OBJECTIVES:The aim of the article was to analyse the trends in oncology interventional clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2000 to 2025, compare with major global regions, and to assess the potential impact of the New UK Clinical Trials Regulation (UK CTR) 2026 regulatory reform on the future competitiveness. DESIGN:Retrospective observational analysis of interventional oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with comparison across the UK, European Union (EU; comprising 27 member states), the United States, and the Republic of China (China). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Number of trials, phase distribution, funding source, and population-adjusted trial density across three time intervals (2000-2015, 2016-2020, 2021-2025). RESULTS:The UK experienced growth in oncology trials until 2017, followed by declines associated with Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic, and partial recovery thereafter. While the EU and USA maintained high absolute trial numbers, both showed declining population-adjusted research intensity over time. China demonstrated the fastest growth, with substantial increases in early phase trials and trial density. CONCLUSIONS:Despite recent challenges, the UK retains strong infrastructure and expertise in oncology research; the 2026 regulatory reform may support the future attractiveness of the UK, particularly for early phase trials, although increasing global competition remains a significant issue.

Novel selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) are a promising therapeutic option under investigation for patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. The efficacy of novel SERDs in the treatment of advanced disease has prompted investigation into their use in the early disease setting, to reduce breast cancer recurrence. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the phase III, randomized, open-label CAMBRIA-1 and CAMBRIA-2 studies. CAMBRIA-1 and CAMBRIA-2 are comparing the next-generation oral SERD camizestrant versus standard-of-care endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen) in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer, who are at intermediate or high risk of disease recurrence. CAMBRIA-1 is comparing 5 years of camizestrant versus endocrine therapy in patients who have already received 2-5 years of standard endocrine therapy, with or without cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, and are without recurrence. CAMBRIA-2 is comparing 7 years of upfront adjuvant camizestrant versus endocrine therapy, with abemaciclib permitted in both treatment arms for the first 2 years. The primary endpoint for both studies is invasive breast cancer-free survival. Secondary endpoints include invasive disease-free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, overall survival, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported outcomes, safety and tolerability.

Abstract Background: Camizestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader and pure ER antagonist being investigated in early and advanced breast cancer (BC). In postmenopausal women with advanced ER-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC and disease recurrence or progression on or after ≤1 endocrine therapy (ET) in the advanced setting, camizestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant in the Phase 2 SERENA-2 trial. Camizestrant may also provide benefit in the early BC setting. Following locoregional therapy (surgery ± radiotherapy), standard adjuvant treatment of ET with or without chemotherapy and/or a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) has shown significant benefit in decreasing the risk of recurrence of stage I–III ER-positive/HER2-negative BC. However, BC recurrence as incurable metastatic disease is still common. Thus, adjuvant therapeutic options with improved clinical outcomes are needed. The CAMBRIA-2 study (NCT05952557) aims to assess whether upfront camizestrant can improve outcomes compared with standard ET as adjuvant treatment in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative early BC with an intermediate-high or high risk of recurrence after definitive locoregional therapy. Trial design: This ongoing Phase 3, randomized, open-label study is enrolling women (pre-, peri-, or postmenopausal) and men with ER-positive/HER2-negative (HER2-negative status defined as immunohistochemistry 0, or 1+, or in situ hybridization-negative) early BC who are at intermediate-high or high risk of recurrence (as defined in the protocol) after having completed definitive locoregional therapy (surgery ± radiotherapy) ± (neo)adjuvant systemic chemotherapy, and who have no evidence of disease. Patients may have received up to 12 weeks of (neo)adjuvant ET prior to randomization. Patients are randomized (1:1) to receive camizestrant 75 mg ± abemaciclib ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist or standard ET of the investigator’s choice (any aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen) ± abemaciclib ± LHRH agonist for up to 7 years. The primary endpoint is invasive BC-free survival (IBCFS) (Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points [STEEP] 2.0 criteria). Secondary endpoints include invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (STEEP 2.0 criteria), overall survival, safety, and health-related quality of life. Primary endpoint analysis will use a stratified log-rank test adjusting for stratification factors, assuming a two-sided significance level of 5%. Approximately 5500 patients will be randomized. Clinical trial identification: NCT05952557 Editorial acknowledgment: Writing assistance was provided by Clare Davis of BOLDSCIENCE Inc., funded by AstraZeneca. Legal entity responsible for the study: AstraZeneca Funding: This study was supported by AstraZeneca. Citation Format: Sibylle Loibl, Yeon Park, Sara Tolaney, Ioanna Gioni, Simon Johnston, Teresa Klinowska, Ingrid A. Mayer, Raquel Nunes, Barbara Pistilli, Mary Stuart, Angela Quintana, Andrew Walding, Michael Gnant. A Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of upfront camizestrant vs standard endocrine therapy as adjuvant treatment for ER-positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer with intermediate-high or high risk of recurrence (CAMBRIA-2) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO4-27-07.

Abstract Background: Definitive locoregional (surgery ± radiotherapy) and standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) (± chemotherapy or cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor [CDK4/6i]) can achieve cure in many patients (pts) with estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2–) early breast cancer (BC). Nevertheless, a significant proportion of pts with stage I–III disease will experience recurrence to metastatic, incurable disease (5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of recurrence of 8.3% and 14.0%, respectively). There is evidence that incorporating a more effective endocrine therapy after 2 years of standard adjuvant ET can result in clinical benefit for high-risk individuals. Camizestrant is a next-generation oral selective ER degrader and pure ER antagonist. In SERENA-2, camizestrant 75 mg and 150 mg significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2– advanced BC with disease recurrence or progression after ET. The CAMBRIA-1 study (NCT05774951) is evaluating the potential of extended adjuvant therapy with camizestrant to improve outcomes in pts with ER+/HER2– early BC with an intermediate or high risk of recurrence after definitive locoregional therapy and standard adjuvant ET. Trial design: This phase 3 randomized, open-label study is enrolling women (pre- or postmenopausal) and men with ER+/HER2– (immunohistochemistry 0/1+/2+/in situ hybridization-negative) early BC who have completed definitive locoregional therapy and standard adjuvant ET (± CDK4/6i) for ≥2 and ≤5 years (+ 3 months) without disease recurrence. Pts must be considered at intermediate or high risk of recurrence based on clinical, biological, and genomic factors. Pts are randomized (1:1) to continue standard ET of the investigator’s choice (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone [LHRH] agonist) or camizestrant ± LHRH agonist for up to 60 months. The primary endpoint is invasive BC-free survival (STEEP 2.0 criteria). Secondary endpoints include invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival (STEEP 2.0 criteria), overall survival, safety, and health-related quality of life. Primary endpoint analysis will use a stratified log-rank test adjusting for stratification factors, assuming a two-sided significance level of 5%. Approximately 4300 pts will be randomized; enrollment is ongoing. Clinical trial identification: NCT05774951 Editorial acknowledgment: Writing assistance was provided by Alison Lovibond, PhD, of BOLDSCIENCE Inc., funded by AstraZeneca. Legal entity responsible for the study: AstraZeneca Funding: This study was supported by AstraZeneca. Citation Format: Erika Hamilton, Sibylle Loibl, Naoki Niikura, Priya Rastogi, Kamal S. Saini, Ioanna Gioni, Teresa Klinowska, Ingrid A. Mayer, Mary Stuart, Emilia Syta, Andrew Walding, Thomas Bachelot. A phase 3 randomized open-label study of extended adjuvant therapy with camizestrant vs standard endocrine therapy in patients with ER+/HER2– early breast cancer and an intermediate or high risk of recurrence (CAMBRIA 1) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-18-09.

Definitive locoregional (surgery ± radiotherapy) and standard adjuvant ET (± chemotherapy or cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor [CDK4/6i]) can achieve cure in many patients (pts) with ER+/HER2– early BC. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of pts with stage I–III disease will experience recurrence to metastatic, incurable disease (5- and 10-year cumulative incidences of recurrence of 8.3% and 14.0%, respectively). There is evidence that incorporating a more effective endocrine therapy after 2 years of standard adjuvant ET can result in clinical benefit for high-risk individuals. Camizestrant is a next-generation oral selective ER degrader and pure ER antagonist. In SERENA-2, camizestrant 75 mg and 150 mg significantly prolonged progression-free survival vs fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2– advanced BC with disease recurrence or progression after ET. The CAMBRIA-1 study (NCT05774951) is evaluating the potential of extended adjuvant therapy with camizestrant to improve outcomes in pts with ER+/HER2– early BC with an intermediate or high risk of recurrence after definitive locoregional therapy and standard adjuvant ET. This phase 3 randomised, open-label study is enrolling women (pre- or postmenopausal) and men with ER+/HER2– (IHC 0/1+/2+/ISH–) early BC who have completed definitive locoregional therapy and standard adjuvant ET (± CDK4/6i) for ≥2 and ≤5 years (+ 3 months) without disease recurrence. Pts must be considered at intermediate or high risk of recurrence based on clinical, biological and genomic factors. Pts are randomised (1:1) to continue standard ET of the investigator’s choice (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor ± LHRH agonist) or camizestrant ± LHRH agonist for up to 60 months. The primary endpoint is invasive BC-free survival (STEEP 2.0 criteria). Secondary endpoints include invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival (STEEP 2.0 criteria), overall survival, safety, and health-related quality of life. Approximately 4300 pts will be randomised; enrollment is ongoing. NCT05774951. Medical writing assistance was provided by Suzanne Patel at BOLDSCIENCE Inc., funded by AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca.

