Albain, Kathy S.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is an established prognostic biomarker for aggressive HER2+ breast cancer (BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. Pertuzumab (P) has established survival benefit in the metastatic setting, and received accelerated approval in the neoadjuvant setting when combined with trastuzumab (H) and docetaxel(D) as part of a complete treatment regimen for early breast cancer. We tested its ability, when combined with standard therapy (paclitaxel, T, and H) to improve pCR (ypT0ypN0) over TH in the adaptively randomized, phase II, I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant trial. Methods: Enrolled patients (pts) had invasive BC ?2.5 cm in HER2-positive subsets. Pts were adaptively randomized to control (TH, qwk x 12) or THP (P, q3wk x 4) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4 and surgery. To compare THP to TH we utilized all control pts accrued over the course of the trial, adjusting for potential differences due to time period treated, which were informed by the several other treatment arms that have been in the trial. Adaptive assignment to the experimental arms was based on current Bayesian probabilities of superiority over control. “Graduation” by signature and futility stopping were based upon Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 2-arm, N = 300 phase III randomized 1:1 trial of THP vs. TH with pCR endpoint. Results: THP met the predictive probability criterion and graduated in 3 signatures: all HER2+, HER2+/HR+, and HER2+/HR- (See Table 1). Final accrual: 44 THP and 31 TH. Safety data will be shown. Conclusions: I-SPY 2's standing platform trial efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined pt subsets. THP -> AC substantially improves pCR rates over standard TH -> AC in all 3 HER2+ signatures, including HR+ and HR- subsets. APHINITY, a trial of adjuvant pertuzumab with a primary outcome of invasive disease-free survival, is ongoing. Table 1Signature*Estimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Signature*THPControl (TH)Probability THP Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIIHER2+54% (38%-70%)22% (5%-39%)99.8%96%HER2+/HR+44% (24%-63%)17% (0%-34%)99%91%HER2+/HR-74% (53%-95%)33% (6%-59%)99.8%98%*HR = Hormone Receptor Citation Format: Meredith Buxton, Angela M. DeMichele, Stephen Chia, Laura van't Veer, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Henry Kaplan, Julie Lang, Douglas Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Stacy Moulder, Kathy Albain, Judy Boughey, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara Haley, Susan Minton, Andres Forero, Rita Nanda, Anthony Elias, Larissa Korde, Rebecca Viscuzi, Hope Rugo, Richard Schwab, Fraser Symmans, Melissa Paoloni, Nola Hylton, Michael Hogarth, Julia Lyandres, Jane Perlmutter, Ashish Sanil, Christina Yau, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Efficacy of pertuzumab/trastuzumab/paclitaxel over standard trastuzumab/paclitaxel therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT106.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is an established prognostic biomarker for aggressive HER2+ breast cancer (BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. T-DM1 and pertuzumab have established benefits in metastatic HER2+ BC. We tested their ability when combined, without paclitaxel, to improve pCR rates (ypT0ypN0) over standard therapy in the randomized, phase 2, I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant trial. Methods: Enrolled patients (pts) had invasive breast cancer ?2.5 cm in HER2-positive subsets. Pts were adaptively randomized to 12 wkly cycles of paclitaxel+trastuzumab (TH, control) or T-DM1+pertuzumab (T-DM1+P) without T, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4 and surgery. We utilized all TH control pts accrued over the course of the trial, adjusting for potential differences due to time period treated, which were informed by the several other treatment arms that have been in the trial. Adaptive assignment to the various experimental arms in the trial was based on current Bayesian probabilities of superiority vs. control. “Graduation” by signature and futility stopping were based upon Bayesian predictive probability of success in a future 2-arm, N = 300 neoadjuvant Phase 3 randomized 1:1 trial of T-DM1+P vs. control with pCR endpoint. Results: T-DM1+P met the predictive probability criterion and graduated from I-SPY 2 in 3 signatures: all HER2+, HER2+/HR+, HER2+/HR- (Table 1). Final accrual: 52 T-DM1+P and 31 TH. Safety data will be shown. Conclusions: I-SPY 2's standing platform trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined pt subsets. T-DM1+P (w/o T) -> AC substantially improves pCR rates over standard TH -> AC in all 3 HER2+ signatures, including HR+ and HR- subsets. These findings warrant further investigation of these agents without paclitaxel in a neoadjuvant trial powered for survival endpoints. Table 1Signature*Estimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability T-DM1+P Is Superior to Control**Predictive Probability of Success in Phase 3T-DM1+PControl (TH)HER2+52% (36%-68%)22% (5%-39%)99.5%94%HER2+/HR+46% (26%-66%)17% (0% - 34%)99.1%93%HER2+/HR-64% (39%-88%)33% (6%-59%)98%90%*HR = Hormone Receptor Citation Format: Angela M. DeMichele, Stacy Moulder, Meredith Buxton, Douglas Yee, Anne Wallace, Jo Chien, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Judy Boughey, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara Haley, Julie Lang, Henry Kaplan, Susan Minton, Andres Forero, Anthony Elias, Rita Nanda, Larissa Korde, Richard Schwab, Michelle Melisko, Ashish Sanil, Michael Hogarth, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Julia Lyandres, Christina Yau, Don Berry, Laura Esserman, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Efficacy of T-DM1+pertuzumab over standard therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT042.

Abstract Introduction. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of paclitaxel treatment. There is conflicting data on the benefits and harms of supplement use for the treatment and prevention of CIPN. We examined dietary supplement use before diagnosis and during treatment in relation to CIPN among breast cancer patients registered to a clinical trial (SWOG 0221; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00070564) before diagnosis and during treatment in relation to CIPN. Methods. At trial registration (baseline), breast cancer patients (n = 1,225) completed questionnaires to capture use before and at diagnosis of multivitamins and other dietary supplements. Of these patients, 1,068 completed a 6-month follow-up questionnaire to capture use during treatment. We examined the use of multivitamins, vitamins C, D, E, B6, and B12, folic acid, iron, calcium, glucosamine, and combined fish oil, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), omega-3, flaxseed and cod liver oil at these timepoints in relation to CIPN. CIPN was assessed via the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) subscale. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were computed using unconditional logistic regression. Results. Multivitamin use before diagnosis was associated with reduced symptoms of CIPN (CTCAE adjusted OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.42-0.87; FACT/GOG-Ntx adjusted OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.00). Although in a similar direction as use prior to diagnosis, multivitamin use during treatment was less strongly associated with CIPN (CTCAE adjusted OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.49-1.08; FACT/GOG-Ntx 0.77, 95% CI = 0.60-0.99). Other supplement use, either before diagnosis or during treatment, was not associated with CIPN. Conclusions. Our results indicate that supplement use during treatment may not appreciably affect experience of CIPN symptoms. Future analyses of the relationships between supplement use and survival outcomes will better inform patient decision making. Acknowledgments: supported by R01 CA116395 (CBA); S0221 supported, in part, by National Cancer Institute/Division of Cancer Prevention SWOG NCORP Research Base grant 5UG1CA189974-02; National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN): CA180888, CA180819; and in part by Amgen, Inc. Citation Format: Gary R. Zirpoli, Susan E. McCann, Lara E. Sucheston-Campbell, Dawn L. Hershman, Gregory Ciupak, Warren Davis, Joseph M. Unger, Halle C.F. Moore, James A. Stewart, Claudine Isaacs, Timothy J. Hobday, Muhammad Salim, Robert B. Livingston, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Julie R. Gralow, Daniel F. Hayes, G. Thomas Budd, Kathy S. Albain, Christine B. Ambrosone. Supplement use and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in breast cancer patients treated on SWOG study S0221. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3413.

