Williams, William L.

e13124 Background: Bria-IMT, an allogeneic whole-cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM), was administered w/ an anti PD1 checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) to evaluate its safety and efficacy in advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells were engineered to directly stimulate anti-tumor immunity through expression of tumor associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance endogenous dendritic cell activation. Addition of a CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM action by overcoming the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment and may have a differential impact vs monotherapy SV-BR-1-GM. Methods: In this exploratory analysis of the Phase 1 + randomized Phase 2, HLA matching status was assessed to explore potential correlations w/ clinical outcomes. Pts were stratified by overall HLA match by Class I or II (0 vs ≥1 matches), formulation and MBC subtype to assess objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Partial HLA matching (≥1 Class I and ≥1 Class II allele) was also analyzed. Results: In the total pt population, the ORR was 10%, CBR 56%, PFS 3.2 months and OS 9.9 months. In those pts treated w/ the phase 3 formulation, ORR was 15%, CBR 63%, PFS 3.6 months and OS 13.4 months. Using available HLA data (n = 52), 25% had 0, 34.6% 1, 32.6% 2, and 8% ≥3 matches. While OS and PFS were greater (Undefined vs 8.5 mos ; p = .02) in pts without an HLA match compared w/ those w/ ≥1 match (see Table), ORR and CBR were similar. This was also the case for pts who had 0 HLA Class I matches vs those w/ ≥1 Class I match (15.6 vs 7.2 mos; p = .002). ORR, CBR, PFS and OS were generally similar for pts who had 0 Class II HLA matches vs those w/ ≥1 match. Pts who matched at least at 1 Class I and 1 Class II allele had a higher ORR and CBR than those who matched at a single Class I or a single Class II allele although PFS and OS were similar between the groups. Similar observations were seen for pts treated w/ the phase 3 formulation. Conclusions: Matching at Class I seemed to decrease PFS & OS, but did not have a similar effect on ORR and CBR. Both matched and non matched pts demonstrated favorable OS and response rates. These findings support further investigation into specific mechanisms and the clinical significance of HLA matching in immunotherapy response. A randomized phase 3 trial is ongoing comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician's choice (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 . n (Evaluable) % of Cohort Best ORR Best CBR PFS OS Full Cohort 52 (41) 10% 56% 3.2 9.9 No Match (Overall) 13 (10) 25% 20% 60% 4.2 Undefined Any Match (Overall) 39 (31) 75% 6% 55% 3 8.5 MHC Class I No Match / Any Match 27 (20) / 25 (21) 52% / 48% 10% /10% 55% /57% 3.5 / 2.7 15.6 / 7.23 MHC Class II Any Match 27 (19) 52% 11% 63% 3.2 11.4 MHC Class I&II Match 13 (9) 25% 22% 77% 2.8 8.6 Phase 3 Formulation (N=35) 35 (27) 15% 63% 3.57 13.43 No Match (Phase 3 Formulation) 11 (9) 31% 22% 67% 5.6 Undefined MHC Class I&II Match (Phase 3 Formulation) 11 (7) 31% 29% 71% 2.7 7.23

1096 Background: Bria-IMT is a combination immunotherapy consisting of allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM) administered w/ immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells are engineered to directly stimulate anti tumor immunity via expression of tumor associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance dendritic cell activation. Addition of CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM to overcome the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment. Methods: This Ph I/randomized Ph II study evaluated the Bria-IMT regimen in pts w/ metastatic breast cancer; CTX (300 mg/m²) on day -2/-3, SV-BR-1-GM and CPI on Day 0, w/ low dose peg interferon α at inoculation sites on day 2 (±1) . Phase II pts were randomized 1:1 to receive CPI at cycle 1 or cycle 2. Two SV-BR-1-GM formulations (w/ vs w/o IFNγ incubation) were evaluated. Biomarkers included cancer-associated macrophage-like cells, circulating tumor cells, PD-L1 scores, and delayed-type hypersensitivity skin tests. Results: 54 pts (22 Ph I, 32 Ph II) enrolled; 11 received pembrolizumab, 44 retifanlimab (1 crossover). 