Translational Therapeutics

The oral selective oestrogen receptor degrader (SERD) AZD9496 is comparable to fulvestrant in antagonising ER and circumventing endocrine resistance

Article metrics



The oestrogen receptor (ER) is an important therapeutic target in ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer. The selective ER degrader (SERD), fulvestrant, is effective in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but its intramuscular route of administration and low bioavailability are major clinical limitations.


Here, we studied the pharmacology of a new oral SERD, AZD9496, in a panel of in vitro and in vivo endocrine-sensitive and -resistant breast cancer models.


In endocrine-sensitive models, AZD9496 inhibited cell growth and blocked ER activity in the presence or absence of oestrogen. In vivo, in the presence of oestrogen, short-term AZD9496 treatment, like fulvestrant, resulted in tumour growth inhibition and reduced expression of ER-dependent genes. AZD9496 inhibited cell growth in oestrogen deprivation-resistant and tamoxifen-resistant cell lines and xenograft models that retain ER expression. AZD9496 effectively reduced ER levels and ER-induced transcription. Expression analysis of short-term treated tumours showed that AZD9496 potently inhibited classic oestrogen-induced gene transcription, while simultaneously increasing expression of genes negatively regulated by ER, including genes potentially involved in escape pathways of endocrine resistance.


These data suggest that AZD9496 is a potent anti-oestrogen that antagonises and degrades ER with anti-tumour activity in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant models.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. 1.

    Weatherman, R. V., Fletterick, R. J. & Scanlan, T. S. Nuclear-receptor ligands and ligand-binding domains. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 68, 559–581 (1999).

  2. 2.

    Ring, A. & Dowsett, M. Mechanisms of tamoxifen resistance. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 11, 643–658 (2004).

  3. 3.

    Kuter, I. et al. Dose-dependent change in biomarkers during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy with fulvestrant: results from NEWEST, a randomized Phase II study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 133, 237–246 (2012).

  4. 4.

    van Kruchten, M. et al. Measuring residual estrogen receptor availability during fulvestrant therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Discov. 5, 72–81 (2015).

  5. 5.

    Howell, A., DeFriend, D., Robertson, J., Blamey, R. & Walton, P. Response to a specific antioestrogen (ICI 182780) in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer. Lancet 345, 29–30 (1995).

  6. 6.

    Robertson, J. F. & Harrison, M. Fulvestrant: pharmacokinetics and pharmacology. Br. J. Cancer 90(Suppl. 1), S7–S10 (2004).

  7. 7.

    De Savi, C. et al. Optimization of a novel binding motif to (E)-3-(3,5-difluoro-4-((1R,3R)-2-(2-fluoro-2-methylpropyl)-3-methyl-2,3,4,9-tetra hydro-1H-pyrido[3,4-b]indol-1-yl)phenyl)acrylic acid (AZD9496), a potent and orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor downregulator and antagonist. J. Med. Chem. 58, 8128–8140 (2015).

  8. 8.

    Weir, H. M. et al. AZD9496: an oral estrogen receptor inhibitor that blocks the growth of ER-positive and ESR1-mutant breast tumors in preclinical models. Cancer Res. 76, 3307–3318 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Toy, W. et al. Activating ESR1 mutations differentially affect the efficacy of ER antagonists. Cancer Discov. 7, 277–287 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Hamilton, E. P. et al. A first-in-human study of the new oral selective estrogen receptor degrader AZD9496 for ER(+)/HER2(-) advanced breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 3510–3518 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Morrison, G. et al. Therapeutic potential of the dual EGFR/HER2 inhibitor AZD8931 in circumventing endocrine resistance. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 144, 263–272 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Fu, X. et al. FOXA1 overexpression mediates endocrine resistance by altering the ER transcriptome and IL-8 expression in ER-positive breast cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, E6600–E6609 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Massarweh, S. et al. Tamoxifen resistance in breast tumors is driven by growth factor receptor signaling with repression of classic estrogen receptor genomic function. Cancer Res. 68, 826–833 (2008).

  14. 14.