Abstract Background: More than two thirds of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) have hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) tumors. Current guidelines recommend combining endocrine therapy (ET), such as an aromatase inhibitor (AI), with an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6i) as first-line (1L) treatment (Cardoso et al. Ann Oncol 2020). However, drug resistance eventually develops, leading to disease progression. Mutations in the estrogen receptor (ER) alpha gene (ESR1m) result in constitutively active, estrogen-independent ER signaling which can reduce AI efficiency (Reinert et al. Front Oncol 2017). Clinically, ESR1m are associated with acquired resistance to AI as well as more aggressive disease features, including development of visceral metastasis (Gerratana et al. Eur J Cancer 2021). At the initial diagnosis of mBC, the frequency of ESR1m is low (approximately 3%) (Bidard et al. Ann Oncol 2019); however, this increases to 17−35% of patients when disease progresses on an AI + CDK4/6i (Bidard et al. Ann Oncol 2019; Goetz et al. J Clin Oncol 2020). Patients with ESR1m tumors have poor outcomes with subsequent lines of therapy. New approaches are needed to maximize time on 1L treatment with ET + CDK4/6i and prevent further clinical and radiological disease progression. AZD9833 (camizestrant) is a highly potent, next-generation oral selective ER degrader (ngSERD) and pure ER antagonist that has demonstrated antitumor activity in a wide range of ER+ breast cancer cell lines and patient-derived xenograft models, including those with wild type ESR1 (ESR1wt) and the most prevalent ESR1m, D538G and Y537S (Scott et al. AACR 2020; Lawsone et al. AACR 2020). The Phase I SERENA-1 study demonstrated that AZD9833 shows encouraging clinical activity as monotherapy or in combination with a CDK4/6i in heavily pre-treated patients with ER+/HER2− advanced breast cancer whose tumors are ESR1wt or ESR1m (Baird et al. SABCS 2020). SERENA-6 will assess the efficacy of switching patients from AI to AZD9833, while continuing CDK4/6i treatment, once ESR1m are detected but before overt disease progression. Study description: SERENA-6 is an ongoing, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, Phase III trial. Patients with HR+/HER2− mBC who have received at least 6 months of 1L AI (letrozole or anastrozole) + CDK4/6i (palbociclib or abemaciclib) and do not have clinical or radiological disease progression will be enrolled into Step 1, the ESR1m detection phase. During this phase, patients will be monitored regularly for the presence of ESR1m via central circulating tumor DNA analysis. Patients with detectable ESR1m and no overt disease progression (by RECIST v1.1 criteria) will be enrolled into Step 2 double-blind 1:1 randomization to either continue AI plus CDK4/6i, plus a placebo for AZD9833, or switch to AZD9833 (75 mg oral once daily), plus the same CDK4/6i plus a placebo for the AI. The primary endpoint will be investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 criteria. A key secondary endpoint will be time to second progression or death on a subsequent therapy. Other secondary endpoints will include overall survival, chemotherapy-free survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. Enrollment began in June 2021 and is expected at approximately 200 sites across 19 countries. Acknowledgments: We thank Julia Mawer, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, UK, for medical writing assistance, which was funded by AstraZeneca. Funding: The SERENA-6 trial is funded and overseen by AstraZeneca. Citation Format: François-Clément Bidard, Kevin Kalinsky, Massimo Cristofanilli, Giampaolo Bianchini, Stephen KL Chia, Wolfgang Janni, Cynthia X Ma, Erica L Mayer, Yeon Hee Park, Steven Fox, Xiaochun Liu, Andrew Walding, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Nick C Turner. SERENA-6: A Phase III study to assess the efficacy and safety of AZD9833 (camizestrant) compared with aromatase inhibitors when given in combination with palbociclib or abemaciclib in patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with detectable ESR1m who have not experienced disease progression on first-line therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-11-05.

INTRODUCTION:EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are recommended for EGFR-mutated NSCLC treatment. EGFR activation up-regulates programmed death-ligand 1 expression and other immunosuppressive factors in NSCLC, causing immune microenvironment remodeling. Osimertinib (an EGFR TKI) plus durvalumab (programmed death-ligand 1 blockade) was evaluated in the TATTON study (NCT02143466). METHODS:This open-label, phase 1b study enrolled patients with advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. In part A, patients who had progressed on a previous EGFR TKI received osimertinib (80 mg once daily) plus durvalumab 3 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In part B, patients received first-line osimertinib plus durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. However, part B enrollment was terminated early owing to an increased incidence of interstitial lung disease (ILD)-related adverse events (AEs). Safety (primary objective) and preliminary anti-tumor activity determined by objective response rate (ORR), best overall response, duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival were evaluated. RESULTS:Before enrollment termination, 23 and 11 patients received treatment across parts A and B, respectively. The most common AEs across parts A and B were as follows: diarrhea (50%), nausea (41%), and decreased appetite (35%). A total of 12 patients (35%) reported ILD-related AEs (lung disorder, ILD or pneumonitis). In part A, ORR was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23-66); median DOR was 20.4 months. In part B, ORR was 82% (95% CI: 48-98), median DOR was 7.1 months, and median progression-free survival was 9.0 months (95% CI: 3.5-12.3). CONCLUSIONS:This study highlighted a potential risk of ILD-related AEs when combining osimertinib with durvalumab. Further research looking to combine EGFR TKIs with immune checkpoint inhibitors should be approached with caution.

Background: More than two thirds of patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) tumors. In most countries, current standard-of-care first-line treatments include an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader, combined with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors. Concurrent use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists is recommended for men and premenopausal women with ABC. Nevertheless, almost all ABCs eventually become resistant to endocrine therapy and the disease is incurable in these cases. New therapies are needed to combat endocrine therapy resistance, maintain patient health-related quality-of-life, and delay the need for chemotherapy. AZD9833 (camizestrant) is a highly potent, next-generation selective ER degrader and pure ER antagonist that has demonstrated anticancer properties across a range of preclinical models, including those with ER-activating mutations (Scott et al, AACR 2020). A Phase I dose-escalation and expansion study (SERENA-1) has demonstrated that AZD9833 is well tolerated and has a promising antitumor activity when administered alone or in combination with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Baird et al, SABCS 2020). SERENA-4 (NCT04711252) is a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, Phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AZD9833 in combination with palbociclib for patients with ER+/HER2− ABC who have not received systemic treatment in the advanced disease setting. Methods: SERENA-4 will enroll 1342 patients with de novo or recurrent ER+/HER2− ABC who have not previously received systemic treatment for their locoregionally recurrent or metastatic disease. Patients with recurrent disease must have received adjuvant aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen therapy for at least 24 months without relapse. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive oral treatment with either (a) AZD9833 75 mg once daily, palbociclib 125 mg once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment and a placebo for anastrozole 1 mg once daily or (b) anastrozole 1 mg once daily, palbociclib (same as active arm) and a placebo for AZD9833 75 mg once daily. Men and premenopausal women will also receive a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS; up to 5 years). Secondary endpoints include overall survival (up to 8 years), second PFS, time to chemotherapy, objective response rate, and changes in health-related quality-of-life measures. Enrollment began in January 2021. As of 02 July 2021, the number of open sites is 57 across 15 countries. Acknowledgments: We thank Julia Mawer, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, Oxford, UK, for providing medical writing support funded by AstraZeneca Funding: The SERENA-4 trial is funded and overseen by AstraZeneca. © 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2021 ASCO Annual Meeting. All rights reserved. Citation Format: Fabrice André, Seock-Ah Im, Patrick Neven, Richard D Baird, Johannes Ettl, Matthew P Goetz, Erika Hamilton, Hiroji Iwata, Zefei Jiang, Anil Abraham Joy, Vincent Haddad, Andrew Walding, Manuel Selvi Miralles, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Antonio Llombart-Cussac. SERENA-4: A Phase III comparison of AZD9833 (camizestrant) plus palbociclib, versus anastrozole plus palbociclib, for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have not previously received systemic treatment for advanced disease [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-11-06.

