Back to Authors

Asare, S

Mayo Clinic

University of Minnesota

Citations 2

Abstract P3-10-02: Identifying breast cancer molecular phenotypes to predict response in a modern treatment landscape: Lessons from ˜1000 patients across 10 arms of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL
Wolf, DM, Wulfkuhle, Julia , Petricoin, EF, Asare, S, Lee, EP, Pohlmann, Paula R. , Liu, MC, Symmans, F., Berry, Deborah L., Esserman, LJ, Veer, Laura van ‘t , Yau, Christina , Campbell, Marion , Swigart, Lamorna Brown , Hirst, Gillian L. , Zhu, Zheying , Delson, Amy , Hylton, Nola M. , DeMichele, Angela , Yee, Douglas , Berry, D, Veer, Laura J. van’t , Pohlmann, Paula

Cancer Research | May 11, 2019 | Volume: 79 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: P3-10-02-P3-10-02

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p3-10-02 Get It

Abstract Background: The explosion in new treatment options targeting immune checkpoints, HER signaling, DNA repair deficiency, AKT, and other pathways calls for updated breast cancer subtypes beyond HR and HER2 status to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Here we leverage the I-SPY 2 TRIAL biomarker program over the past 8 years across 10 treatment arms to elucidate a minimal set of biomarkers that may improve response prediction in a modern treatment context, and to investigate which new patient phenotypes are identified by these response-predictive biomarkers. Methods: 986 patients were considered in this analysis. Treatments included paclitaxel alone (or with trastuzumab (H) in HER2+) or combined with investigational agents: veliparib/carboplatin (VC); neratinib; MK2206; ganitumab; ganetespib; AMG386; TDM1/pertuzumab (P); H/P; and pembrolizumab (Pembro). 24 prospectively defined, mechanism-of-action and pathway-based expression and phospho-protein signatures/biomarkers assayed from pre-treatment biopsies were previously found to be predictive in a particular agent/arm in pre-specified analysis. Here we evaluate these biomarkers in all patients. We assessed association between each biomarker and response in the population as a whole and within each arm and HR/HER2 subtype using a logistic model. To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds for select biomarkers, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Our analysis is exploratory and does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Our initial set of 24 predictive biomarkers reflects DNA repair deficiency (n=2), immune activation (n=7), ER signaling (n=2), HER2 signaling (n=4), proliferation (n=2), phospho-activation of AKT/mTOR (n=2), and ANG/TIE2 (n=1) pathways, among others. Biomarkers reflecting similar biology are correlated and cluster together. We make use of this correlation structure to reduce the dimensionality of the biomarker set to five predictive signals: proliferation, DNA repair deficiency (DRD), immune-engaged (Immune+), luminal/ER (lum), and HER2-activated. These biomarkers, when dichotomized, identify patient groups with differential predicted sensitivities to I-SPY 2 agents and are present at different proportions within receptor subtypes. For instance, in the HER2- subset, Immune+/DRD+ patients are predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro, and account for 39% of TN, but only 12% of HR+HER2-. On the other end of the spectrum, only 17% of TN are Immune-/DRD-, compared to the majority (56%) of HR+HER2-. There are also subsets of patients positive for only one marker. For the HER2+ subset, 67% are HER2-activated+, and 25% lum+; of these HER2-activated+ patients are more likely to be Immune+ (44%), vs 23% in lum+. HER2-activated+/Immune+ patients have higher predicted sensitivity to HER2-targeted agents than lum+ or Immune- patients. In all, these molecular phenotypes predict sensitivity to one or more I-SPY 2 investigational agents for 75% of the ˜ 1000 patients. Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes reflecting proliferation, immune engagement, HER2-activation, luminal/ER-signaling, and DNA repair deficiency may provide a roadmap to guide treatment prioritization for emerging therapeutics. Citation Format: Wolf DM, Yau C, Wulfkuhle J, Petricoin E, Campbell M, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Asare S, Zhu Z, Lee EP, Delson A, Pohlmann P, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Hylton N, Liu MC, Symmans F, DeMichele A, Yee D, Berry D, Esserman L, van 't Veer L. Identifying breast cancer molecular phenotypes to predict response in a modern treatment landscape: Lessons from ˜1000 patients across 10 arms of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-02.
Abstract PD4-04: Role of breast MRI in predicting pathologically negative nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cN0 patients in the I-SPY2 trial
Noordaa, ME van der, Esserman, L., Mukhtar, Rita, Price, ER, Hylton, Nola, Wolverton, Dulcy , Crane, EP, Niell, BL, Oh, Ki-Sook, Brandt, KR, Bang, DH, Eghtedari, Mohammad , Sheth, PA, Bernreuter, W K, Umphrey, H, Rosen, M., Yang, Wei , Joe, BN, Veer, L. van 't, Lancaster, Rachael, Wallace, AM, Alvaredo, M, Symmans, F, Asare, S, Boughey, JC , Yau, Christina , Price, Erin, Abe, H, Ward, KA, Nelson, M, Ojeda-Fournier, Haydee , Dogan, Basak E , Hirst, Gillian L.

Cancer Research | May 11, 2019 | Volume: 79 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: PD4-04-PD4-04

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-pd4-04 Get It

Abstract Background In clinically node-negative (cN0) breast cancer patients with triple negative (TN) and HER2+ disease and breast pathological complete response (breast pCR), low rates of nodal positivity after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have been demonstrated. In these patients, the omission of surgical axillary staging has been proposed. However, this information is not routinely known preoperatively. We aimed to validate the correlation between pathologic breast response and pathologic nodal status, and evaluate the relationship between response of the breast tumor on MRI and pathologic nodal status after NAC in cN0 patients in the I-SPY2 trial. Methods We identified all patients with cT1-4 cN0 breast cancer prior to NAC from graduated arms of the I-SPY2 trial, a prospective neoadjuvant chemotherapy trial. Absence of residual disease post-NAC was defined as longest diameter (LD) of 0 mm on MRI. Breast pCR was defined as the absence of invasive tumor in the breast at surgery. Associations between ypN0 and patient, MRI, and tumor characteristics were assessed using chi-square tests and univariate regression. Results Of 365 cT1-4 cN0 patients included, 128 had HR+/HER2- tumors (35%), 60 HR+/HER2+ tumors (16%), 34 HR-/HER2+ tumors (9%) and 143 TN tumors (39%). Overall, 283 patients (78%) were ypN0 after NAC and 152 patients (42%) had a breast pCR. ypN0 rate was higher in patients with a breast pCR than those with residual disease (93% vs 66%, p<0.001). Patients with HR-/HER2+ and TN tumors were more likely to be ypN0 (97% and 87% respectively) than patients with HR+/HER2- and HR+/HER2+ disease (66% and 71% respectively, p<0.001). Other characteristics associated with ypN0 were tumor grade (grade I 57%, grade II 66%, grade III 84%; p=0.002), MammaPrint Classification (High Risk 1 68% and High Risk 2 87%; p<0.001) and absence of residual tumor in the breast on MRI (87% vs 72% in patients with evidence of tumor on MRI post-NAC/pre-surgery; p=0.003). In patients with HR-/HER2+, HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+ or TN disease and a breast pCR, ypN0 rate was respectively 82%, 96%, 96% and 97% (table 1). In patients with HR+/HER2-, HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+ or TN disease and with no evidence of residual disease in the breast on MRI, rate of ypN0 was 71%, 80%, 94% and 96% respectively. Conclusion In cT1-4 cN0 breast cancer patients with HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+ and TN tumors and a breast pCR, ypN0 rates after NAC are extremely high. In patients with HR-/HER2+ and TN tumors with no residual breast disease on MRI after NAC and pre-surgery, ypN0 rates are high enough to consider omission of axillary surgery. In patients with HR+ tumors, MRI is unsufficiently predictive for pathological response and can therefore not be used to select ypN0 patients. Research on the prediction of ypN0 in cN+ I-SPY2 patients is ongoing. Nodal status in patients with pCR and absence of residual disease on MRI Number of positive nodesBreast Cancer Subtype0123AllBreast pCR HR+/HER2-27(82)2(6)4(12)033(100)HR+/HER2+24(96)01(4)025(100)HR-/HER2+24(96)1(4)0025(100)TN67(97)2(3)0069(100)Absence of residual disease on MRI HR+/HER2-24(71)7(21)3(9)034(100)HR+/HER2+16(80)3(15)01(5)20(100)HR-/HER2+15(94)1(6)0016(100)TN54(96)2(4)0056(100) Citation Format: van der Noordaa ME, Esserman L, Yau C, Mukhtar R, Price E, Hylton N, Abe H, Wolverton D, Crane EP, Ward KA, Nelson M, Niell BL, Oh K, Brandt KR, Bang DH, Ojeda-Fournier H, Eghtedari M, Sheth PA, Bernreuter WK, Umphrey H, Rosen MA, Dogan B, Yang W, Joe B, van 't Veer L, Hirst G, Lancaster R, Wallace A, Alvaredo M, Symmans F, Asare S, Boughey JC, I-SPY2 Consortium. Role of breast MRI in predicting pathologically negative nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cN0 patients in the I-SPY2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD4-04.