BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors marked a milestone in the breast cancer treatment. Due to the potential impact of adverse effects on treatment decisions and patient outcomes, careful consideration of the varying toxicities of CDK4/6 inhibitors is crucial, as three inhibitors-palbociclib, abemaciclib, and ribociclib-have been approved with differences in adverse event profiles. However, limitations in clinical trials call for urgent real-world safety studies to evaluate and compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) among these CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze AEs of CDK4/6 inhibitors and provide insights for clinical drug selection, using real world database.
METHODS: The AEs of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (2015-2022) were analyzed. Four disproportionality methods were used to detect safety signals: reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio, Bayesian Confidence Neural Network Propagation, and Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinker. Venn analysis was used to compare and select common and specific AEs.
RESULTS: This study included 73,042 patients treated with palbociclib, 25,142 with ribociclib, and 7563 with abemaciclib. All three inhibitors had 27 common AEs. Palbociclib exhibited the highest ROR for hematologic toxicities, while ribociclib showed the highest ROR for macrocytosis, nail disorders, and hepatic lesions. Abemaciclib displayed the highest ROR for mucosal toxicity. Common signals for both palbociclib and ribociclib included hematologic toxicities, decreased immune responsiveness, and aphthous ulcers. Myelosuppression, oral pain, and pseudocirrhosis were common signals for palbociclib and abemaciclib. Anemia, hepatotoxicity, and pneumonitis were observed as common signals for ribociclib and abemaciclib. Furthermore, specific AEs associated with palbociclib included fatigue, alopecia, and stomatitis. For ribociclib, specific AEs included electrocardiogram QT prolongation, thrombocytopenia, and decreased hemoglobin. Abemaciclib was specifically linked to diarrhea, vomiting, and interstitial lung disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed that palbociclib showed a higher risk of hematologic toxicity. Ribociclib showed higher risks of hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and QT prolongation. Abemaciclib showed higher risks of hepatotoxicity, gastrointestinal effects, interstitial lung disease, and thrombosis. These findings provide valuable insights for CDK4/6 inhibitor selection.

Aim: This real-world study aimed to describe patient and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer receiving abemaciclib in France, Italy and Spain. Materials & methods: A multicenter chart review was conducted for adult females with HR+/HER2- advanced/metastatic breast cancer who received abemaciclib in routine care. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was estimated via Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: This study included 151, 173 and 175 patients from France, Italy and Spain, respectively. Abemaciclib was mostly prescribed as first-line therapy concomitantly with hormone therapy. Median rwPFS was >20 months and the 1-year rwPFS rate was >70%. Conclusion: Effectiveness was similar across the three countries and aligns with pivotal studies.
Abemaciclib use in the clinic in France, Italy & SpainThis study describes patients, the treatments they have received and the results of those treatments for patients with the most common type of advanced breast cancer. These patients were taking abemaciclib plus hormonal therapy in routine breast cancer care in France, Italy and Spain. The information used to conduct this study was taken from patients\' medical charts. In this real-world study, abemaciclib was mostly used as the initial treatment for advanced breast cancer. Abemaciclib effectiveness was similar across the three countries confirming findings from previous studies. Our study supports the use of abemaciclib for patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

UNASSIGNED: This article summarizes the most recent results of the monarchE study. This study was completed in participants with a type of breast cancer called HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. In this study, abemaciclib, a non-chemotherapy treatment, was administered with standard of care endocrine therapy after curative surgery. Most participants had received prior chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The study investigated if abemaciclib helped participants live longer without their cancer returning compared with participants who only received standard of care endocrine therapy. The study participants were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Participants in Group A were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy with abemaciclib for 2 years, followed by endocrine therapy for a total of at least 5 years. Participants in Group B were assigned to receive standard of care endocrine therapy only for at least 5 years. The effect of treatment was compared between these 2 groups.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, the results showed that the cancer was 34% less likely to come back after surgery in the participants in Group A (abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy) compared with those in Group B (endocrine therapy only). At 4 years since the start of the study treatment, more participants who received the combination of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy remained free of cancer compared with participants who received endocrine therapy alone (86% versus 79%). Participants who received abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy had more side effects than those who received endocrine therapy alone, but most of these effects were mild to moderate and reversible upon the end of therapy. The most common side effects in the abemaciclib group were diarrhea, infections, low number of white blood cells, and tiredness.
UNASSIGNED: This study found that administering abemaciclib in combination with standard endocrine therapy after curative breast surgery helped lower the risk of cancer returning in people with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Abemaciclib is a new treatment option for people with this diagnosis. People with high-risk early breast cancer should always talk to their doctors and nurses before making any decisions about their treatment.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03155997 (monarchE study).

