at baseline to see if they had an ESR1 mutation. So, that was an interesting feature of this trial. But patients had to have already been on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI for at least 6 months to enroll. And then, as you mentioned, they got ctDNA testing every 2 to 3 months. This was also a phase 3, double-blind, international trial. And I do want to highlight again, international here, because that's important when we're considering some of this data in the U.S. because it influences some of the results. So, this was presented by Dr. Nick Turner of the Royal Marsden in the UK. So, just a little bit of background for our listeners on ESR1 mutations and why they're important. This is the most common, basically, acquired resistance mutation to patients being treated with aromatase inhibitors. We know that treatment with aromatase inhibitors can induce this. It makes a conformational change in the estrogen receptor that makes the estrogen receptor constitutively active, which allows the cell to signal despite the influence of the aromatase inhibitor to decrease the estrogen production so that the ligand binding doesn't matter as much as far as the cell signaling and transcription is concerned. And camizestrant, you know, as an oral SERD, just to explain that a little bit too; these are estrogen receptor degraders. The first-in-class of a selective estrogen receptor degrader to make it to market was fulvestrant. And that's really been our standard-of-care estrogen degrader for the past 25 years, almost 25 years. And so, a lot of us are just looking for some of these oral SERDs to replace that. But regardless, they do tend to work in the ESR1-mutated population. And we know that patients on aromatase inhibitors, the estimates of patients developing an ESR1 mutation, depending on which study you look at, somewhere between 30% to 50% overall, patients will develop this mutation with hormone-positive metastatic breast cancer. There is a small percentage of patients that have these at baseline without even treatment of an aromatase inhibitor. The estimates of that are somewhere between 0.5 and up to 5%, depending on the trial you look at and the population. But regardless, there is a chance someone on their CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI at 6 months' time course could have had an ESR1 mutation at that time. But anyway, so they got this ctDNA every 2 to 3 months, and once they were found to develop an ESR1 mutation, the patients were then switched to the oral SERD. AstraZeneca's version of the oral SERD is camizestrant, 75 mg daily. And then their type of CDK4/6 inhibitor was maintained, so they didn't switch the brand of their CDK4/6 inhibitor, importantly. And that was looked at then for progression-free survival, but these were patients with measurable disease by RECIST version 1.1. And the data cut off here was November of 2024. This was a big trial, you know, and I think that that's influential here because this was 3,256 patients, and that's a lot of patients. So, they were all eligible. And then 315 patients ended up being randomized to switch to camizestrant upon presence of that ESR1 mutation. So, that was 157 patients. And then the other half, so they were randomized 1:1, they continued on their AI without switching to an oral SERD. That was 158 patients. They were matched pretty well. And so, their baseline characteristics, you know, the two subgroups was good. But this was highly statistically significant data. I'm not going to diminish that in any way. Your hazard ratio was 0.44. Highly statistically significant confidence intervals. And you had a median progression-free survival in those that switched to camizestrant of 16 months, and then the non-switchers was 9.2 months. So, the progression-free survival benefit there was also consistent across the subgroups. And so, you had at 12 months, the PFS rate was 60.7% for the non-treatment group and 33.4% in the treatment group. What's interesting, though, is we don't have overall survival data. This is really immature, only 12% mature as far as overall survival. And again, because this was an international trial and patients in other countries right now do not have the access to oral SERDs that the United States does, the crossover rate, they were not allowed to crossover, and so, a very few patients, when we look at progression-free survival 2 and ultimately overall survival, were able to access an oral SERD in the off-trial here and in the non-treatment group. And so, that's really important as far as we look at these results. Adverse events were pretty minimal. These are very safe drugs, camizestrant and all the other oral SERDs. They have some mild toxicities. Camizestrant is known for something weird, which is called photopsia, which is some flashing lights in the periphery of the eye, but it doesn't seem to have any serious clinical significance that we know of. It has a little bit of bradycardia, but it's otherwise really well tolerated. You know, I hate to say that because that's very subjective, right? I'm not the one taking the drug. But it doesn't have any serious adverse events that would cause discontinuation. And that's really what we saw in the trial. The discontinuation rates were really low. But overall, I mean, this was a positive trial. SERENA-6 showed that switching to camizestrant at the first sign of an ESR1 mutation on CDK4/6 inhibitor plus AI improved progression-free survival. That's all we can really say from it right now. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, let's move on to ASCENT-04, which was a bit more straightforward. Sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer. Could you talk about that study? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, so this was also presented by the lovely Sara Tolaney from Dana-Farber. And this study made me really excited. And maybe that's because I'm a triple-negative breast cancer person. I mean, not to say that I don't treat hundreds of patients with hormone- positive, but our unmet needs in triple negative are huge because this is a disease where you have got to throw your best available therapy at it as soon as you can to improve survival because survival is so poor in this disease. The average survival with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United States is still 13-18 months, and that's terrible. And so, for full disclosure, I did have this trial open at my site. I was one of the site PIs. I'm not the global PI of the study, obviously. So, what this study was was for patients who had had at least a progression-free survival of 6 months after their curative intent therapy or de novo metastatic disease. They were PD-L1 positive as assessed by the Dako 22C3 assay of greater than or equal to a CPS score of 10. So, that's what the KEYNOTE-355 trial was based on as well. So, standard definition of PD-L1 positive in breast cancer here. And basically, these patients were randomized 1:1 to either their sacituzumab govitecan plus pembrolizumab, day 1 they got both therapies, and then day 8 just the saci, as is standard for sacituzumab. And then the other group got the KEYNOTE-355 regimen. So, that is pembrolizumab with – your options are carbogem there, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel. And it's up to investigator's decision which upon those they decided. They followed these patients for disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. It was really an impressive trial in my opinion because we know already that this didn't just improve progression-free survival, because survival is so poor in this disease, of course, we know that it improved overall survival. It's trending towards that very much, and I think that's going to be shown immediately. And then the objective response rates were better, which is key in this disease because in the first-line setting, you've got a lot of people who, especially your relapsed TNBC that don't respond to anything. And you lose a ton of patients even in the first-line setting in this disease. And so, this was 222 patients to chemotherapy and pembro and 221 to sacituzumab plus pembro. Median follow-up has only been 14 months, so it's still super early here. Hazard ratio so far of progression-free survival is 0.65, highly statistically significant, narrow confidence intervals. And so, the median duration of response here for the saci group was 16.5 months versus 9.2 months. So, you're getting a 7-month progression-free survival benefit here, which in triple negative is pretty fantastic. I mean, this reminds me of when we saw the ASCENT data originally come out for sacituzumab, and we were all just so happy that we had this tool now that doubled progression-free and overall survival and made such a difference in this really horrible disease where patients do poorly. So, OS is technically immature here, but it's really trending very heavily towards improvement in overall survival. Importantly, the treatment-related adverse events in this, I mean, we know sacituzumab causes neutropenia, people who are experienced with this drug know how to manage it at this point. There wasn't any really unexpected treatment-related adverse events. You get some people with sacituzumab who have diarrhea. It's usually pretty manageable with some Imodium. So, it was cytopenias predominantly in this disease in this population that were highlighted as far as adverse events. But I'm going to be honest, like I was surprised that this wasn't the plenary over the SERENA-6 data because this, in my mind, there we have a practice-changing trial. I will immediately be trying to use this in my PD-L1 population because, to be honest, as a triple-negative breast cancer clinical specialist, when I get a patient with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who's PD-L1 positive, I think, "Oh, thank God," because we know that part of the disease just does better in general. But now I have something that really could give them a durable response for much longer than I ever thought possible when I started really heavily treating this disease. And so, this was immediately practice-changing for me. Dr. Allison Zibelli: I think that it's pretty clear that this is at least an option, if not the option, for this group of patients. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, the duration of responses here was – it's just really important because, I mean, I do think this will make people live longer. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, moving on to the final study that we're going to discuss today, neoCARHP (LBA500), which was neoadjuvant taxane plus trastuzumab, pertuzumab, plus or minus carbo(platin) in HER2-positive early breast cancer. I think this is a study a lot of us have been waiting for. What was the design and the results of this trial? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: I was really excited about this as well because I'm one of those people that was waiting for this. This is a Chinese trial, so that is something to take note of. It wasn't an international trial, but it was a de-escalation trial which had become really popular in HER2-positive therapy because we know that we're overtreating HER2-positive breast cancer in a lot of patients. A lot of patients we're throwing the kitchen sink at it when maybe that is not necessary, and we can really de-escalate and try to personalize therapy a little bit better because these patients tend to do well. So, the standard of care, of course, in HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer with tumors that are greater than 2 cm is to give them the TCHP regimen, which is docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab. And that was sort of established by several trials in the NeoSphere trial, and now it's been repeated in a lot of different studies as well. And so, that's really the standard of care that most people in the United States use for HER2-positive curative intent breast cancer. This was a trial to de-escalate the carboplatin, which I was super excited about because many of us who treat this disease a lot think carbo is the least important part of the therapy you're giving there. We don't really know that it's necessary. We've just been doing it for a long time, and we know that it adds a significant amount of toxicity. It causes thrombocytopenia, it causes severe nausea, really bad cytopenias that can be difficult in the last few cycles of this to manage. So, this trial was created. It randomized patients one to one with stage 2 and 3 HER2-positive breast cancer to either get THP, a taxane, pertuzumab, trastuzumab, similar to the what we do in first-line metastatic HER2-positive versus the whole TCHP with a carboplatin AUC of 6, which is what's pretty standard. And it was a non-inferiority trial, so important there. It wasn't to establish superiority of this regimen, which none of us, I think, were looking for it to. And it was a modified intent-to-treat population. And so, all patients got at least one cycle of this to be assessed as a standard for an intent-to-treat trial. And so, they assumed a pCR rate of about 62.8% for both groups. And, of course, it included both HER2-positive triple positives and ER negatives, which are, you know, a bit different diseases, to be honest, but we all kind of categorize them and treat them the same. And so, this trial was powered appropriately to detect a non-inferiority difference. And so, we had about 380 patients treated on both arms, and there was an absolute difference of only 1.8% of those treated with carbo versus those without. Which was fantastic because you really realized that de-escalation here may be something we can really do. And so, the patients who got, of course, the taxane regimen had fewer adverse events. They had way fewer grade 3 and 4 adverse events than the THP group. No treatment-associated deaths occur, which is pretty standard for- this is a pretty safe regimen, but it causes a lot of hospitalizations due to diarrhea, due to cytopenias, and neutropenic fever, of course. And so, I thought that this was something that I could potentially enact, you know, and be practice-changing. It's hard to say that when it's a trial that was only done in China, so it's not necessarily the United States population always. But I think for patients moving forward, especially those with, say, a 2.5 cm tumor, you know, node negative, those, I'd feel pretty comfortable not giving them the carboplatin here. Notes that I want to make about this population is that the majority were stage 2 and not stage 3. They weren't necessarily your inflammatory HER2-positive breast cancer patients. And that the taxane that was utilized in the trial is a little different than what we use in the United States. The patients were allowed to get nab-paclitaxel, which we don't have FDA approval for in the first-line curative intent setting for HER2-positive breast cancer in the United States. So, a lot of them got abraxane, and then they also got paclitaxel. We tend to use docetaxel every 3 weeks in the United States. So, just to point out that difference. We don't really know if that's important or not, but it's just a little bit different to the population we standardly treat. Dr. Allison Zibelli: So, are there patients that you would still give TCHP to? Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Yeah, great question. I've been asked that a lot in the past like week since ASCO. I'd say in my inflammatory breast cancer patients, that's a group I do tend to sometimes throw the kitchen sink at. Now, I don't actually use AC in those because I know that that was the concern, but I think the TRAIN-2 trial really showed us you don't need to use Adriamycin in HER2-positive disease unless it's like refractory. So, I don't know that I would throw this on my stage 3C or inflammatory breast cancer patients yet because the majority of this were not stage 3. So, in your really highly lymph node positive patients, I'm a little bit hesitant to de-escalate them from the start. This is more of a like, if there's serious toxicity concerns, dropping carbo is absolutely fine here. Dr. Allison Zibelli: All right, great.  Thank you, Dr. Shatsky, for sharing your valuable insights with us on the ASCO Daily News Podcast today. Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Thanks so much, Dr. Zibelli and ASCO Daily News. I really want to thank you for inviting me to talk about this today. It was really fun, and I hope you find my opinions on some of this valuable. And so, I just want to thank everybody and my listeners as well. Dr. Allison Zibelli: And thank you to our listeners for joining us today. You'll find the links to all the abstracts discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you like this podcast and you learn things from it, please take a moment to rate, review, and describe because it helps other people find us wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you again. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. More on today's speakers Dr. Allison Zibelli Dr. Rebecca Shatsky @Dr_RShatsky Follow ASCO on social media:  @ASCO on Twitter  @ASCO on Bluesky  ASCO on Facebook  ASCO on LinkedIn   Disclosures: Dr. Allison Zibelli: No relationships to disclose Dr. Rebecca Shatsky: Consulting or Advisory Role: Stemline, Astra Zeneca, Endeavor BioMedicines, Lilly, Novartis, TEMPUS, Guardant Health, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Pfizer Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Greenwich LifeSciences, Briacell, Gilead, OnKure, QuantumLeap Health, Stemline Therapeutics, Regor Therapeutics, Greenwich LifeSciences, Alterome Therapeutics  

Welcome to the Oncology Brothers podcast! In this episode, Drs. Rahul and Rohit Gosain are joined by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute to discuss the latest breakthroughs in breast cancer presented at the ASCO 2025 annual meeting. We dived into five key abstracts that could change the landscape of breast cancer treatment: 1.⁠ INAVO120: observed overall survival data with the combination of inavolisib, with palbociclib and fulvestrant for patients with PIK3CA mutated hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. 2.⁠ ⁠SERENA-6: camizestrant use in patients with emerging ESR1 mutations using ctDNA, showed significant improvement in progression-free survival. 3.⁠ ⁠VERITAC-2: vepdegestrant showed superior progression-free survival compared to fulvestrant, particularly in ESR1 mutated patients. 4.⁠ ⁠DESTINY-Breast09: significant improvement in progression-free survival with TDXd plus pertuzumab in frontline HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, challenging the traditional CLEOPATRA regimen THP. 5.⁠ ⁠ASCENT-04: promising results of sacituzumab combined with pembrolizumab in PD-L1 positive triple-negative breast cancer. Join us for an insightful discussion on these practice changing/informing studies and their implications for clinical practice.  YouTube: https://youtu.be/5XvrOn2p0jc Follow us on social media: •⁠  ⁠X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/oncbrothers •⁠  ⁠Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oncbrothers •⁠  Website: https://oncbrothers.com/ Don't forget to like, subscribe, and check out our other episodes for more updates on treatment algorithms, recent approvals, and conference highlights!

In this episode, we unpack game-changing insights from ASCO 2025 with a spotlight on breast cancer. Joining us is Dr. Adam Brufsky, a trailblazing oncologist and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, with 30 years of experience, whose expertise has helped shape the direction of treatment. Trials discussed include the SERENA-6 trial, which examines camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitors in HR-positive, ESR1 mutation breast cancer; the DESTINY-Breast09 trial, highlighting trastuzumab deruxtecan in combination with pertuzumab; and the INAVO120 trial, revealing inavolisib's triplet therapy response in PIK3CA-mutated, HR-positive, HER2-negative disease. Join us for a deep dive into these game-changing findings and their impact on patient care.Studies discussed in the episode:SERENA-6DESTINY BREAST 09INAVO 120For more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In our second plenary episode, we're spotlighting two pivotal phase 3 trials: SERENA-6, which explores ctDNA-guided treatment with camizestrant to delay progression in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer with ESR1 mutations, and NIVOPOSTOP, a landmark study showing improved disease-free survival with adjuvant nivolumab in high-risk, resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Join us as we unpack these practice-changing findings with expert insight and a couple of dad jokes along the way.Studies discussed in the episode:SERENA-6NIVOPOSTOPFor more episodes, resources and blog posts, visit www.inquisitiveonc.comPlease find us on Twitter @InquisitiveOnc!If you want us to look at a specific trial or subject, email us at inquisitiveonc@gmail.comArt courtesy of Taryn SilverMusic courtesy of AlisiaBeats: https://pixabay.com/users/alisiabeats-39461785/Disclaimer: This podcast is for educational purposes only. If you are unwell, seek medical advice.Oncology for the Inquisitive Mind is recorded with the support of education grants from our foundation partners Pfizer, Gilead Pharmaceuticals and Merck Pharmaceuticals. Our partners have access to the episode at the same time you do and have no editorial control over the content. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting featured five days of presentations and educational sessions on all types of cancer. Dr. Eleonora Teplinsky, a board-certified medical oncologist at the Valley-Mount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center in Paramus, NJ, summarizes the top breast cancer research. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Teplinsky discuss: The SERENA-6 trial, which found that if metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer develops ESR1 mutations during first hormonal therapy treatment, switching to camizestrant from an aromatase inhibitor before the cancer grows improves outcomes. Results from the DESTINY-Breast09 trial showing that the combination of Enhertu (chemical name: fam-trastuzumab-deruxtecan-nxki) and Perjeta (chemical name: pertuzumab) is a better first treatment for metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer than the current standard of THP chemo.  The ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 trial, which found that people with metastatic, PD-L1-positive, triple-negative breast cancer fared better with the combo of Trodelvy (chemical name: sacituzumab govitecan-hziy) and Keytruda (chemical name: pembrolizumab) as a first treatment compared to people who received chemotherapy and Keytruda.