    Wang, Y. C. et al. Different mechanisms for resistance to trastuzumab versus lapatinib in HER2-positive breast cancers--role of estrogen receptor and HER2 reactivation. Breast Cancer Res. 13, R121 (2011).

  15. 15.

    Fu, X. et al. Overcoming endocrine resistance due to reduced PTEN levels in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer by co-targeting mammalian target of rapamycin, protein kinase B, or mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase. Breast Cancer Res. 16, 430 (2014).

  16. 16.

    Malorni, L. et al. Blockade of AP-1 potentiates endocrine therapy and overcomes resistance. Mol. Cancer Res. 14, 470–481 (2016).

  17. 17.

    Arpino, G. et al. Treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer xenografts with multiagent HER-targeted therapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99, 694–705 (2007).

  18. 18.

    Oesterreich, S. et al. Tamoxifen-bound estrogen receptor (ER) strongly interacts with the nuclear matrix protein HET/SAF-B, a novel inhibitor of ER-mediated transactivation. Mol. Endocrinol. 14, 369–381 (2000).

  19. 19.

    Ariazi, E. A. et al. Emerging principles for the development of resistance to antihormonal therapy: implications for the clinical utility of fulvestrant. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 102, 128–138 (2006).

  20. 20.

    Osborne, C. K., Coronado, E., Allred, D. C., Wiebe, V. & DeGregorio, M. Acquired tamoxifen resistance: correlation with reduced breast tumor levels of tamoxifen and isomerization of trans-4-hydroxytamoxifen. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 83, 1477–1482 (1991).

  21. 21.

    Osborne, C. K. et al. Comparison of the effects of a pure steroidal antiestrogen with those of tamoxifen in a model of human breast cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 87, 746–750 (1995).

  22. 22.

    Creighton, C. J. et al. Proteomic and transcriptomic profiling reveals a link between the PI3K pathway and lower estrogen-receptor (ER) levels and activity in ER+ breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 12, R40 (2010).

  23. 23.

    Cuzick, J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat. Med. 4, 87–90 (1985).

  24. 24.

    Kannan, N. et al. Trefoil factor 3 is oncogenic and mediates anti-estrogen resistance in human mammary carcinoma. Neoplasia 12, 1041–1053 (2010).

  25. 25.

    Lai, A. et al. Identification of GDC-0810 (ARN-810), an orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) that demonstrates robust activity in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer xenografts. J. Med. Chem. 58, 4888–4904 (2015).

  26. 26.

    Garner, F., Shomali, M., Paquin, D., Lyttle, C. R. & Hattersley, G. RAD1901: a novel, orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader that demonstrates antitumor activity in breast cancer xenograft models. Anticancer Drugs 26, 948–956 (2015).

  27. 27.

    Wardell, S. E. et al. Efficacy of SERD/SERM Hybrid-CDK4/6 inhibitor combinations in models of endocrine therapy-resistant breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 5121–5130 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Cristofanilli, M. et al. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 17, 425–439 (2016).

Download references


This study was supported in part by a research grant from AstraZeneca; by Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Promise Grant PG12221410 (to R.S. and C.K.O.); by a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation BCRF-18-145; and by the NIH: SPORE Grants P50CA058183 and CA186784, and Cancer Center Grant P30CA125123.

Author information

All authors conceived and/or designed the work that led to the submission, acquired data, and/or played an important role in interpreting the results. All authors drafted or revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Correspondence to Rachel Schiff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

R.S. has received research funding (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Gilead, PUMA, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). She is a consulting/advisory committee member for Macrogenics, and Eli Lilly. C.K.O. has received research funding from AstraZeneca and GSK. He has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Nanostring, Genentech, Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca. He is also a member of a DMC for Eli Lilly. M.F.R. has received research funding (to institution) from Pfizer and GSK. He is a consulting member for Genentech, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Macrogenics. R.J. received research funding from Pfizer. O.D. is an AstraZeneca employee. H.W., M.P., and H.B. are former AstraZeneca employees.

Ethical approval

All animal care was in accordance with institutional guidelines.


This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading