Mukhtar, Rita A.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.

Abstract Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is typically strongly hormone receptor (HR) positive, with unique characteristics. It has been shown to have poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and recent studies describe the benefits of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET). We sought to determine how the primary management strategy in ILC has changed over time, and the impact of ILC tumor biology on its management. Specifically, we hypothesized that use of NAC has decreased, while NET use increased. Additionally, we investigated whether NET is associated with higher rates of breast conservation surgery (BCS) than other primary management strategies. Methods: We queried the NCDB from 2010-2016 and identified all women with ILC who underwent surgical therapy. Patients with stage IV disease were excluded. First course of treatment was classified as: NAC (chemotherapy starting 31-365 days before surgery), NET (short course defined as 7-30 days before surgery; long course defined as 31-365 days before surgery), and primary surgery. Tumors were considered HR+ if they were estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor positive. Trends over time in first treatment strategy were compared using Cochrane-Armitage tests. The association between first treatment strategy and use of BCS was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 79,709 women with ILC, 94.0% were HR+/HER2-, 4.7% were HER2+, and 1.3% were triple negative. The most common primary treatment strategy was surgery (92.3%), but the percent undergoing systemic treatment before surgery increased from 7.1% in 2010 to 8.8% in 2016 (p<0.001). The use of NAC increased significantly over the study period in patients with triple negative (12.1% in 2010 to 23.7% in 2016, p=0.007) and HER2+ (12.2% in 2010 to 29.1% in 2016, p<0.001) ILC tumors. Among patients with HR+/HER2- tumors, however, the use of NAC decreased from 4.7% in 2010 to 4.2% in 2016, p=0.007, and the use of long course NET increased significantly, from 1.6% in 2010 to 2.7% in 2016, p<0.001. The use of short course NET in HR+/HER2- patients remained very low over the study period (0.4% in 2010 to 0.5% in 2016, p=0.14). Analyzing the HR+/HER2- subset, 48.4% (295/609) of patients undergoing long course NET with a cT2 tumor underwent BCS compared to 35.3% for primary surgery, 27.3% for NAC, and 24.8% for short course NET (p<0.001). Long course NET was also associated with a higher BCS rate in cT3/cT4 tumors: 22.6% BCS for long course NET, 8.3% BCS for primary surgery, 9.6% BCS for NAC, 7.8% BCS for short course NET (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis including a clinical T category by treatment interaction, long course NET was the only treatment that was associated with higher rates of BCS compared to primary surgery in cT2 (OR 1.51, 95% CI: 1.27-1.79) tumors, while both long course NET (OR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.97-3.22) and NAC (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.27-1.88) were associated with increased use of BCS in cT3/cT4 tumors, see Table. Conclusions: The primary management of ILC is slowly evolving over time with a decrease in primary surgery. NAC use has increased appropriately in tumor subtypes with greatest potential benefit (i.e., triple negative or HER2 positive). In HR+/HER2- disease, NAC use has decreased, however NET use has increased and in cT2+ tumors NET was associated with higher rates of BCS. Variable1Odds ratio for BCS (95% CI)p-valueAge, per 1 year increase1.04 (1.03-1.04)<0.001Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score<0.0011 vs 00.86 (0.82-0.90)2+ vs 00.72 (0.66-0.79)Grade2<0.001Moderately/Poorly vsWell Differentiated0.91 (0.88-0.95)Clinical N category2<0.001cN1 vs cN00.49 (0.46-0.52)cN2/cN3 vs cN00.41 (0.35-0.47)Multicentric<0.001Yes vs No0.36 (0.34-0.38)Primary treatment by clinical T category2<0.001For cT1 tumorsLong course NET vs primary surgery0.65 (0.51-0.83)NAC vs Primary surgery0.31 (0.24-0.41)Short course NET vs primary surgery0.85 (0.58-1.24)For cT2 tumorsLong course NET vs primary surgery1.51 (1.27-1.79)NAC vs primary surgery1.04 (0.90-1.20)Short course NET vs primary surgery0.53 (0.33-0.85)For cT3/cT4 tumorsLong course NET vs primary surgery2.52 (1.97-3.22)NAC vs primary surgery1.54 (1.27-1.88)Short course NET vs primary surgery0.79 (0.31-2.02)1Model additionally adjusted for year of diagnosis, race, ethnicity, and insurance status.2Unknown level included in the model but not reported Citation Format: Rita A Mukhtar, Tanya L. Hoskin, Elizabeth B. Habermann, Judy C. Boughey. Trends in primary management of invasive lobular carcinoma: An analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-01.

Abstract Background: Patients who achieve a pathological complete response (pCR- defined as no invasive cancer) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer (BC) have improved outcomes, but there is still controversy about the significance of residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on local recurrence rate (LRR). The I-SPY 2 TRIAL is an adaptive neoadjuvant platform trial evaluating novel experimental regimens in comparison to standard chemotherapy in women with high-risk breast cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine if residual DCIS after NAC in early BC affects LRR in patients with or without residual invasive disease in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Methods: 933 I-SPY 2 patients with residual cancer burden (RCB) and follow-up data were included in this analysis. Residual DCIS was defined as any carcinoma in situ > 0% on RCB evaluation. Local recurrence was defined as recurrence in breast, chest wall or locoregional nodes and/or skin and subcutaneous tissue. We stratified our cohort into four groups: those without residual invasive disease (defined as RCB0) ± residual DCIS, and those with residual invasive disease (RCB>0) ± residual DCIS. We estimated LRR within each group using the Kaplan Meier method; and used Cox proportional hazards models to assess LRR differences between groups, with: patients with no residual disease (invasive or in situ) as reference group. Results: Among 933 patients assessed, median follow up time was 3.9 years. RCB 0 status was achieved in 337 patients (36%). Of these, 267 (29%) had no residual DCIS, which represents our reference group, and 70 (7%) had residual DCIS. Among 596 (64%) patients who had RCB>0, 296 (32%) had residual DCIS. For patients with RCB0 without DCIS and RCB0 with DCIS, the LRR at 3 years were similar: 2% vs 3% respectively (Hazard ratio: 1.29 [0.26-6.39]). Results were also similar in the RCB>0 group, with a LRR of 10% at 3 years in those without residual DCIS, and 11% in those with residual DCIS. Both RCB>0 groups had significantly higher LRR when compared to the patients with RCB0 without DCIS (Hazard ratio: 5.25 [2.20-12.5]) and HR 5.85 [2.47-13.9] respectively). Conclusion: There was no association between residual DCIS and LRR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of resolution of invasive disease. Further work is needed to determine whether residual DCIS should drive locoregional therapy decisions after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. Citation Format: Marie Osdoit, Christina Yau, W. Fraser Symmans, Judy C. Boughey, Smita M. Asare, Ron Balassanian, Jodi M. Carter, Yunn-Yi Chen, Kimberly Cole, Laila Khazai, Molly Klein, Dina Kokh, Gregor Krings, Sunati Sahoo, Gretchen Ahrendt, Akiko Chiba, Cheryl Ewing, Constantine Godellas, Nora Jaskowiak, Brigid Killelea, Helen Krontiras, Rachael Lancaster, Julie Lang, M. Catherine Lee, Arpana Naik, Roshni Rao, Julia Tchou, Shannon Tierney, Eleni Tousimis, Tod Tuttle, Anne Wallace, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Bev Parker, Laura J. Esserman, Rita A. Mukhtar. The impact of residual ductal carcinoma in situ on breast cancer recurrence in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-08-16.