Flora, Daniel

TPS655 Background: Early (14-28 day) on-treatment suppression of tumor proliferation during neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is strongly associated with favorable long-term outcomes in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) HER2– breast cancer. In premenopausal women, tamoxifen with or without ovarian function suppression (OFS) results in suboptimal Ki-67 suppression compared with aromatase inhibitor + OFS. (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX), the active metabolite of tamoxifen, dually inhibits ER signaling and PKCβ1-mediated AKT activation, supporting its evaluation as an alternative NET strategy in this population. Methods: EVANGELINE (NCT05607004) is an ongoing, multicenter, open-label Phase 2 study evaluating daily 40 mg ENDX plus goserelin administered every 28 days as neoadjuvant therapy in premenopausal women with ER+/HER2–, cT2–3, cN0–1 breast cancer. The primary objective is to determine the proportion of patients with baseline Ki-67 >10% who achieve Ki-67 ≤10% after 4 weeks of therapy. A Simon two-stage design is used to test whether the Week 4 Ki-67 ≤10% rate is at least 65%, with 20 patients enrolled into the first stage and, if promising, another 25 patients enrolled into the second stage (cohort A). A parallel cohort of 20 patients with baseline Ki-67 ≤10% (cohort B) is enrolled to assess objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks per RECIST v1.1. Secondary objectives include examining safety and tolerability, residual cancer burden, and PEPI score. Correlative analyses include examining effect of treatment on select tumor and plasma biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT05607004 .

Abstract Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) with aromatase inhibitors (AI) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) is standard for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. However, many premenopausal women are intolerant of AI + OFS, leaving tamoxifen (with or without OFS) as their only option. Extensive studies have demonstrated that premenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant ET whose tumors exhibit Ki-67 ≤ 10% following 4 weeks of therapy (defined as endocrine sensitive disease (ESD)) achieve 5-year distant disease-free survival > 96%. Problematically, only 41% of patients reach this ESD threshold with tamoxifen compared to 78% with AI+OFS (Nitz JCO 2022). (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that inhibits ERα at plasma concentrations of 3-5 ng/ml and dually targets PKCβ1, a suspected oncogene in breast tumors, at concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml. We therefore developed the EVANGELINE study (NCT05607004) is an open label, randomized neoadjuvant phase II study that includes a pharmacokinetic (PK) Run-in, aiming to evaluate whether ENDX +/- goserelin is non-inferior to exemestane plus goserelin with respect to ESD rate. Following the completed PK run-in portion of the study, where 40mg/day or 80mg/day ENDX were assessed, the 40 mg/day dose was selected for further evaluation in the second part of the trial. The second part is comprised of a randomized treatment cohort, for patients with a Ki-67% >10% at preregistration randomized to either 40mg (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin or exemestane + goserelin neoadjuvant treatment and a Single Arm Treatment Cohort for patients who have a Ki-67 ≤ 10% at pre-registration assigned to 40mg/day (Z)-endoxifen monotherapy neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: To investigate ENDX further in premenopausal women, a multicenter study in the United States, was designed(EVANGELINE; NCT05607004). This phase 2, open-label, randomized, neoadjuvant trial includes a PK run-in phase designed to assess whether the 4-week ESD rate with (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin is non-inferior to that of exemestane + goserelin in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- breast cancer with diagnostic Ki67 > 10%. Additionally, a single arm Phase 2, open-label neoadjuvant Cohort was designed to assess the 4-week ESD rate with ENDX monotherapy in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- BC with diagnostic Ki67 ≤10%. Subjects will undergo neoadjuvant treatment for six months before receiving surgical treatment in the involved breast. This study will additionally assess safety, tolerability, response rates, surgical outcomes, and monitor disease progression. Comprehensive biomarker evaluations will be conducted using paired tumor biopsies and blood samples collected at baseline and week four, as well as 6 month surgical specimens. Enrollment in the PK run-in phase (n-22) was completed in Fall 2024 with the second portion of the trial slated to begin early in 2025. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Vera J. Suman, Claudia Lopez, Hayley Erickson, Lonnissa Nguyen, Sandra S. Hammer, Lida Mina, Pooja Advani, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Felipe Batalini, Daniel Flora, Jason M. Jones, Nusayba A. Bagegni, Katie N. Hunt, Mara Piltin, Amy Degnim, James N. Ingle, Judy C. Boughey, Sarah A. Buhrow, Joel M. Reid, Matthew Schellenberg, John R. Hawse, Steven C. Quay. A randomized phase 2 non-inferiority trial of (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin and exemestane + goserelin as neoadjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer (EVANGELINE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT237.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Background Hot flashes (HFs) negatively affect quality of life among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. This study investigated the efficacy of oxybutynin vs placebo in decreasing HFs. Methods In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, women with and without breast cancer with 28 or more HFs per week, lasting longer than 30 days, who were not candidates for estrogen-based therapy, were assigned to oral oxybutynin (2.5 mg twice a day or 5 mg twice a day) or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the intrapatient change from baseline in weekly HF score between each oxybutynin dose and placebo using a repeated-measures mixed model. Secondary endpoints included changes in weekly HF frequency, HF-related daily interference scale questionnaires, and self-reported symptoms. Results We enrolled 150 women. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Mean (SD) age was 57 (8.2) years. Two-thirds (65%) were taking tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Patients on both oxybutynin doses reported greater reductions in the weekly HF score (5 mg twice a day: −16.9 [SD 15.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: −10.6 [SD 7.7]), placebo −5.7 (SD 10.2); P < .005 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), HF frequency (5 mg twice a day: −7.5 [SD 6.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: −4.8 [SD 3.2], placebo: −2.6 [SD 4.3]; P < .003 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), and improvement in most HF-related daily interference scale measures and in overall quality of life. Patients on both oxybutynin arms reported more side effects than patients on placebo, particularly dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain. Most side effects were grade 1 or 2. There were no differences in study discontinuation because of adverse effects. Conclusion Oxybutynin is an effective and relatively well-tolerated treatment option for women with HFs.

Abstract Background: HF occur in about 75% of midlife women and are associated with quality of life disruption and premature endocrine therapy discontinuation among breast cancer survivors. Estrogen therapy, effective for HF, is contraindicated in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC). Previous studies have suggested that Oxy could be effective in managing HF. Methods: This randomized, placebo (P)-controlled trial enrolled women who had experienced HF ≥28 times per week over >30 days and of sufficient severity to seek treatment. Patients (pts) were randomized to receive oral Oxy at two doses: 2.5mg BID for 6 weeks (Oxy2.5), 2.5mg BID for a week with subsequent increase to 5mg BID (Oxy5), or matching P, in equal ratios. Baseline and monthly questionnaires were administered including a HF diary, the HF related daily interference scale (HFRDIS) and a symptom experience questionnaire. The primary endpoint was intra-patient change in weekly HF score and frequency from baseline to end of study compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: 150 pts were accrued between 2/23/2017-3/5/2018. 4 pts cancelled before starting treatment and were excluded from analyses. This interim report includes the first 104 pts for which at least one post-baseline evaluation was available. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the arms. Sixty-two percent were on tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor for the duration of the study. Pts on both Oxy doses had a significantly greater reduction in HF score and frequency compared to P. Pts on Oxy2.5 had a mean change in HF score of -10 (SD 7.4) vs -5.1 (SD 9.7) with P, p=0.003; and a mean change in average weekly number of HF of -4.6 (SD 3.1) vs -2.3 (SD 3.9), p=0.002. Pts on Oxy5 had a mean change in HF score of -16.2 (SD 5.1) vs -5.1 (SD 9.7) with P, p<0.001; and a mean change in average weekly number of HF of -7.0 (SD 4.0) vs -2.3 (SD 3.9), p<0.001. Repeated measures mixed models confirmed that, after adjusting for baseline values, both Oxy arms had significantly lower HF scores and frequency compared to P (p<0.001). HFRDIS revealed that pts in both Oxy arms experienced improvement in the following HF interference measures: work, social activities, leisure activities, sleep, relations, life enjoyment, and overall quality of life. Pts on Oxy5 also had improvement in HF interference with mood. Pts on Oxy2.5 experienced more stomach pain (p=0.031), diarrhea (p=0.007), nausea (p=0.04), headaches (0.032), episodes of confusion (0.012), dry mouth (p=0.003) and dry eyes (0.027) compared to P. Pts on Oxy5 experienced more constipation (0.004), dry mouth (0.001) and difficulty urinating (0.004) compared to P. There were no differences in study discontinuation due to adverse effects between either Oxy arm and P (Oxy2.5 vs P, p=0.653; Oxy5 vs P, p=0.483). Conclusions: Oxy is superior to P for management of HF. Oxy2.5 and 5 were both associated with significant improvements in HF scores and frequency as well as improvement in HF interference with several quality of life measures. While pts on Oxy experienced more side effects than pts on P, rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were low. This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Citation Format: Leon-Ferre RA, Novotny PJ, Faubion SS, Ruddy KJ, Flora D, Dakhil C, Rowland KM, Graham ML, Le-Lindqwister N, Loprinzi CL. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxybutynin (Oxy) for hot flashes (HF): ACCRU study SC-1603 [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 GS6-02.