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy (ET) become standard-of-care for patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HR+/HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the optimal therapeutic paradigm after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib with switching ET versus chemotherapy after progression on prior palbociclib-based ET in Chinese patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.
METHODS: From 414 consecutive patients with HR+/HER2- MBC who had been treated with palbociclib plus ET from September 2018 to May 2022 in Peking University Cancer Hospital, we identified 80 patients who received abemaciclib plus switching ET or chemotherapy after progression on palbociclib, matched for age, original stage at diagnosis, disease-free interval, and tumor burden at 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazard model was performed to identify clinical factors associated with PFS in the abemaciclib group.
RESULTS: The median PFS was 6.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.94-8.06) in abemaciclib group and 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.52-5.49) in chemotherapy group (p = 0.667). And, there was no difference in median PFS between the sequential and nonsequential arm (6.0 vs. 6.0 months) in the abemaciclib group though fewer lines of prior systemic therapy and longer PFS from prior palbociclib in the sequential arm. However, patients with prior palbociclib as the first-line therapy had a significantly longer median PFS versus prior palbociclib as ≥2nd-line therapy (11.0 vs. 5.0 months, p = 0.043). Based on multivariable analysis, ER+/PR+ was an independent factor associated with longer PFS. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the abemaciclib and chemotherapy groups (p = 0.069).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that abemaciclib plus switching ET might be one of feasible treatment options for Chinese patients with HR+/HER2- MBC after progression on prior palbociclib-based therapy in addition to chemotherapy.

暂无摘要。

The most common toxicities associated with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor therapy include decreased leukopenia and neutropenia due to the inhibition of CDK6 of leukocyte and neutrophil precursors in bone marrow. These hematological toxicities are more commonly observed with palbociclib administration than with abemaciclib administration, which is approximately 13 times more selective against CDK4 than CDK6. Thus, even though both successfully inhibit CDK4/6, the side effects of palbociclib and abemaciclib differ due to differences in selectivity. Recent reports have suggested an association between palbociclib and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw; however, reports on this association are inconsistent. This study investigated the potential association of palbociclib and abemaciclib with MRONJ using the FAERS. Signals of \"Osteonecrosis of jaw\" were detected only in females using palbociclib (cROR025: 2.08). Other signals detected included stomatitis-related adverse events with abemaciclib and intraoral soft tissue damage and infection with palbociclib. As previous exploratory studies have reported MRONJ signals for bisphosphonates and denosumab, we calculated the aROR for palbociclib-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw using concomitant bisphosphonates and denosumab as covariates. A signal was detected even after adjusting for sex, age, and concomitant medications as covariates (aROR0025: 5.74). A proper understanding of the differences in CDK selectivity is necessary for the appropriate use of CDK4/6 inhibitors. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on CDK4/6 inhibitors and drug-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. We believe that these results will offer new insights into adverse events related to the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, and may aid in the proper use of CDK4/6 inhibitors.

UNASSIGNED: Abemaciclib is currently approved for the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, lymph node (LN)-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer (BC). In a real-world setting the clinicopathologic features of patients potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib remain to be defined. There are conflicting data regarding the biological behavior and long-term outcomes across invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In our study we retrospectively assessed the real-world data and long-term outcome of selected high-risk features ILC compared to IDC, according to the MonarchE trial inclusion criteria.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 15,071 patients who got surgery at the European Institute of Oncology for a first primary, non-metastatic, HR-positive, HER2-negative BC from 2000 to 2008. 11,981 (79.5%) patients had an IDC and 1524 (10.1%) an ILC. The remaining 1566 patients (10.4%) had either combined ductal and lobular breast cancer or another histological breast cancer subtype. According to the eligibility criteria of the MonarchE study, we identified two high-risk groups, based on high number of positive lymph nodes, large tumor size, or a high cellular proliferation as measured by tumor grade or biomarkers. Patients were matched by propensity score.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 2872 (21.3%) patients were selected as clinically high-risk, including 361/1524 ILC (23.7%) and 2511/11,981 IDC (21%). 322 high-risk ILC were matched with similar high-risk IDC. The median follow-up was 13.2 years for survival. In the matched set, invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (log-rank P = 0.09) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank P = 0.48) were not statistically significantly different between the two histological groups. For IDC patients, the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates (95% CI) were 77.7% (72.9-82.2) and 57.3% (51.7-63.1) respectively, compared to the 5-year and 10-year IDFS rates of ILC patients that were 75.5% (70.6-80.2) and 50.7% (45.0-56.6). The 5-year and 10-year distant relapse free survival (DRFS) rates were 80% (75.3-84.2) and 65.3% (59.8-70.7) in IDC cohort, compared to the 5-year and the 10-year DRFS rates of 78.7% (74.0-83.1) and 61.5% (55.9-67.1) in the ILC cohort. Such data match the recent outcomes efficacy results of the MonarchE control arm. More patients in the ILC (n = 17) than in the IDC group (n = 10) developed axillary recurrence. At multivariable analysis, stratified for specific clinical features, age <35 years, pT2-3, axillary involvement with more than 10 positive axillary nodes were found to be predictors of unfavorable IDFS and OS in the overall matched high-risk population.
UNASSIGNED: Findings from this matched cohort study reported similar IDFS and DRFS rates for high risk HR positive early BC when compared to the control arm overall IDFS and DRFS rates reported from the MonarchE trial. Our study demonstrated rates of concordant long-term outcome status beyond histologic subtype. These data support an escalation strategy for these two different histological entities when diagnosed with high-risk features. In our dataset approximately 21% rate of high-risk HR positive early BC patients are potentially eligible for adjuvant abemaciclib treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Umberto Veronesi Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy (ET) comprise the standard treatment for patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer. The optimal systematic treatment after progression on palbociclib and the role of HER2 expression among these patients remain unclear.
METHODS: The authors retrospectively identified 361 patients who received palbociclib combined with ET. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed based on subsequent treatments and HER2 status (PFSsub and OSsub, respectively). PFS1 and OS1 were calculated from palbociclib administration to disease progression/death and death from any cause, respectively. PFSsub and OSsub were calculated from subsequent treatment initiation.
RESULTS: The median PFS1 and OS1 were 10.2 and 39.9 months, respectively. The median PFSsub and OSsub of 111 patients (54.7%) who received chemotherapy were 4.9 months and 20.0 months, respectively, whereas those of 89 patients (43.8%) who received endocrine backbone therapy were 5.9 months and 29.3 months, respectively. Among them, 31 patients (15.3%) who received abemaciclib combined with new ET showed better PFSsub and OSsub (12.2 months and not reached, respectively). The median PFS1 was significantly shorter in the HER2-low subgroup than in the HER2-zero subgroup among patients who received second-line or later palbociclib (6.1 vs. 7.8 months; p = .040) but did not differ among patients who received first-line palbociclib.
CONCLUSIONS: Various regimens after palbociclib use were received. An improvement was noted in PFS among patients who received endocrine backbone therapy relative to chemotherapy, which may have been secondary to the receipt of chemotherapy by patients with more aggressive disease. HER2 status was not related to the effect of first-line palbociclib, but it may play a role in later lines.

