In metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, ESR1 mutations are a common cause of acquired resistance to the backbone of therapy, estrogen deprivation by aromatase inhibition. How these mutations affect tumor sensitivity to established and novel therapies are active areas of research. These therapies include estrogen receptor-targeting agents, such as selective estrogen receptor modulators, covalent antagonists, and degraders (including tamoxifen, fulvestrant, and novel agents), and combination therapies, such as endocrine therapy plus CDK4/6, PI3K, or mTORC1 inhibition. In this review, we summarize existing knowledge surrounding the mechanisms of action of ESR1 mutations and roles in resistance to aromatase inhibition. We then analyze the recent literature on how ESR1 mutations affect outcomes in estrogen receptor-targeting and combination therapies. For estrogen receptor-targeting therapies such as tamoxifen and fulvestrant, ESR1 mutations cause relative resistance in vitro but do not clearly lead to resistance in patients, making novel agents in this category promising. Regarding combination therapies, ESR1 mutations nullify any aromatase inhibitor component of the combination. Thus, combinations using endocrine alternatives to aromatase inhibition, or combinations where the non-endocrine component is efficacious as monotherapy, are still effective against ESR1 mutations. These results emphasize the importance of investigating combinatorial resistance, challenging as these efforts are. We also discuss future directions and open questions, such as studying the differences among distinct ESR1 mutations, asking how to adjust clinical decisions based on molecular surveillance testing, and developing novel therapies that are effective against ESR1 mutations.

Consequences of the obesity epidemic on cancer morbidity and mortality are not fully appreciated. Obesity is a risk factor for many cancers, but the mechanisms by which it contributes to cancer development and patient outcome have yet to be fully elucidated. Here, we examined the effects of coculturing human-derived adipocytes with established and primary breast cancer cells on tumorigenic potential. We found that the interaction between adipocytes and cancer cells increased the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines. Prolonged culture of cancer cells with adipocytes or cytokines increased the proportion of mammosphere-forming cells and of cells expressing stem-like markers in vitro. Furthermore, contact with immature adipocytes increased the abundance of cancer cells with tumor-forming and metastatic potential in vivo. Mechanistic investigations demonstrated that cancer cells cultured with immature adipocytes or cytokines activated Src, thus promoting Sox2, c-Myc, and Nanog upregulation. Moreover, Sox2-dependent induction of miR-302b further stimulated cMYC and SOX2 expression and potentiated the cytokine-induced cancer stem cell–like properties. Finally, we found that Src inhibitors decreased cytokine production after coculture, indicating that Src is not only activated by adipocyte or cytokine exposures, but is also required to sustain cytokine induction. These data support a model in which cancer cell invasion into local fat would establish feed-forward loops to activate Src, maintain proinflammatory cytokine production, and increase tumor-initiating cell abundance and metastatic progression. Collectively, our findings reveal new insights underlying increased breast cancer mortality in obese individuals and provide a novel preclinical rationale to test the efficacy of Src inhibitors for breast cancer treatment. Cancer Res; 76(2); 491–504. ©2016 AACR.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with endocrine therapy (ET) are the standard first-line treatment for hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC); however, disease progression occurs in almost all patients and additional treatment options are needed. Herein, we report outcomes of the postMONARCH trial investigating a switch in ET with/without CDK4/6 inhibition with abemaciclib after disease progression on CDK4/6i. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized phase III study enrolled patients with disease progression on previous CDK4/6i plus aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy for advanced disease or recurrence on/after adjuvant CDK4/6i + ET. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to abemaciclib + fulvestrant or placebo + fulvestrant. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included PFS by blinded independent central review, objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: This study randomly assigned 368 patients (abemaciclib + fulvestrant, n = 182 placebo + fulvestrant, n = 186). At the primary analysis (258 events), the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95; nominal P = .017), with median PFS 6.0 (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.6) versus 5.3 (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.6) months and 6-month PFS rates of 50% and 37% in the abemaciclib + fulvestrant and placebo + fulvestrant arms, respectively. These results were supported by BICR-assessed PFS (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77]; nominal P < .001). A consistent treatment effect was seen across major clinical and genomic subgroups, including with/without ESR1 or PIK3CA mutations. Among patients with measurable disease, investigator-assessed ORR was improved with abemaciclib + fulvestrant versus placebo + fulvestrant (17% v 7%; nominal P = .015). No new safety signals were observed, with findings consistent with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. CONCLUSION: Abemaciclib + fulvestrant significantly improved PFS after disease progression on previous CDK4/6i + ET in patients with HR+, HER2– ABC, offering an additional targeted therapy option for these patients.

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the standard of care, in combination with antiestrogen therapy, for patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2− advanced breast cancer. Various preclinical and translational research efforts have begun to shed light on the genomic and molecular landscape of resistance to these agents. Drivers of resistance to CDK4/6i therapy can be broadly subdivided into alterations impacting cell-cycle mediators and activation of oncogenic signal transduction pathways. The resistance drivers with the best translational evidence supporting their putative role have been identified via next-generation sequencing of resistant tumor biopsies in the clinic and validated in laboratory models of HR+ breast cancer. Despite the diverse landscape of resistance, several common, therapeutically actionable resistance nodes have been identified, including the mitotic spindle regulator Aurora Kinase A, as well as the AKT and MAPK signaling pathways. Based upon these insights, precision-guided therapeutic strategies are under active clinical development. This review will highlight the emerging evidence, in the clinic and in the laboratory, implicating this diverse spectrum of molecular resistance drivers.

Purpose: Antibody–drug conjugates (ADC) harboring topoisomerase I (TOP1) inhibitor payloads have improved survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, knowledge of ADC resistance mechanisms and potential impact on the sequential use of ADCs is limited. In this study, we report the incidence and characterization of TOP1 mutations arising in the setting of ADC resistance in metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with ADCs with available posttreatment plasma-based genotyping were included. TOP1 mutation incidence, mutant allele frequency, and functional characterization were assessed, and incidence was compared with that in patients with metastatic breast cancer not receiving ADC treatment and in The Cancer Genome Atlas. Results: Plasma-based genotyping identified distinct TOP1 mutations (S57C, R364H, W401C, and G359E) in 12.9% of patients (4/31) at the time of disease progression on ADC, compared with 0.7% (3/420) in non–ADC-treated patients with metastatic breast cancer and 0.5% in The Cancer Genome Atlas. The appearance of mutations was associated with clinical cross-resistance, as median duration on the first ADC was 455 versus 52 days for the second ADC. The functional characterization of three novel TOP1-mutant proteins demonstrated that all exhibited reduced enzymatic activity, attenuated covalent DNA binding, and resistance to TOP1 inhibitor ADC payloads SN38 and deruxtecan. Conclusions: We describe the recurrent emergence of functionally altered, resistance-associated TOP1 mutations in vivo under selective pressure from ADCs and the potential impact on mediating cross-resistance to sequential ADCs. TOP1 mutation may represent a biomarker of resistance in this setting, and additional work is needed to optimize biomarkers and ADC payload design to improve outcomes for the sequential use of ADCs. See related commentary by Gwin and Hurvitz, p. 1824