33 (61%) pts were ER+/PR+/HER2-, 18 (33%) TNBC, 3 (6%) HER2+. Median OS, PFS, ORR, and CBR were evaluated against two pivotal Ph 3 trials, ASCENT 1 (SG in TNBC) and TROPiCS-02 2 (SG in HR+/HER2- MBC) (see Table 1). In randomized pts, C1 vs C2 CPI had PFS (3.7 vs 3.2 mos, P=0.09) and OS (11.4 vs 7.4 mos, P=0.19). Pts receiving Ph 3 formulation (w/o IFNγ; N=37) had greater PFS (3.6 vs 2.6 mos, P=0.01) and OS (13.4 vs 6.9 mos, P=0.01). Bria-IMT was well tolerated w/ no Tx related D/Cs. Conclusions: The Bria-IMT Ph 3 formulation cohort OS was comparable to ASCENT and TROPiCS-02 (13.43 vs 11.8, 14.4 mos), exceeding TPC arms (6.9, 11.2 mos). CBR (61%) compared favorably to ASCENT (40%) and TROPiCS-02 (34%); ORR (14%) matched or exceeded TPC arms (4%, 14%). These outcomes were observed in a more heavily pretreated population, demonstrating Bria-IMT’s clinical activity. Randomized Ph 2 results suggest efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated MBC, w/ no significant OS difference between C1 and C2 CPI initiation and 22% of pts still in active survival follow up. Superior outcomes w/ the Ph 3 formulation support its continued evaluation. A randomized Ph 3 trial is ongoing, comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician’s choice (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 . Trial (Cohort) Age (Median, Range) Prior Therapies (Median) OS (Median, mos) PFS (Median, mos) ORR (%) CBR (%) Bria-IMT (Overall Cohort) 61 (38-81) 6 (2-13) 9.9 (1.8-30.3) 3.6 10% 55% Bria-IMT (Ph 3 Formulation) 62 (44-80) 6 (2-13) 13.43 (1.8-30.3) 3.6 (1.8-16.5) 14% 61% ASCENT (SG) 54 (27-82) 4 (2-17) 11.8 4.8 31% 40% ASCENT (TPC) 53 (27-81) 4 (2-14) 6.9 1.7 4% 8% TROPiCS-02 (SG) 57 (49-65) 3 14.4 5.5 21% 34% TROPiCS-02 (TPC) 55 (48-63) 3 11.2 4 14% 22% References: Bardia A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024 May 20;42(15):1738-1744Rugo, Hope S et al. The Lancet, Volume 402, Issue 10411, 1423 – 1433.

e15045 Background: Increased cancer cell mitosis in tumor tissue is widely regarded as an indicator of aggressive disease, a predictor of shorter survival, and an indicator of response to specific anthracycline based chemotherapies. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are cancer cells that detach from primary tumors, enter the bloodstream, and seed metastatic sites, which in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are also predictors of poor prognosis and reduced therapy response. Furthermore, small preliminary studies have identified a specific subtype of mitotic CTCs that appears to correlate with poor survival rates compared to CTC detection alone. However, larger studies have yet to be conducted to validate the clinical utility of mitotic CTCs. In this large multi-institutional prospective study, we isolated CTCs from the blood of n = 155 mBC pts to subtype mitotic CTCs to assess progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) over 2 years. Methods: Peripheral blood samples (7.5ml) were prospectively collected from n = 155 mBC pts progressing on systemic therapies and prior to new systemic therapy induction (i.e., chemotherapy n = 90, hormone therapy n = 13, immunotherapy n = 51, targeted therapy n = 62). Samples were processed using CellSieve microfilters to isolate CTCs via size exclusion and fluorescently stained for CD45, Cytokeratin, and DAPI. CTCs were imaged, enumerated, and subtyped based on the presence of ≥1 mitotic event, using established visual indicators. PFS and OS were assessed over 2 years by censored univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: CTCs were detected in ~45% (n = 70/155) of pts, while mitotic CTCs were identified in a subset of this group, ~23% (n = 35/155). The presence of any CTC was associated with poor outcomes (PFS HR = 2.16, 95%CI = 1.4-3.2, p = 0.0002 and OS: HR = 2.51, 95%CI = 1.5-4.0, p = 0.0002). The presence of mitotic CTCs correlated with significantly poorer outcomes (PFS: HR = 5.6, 95%CI = 3.1-10.2, p < 0.0001 and OS: HR = 7.3, 95%CI = 3.7-14.5, p < 0.0001). Overall, pts with no CTCs had a median PFS (mPFS) of 7 months and median OS (mOS) of 24 months, pts with non-mitotic CTCs had a mPFS of 6 months and mOS of 15 months; pts with both CTCs and mitotic CTCs had a mPFS of 3 months and mOS of 5 months. Notably, 97% of pts with a mitotic CTC progressed within 6 months, regardless of systemic therapy type. Interestingly at 2 years, a sole non-progressive pt with a mitotic CTC was receiving alpelisib (a specialized PI3KCA inhibitor). Conclusions: Overall, the detection of CTCs indicated poor outcomes in pts, with mitotic CTCs correlating with significantly more aggressive disease and further reduced survival rates regardless of systemic therapy type. This study highlights the need for larger, more comprehensive studies to expand upon and validate these findings.

1022 Background: The Bria-IMT regimen is a combination immunotherapy using an allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine combined with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Intradermally administered irradiated SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells secrete GM-CSF and present tumor associated antigens (TAAs) on HLA-I and –II molecules to directly stimulate anti-tumor immunity. Anti-PD1 CPI further stimulates T-cells and synergizes with SV-BR-1-GM. Here we report the results of the phase 1/2 trial (NCT03328026) of Bria-IMT in metastatic/advanced breast cancer evaluating sequencing of SV-BR-1-GM inoculation and CPI. Methods: Analysis of the phase 1 with expansion phase 2 cohort randomized by sequence using SV-BR-1-GM, checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab or retifanlimab), low dose cyclophosphamide (Day –2) and post-dose local pegylated interferon α, with cycles every 3 weeks. In the 1:1 randomized cohort, CPI is either dosed at C1 prior to SV-BR-1-GM (original sequence) or delayed to C2 post-SV-BR-1-GM (alternative sequence). Cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were monitored as biomarkers. Results: A total of 54 patients were dosed: 11 with pembrolizumab, 44 with retifanlimab (1 patient received pembrolizumab and later retifanlimab). Median age=61 (38-81); Median prior regimen=6 (2-13); 72% ER+/PR+/HER2-; 6% HER2+ and 22% triple negative. Bria-IMT regimen was well tolerated with only 9% drop-out rate due to AE. AEs related to IPs were seen in 74% of patients; the majority (91%) being grade 1-2, and few (1.7%) grade 4 cases including pulmonary embolism, dehydration and increased lipase. Among 30 patients with post-dose CAML/CTC data and evaluable outcome, CAML count <5 associates with disease control (p=0.06, Chi square test). Patients who developed DTH to SV-BR-1-GM had significantly better PFS and higher OS. Patients treated with phase III formulation had an increase in PFS. Quality of life improvement correlates with disease outcome and survival. Among the patients treated with the phase III formulation of SV-BR-1-GM (n=23 with evaluable outcomes), objective response rate (ORR) is 13% and disease control rate (DCR) is 61%, with median PFS and OS are 4.1 and 13.3 months, respectively. In the randomized portion, the original sequence cohort had higher DCR (43% vs 36%) and OS (P=0.08, HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.08-1.17) compared to the alternative sequence cohort. Conclusions: BRIA-IMT has shown a favorable safety profile while providing benefits to heavily treated aMBC patients. Superior outcomes and survival were seen in patients treated with the phase III formulation and regimen now being used in the ongoing Ph3 trial, confirming the improvement in efficacy of the novel regimen. The results from this randomized phase 2 study informed the study design of the ongoing Ph3 trial comparing BRIA-IMT to standard of care physician choice treatments (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 .

Abstract Introduction Despite progress in MBC, too many continue to succumb due to treatment resistance or intolerance. SV-BR-1-GM is an allogenic human breast cancer cell line with antigen presenting cell activity designed to overcome the immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment while being acceptable to extensively pretreated contemporary MBC patients. We report interim exploratory analysis of the ongoing RCT of the Bria-IMT regimens. Methods An interim exploratory analysis using preliminary partially available evaluable data of the ongoing prospective, randomized phase 2 (NCT03328026; 2018-present) of Bria-IMT (irradiated SV-BR-1-GM) with a PD-1check point inhibitor (CPI) every 3 weeks (25 patients dosed to date). Both regimens include cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 48-72 hours prior to intradermal Bria-IMT (~20 x 106 cells) followed by interferon-alpha at the inoculation sites 2 days later. The control arm used the original sequence with simultaneous start of Bria-IMT and CPI in cycle 1. The experimental arm started CPI in cycle 2 after the 2nd inoculation. Candida skin test was performed before cycle 1 to determine anergy status while delayed-type hypersensitivity skin test (DTH), defined as &gt;5mm erythema & induration, was done at every cycle by intradermal injection of a small test dose of Bria-IMT prior to full dose inoculation. Results Median age: 58 (range 37-81); median prior therapies: 8 lines (range 4-18); 89% were grade 2/3 (n=18); 68% hormone receptor positive; 61% HER2 negative, 33% HER2 low, and 6% HER2 high; 33% triple negative. Overall, 53% of subjects had a clinical benefit as best response by BICR, PI or target lesion measurement. The two treatment arms were similar with a trend showing longer median durations on therapy (mDOT) of 3.7 mo in the experimental delayed CPI arm compared with mDOT = 2.9 for original sequence control arm. 47% of patients were anergic to candida. Among all anergic subjects, the mDOT was 3.5 compared to 2.5 mo for non-anergic patients. However, among anergic subjects, the alternative treatment arm had a lower risk of treatment discontinuation (improved HR) with mDOT of 3.7 compared to the 3.3 mo mDOT of the original treatment. 50% of anergic subjects eventually developed DTH to SV-BR-1-GM. mDOT was 4.0 mo for DTH+ pts vs 3.0 mo for those who did not mount DTH. Median OS was not yet reached; mean OS was higher in non-anergic vs anergic pts. Among those who developed an inoculation site reaction to Bria-IMT, OS was greater than for those who did not. Time on the Bria-IMT regimen exceeded the time on penultimate treatment in 22% of subjects while 33% of subjects with prior CPI use exceeded last therapy. AEs were mild with 28% of subjects (n=7) having &gt; grade 3 events. The most common grade 3+ AE was lipase increase (n=3). One subject with encouraging changes in peripheral blood tumor markers and CTCs completed a PET study using Zr-89 crefmirlimab berdoxam, a zirconium-89 labelled truncated antibody specific to human CD8α (CD8 Immuno-PET) and demonstrated increased uptake in some metastatic lesions and draining lymph nodes. Updated results will be provided at the meeting. Conclusion Sequencing of CPI with Bria-IMT is associated with differential clinical outcome trends but not statistically significant in this interim preliminary exploratory analysis regardless of prior CPI use. Bria-IMT is immunogenic with clinical benefit demonstrated for both treatment schedules among patients with inducible DTH reactions. Patients who develop an immune response to Bria-IMT had an increase in OS compared to those who did not. The nodal localization of CD8+ cells on PET may indicate a systemic activation of CD8 positive lymphoid cells. It also provides support that the Bria-IMT + CPI combination immune-based therapy can result in an increase of CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer metastatic sites. These preliminary results will be evaluated in the ongoing randomized phase 3 pivotal registrational trial. Citation Format: Carmen Calfa, Chaitali Nangia, Minal Barve, John Knecht, Jarrod Holmes, Kendrith Roland, Ralph Boccia, Frances Valdes-Albini, Zach Gostout, Mingjin Chang, William Williams, Charles Wiseman, Bonnie Guerin, Shaker Dakhil, Giuseppe Del Priore, Saranya Chumsri. Randomized Phase 2 of Bria-IMT, an Allogenic Human Cell Line with Antigen Presenting Activity, in Heavily Pretreated Metastatic Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-05-12.

3039 Background: Patients with multiple organ metastases have poorer prognoses than those with a single organ metastasis, are frequently associated with drug resistance, and have higher tumor burden. Engorged (≥50um) Cancer Associated Macrophage-Like Cells (CAMLs) are a circulating stromal cell subtype detected in the blood of patients with solid tumors at high risk for recurrence or progression. While numerous studies have shown that ≥50um CAMLs predict poor clinical outcomes, meta-analysis of these studies have also suggested that hyper engorged CAMLs ≥100um (heCAMLs) may be associated with multifocal metastatic disease and even worse outcomes. In this prospective study, we evaluated the presence of heCAMLs in patients with metastatic disease and demonstrated a strong relationship with multi organ spread, which also correlated with shorter Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Methods: We prospectively recruited 151 patients with metastatic (m) mbreast (n = 58), mlung (n = 34), mprostate (n = 39), and mrenal (n = 20) cancers. Peripheral blood was collected prior to the induction of new treatment for metastatic cancer. Cells were isolated following standard CellSieve techniques, then imaged and measured in ZenBlue. Multi organ metastasis was defined as spread to ≥2 distant organ sites, or any spread to the brain. Single factor ANOVA was conducted to compare heCAML presence in multi organ metastatic patients versus patients with single organ site metastasis. Univariate and multivariate analysis was run to evaluate for PFS and OS against heCAMLs, and all known clinical parameters. Results: 150 viable samples (excluding 1 failed sample) were obtained. Multi organ metastases were present in 55% (n = 83/150) of patients. heCAMLs were found in 59% (n = 49/83) of the multi organ metastatic population, but only in 16% (n = 11/67) of the single site metastatic cohort (p < 0.001). heCAML presence appeared to differentiate multi organ vs single organ metastases in mbreast (85% vs. 52%, p = 0.006), mlung (71% vs. 26%, p = 0.025), mprostate (75% vs. 37%, p = 0.029), and mRCC (88% vs. 36%, p = 0.025). Further, in all n = 150 patients, heCAML presence predicted a significantly shorter median PFS of 4.5 versus 7.2 months, 24 month PFS (HR = 1.67, 95%CI = 1.13-2.45, p = 0.013), and significantly shorter median OS of 13.1 versus 20.4 months, 24 month OS (HR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.24-3.39, p = 0.008). Conclusions: We examined a non-invasive prognostic blood based assay to determine its relationship to multi organ metastatic spread as well as its prognostic value in several solid cancers. These results showed patients with heCAMLs had higher rates of multi organ metastases, and appear to predict for shorter PFS and OS. Studies of larger cohorts are needed for prospective validation of these initial findings.