While the Lidera trial showed a benefit for the oral SERD giredestrant in the adjuvant setting, experts advise caution before changing practice. The trial's control arm (standard endocrine therapy) does not reflect the current standard of care for high-risk patients, which now includes CDK4/6 inhibitors, making a direct comparison difficult.
Related Insights
The emergence of positive data from trials like PATINA creates a dilemma for oncologists treating patients who are already stable on an older maintenance therapy. The consensus suggests not altering a successful regimen to avoid disrupting patient stability, revealing a cautious approach to integrating new evidence into established care.
The development of SERDs for adjuvant therapy was stalled for two decades not by efficacy concerns, but by logistics. Fulvestrant, the first SERD, required monthly intramuscular injections, a pragmatically unfeasible strategy for a 5-year adjuvant trial, a problem only solved with the advent of oral SERDs.
A patient's time to progression on first-line CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy acts as an informal biomarker. A shorter duration, such as 14 months, is viewed by experts as "not so great" and indicates a degree of underlying endocrine resistance that influences subsequent treatment strategies.
The control arm in the EMBARK study was blinded to PSA results, preventing physicians from intervening with standard-of-care AR antagonists at PSA progression. This design likely delayed subsequent effective therapies, making the control arm underperform and potentially exaggerating the overall survival benefit of the experimental arms.
Clinical trials use arbitrary, time-based definitions (e.g., relapse within 2 years) for endocrine resistance. This isn't a perfect biological classification but a practical necessity to create homogeneous patient groups for testing, which may not fully reflect the diverse patient population in clinical practice.
A significant criticism of the pivotal KEYNOTE-564 trial is that only half the patients in the control arm received standard-of-care immunotherapy upon relapse. This lack of subsequent optimal treatment complicates the interpretation of the overall survival benefit, raising questions about its true magnitude.
For high-risk, HR+ patients with germline BRCA mutations, data suggest they derive less benefit from CDK4/6 inhibitors. A practical approach is to give one year of the PARP inhibitor olaparib first, followed by a CDK4/6 inhibitor, capitalizing on the delayed initiation allowance in major trials.
Data from the MONARCH-E and NATALY trials show that the benefit of adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors like abemaciclib and ribociclib persists and even increases after patients complete their 2-3 year treatment course. This sustained "carryover effect" suggests a lasting impact on disease biology rather than just temporary suppression.
The IMbark trial demonstrated that an ARPI (enzalutamide), either alone or with ADT, outperformed ADT monotherapy in high-risk patients. This pivotal finding raises the question of whether giving ADT alone in any setting, such as with radiation for localized disease, is now an outdated and inferior approach.
Using a second CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on a first showed disappointing results in trials like post-MONARCH. However, the EMBER-3 trial's success, combining abemaciclib with the novel SERD imlunestrant, demonstrated robust efficacy. This suggests the choice of endocrine partner is the critical factor for making this sequencing strategy viable.