Abstract Introduction: The use of multi-drug regimens, including taxanes (T), has increased survival for breast cancer patients. However, T-induced neuropathy, one of the most common side effects, cannot be predicted, prevented or effectively treated. Using genome wide analyses (GWA), we sought to identify common genetic variants that infer susceptibility to clinical and self-reported neuropathy. Methods: Women with high risk breast cancer were enrolled in SWOG 0221, a trial of dosing schedules for AC and T. Genotyping was performed using the Illumina 1M chip and SNPs examined in relation to CTCAE grade 3 and 4 neurotoxicity and self-reported symptoms (FACT-TAXANE) among women providing blood samples. Significant associations were tested for replication in CALGB40101. Results: Among 1269 European Americans (EA) and 139 African Americans (AA) in S0221, there were 147 and 31 grade 3+ neuropathies, respectively. In CALGB40101, grade 3 toxicity was less frequent (59/855 EA and 15/117 AA). In S0221 EA patients, loci on chromosomes 7, 10, 16 and 17 showed associations with grades 3 and 4 neuropathy at p<5×10e-06, with the most significant genetic association on chromosome 17, rs910920, p = 6.8×10e-08, odds ratio (OR) = 0.44 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-0.61); this SNP is a cis eQTL, thought likely to affect transcription factor binding and linked to expression of VPS53 in lymphoblastoid cell lines. While the rs910920 association was specific to EA, the A allele in rs1858826 on chromosome 7 was associated with reduced odds of neuropathy in both EA (p = 7×10e-07) and AA (p = .02) groups. The S0221 associations at p<5×10e-06 did not replicate in CALGB40101. A subset of patients (n = 677 EA and n = 42 AA) completed the FACT-TAXANE. The most significant associations with this neuropathy phenotype (p<5×10e-07) were on chromosomes 2 (rs4267555 and rs4443044) and 3 (rs2421468). Of the 168 SNPs tested for association with neuropathy in previous studies, rs1695 in GSTP1 (p = 0.0009) and rs228591 in ATM (p = 0.0006), showed some evidence of association with FACT-TAXANE scores; the latter SNP was significant at p = .005 in ordinal regression analysis of neuropathy grades 0-4 in CALGB40101. None of these SNPs were significantly associated with grade 3 CTCAE neuropathy at p<.05, nor were the top CTCAE associations in relation to FACT-TAXANE scores. Replication of the most significant S0221 FACT-TAXANE findings in CALGB40101 is ongoing. Conclusions: Failure to replicate S0221 in CALGB40101, and the lack of coherence between self-report and clinical grade in S0221 could be attributable to differences in trial designs as well as differences in defining a complex phenotype. Larger homogeneous trials with similar dosing and criteria for defining neuropathy are needed to assess the relationship of genetics and the neuropathy symptom spectrum. Citation Format: Lara Sucheston-Campbell, Alyssa Clay, William E. Barlow, G Thomas Budd, Dan Stram, Chris Haiman, Li Yan, Gary Zirpoli, Song Yao, Dawn Hershman, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Halle Moore, Timothy J. Hobday, James A. Stewart, Claudine Isaacs, Muhammad Salim, Julie R. Gralow, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Robert B. Livingston, Xin Sheng, Deanna L. Kroetz, Christine B. Ambrosone. A genome-wide association study identifies novel loci associated with taxane-related sensory neuropathy in breast cancer patients enrolled in a cooperative group clinical trial (SWOG S0221). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 5489. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-5489

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T->AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- >AC vs. T->AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T->AC vs. H+T->AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response. Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1 MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated. Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and Her2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. HER2- patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy or the oral PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V/C) and chemotherapy. V/C graduated in the triple-negative (TN) signature, where MP2 was not an eligible signature for graduation. Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of response to V/C. Methods:115 HER2- patients (V/C: 71 and concurrent controls: 44) were considered in this analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the V/C and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate. To assess MP1/MP2 in the context of the graduating signature, we added the MP2 patients to the graduating TN subset and evaluated the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: In the V/C arm vs. concurrent controls, there were 66 MP1 (V/C: 32, Control: 34) and 49 MP2 patients (V/C: 39, Control: 10), 78% of which are TN. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. V/C (n=71)Control (n=44)MP1 (n=32)MP2 (n=39)MP1 (n=34)MP2 (n=10)TN (n=59)3 / 819 / 303 / 132 / 8HR+HER2- (n=56)1 / 244 / 94 / 210 / 2 The OR between MP1/MP2 risk groups for predicting pCR is 9.71 in the V/C arm (p=6.63E-05), in comparison to an OR of 0.97 in the control arm (p=1). There is a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p=0.023), which remains upon adjusting for HR status (p= 0.028). Based on the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model, a Phase III trial with 300 MP2 patients has a 95% predictive probability of success. When the MP2 patients are added to the graduating TN subset, the OR associated with V/C is 4.36, which is comparable to that of the TN signature (OR: 4.29), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼10%. Conclusion: In our exploratory analysis, MP2 suggests higher sensitivity to V/C combination therapy relative to controls. This observation has prompted an investigation into the biological mechanisms distinguishing the MP1/MP2 subtype that may account for this specificity. Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Angela DeMichele, Hank Kaplan, Doug Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Rebecca Viscuzi, Judy Boughey, Stacey Moulder, Steven Chui, Qamar Khan, Toncred Styblo, Kirsten Edmiston, Donald Northfelt, Anthony Elias, Barbara Haley, Debu Tripathy, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to veliparib/carboplatin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-25.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II neoadjuvant trial in women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Goal is to identify regimens that meet a high Bayesian predictive probability of statistical significance in a neoadjuvant 300-patient phase III trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Experimental regimens may “graduate” in 1 of 10 signatures, with a maximum of 120 patients. We report efficacy results for neratinib (N). Methods: Tumors ≥2.5cm by clinical exam & ≥2cm by imaging are eligible for screening. MP low risk/HR+/HER2- tumors are ineligible for randomization. Patients receive chemotherapy (paclitaxel qwk x 12, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2-3 wk x 4, T->AC). HER2- pts were randomized to N+T->AC vs. T->AC and HER2+ pts to N+T->AC vs. trastuzumab+T->AC. Analysis is intent-to-treat with pts who switch to non-protocol therapy regarded as non-pCRs. We provide estimated pCR rates (95% Bayesian probability intervals), probabilities of superiority of neratinib over control, and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in an equally randomized phase III trial. Results: Neratinib met the predictive probability criterion in HR-/HER2+, “graduated”, and accrual ceased [115 N patients (65 HER2+), 78 concurrently randomized controls (22 HER2+)]. The table shows results for all 10 signatures. Two patients (1 N and 1 control) withdrew consent and are not included. Conclusion: I-SPY 2's standing trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined patient subsets. In a modest number of patients, adaptive randomization successfully identified a biomarker signature (HR-/HER2+) for neratinib's further development. All HER2+ and MP+ tumors may also benefit from this regimen, consistent with preclinical data. Evaluation in I-SPY 3, a phase III registration trial, is planned. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability NeratinibIs Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIINeratinibControlALL32% (28-36%)23% (19%-28%)92%44%HR+23% (18%-28%)17% (11%-22%)81%40%HR-43% (37%-49%)31% (24%-38%)89%53%HER2+39% (33%-45%)23% (15%-30%)95%73%HER2-26% (21%-32%)24% (18%-29%)63%20%MP+*45% (38%-53%)29% (20%-39%)91%66%HR-/HER2-36% (29%-43%)30% (23%-38%)72%34%HR-/HER2+55% (46%-64%)32% (22%-43%)94%78%HR+/HER2+31% (24%-37%)17% (10%-24%)91%65%HR+/HER2-14% (8%-19%)16% (10%-21%)39%12%* MammaPrint 44K Array Low/High score was adjusted to MammaPrint High1 (MP-) or High2 (MP+), using a pre-defined median cut-point of I-SPY 1 participants, who fit the eligibility criteria of I-SPY 2. Citation Format: John W. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Laura van 't Veer, Nola Hylton, Fraser Symmans, Meredith B. Buxton, A. Jo Chien, Amy Wallace, Michelle Melisko, Richard Schwab, Judy Boughey, Debashish Tripathy, Hank Kaplan, Rita Nanda, Stephen Chui, Kathy S. Albain, Stacy Moulder, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Kirsten Edminston, Donald Northfelt, David Euhus, Qamar Khan, Julia Lyandres, Sarah E. Davis, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Laura J. Esserman, Donald A. Berry. Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT227. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT227

AbstractThe many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach. Clin Cancer Res; 21(13); 2911–5. ©2015 AACR.

Purpose To determine the optimal dose and schedule of anthracycline and taxane administration as adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancer. Patients and Methods A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to test two hypotheses: (1) that a novel continuous schedule of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide was superior to six cycles of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide once every 2 weeks and (2) that paclitaxel once per week was superior to six cycles of paclitaxel once every 2 weeks in patients with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early-stage breast cancer. With 3,250 patients, a disease-free survival (DFS) hazard ratio of 0.82 for each randomization could be detected with 90% power with two-sided α = .05. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary outcome. Results Interim analyses crossed the futility boundaries for demonstrating superiority of both once-per-week regimens and once-every-2-weeks regimens. After a median follow-up of 6 years, a significant interaction developed between the two randomization factors (DFS P = .024; OS P = .010) in the 2,716 patients randomly assigned in the original design, which precluded interpretation of the two factors separately. Comparing all four arms showed a significant difference in OS (P = .040) but not in DFS (P = .11), with all treatments given once every 2 weeks associated with the highest OS. This difference in OS seemed confined to patients with hormone receptor–negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –negative tumors (P = .067), with no differences seen with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative (P = .90) or HER2-positive tumors (P = .40). Conclusion Patients achieved a similar DFS with any of these regimens. Subset analysis suggests the hypothesis that once-every-2-weeks dosing may be best for patients with hormone receptor–negative/HER2-negative tumors.