Acquired ESR1 mutations in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) drive treatment resistance and tumor progression; new treatment strategies are needed. Lasofoxifene, a next-generation, oral, endocrine therapy and tissue-specific ER antagonist, provided preclinical antitumor activity, alone or combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) in ESR1-mutated mBC.
In the open-label, phase II, ELAINE 2 trial (NCT04432454), women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) mBC who progressed on prior therapies (including CDK4/6i) received lasofoxifene 5 mg/day and abemaciclib 150 mg b.i.d until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and objective response rate (ORR).
Twenty-nine women (median age 60 years) participated; all but one were previously treated with a CDK4/6i (median duration 2 years). The lasofoxifene-abemaciclib combination was well tolerated with primarily grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting. One patient (with no prior CDK4/6i) discontinued treatment due to grade 2 diarrhea. No deaths occurred during the study. Median PFS was 56.0 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.9 weeks-not estimable; ∼13 months]; PFS rates at 6, 12, and 18 months were 76.1%, 56.1%, and 38.8%, respectively. CBR at 24 weeks was 65.5% (95% CI 47.3% to 80.1%). In 18 patients with measurable lesions, ORR was 55.6% (95% CI 33.7% to 75.4%). ESR1-mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) allele fraction decreased from baseline to week 4 in 21/26 (80.8%) patients.
Lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib had an acceptable safety profile, was well tolerated, and exhibited meaningful antitumor activity in women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/HER2- mBC after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i. Observed decreases in ESR1-mutant ctDNA with lasofoxifene concordant with clinical response suggest target engagement. If the ELAINE 2 findings are confirmed in the initiated, phase III, ELAINE 3 trial, these data could be practice-changing and help address a critical unmet need.

BACKGROUND: Established prognostic factors for treatment response to cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors are currently lacking. We aimed to investigate the relationship of pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) to abemaciclib outcomes.
METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from MONARCH 2, a phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone-receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer that progressed on endocrine therapy. Patients were divided into high and low categories based on baseline NLR (cutoff: 2.5) and ALC (cutoff: 1.5 × 109/L). The association of baseline NLR and ALC with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was explored using Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates. Tumor response and safety were also examined.
RESULTS: NLR and ALC data were available for 645 patients (abemaciclib: N = 426; placebo: N = 219). Low-baseline NLR or high-baseline ALC was consistently associated with positive PFS and OS trends; low-baseline NLR subgroups also showed trends for better response. The abemaciclib treatment effect against placebo was observed regardless of baseline NLR or ALC. Univariate analyses showed baseline NLR and ALC were prognostic of PFS and OS. Baseline NLR remained significant in the multivariate model (P < .0001). No unexpected differences in safety were observed by baseline NLR or ALC.
CONCLUSIONS: Baseline NLR was independently prognostic of PFS and OS. Low-baseline NLR was associated with numerically better efficacy outcomes, but the benefit of adding abemaciclib to fulvestrant was similar irrespective of baseline NLR status.