Dr. John Sweetenham shares highlights from Day 2 of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting, including new data on the treatment of ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence.  Transcript Dr. John Sweetenham: Hello, I'm Dr. John Sweetenham, your host of the ASCO Daily News Podcast, welcoming you to our special coverage of the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting. Today, I'll be bringing you my takeaways on selected abstracts from Day 2 of the Meeting. My disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Today's selection features important, new data on the treatment of ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the use of tumor treating fields in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and potentially practice-changing results for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma at high-risk of recurrence.  Our first selected abstract is LBA1000. This important phase 3 study was presented by Dr. Erika Hamilton from the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville and evaluated the use of a novel agent, vepdegestrant, in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer, which had progressed after first-line endocrine therapy. Vepdegestrant is a selective oral PROTAC estrogen receptor degrader, which targets wild-type and mutant estrogen receptor through a novel mechanism of action which directly harnesses the ubiquitin-proteasome system to degrade ER. It has potential advantages over fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader which has to be administered intramuscularly and has limited benefit in patients who progress after endocrine therapy plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Building on the encouraging results from the initial phase 1/2 study of vepdegestrant, Dr. Hamilton reported results from the VERITAC-2 global phase 3 trial, comparing this agent with fulvestrant. The patients in the study had already received treatment with hormone therapy and a CDK inhibitor and were randomly assigned to receive treatment with either vepdegestrant (313 patients) or fulvestrant (311 patients). The vepdegestrant was taken orally each day, while the fulvestrant was given intramuscularly on days 1 and 15 of the first cycle of treatment and day 1 of each subsequent treatment cycle. Patients were stratified by the presence of wild-type ER or ESR1 mutation. A total of 43.3% of patients had ESR1 mutations; 136 of those were in the vepdegestrant group and 134 in the fulvestrant group.   For patients with ESR1 mutations, vepdegestrant significantly increased progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant. For patients who received vepdegestrant, the median PFS was 5 months versus 2.1 months for those who received fulvestrant. The clinical benefit rate was 42.1% in the vepdegestrant group vs. 20.2% in the fulvestrant group. The overall response rate was 18.6% in the vepdegestrant group compared with only 4% in the fulvestrant group.  The PFS and response benefits of vepdegestrant were largely restricted to the population with ESR1 mutations. Overall survival data are currently immature. The safety profile was favorable, with fewer than 5% of patients having dose reductions or discontinuation due to toxicity. The most frequent toxicities were fatigue, nausea, and elevated transaminases.  The authors concluded that oral vepdegestrant demonstrates statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in this group of patients with ESR1-mutated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer who have progressed after endocrine therapy and a CDK inhibitor. Patients with recurrent disease in this context are now routinely tested for ESR1 mutations, and this agent is for sure a potential treatment option for them.  The next study on today's episode, LBA4005, reports on the use of tumor treatment fields for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Tumor treatment fields are electric fields which disrupt cell division and may also induce an enhanced immune response, using a non-invasive portable device attached to the skin, and are already approved for the treatment of some cancers, including GBM and non-small cell lung cancer. A previous phase 2 trial, PANOVA-2, confirmed the feasibility and safety of using this approach in combination with gemcitabine plus or minus nabpaclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. In today's presentation, Dr. Vincent Picozzi from the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle presented the results of the PANOVA-3 trial, a phase 3 study comparing gemcitabine and nabpaclitaxel with the same chemotherapy plus tumor treatment fields in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.  Five hundred and seventy-one eligible patients were enrolled in the study with a total of 405 (198 in the treatment field group and 207 in the standard arm) comprising the modified intent- to-treat population. The duration of chemotherapy treatment was comparable in both study arms, and patients receiving treatment fields had a median exposure of almost 27 weeks.  Statistically significant improvements were observed for several study endpoints, including overall survival (a median of 16.2 versus 14.2 months), distant PFS (at 13.9 versus 11.5 months) and pain-free survival (at 15.2 versus 9.1 months), all in favor of the treatment fields arm. Although quality of life data were not reported in detail, the authors noted a significant improvement in global health status in the treatment fields arm. Safety data showed a higher level of skin adverse events in the treatment fields arm but were otherwise as expected for the GnP combination.  These are quite remarkable results which add to the growing evidence base for tumor treatment fields and are particularly compelling in this patient group given the substantial improvement in pain-free survival. It will be especially interesting to see the mature analysis of the quality-of-life endpoints in a subsequent report.  The final selection today is Abstract 6001, which describes the C-POST trial, a phase 3 trial of adjuvant cemiplimab versus placebo in patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. This study was presented by Dr. Danny Rischin from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia.   Although surgical resection with or without adjuvant radiation is curative in 90% of patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, high-risk features, including nodal disease, skin and subcutaneous metastases, perineural invasion and bone involvement, predict for an inferior prognosis.  Cemiplimab, a PD-1 targeting antibody is standard therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are not candidates for curative surgical resection or radiation therapy, with an overall response rate of almost 50%.  The C-POST study evaluated the use of cemiplimab as adjuvant therapy following surgery and radiation in high-risk patients, compared with placebo. Treatment was administered at 3-week intervals for 12 weeks, and then 6-week intervals for a further 36 weeks, with a primary endpoint of disease-free survival. Four hundred and fifteen patients were randomized in the study, 209 to cemiplimab and 206 to placebo. With median follow-up at 24 months, Dr. Rischin reported a highly significant improvement in disease-free survival for the cemiplimab arm, 49.4 months for placebo versus not reached for cemiplimab, with improvements also observed in the rates of locoregional recurrence and distant recurrence at 80% and 60% reductions, respectively. No new safety signals were observed.  This study is potentially practice-changing and provides strong evidence that cemiplimab should be considered the new standard of care in this clinical context.  Thanks for listening today and join me again tomorrow to hear more top takeaways from ASCO25. If you value the insights that you hear on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please remember to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.  Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speaker:   Dr. John Sweetenham   Follow ASCO on social media:    @ASCO on Twitter   @ASCO on Bluesky   ASCO on Facebook   ASCO on LinkedIn    Disclosures:   Dr. John Sweetenham:   No relationships to disclose  

Featuring an interview with Dr Rinath M Jesselsohn, including the following topics: Evaluating first-line treatment of metastatic ER-positive, HER2-positive breast cancer: heredERA Breast Cancer study (0:00) Kuemmel S et al. heredERA Breast Cancer: A phase III, randomized, open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of giredestrant plus the fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous injection in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2024;24(1):641. Abstract  Treatment outcomes with CDK4/6 inhibitors and with elacestrant in real-world studies (4:13) Lloyd MR et al. CDK4/6 inhibitor efficacy in ESR1-mutant metastatic breast cancer. NEJM Evid 2024;3(5). Abstract  Lloyd M et al. Impact of prior treatment, ESR1 mutational (ESR1m) landscape, and co-occurring PI3K pathway status on real-world (RW) elacestrant outcomes in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (aBC). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract PS7-05.  Evaluating the CNS activity of imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) (8:06) VandeKopple M et al. Preclinical characterization of imlunestrant, an oral brain-penetrant selective estrogen receptor degrader with activity in a brain metastasis (BM) model. ESMO Breast 2023;Abstract 41P.  Selective review of trials of oral SERDs in the adjuvant setting (11:27) A study of imlunestrant versus standard endocrine therapy in participants with early breast cancer (EMBER-4). NCT05514054 CME information and select publications

Ahead of the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, CancerNetwork® spoke with a variety of oncology experts about the late-breaking abstracts, plenary sessions, and other key presentations that may shift the paradigm across different cancer care fields. They highlighted anticipated clinical trial results that may transform the standard of care for gynecologic malignancies, lung cancer, and other disease types. Rachel N. Grisham, MD, section head of Ovarian Cancer and director of Gynecologic Medical Oncology at MSK Westchester of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, shared her anticipation of findings from the phase 3 ROSELLA trial (NCT05257408) assessing relacorilant plus nab-paclitaxel in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. She stated she was excited to see if the data may represent a new opportunity for this patient population. Next, MinhTri Nguyen, MD, a medical oncologist and hematologist at Stanford Health Care, highlighted a few breast cancer presentations to look out for. These topics included a plenary session on data from the phase 3 SERENA-6 study (NCT04964934) evaluating camizestrant in combination with CDK4/6 inhibitors for those with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer harboring emergent ESR1 mutations. Additionally, Eric K. Singhi, MD, assistant professor in the Department of General Oncology in the Division of Cancer Medicine, and assistant professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, spoke about a range of potentially practice-changing results in the lung cancer field. For example, he described a session focused on primary results of the phase 3 IMforte trial (NCT05091567) assessing lurbinectedin (Zepzelca) plus atezolizumab (Tecentriq) for those with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). According to Singhi, data from IMforte may shift the paradigm of maintenance therapy for this SCLC population. In the world of head and neck cancer, Douglas R. Adkins, MD, associate professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology, Section of Medical Oncology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, highlighted the session on the phase 3 NIVOPOSTOP GORTEC 2018-01 trial (NCT03576417). Investigators of this study evaluated nivolumab (Opdivo) in combination with chemoradiotherapy for those with resected head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Adkins noted his excitement to see how these data may impact the standard of care, particularly for patients in Europe, where investigators conducted the study. As part of an Oncology Decoded discussion, Benjamin Garmezy, MD, the associate director of genitourinary research and executive cochair of the Genitourinary Cancer Research Executive Committee at Sarah Cannon Research Institute (SCRI) and medical oncologist at SCRI Oncology Partners specializing in genitourinary cancers, discussed key abstracts in bladder cancer. One specific presentation included additional findings from the phase 3 NIAGARA trial (NCT03732677), which may show how circulating tumor DNA can influence treatment decision-making regarding perioperative durvalumab (Imfinzi) for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Featuring an interview with Dr Rinath M Jesselsohn, including the following topics: Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer: Results of the Phase III EMBER-3 trial (0:00) Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2025;392(12):1189-202. Abstract  Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), as monotherapy & combined with abemaciclib, for patients with ER+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC), pretreated with endocrine therapy (ET): Results of the Phase 3 EMBER-3 trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract GS1-01. Comprehensive genomic profiling of ESR1, PIK3CA, AKT1 and PTEN in HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Prevalence along treatment course and predictive value for endocrine therapy resistance in real-world practice (7:00) Bhave MA et al. Comprehensive genomic profiling of ESR1, PIK3CA, AKT1, and PTEN in HR(+)HER2(-) metastatic breast cancer: Prevalence along treatment course and predictive value for endocrine therapy resistance in real-world practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2024;207(3):599-609. Abstract Camizestrant, a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), versus fulvestrant for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): A multi-dose, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial (10:25) Oliveira M et al. Camizestrant, a next-generation oral SERD, versus fulvestrant in post-menopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (SERENA-2): A multi-dose, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2024;25(11):1424-39. Abstract Latest on SERDs: An education session at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024 (13:57) Jeselsohn RM. Latest on selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Education Session 5. CME information and select publications

This featured podcast includes a data review and candid conversation with 4 experts on challenges in the current treatment paradigm for hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) due to endocrine resistance. This session occurred during a satellite symposium held in conjunction with the 42nd Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® in March 2025.  ESR1 mutations are a critical mechanism of resistance, spurring the development of next-generation endocrine agents targeting these mutations. These agents including oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) and agents with novel mechanisms, including proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), which may offer potential improvements over current treatments. This program will review mechanisms of resistance to current endocrine regimens, strategies to overcome this resistance including comparative mechanisms of novel endocrine agents, emerging data from ongoing clinical trials, and expert perspectives on where these new agents may fit into current algorithms.

Can people diagnosed with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer avoid chemotherapy and take a CDK4/6 inhibitor instead? Do people diagnosed with DCIS need to have surgery? Will there soon be another oral selective estrogen degrader available? Breastcancer.org medical advisor Dr. Kevin Fox explains the details of the studies and what they mean for you. Listen to the episode to hear Dr. Fox discuss these studies: Young-PEARL: Ibrance plus Aromasin, along with ovarian suppression, offers better progression-free survival than Xeloda for pre-menopausal women with metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer who had previously received tamoxifen. PATINA: Adding Ibrance to standard-of-care first treatments for metastatic hormone receptor-positive, HER2-positive breast cancer increased progression-free survival by more than a year. EMBER-3:Imlunestrant led to longer progression-free survival than standard therapy if the cancer had an ESR1 mutation among people with estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced-stage breast cancer. Adding Verzenio to imlunestrant improved progression-free survival compared to imlunestrant alone, whether the cancer had an ESR1-mutation or not. COMET: Can people with low-risk DCIS just be monitored instead of having surgery with or without radiation? 

Featuring an interview with Dr Sara A Hurvitz, including the following topics: Role of endocrine therapy in the management of HER2-positive breast cancer; implications of the Phase III PATINA study (0:00) Case: A woman in her mid 60s with node-negative, HR-positive, HER2-negative localized breast cancer and a Recurrence Score® of 28 (8:38) Available data guiding the selection of an adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor (12:49) Selection of a CDK4/6 inhibitor in the metastatic setting (23:16) Available therapies for patients with HR-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and PIK3CA mutations; implications of the Phase III INAVO120 study (29:17) Case: A woman in her early 60s with HR-positive, HER2-negative mBC with short duration of benefit from a first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor (AI) and coexisting PIK3CA and ESR1 mutations (37:11) Available data with approved and investigational oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders) (43:23) Case: A woman in her early 70s with HR-positive, HER2-negative mBC and an ESR1 mutation detected on disease progression after durable responses to first-line endocrine therapy and second-line CDK4/6 inhibitor with an AI (51:38) Selection of therapy for patients with HR-positive mBC and coexisting targetable genetic mutations (53:11) Case: A woman in her late 50s with HR-positive, HER2-negative mBC and an ESR1 mutation detected on disease progression after first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor with an AI (1:00:17) CME information and select publications

Featuring an interview with Dr Komal Jhaveri, including the following topics: Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), with and without abemaciclib for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer (0:00) Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), as monotherapy & combined with abemaciclib, for patients with ER+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC), pretreated with endocrine therapy (ET): Results of the phase 3 EMBER-3 trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract GS1-01. Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant with or without abemaciclib in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2024;[Online ahead of print]. Abstract Rugo HS et al. Elacestrant abemaciclib (abema) combination in patients (pts) with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; Abstract PS7-07. Elacestrant for ER-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer with ESR1-mutated tumors: Subgroup analyses from the Phase III EMERALD trial by duration of prior endocrine therapy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and in clinical subgroups (7:40) Bardia A et al. Elacestrant in ER+, HER2- MBC with ESR1-mutated tumors: Subgroup analyses from the phase III EMERALD trial by prior duration of endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6 inhibitor and in clinical subgroups. Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(19):4299-309. Abstract Pharmacokinetics and safety of imlunestrant in patients with hepatic impairment (11:25) Wang XA et al. Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety of imlunestrant in participants with hepatic impairment. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024;Abstract P4-10-07. Precision therapeutics and emerging strategies for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer (13:15) Lloyd MR et al. Precision therapeutics and emerging strategies for HR-positive metastatic breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2024;21(10):743-61. Abstract CME information and select publications

In this episode, Jame Abraham, MD, FACP; William J. Gradishar, MD, FACP, FASCO; and Laura Spring, MD, review key insights and frequently asked questions related to the CDK4/6 inhibitors used to treat patients with early and metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive/HER2-negative breast cancer from a live program held in January 2025. Key clinical pearls include:Adjuvant treatment selection recommendations for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer based on disease and patient characteristics as well as the latest data and guidelines presented by Dr. GradisharTherapeutic strategies for patients diagnosed with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) presented by Dr. AbrahamAddressing challenges related to CDK4/6 inhibitor adherence and adverse event mitigation presented by Dr. SpringPresenters:Jame Abraham, MD, FACPEnterprise Chair and Professor of MedicineDepartment of Hematology and Medical OncologyCleveland ClinicCleveland, OhioWilliam J. Gradishar, MD, FACP, FASCOBetsy Bramsen Professor of Breast OncologyRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicago, IllinoisLaura Spring, MDBreast Medical OncologistMass General Hospital Cancer CenterHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsLink to full program including downloadable slides and on-demand webcasts: https://bit.ly/4b5GFqqTo claim credit for listening to this episode, please visit the podcast online at the link above.

Featuring slide presentations and related discussion from Dr Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Dr Mark Pegram and Prof Peter Schmid, including the following topics: Strategies to Identify Patients with HER2-Low and HER2-Ultralow Breast Cancer (0:00) Case: A woman in her mid 50s initially presenting with ER-positive, HER2 IHC 1+ locally advanced breast cancer who experiences progression to HER2 0 metastatic disease (20:53) Case: A woman in her early 60s with ER-positive, HER2 IHC 1+ metastatic breast cancer (mBC) who experiences disease progression 8 months after starting first-line CDK4/6 and aromatase inhibitor (29:14) Expanding the Spectrum of Targeted Therapy (38:52) Case: A woman in her early 60s with HR-positive, HER2 IHC 1+ mBC who receives fifth-line T-DXd resulting in stable disease (1:04:13) Case: A woman in her early 50s with progressive HR-positive, HER2 IHC 0 mBC and an ESR1 mutation who has ultralow HER2 expression on rebiopsy of new liver lesions (1:12:35) Identification and Management of Adverse Events with T-DXd (1:20:27) Case: A woman in her late 40s with HR-positive, HER2 IHC 2+ mBC who experienced persistent low-grade nausea with T-DXd that resolved with olanzapine (1:34:02) Case: A woman in her early 60s with ER-positive, HER2 2+ mBC who received T-DXd resulting in fatigue and asymptomatic interstitial lung disease (1:48:58) CME information and select publications  

Featuring an interview with Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics: Therapy selection after CDK4/6 inhibitor failure: A review of current and investigational treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer Astore S et al. A therapeutic algorithm guiding subsequent therapy selection after CDK4/6 inhibitors' failure: A review of current and investigational treatment for HR+/Her2- breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024;204:104535. Abstract (0:00) A preoperative window-of-opportunity study of the oral SERD imlunestrant for newly diagnosed ER-positive, HER2-negative localized breast cancer Neven P et al. A preoperative window-of-opportunity study of oral SERD, imlunestrant, in newly diagnosed ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: Results from the EMBER-2 Study. Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(23):5304-13. Abstract (3:30) An assessment of an exosome-based ESR1-monitoring RT-qPCR kit that detects acquired resistance variants in liquid biopsy samples Statt S et al. An exosome-based ESR1 monitoring RT-qPCR kit that rapidly and accurately detects acquired resistance variants at ≤ 0.1% frequency in liquid biopsy samples. ESMO 2024;Abstract 420P. (7:08) CME information and select publications

Featuring an interview with Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics: The clinical utility of ESR1 mutations in HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer Grinshpun A et al. The clinical utility of ESR1 mutations in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2023;37(1):169-81. Abstract (0:00) Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer Jhaveri KL et al. Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy in estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer: Phase Ia/Ib EMBER study. J Clin Oncol 2024;[Online ahead of print]. Abstract (6:01) EORTC-2129-BCG: Elacestrant for ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients with ctDNA relapse Ignatiadis M et al. EORTC-2129-BCG: Elacestrant for treating ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients with ctDNA relapse (TREAT ctDNA). ESMO 2024;Abstract 338TiP. (8:20) CME information and select publications  

In this episode, listen to Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc; Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH; and Laura M. Spring, MD, share their clinical insights and takeaways from a live symposium, including from key abstracts presented at the 2024 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium:Estrogen Receptor Mutations in Patients With HR-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced Breast CancerCurrent Guideline Recommendations for When to Pursue ESR1 Mutation Testing Mutations in Patients With HR-Positive/HER2-Negative Advanced Breast CancerChoice and Sequencing of Next Line of Systemic Therapy for ESR1-Mutated Advanced Breast Cancer Based on Tumor Molecular AlterationsOverview of Class-Related and Unique Adverse Events With Approved and Emerging Oral SERDSExpert Recommendations for the Management of Oral SERDs-Related Adverse EventsProgram faculty:Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DScProfessor of MedicineRuth McLean Bowman Bowers Chair in Breast Cancer Research and TreatmentA.B. Alexander Distinguished Chair in Oncology LeaderBreast Oncology ProgramUT Health San AntonioMD Anderson Cancer CenterSan Antonio, TexasErica L. Mayer, MD, MPHDirector of Breast Cancer Clinical ResearchDana-Farber Cancer InstituteAssociate Professor in MedicineHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, MassachusettsLaura M. Spring, MDBreast Medical OncologistMass General Hospital Cancer CenterHarvard Medical SchoolBoston, Massachusetts Resources:To download the slides associated with this podcast discussion, please visit the program page.

In this JCO Article Insights episode, Giselle de Souza Carvalho provides a summary on  "Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies" by Bhardwarj, et al and "US Food and Drug Administration Approval Summary: Capivasertib With Fulvestrant for Hormone Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer With PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alterations" by Dilawari et al published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.  TRANSCRIPT Giselle Carvalho: Hello and welcome to JCO Article Insights episode for the December issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I'm your host Giselle Carvalho, Medical Oncologist in Brazil focusing on breast cancer and melanoma skin cancers and one of the ASCO Editorial Fellows at JCO this year. Today, I will be discussing two articles. The first one is “Navigating Treatment Pathways in Metastatic Hormone Receptor–Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: Optimizing Second-Line Endocrine and Targeted Therapies,” and the second one is the “US FDA Approval Summary on Capivasertib with Fulvestrant  for HR-positive HER2-negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN Alteration.”  As we know, 65% to 70% of all breast cancers are HR-positive HER2-negative and this is also the most common subtype of metastatic breast cancer. The current standard of care for frontline therapy of patients with luminal metastatic disease is a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy. However, as new endocrine and targeted therapies gain approval, choosing the best systemic therapy upon disease progression after frontline therapy is a topic of ongoing debate. Nearly 40 to 50% of HR-positive breast cancers have actionable genomic alterations and molecular testing should be a routine recommendation for patients with metastatic HR-positive HER2-negative disease. This can be performed repeating tissue biopsy at the time of progression or from archival tissue. Treatment options after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors include alpelisib in combination with fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA mutant tumors as seen in the SOLAR-1 trial, or capivasertib with fulvestrant in patients with a tumor mutation in (PI3K)–AKT–PTEN pathway as seen in the CAPItello-291 study, which will be discussed further.  In approximately 30% of patients, progression on frontline endocrine plus CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment is caused by endocrine resistance, frequently involving activating mutations in ESR1. For those tumors, elacestrant, an oral SERD is an option as demonstrated in the EMERALD trial. For patients with a BRCA mutation, PARP inhibitors represent another option. If no mutations are detected, everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, can be used based on the BOLERO-2 results. The phase 2 MAINTAIN and PACE trials, along with the phase 3 postMONARCH trial support changing the endocrine therapy backbone with or without switching the CDK4/6 inhibitor. In less resourced areas, fulvestrant monotherapy is still an option to delay cytotoxic chemotherapy, though its efficacy is limited when used as a single agent. Finally, after progression on at least one line of chemotherapy, antibody drug conjugates including sacituzumab govitecan or trastuzumab deruxtecan may be an option.  Now focusing on the PI3K AKT PTEN signaling pathway, activating mutations in PIK3CA and AKT1 and inactivating alterations in PTEN occur in approximately half of luminal breast cancers. In June 2023, the CAPItello-291 trial was published and treatment with fulvestrant plus capivasertib, a PTEN AKT inhibitor, demonstrated a 3.6 month PFS benefit compared to fulvestrant alone, regardless of the presence of AKT pathway alterations. However, for those with tumors without AKT pathway alteration, an exploratory analysis showed that although there was a numerical improvement in PFS, it did not meet statistical significance, indicating that the biomarker positive population primarily drove the positive results noted in the overall population. Therefore, capivasertib plus fulvestrant was approved by the US FDA in November 2023 exclusively for patients with PI3K/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations after progression on an aromatized inhibitor with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The approved schedule of capivasertib is slightly different from that of other agents used in breast cancer. It is 400 milligrams taken orally twice a day for four days per week every week in a 28-day cycle in combination with fulvestrant. Diarrhea, rash and hyperglycemia were the most commonly reported grade three or four adverse events in the interventional group. I would like to highlight that even though the CAPItello trial excluded patients with glycosylated hemoglobin levels higher than 8% or those diagnosed with diabetes who required insulin, hyperglycemia occurred in 19% of biomarker positive patients treated with capivasertib, with nearly 2% of this population experiencing grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia and some patients experiencing life threatening outcomes such as diabetic ketoacidosis.  By way of comparison, hyperglycemia of any grade was three times higher with alpelisib therapy in the SOLAR-1 trial, occurring in 64% of the patients and grade three or higher hyperglycemia was seen in 37% of the patients. Diarrhea was the most common treatment related adverse event experienced by 77% of the biomarker positive population. Prompt use of the antidiarrheal drugs when needed, such as loperamide must be encouraged as untreated diarrhea can lead to dehydration and renal injury. Cutaneous rash occurred in 56% of the biomarker positive population in the interventional group and 15% experienced a grade 3 or 4 rash. Nearly half of the patients with cutaneous adverse reactions required treatment and this was the leading reason for dose reduction of capivasertib.  In the biomarker positive population, the improvement in medium PFS were 4.3 months by investigator assessment. Overall survival data from the CAPItello-291 trial is still immature, but quality of life data was recently published in September this year and was assessed by the 30 item QLQ C30 questionnaire and the QLQ BR23, the breast module. According to Oliveira et al, global health status and quality of life were maintained for a longer period with capivasertib fulvestrant than with placebo fulvestrant except for symptoms of diarrhea which were significantly worse in the capivasertib group. The median time of deterioration of global health status and quality of life was twice as long in the capivasertib group being almost 25 months versus 12 months in the placebo fulvestrant group. These data reinforced the use of capivasertib in combination with fulvestrant for the treatment of HR-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN tumor alterations who have progressed after an aromatase inhibitor-based therapy with or without a CDK4/6 inhibitor.  Thank you for listening to JCO Article Insights. This is Giselle Carvalho. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcasts. See you next time.   The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Send us a textIn this episode, we are thrilled to welcome back Tiffany Troso-Sandoval MD, a distinguished medical oncologist with a quarter-century of experience in women's cancers. Dr. Troso shares her insights from a recent breast cancer symposium, illuminating groundbreaking patient care and treatment strategy advancements. As she shares her journey from the clinic to her broader role in cancer advocacy through her company, Winning The Cancer Journey, Dr. Troso unveils some of her plans aimed at educating and empowering both patients and caregivers.We explore the complex world of metastatic breast cancer treatment, emphasizing estrogen receptor-positive cases. We review the different types of anti-estrogen therapies including how and why they work.  We discuss the role of CDK4/6 inhibitors used with aromatase inhibitors, breaking down how these treatments target estrogen pathways to curb cancer growth. We navigate the intricacies of ESR1 mutations and explore how selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) are crucial in overcoming treatment resistance. From chemotherapy timing to empowering caregivers, we delve into the multifaceted nature of breast cancer treatment decisions. Dr. Troso shares her transition from hands-on patient care to creating impactful online resources, highlighting the ongoing nature of the cancer journey for both patients and caregivers.  drtiffanytroso@winningthecancerjourney.comDr. Troso on Facebook Winning The Cancer Journey on FacebookDr. Troso on Instagram Winning The Cancer Journey on TikTok San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium GuideCNN interview:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU38D89YlQ0 Are you loving the Test Those Breasts! Podcast? You can show your support by donating to the Test Those Breasts Nonprofit @ https://testthosebreasts.org/donate/ Where to find Jamie:Instagram LinkedIn TikTok Test Those Breasts Facebook Group LinkTree Jamie Vaughn in the News! Thanks for listening! I would appreciate your rating and review where you listen to podcasts!I am not a doctor and not all information in this podcast comes from qualified healthcare providers, therefore may not constitute medical advice. For personalized medical advice, you should reach out to one of the qualified healthcare providers interviewed on this podcast and/or seek medical advice from your own providers .

Featuring an interview with Dr Seth Wander, including the following topics: Design of SERENA-6, a Phase III switching trial of camizestrant for ESR1-mutant breast cancer during first-line treatment Turner N et al. Design of SERENA-6, a phase III switching trial of camizestrant in ESR1-mutant breast cancer during first-line treatment. Future Oncol 2023;19(8):559-73. Abstract (0:00) EMERALD trial analysis of patient-reported outcomes with oral elacestrant compared to standard of care endocrine therapy for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer Cortes J et al. EMERALD trial analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with ER+/HER2− advanced or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) comparing oral elacestrant vs standard of care (SoC) endocrine therapy. ESMO Breast 2023;Abstract 188O. (5:50) Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader, in combination with HER2-directed therapy, with or without abemaciclib, for ER-positive, HER2-positive advanced breast cancer Bhave MA et al. Imlunestrant, an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD), in combination with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) directed therapy, with or without abemaciclib, in estrogen receptor (ER) positive, HER2 positive advanced breast cancer (aBC): EMBER phase 1a/1b study. ASCO 2024;Abstract 1027. (9:43) CME information and select publications

Sagar D. Sardesai, MBBS, discusses the phase 3 ELAINE-3 trial evaluating lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib in ESR1-mutant, ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer.