Karuturi, Meghan

1037 Background: TBCRC041, a randomized phase 2 trial of alisertib (A) ± fulvestrant (F) in women with HR+/HER2- MBC demonstrated promising clinical activity for alisertib (1). Interrogation of baseline (PreC1) and end of cycle 1 (EOC1) cfDNA and CTCs may identify biomarkers associated with response to A±F. Methods: Plasma cfDNA was sequenced using the Guardant INFINITY platform, which includes genomic and methylated tumor fraction (mTF) analysis. Pathogenic variants were determined using publicly available databases and Mayo Clinic annotation pipelines. CTCs were identified as nucleated, EpCAM+/ cytokeratin+/ CD45- cells and assessed for ER/HER2 staining (RareCyte, Seattle). PFS was defined as the time from randomization to progression or death. EOC1-PFS differs from PFS as time starts at C2D1. Stratified log-rank tests and conditional Cox modeling were used to assess whether PFS or EOC1-PFS differed by mutations in ESR1 or PIK3CA, pre-CTC ≥ 5, or mTF>1%. Results: Of the 91 eligible pts, 84 progressed, and 73 were deceased. In the 86 pts with PreC1-cfDNA results, variants were identified in ESR1 (42; 48.8%), PIK3CA (36; 41.9%), AKT1 (7; 8.1%), PTEN(7; 8.1%), BRCA1 (4; 4.7%), and BRCA2 (7; 8.1%). Pts with a PIK3CAmut had significantly decreased PFS (HR 1.8; 95%CI: 1.1 -2.9, p=0.014) but not by ESR1mut status (p=0.583). PreC1 and EOC1-mTF were determined for 78 and 76 pts, respectively. PreC1-mTF was 0-1% in 21; 1.1-10.0% in 27; and 10.1-100% in 30. mTF levels remained between 0-1% in 17 pts fell to 0-1% in 11 pts, and was 0-1% in 5 pts without a preC1-mTF determination. PFS did not differ with respect to PreC1-mTF (p=0.210), but EOC1-PFS was worse in pts with mTF >1% (HR 3.0; 95%CI: 1.6 -5.2, p<0.001). PreC1 and EOC1-CTC were determined for 78 and 76 pts. 36 (46.2%) pts had a PreC1 CTC count ≥ 5. EOC1-CTC levels remained at (n=17) or increased to (n=1) ≥ 5 and was ≥ 5 in 2 pts without a preC1-CTC determination. EOC1-PFS was not significantly different for EOC1-CTC ≥ 5 (p=0.065), but was significantly decreased in pts with PreC1-CTC≥5 (HR=1.8; 95%CI: 1.1-3.0; p=0.018). Broader cfDNA NGS panel and CTC-derived ER/HER2 staining results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Among patients receiving A±F, PFS varied based on the PIK3CAmutation status. cfDNA and CTC assessment PreC1 and EOC1 provided complementary information. Further validation in larger datasets is needed. 1. JAMA Oncol 2023;9:815. Clinical trial information: NCT02860000 .

ImportanceAurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (&amp;lt;10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.InterventionsAlisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).Main Outcomes and MeasuresImprovement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.ResultsAll 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000

Abstract Background: In ER+ breast cancer (BC) models, Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation is associated with expansion of CD44+/CD24low/- tumor initiating cells, down-regulation of ERα, and endocrine therapy resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, can restore ERα expression and endocrine sensitivity. Early phase studies evaluating alisertib alone or with fulvestrant for ER+ metastatic BC (MBC) demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising antitumor activity [Haddad, Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018]. A phase II trial was conducted to determine if the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib improved objective response rate (ORR) and to assess clinical activity of alisertib alone or with fulvestrant in patients (pts) with prior fulvestrant and CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to Arm A, alisertib (50 mg PO BID Days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 q 28 days) or Arm B, alisertib with fulvestrant (500 mg IM Day 1, 15 for Cycle 1 and q 28 days thereafter). Eligibility included postmenopausal women, history of ER+ BC, prior fulvestrant, ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy lines, and measurable disease. Stratification factors included prior CDK4/6i, ER level (&lt;10%, ≥10%), and primary/secondary endocrine resistance. Pts on Arm A could cross over to Arm B at progression. With 45 pts per arm, a one sided alpha=0.15 sequential binomial test would have an 85% chance of detecting an increase of ≥ 20% in the ORR of ArmB when the true ORR for Arm A is ≤ 20%. ORR was defined as a partial response (PR) + complete response (CR) by RECIST v.1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), 24-week clinical benefit rate (CBR = CR + PR + absence of progression for&gt; 6 cycles), overall survival, duration of response (DoR), and safety. Blood and tumor specimens were collected at baseline, end of Cycle 1, and progression. Results: Pts enrolled July 2017 - November 2019 with 118 pre-registered, 96 registered, and 90 evaluable for the primary endpoint (Arm A: 45, Arm B: 45). Median age was 60 (range 33, 85). Nearly all received prior fulvestrant (n=89, 98.9%), aromatase inhibitor (n=83, 92.2%), and CDK4/6i (n=88, 97.8%). Most had secondary endocrine resistance (n=71, 78.9%). Pre-registration biopsy for ER was positive in 84 pts (86.7%) and negative in 6 pts (13.3%). More pts on Arm B had prior everolimus (A: 35.6%, B: 57.8%) and prior chemotherapy (A: 44.4%, B: 55.6%) for MBC. The ORR for alisertib and fulvestrant was 20.0% (90% CI: 10.9-32.3%), not significantly greater than alisertib alone 17.8% (90% CI: 9.2-29.8%). The 24-week CBR for Arm A was 42.2% (90% CI: 29.7-55.6%; n=19, including 7 PR) and Arm B was 31.1% (90% CI: 19.9-44.3%; n=14, including 8 PR). As of July 1, 2020, the median DoR was not reached in either arm. The median PFS time was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.9 - 9.3) for Arm A and 5.1 months (95%CI: 3.8 - 7.6) for Arm B. Seventeen pts (18.9%) remain on treatment (A: 12, B: 5) having received at least 11 cycles (range up to 32+ cycles). At least one dose reduction was required for pts (A: 19, B: 18), most commonly due to neutropenia. The most common severe (grade ≥3) adverse events included neutropenia (n=19, 42.2% in each arm), anemia (A: 15.6%, B: 8.8%), and fatigue (n=5, 11.1% Arm B only). Pts discontinued therapy due to disease progression equally in each arm (n=28, 62.2%), however more pts on Arm B (n=12) than Arm A (n=5) discontinued therapy due to toxicity, refusal or other reasons. Conclusion: While the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib did not improve ORR, promising clinical activity with alisertib monotherapy was observed overall and notably for pts with endocrine and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. More severe toxicities and treatment discontinuation were observed in pts receiving combination therapy. Correlative blood (CTC/cfDNA) and tissue (AURKA, ERα, and stemness biomarkers) studies are underway. Citation Format: Tufia Haddad, Antonino D'Assoro, Vera Suman, Jodi Carter, Brendan McMenomy, Erica Mayer, Meghan Karuturi, Aki Morikawa, Paul Marcom, Claudine Isaacs, Sun Young Oh, Amy Clark, Ingrid Mayer, Khandan Keyomarsi, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Ciara O'Sullivan, Prema Peethambaram, Timothy Hobday, Minetta Liu, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Randomized phaseII trial to evaluate alisertib alone or combined with fulvestrant for advanced, endocrine-resistant breast cancer (TBCRC 041) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-05.

Abstract Abstract 3701 Background: Salvage chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in the management of relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) results in prolonged disease-free survival in only around 50% of patients (pts). Median survival following relapse from ASCT is estimated at 2.4 years, with poor outcomes in those experiencing relapse or progressive disease within one year from ASCT (Horning 2008 et al). Recently, a pivotal multicenter Phase 2 trial investigated the efficacy of brentuximab vedotin (BV) in pts with recurrent HL following ASCT. The study demonstrated an overall response rate of 75% and median duration of response of 6.7 months. Furthermore, 34% of patients achieved a complete response (CR), with a median progression free survival of 29 months (mos). Whether treatment with BV renders an OS benefit in pts with relapsed or refractory disease after ASCT remains to be determined. Objective: 1) To compare OS in pts with relapsed HL after receiving ASCT in a cohort of 102 HL pts treated with BV, with 756 pts from 6 international centers before the introduction of BV. 2) To evaluate predictors of durable CR in pts treated with BV. Methods: Kaplan-Meier method was used to depict time-to-event outcomes, including OS. The Chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between two categorical variables and log-rank test to compare time-to-event endpoints among pt groups. Based on the univariate proportional hazard model, we examined whether certain variables (sex, stage at diagnosis, number of prior treatments, and time to CR) were predictors of CR duration in pts receiving BV. Results: In the non-randomized comparison between those with relapsed-refractory HL following ASCT who received BV and those who did not, pts were well matched by age, with a relatively higher percentage of females treated on the pivotal study. Dates of progression from ASCT ranged from 1996–2009 in the BV group and 1981–2003 in the international cohort. Median follow-up after ASCT for the censored observations of pts who received BV and those in the international cohort was 49.4 and 58.8 mos. The difference in median OS was statistically significant (p<0.0001) between those receiving BV and those not exposed to the drug (91.49 vs. 27.99 mos). Improvement in OS was irrespective of time to relapse from ASCT, despite previous studies noting a higher risk of recurrence in pts relapsing within 12 mos of ASCT (Sureda 2005 et al). Neither age nor sex was found to impact OS. In the subgroup analysis of pts achieving a CR with BV, univariate analysis of duration of CR and PFS uncovered no significant factors, while only stage of disease at initial diagnosis had a significant effect on OS (P=0.0004). Disease status characterized as relapsed vs. refractory had borderline significance with a positive impact on OS (P=0.0581). No significant associations were noted between the variables and duration of response post BV stratified into periods of less or greater than 12 mos. However, among those pts who experienced a duration of CR greater than 12 mos, 81.8% (n=18) had an initial CR after receiving ≤ 4 doses of BV, compared with 58.3% entering CR after receiving > 4 doses. Conclusions: While the impact of BV on OS can only be determined through a randomized clinical trial, our analysis indicated that treatment with BV in pts with relapsed/refractory HL following ASCT is associated with prolonged OS when compared with historical control patients. Those who achieve a rapid CR with BV may also have a longer duration of response. A randomized clinical trial is ongoing to evaluate prospectively the efficacy of BV following ASCT. Disclosures: Chen: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Gopal:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Savage:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ramchandren:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Forero-Torres:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Moskowitz:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Connors:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. de Vos:Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Engert:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Millennium: Honoraria, Research Funding. Illidge:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Morschhauser:Takeda: Honoraria. Younes:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria.