Beneficial Effects of Mifepristone Treatment in Patients with Breast Cancer Selected by the Progesterone Receptor Isoform Ratio: Results from the MIPRA Trial

Abstract

AbstractPurpose:Preclinical data suggest that antiprogestins inhibit the growth of luminal breast carcinomas that express higher levels of progesterone receptor isoform A (PRA) than isoform B (PRB). Thus, we designed a presurgical window of opportunity trial to determine the therapeutic effects of mifepristone in patients with breast cancer, based on their high PRA/PRB isoform ratio (MIPRA; NCT02651844).Patients and Methods:Twenty patients with luminal breast carcinomas with PRA/PRB > 1.5 (determined by Western blots), and PR ≥ 50%, naïve from previous treatment, were included for mifepristone treatment (200 mg/day orally; 14 days). Core needle biopsies and surgical samples were formalin fixed for IHC studies, while others were snap-frozen to perform RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), proteomics, and/or Western blot studies. Plasma mifepristone levels were determined using mass spectrometry. The primary endpoint was the comparison of Ki67 expression pretreatment and posttreatment.Results:A 49.62% decrease in Ki67 staining was observed in all surgical specimens compared with baseline (P = 0.0003). Using the prespecified response parameter (30% relative reduction), we identified 14 of 20 responders. Mifepristone induced an increase in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes; a decrease in hormone receptor and pSer118ER expression; and an increase in calregulin, p21, p15, and activated caspase 3 expression. RNA-seq and proteomic studies identified downregulated pathways related to cell proliferation and upregulated pathways related to immune bioprocesses and extracellular matrix remodeling.Conclusions:Our results support the use of mifepristone in patients with luminal breast cancer with high PRA/PRB ratios. The combined effects of mifepristone and estrogen receptor modulators warrant clinical evaluation to improve endocrine treatment responsiveness in these patients.See related commentary by Ronchi and Brisken, p. 833