Purpose The clinical relevance of different time-to-deterioration ( TTD) definitions for patient-reported outcomes were explored. Methods TTD definitions differing by reference score and deterioration event were used to analyse data from the phase 3 FLAURA trial of first-line osimertinib versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Pre-specified key symptoms were fatigue, appetite loss, cough, chest pain and dyspnoea, scored using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires (≥ 10-point difference = clinically relevant). Results No significant treatment differences in TTD (distributions) were observed using definitions based on transient or definitive deterioration alone. TTD definitions based on definitive, sustained deterioration, with death not included as an event, yielded a significant treatment difference for dyspnoea (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; P = 0.034) when baseline was the reference, and for cough (HR 0.70; P = 0.009) and dyspnoea (HR 0.71; P = 0.004) when best previous score was the reference. With death included as an event, treatment differences were significant for dyspnoea (HR 0.70; P = 0.025) when baseline was the reference, and for cough (HR 0.70; P = 0.011), dyspnoea (HR 0.71; P = 0.003) and chest pain (HR 0.71; P = 0.038) when best previous score was the reference. Irrespective of definition, TTD for appetite loss and fatigue did not differ significantly between arms. Conclusion This exploratory work showed that different TTD definitions yield different magnitudes of treatment difference, highlighting the importance of pre-specifying TTD definitions upfront in clinical trials. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02296125.

PURPOSE:To describe symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), assess how patients allocate sensations (i.e. symptoms or side effects) to either the disease or its treatment, and evaluate how patients balance side effects with treatment benefits.METHODS:Qualitative sub-studies were conducted as part of two clinical trials in patients treated for advanced NSCLC (AURA [NCT01802632]; ARCTIC [NCT02352948]).RESULTS:Interviews were conducted with 23 patients and 19 patients in the AURA and ARCTIC sub-studies, respectively. The most commonly experienced symptoms/side effects were respiratory (81% of patients), digestive (76%), pain and discomfort (76%), energy-related (71%), and sensory (62%). Patients identified a sensation as a treatment side effect if they had not experienced it before, if there was a temporal link between the sensation and receipt of treatment, and/or if their doctors consistently told or asked them about it in relation to side effects. Themes that emerged when patients talked about their cancer treatment and its side effects related to the serious nature of their advanced disease and their treatment expectations. Patients focused on treatment benefits, wanting a better quality of life, being hopeful, not really having a choice, and not thinking about side effects.CONCLUSIONS:In these two qualitative sub-studies, patients with advanced NSCLC valued the benefits of their treatment regardless of side effects that they experienced. Patients weighed their options against the seriousness of their disease and expressed their willingness to tolerate their side effects in return for receiving continued treatment benefits.

Osimertinib is a third-generation, irreversible oral EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor), that potently inhibits EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor-sensitizing mutations and T790M resistance mutations together with efficacy in CNS metastases in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here we describe the rationale and design for the Phase III NeoADAURA study (NCT04351555), which will evaluate neoadjuvant osimertinib with or without chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone prior to surgery, in patients with resectable stage II–IIIB N2 EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. The primary end point is centrally assessed major pathological response at the time of resection. Secondary end points include event-free survival, pathological complete response, nodal downstaging at the time of surgery, disease-free survival, overall survival and health-related quality of life. Safety and tolerability will also be assessed. Trial Registration number: NCT04351555 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

TPS1101 Background: More than two thirds of patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) tumors. Current standard-of-care first-line treatments include an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader (SERD), combined with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Concurrent use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is recommended for men and premenopausal women with ABC. Nevertheless, almost all ABCs eventually become resistant to endocrine therapy (ET) and the disease is incurable. New therapies are needed to combat ET resistance, maintain patient quality of life (QoL), and delay the need for chemotherapy. AZD9833 (camizestrant) is an orally bioavailable, highly potent, next-generation SERD that demonstrated anti-cancer properties across a range of preclinical models, including those with ER-activating mutations (Scott et al, 2020). A phase I study (SERENA-1) has demonstrated that AZD9833 is well tolerated and has a promising antitumor profile when administered alone or in combination with palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor (Baird et al, SABCS 2020). SERENA-4 (NCT04711252) is a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AZD9833 in combination with palbociclib for patients with ER+ HER2− ABC who have not received any systemic treatment in the advanced disease setting. Methods: SERENA-4 will enroll 1,342 patients with de novo or recurrent ER+ HER2– ABC who have not previously received systemic treatment for their locoregionally recurrent or metastatic disease. Patients with recurrent disease must have received adjuvant AI or tamoxifen therapy for at least 24 months without relapse. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive orally either (a) AZD9833 (75 mg, once daily), palbociclib (125 mg, once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment) and anastrozole-matching placebo (once daily) or (b) anastrozole (1 mg, once daily), palbociclib (same as active arm), and AZD9833-matching placebo (once daily). Premenopausal women and men will also receive LHRH agonists. The primary endpoint will be progression-free survival (PFS; up to 5 years). Secondary endpoints will include overall survival (up to 8 years), length of second PFS period, objective response, time to chemotherapy, and changes in QoL measures. Enrollment began in January 2021. Acknowledgments: We thank Rose Goodchild, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, UK, for providing medical writing assistance. Funding: The SERENA-4 trial is funded and overseen by AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT04711252 .

In the global FLAURA study, first-line osimertinib, a third-generation irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus comparator EGFR TKIs in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The FLAURA China study assessed first-line osimertinib in Chinese patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC (NCT02296125). FLAURA China was a double-blind, randomized, phase III study. Adults from mainland China with previously untreated EGFRm (Exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC were enrolled in the global study or a China-only study under the same protocol; 136 patients were randomized to osimertinib (80 mg once daily [od]; n = 71) or comparator EGFR TKI (gefitinib or erlotinib; all sites selected gefitinib 250 mg od; n = 65). Patients were randomized and allocated to treatment groups by a central computer system. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; OS was a secondary endpoint. All 136 randomized patients were analyzed. Osimertinib extended median PFS by 8.0 months versus comparator EGFR TKI (17.8 vs. 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–0.85). Median OS was 33.1 months in the osimertinib group versus 25.7 months in the comparator group (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.56–1.29). At 3 years, 20% of patients on osimertinib and 8% on the comparator remained on randomized treatment. Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) were reported in 54 and 28% of patients in the osimertinib and comparator groups, respectively, driven by increased local reporting of laboratory- and disease-related AEs. No new safety signals were identified. First-line osimertinib treatment resulted in a clinically meaningful PFS and OS benefit versus comparator EGFR TKI in Chinese patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC. Safety data were consistent with the known safety profile of osimertinib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02296125, registered 20 November 2014

PURPOSE Osimertinib is a third-generation, CNS-active, irreversible, oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) that potently and selectively inhibits both EGFR-TKI-sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations. We assess the cardiac failure risk in patients receiving osimertinib by evaluating the available data. METHODS Post hoc analyses of cardiac data from (1) studies in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer, FLAURA (osimertinib, n = 279; comparator EGFR-TKI, n = 277) and AURA3 (osimertinib, n = 279; chemotherapy, n = 140), and (2) a pooled data set of patients treated with osimertinib 80 mg from across the clinical trial program (n = 1,142), including cardiac failure-related adverse events and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reductions. An LVEF pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic analysis of the pooled data set was performed. The sponsor's global safety database was analyzed for cardiac failure-related adverse events, and a literature search was conducted. RESULTS Decreases in LVEF from a baseline of ≥ 10 percentage points to an absolute value of < 50% following osimertinib treatment were observed in 8 (3.1%) and 14 (5.5%) patients in FLAURA and AURA3, respectively, and in 35 (3.9%) patients in the pooled population. Most events were asymptomatic and resolved without treatment of the event or osimertinib discontinuation. The pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic analysis did not indicate a relationship between exposure to osimertinib and decreases in LVEF from baseline. The database and literature search showed no specific trend or pattern that was suggestive of a safety issue in patients receiving osimertinib. CONCLUSION These data do not suggest a causal relationship between osimertinib and cardiac failure. However, because of LVEF decreases that were observed in patients with cardiac risk factors before osimertinib treatment, cardiac monitoring, including an assessment of LVEF at baseline and during osimertinib treatment, is advised.

BACKGROUND:In the FLAURA trial, osimertinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival and a favorable toxicity profile to erlotinib or gefitinib as initial therapy in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patient-reported outcomes from FLAURA are discussed here. METHODS:Patients (N = 556) completed the EORTC QLQ-LC13 weekly for 6 weeks, then every 3 weeks, and the QLQ-C30 every 6 weeks. Prespecified key symptoms were cough, dyspnea, chest pain, appetite loss, and fatigue. Score changes from baseline to randomized treatment discontinuation were assessed using a mixed-effects model. A ≥10-point change was considered clinically relevant. Odds of improvement and time to deterioration were investigated. QLQ-C30 functioning scores were assessed post hoc. RESULTS:Questionnaire completion rates were >70% at most time points. Baseline mean scores were similar in the osimertinib and erlotinib/gefitinib arms. Scores improved in both arms, but none reached clinical relevance at 5% significance level. A statistically significant difference favoring osimertinib for chest pain was not clinically relevant (-6.84 vs -3.88; p = 0.021). Odds of improvement and time to deterioration were similar between treatments. In post hoc analyses, improvements favored osimertinib for emotional functioning (8.79 vs 4.91; p = 0.004) and social functioning (7.66 vs 1.74; p < 0.001). Cognitive functioning remained stable with osimertinib but deteriorated with erlotinib/gefitinib (0.03 vs -3.91; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Key symptoms improved from baseline in both treatment arms in FLAURA. Key symptom improvements that were both statistically significant and clinically relevant were not observed in favor of either treatment arm. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02296125.

Objectives: In the AURA3 trial, individuals received osimertinib 80 mg once daily or chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we explore patient-reported symptoms possibly related to treatment. Materials and methods: AURA3 was an open-label, randomized phase III trial involving 419 patients. As part of the trial's exploratory objectives, individuals were asked to complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) electronically, first weekly for 18 weeks and then every 3 weeks for up to 57 weeks, subject to the availability of validated local-language versions (English, German, Japanese and Spanish versions were available). Results: In total, 161 patients (38%; 102 receiving osimertinib, 59 receiving chemotherapy) provided data for PRO-CTCAE analyses (mean age: 64 years; 63% women). Diarrhea was reported more commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy, and was mostly graded as occurring rarely or occasionally. Decreased appetite was reported less commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy. The proportion of patients reporting nausea changed little from baseline with osimertinib and increased with chemotherapy. Few patients reported vomiting. Both nausea and vomiting were generally graded as mild in severity. Fatigue was reported less commonly with osimertinib than with chemotherapy, and was mostly graded as mild or moderate. Of patients reporting fatigue, the proportion grading it as interfering at least 'somewhat' with their usual or daily activities was lower with osimertinib than with chemotherapy. Conclusion Symptoms were generally mild and not frequent, with some differences in symptom patterns between the two treatment groups. The results support and complement the AURA3 trial data and give insight into patients' experience with treatment.

Background: The FLAURA study was a multicenter, double-blind, Phase 3 study in which patients with previously untreated epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung carcinoma were randomized 1:1 to oral osimertinib 80 mg once daily or standard-of-care (gefitinib 250 mg or erlotinib 150 mg, once daily) to compare safety and efficacy. In the overall FLAURA study, significantly better progression-free survival was shown with osimertinib versus standard-of-care. Methods: Selected endpoints, including progression-free survival (primary endpoint), overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response and safety were evaluated for the Japanese subset of the FLAURA study. Results: In Japan, 120 eligible Japanese patients were randomized to osimertinib (65 patients) or gefitinib (55 patients) treatment from December 2014 to June 2017. Median progression-free survival was 19.1 (95% confidence interval, 12.6, 23.5) and 13.8 (95% confidence interval, 8.3, 16.6) months with osimertinib and gefitinib, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.38, 0.99). Median overall survival was not reached in either treatment arm (data were immature). In the osimertinib and gefitinib arms, objective response rate was 75.4% (49/65) and 76.4% (42/55), and median duration of response from onset was 18.4 (95% confidence interval, not calculated) and 9.5 (95% confidence interval, 6.2, 13.9) months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. The frequency of Grade >= 3 interstitial lung disease and pneumonitis in the two groups were the same (one patient). Conclusions: As the first-line therapy, osimertinib showed significantly improved efficacy versus gefitinib in the Japanese population of the FLAURA study. No new safety concerns were raised.