Martín, Miguel

Abstract Background: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown on the patient level to predict excellent long-term event-free survival outcomes. Residual cancer burden (RCB) quantifies the extent of residual disease for patients who did not achieve pCR. We have previously observed in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL that while metastatic events outside the central nervous system (CNS) were dramatically reduced in the setting of pCR, the incidence of CNS metastasis remained similar across RCB classes, raising the possibility that these CNS events may be independent of response in the breast. In this study, we evaluate the type and sites of recurrences by RCB in a large pooled dataset, which allows for analysis within subtype, to validate these findings. Methods: 5161 patients pooled across 12 institutions/trials with available RCB and event-free survival (EFS) data were included in this analysis. EFS was calculated as the interval between treatment initiation, and locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence or death from any cause; patients without event are censored at time of last follow-up. The median follow-up is 4.6 years. We summarized the EFS event type, further sub-dividing the distant recurrence events (DR) by their site of relapse (CNS-only, CNS and other sites, Non-CNS). We used a competing risk (Fine-Gray) model to assess which of these site-specific relapses differ between RCB classes and estimated the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS events at 5 years. Analyses were performed across the entire study population and within HR/HER2 defined subtypes. Results: Among the 5161 subjects, there were 1164 EFS events, including 92 (7.9%) local recurrences (without distant recurrence and/or death) and 1072 distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) events. Among the DRFS events, 158 patients died without a distant recurrence. 914 experienced distant recurrences, including 90 (9.8%) with CNS-only, 145 (15.9%) with CNS and other sites, 664 (72.6%) with non-CNS distant recurrence; 15 (1.6%) patients had missing recurrence site information. Table 1 summarizes the cumulative incidence of CNS-only and non-CNS recurrence at 5 years and the proportion of CNS-only recurrences among DR events by RCB class overall and within each HR/HER2 subtypes. The incidence of CNS-only recurrences was low and similar across RCB classes. In contrast, the incidence of non-CNS recurrences increases with increasing RCB. As a result, CNS-only recurrences are proportionally higher within the RCB-0 and RCB-I than in the RCB-II and RCB-III groups, largely because of the low DR event rate and relative low frequency of non-CNS recurrence events within the RCB-0 and RCB-I classes. Overall, 27% of the recurrences in the setting of pCR (RCB-0) are due to CNS-only recurrences.Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, our large pooled analysis confirmed that CNS-only recurrences are uncommon but appear similar across RCB groups, independent of response, suggesting that the CNS is a treatment sanctuary site. In contrast, non-CNS recurrence rates increase as RCB increases. These findings suggest that inclusion of CNS-only recurrences as an outcome event may impact the association between neoadjuvant therapy response and long-term outcomes in the context of current therapies. Novel therapies that cross the blood brain barrier will be needed to impact CNS recurrence rates. Table 1: Cumulative Incidence of CNS Only and non-CNS Distant Recurrences at 5 years and proportion of CNS-only events among DR eventsRCB Class0IIIIIIpOverall (5161)N16766622017806Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%2%2%1%0.627Cum. Inc. Non-CNS3%6%16%27%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)26/96 (27%)14/74 (19%)39/443 (9%)11/301 (4%)HR-HER2- (1774)N770212590202Cum. Inc. CNS Only2%3%2%4%0.298Cum. Inc. Non-CNS4%11%19%42%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)13/50 (26%)6/32 (19%)13/148 (9%)8/111 (7%)HR-HER2+ (572)N3766710029Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%5%5%0%0.022Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%5%18%38%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)4/17 (24%)3/10 (30%)6/31 (19%)0/13 (0%)HR+HER2+ (858)N31317229182Cum. Inc. CNS Only1%1%2%0%0.37Cum. Inc. Non-CNS2%3%15%26%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)3/10 (30%)2/16 (12%)7/68 (10%)0/29 (0%)HR+HER2- (1957)N2172111036493Cum. Inc. CNS Only3%2%1%0.2%0.087Cum. Inc. Non-CNS5%4%13%20%<0.001# CNS-Only / # DR events (%)6/19 (32%)3/16 (19%)13/196 (7%)3/148 (2%) Citation Format: Sonal Shad, Marieke van der Noordaa, Marie Osdoit, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Miguel Martin, María Del Monte-Millán, Sara López-Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew P Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebekah Gould, Vicente Valero, Gabe Sonke, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephen Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna Mackintosh, Fan Fang, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura Van't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Christina Yau. Site of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy: A multi-center pooled analysis [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 PD13-02.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer is associated with improved survival. Further assessment of the extent of residual disease, using the pathological anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer staging method (ypStage) or the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) method, have been shown to add prognostic information for patients with residual disease. Neo-Bioscore, an alternate system to classify response to NAC, includes clinical stage at diagnosis and biology and defines eight prognostic groups. The goal of this study was to compared three scoring systems (anatomic ypStage (7th ed), RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore) and assess whether RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic value in the context above anatomic ypStage, the most commonly used method for post-neoadjuvant residual disease assessment. Methods: Data from 5161 patients treated with NAC was pooled from 12 sites. Patients without clinical and pathological staging were excluded, as were patients with HER2+ breast cancer who did not receive neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy, leaving 3730 for analysis. PCR was defined as no residual invasive tumor in breast and nodes, i.e. RCB-0 or ypT0/Tis and ypN0. Patients with discordant pCR status by RCB Class vs ypStage (n=9) were excluded. Associations between each scoring system and event-free survival (EFS) were evaluated using the log rank test. EFS at 5 years was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Associations between Neo-Bioscore and EFS were assessed in the pCR group. For patients with residual disease, we assessed RCB and Neo-Bioscore within each ypStage. Analysis was performed overall and within subtype. Subgroups with <5 patients were excluded from the survival analyses. Results: ypAJCC staging, RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were all associated with EFS in the overall population and within each subtype (log rank p<0.0001). Of note, 13 patients with a Neo-Bioscore of 7 all recurred or died within 19 months of follow-up. Overall, 34% (1264/3721) of patients achieved a pCR. Their Neo-Bioscore ranges from 0-5, where 3% (37/1264) has a Neo-Bioscore of 5 despite achieving pCR. The Neo-Bioscore was not associated with EFS in case of a pCR, with EFS estimates at 5 years of 95%, 94%, 92%, 93%, 90% and 92% for Neo-Bioscores 0-5 respectively. As HR and HER2 status are components of the score, the range of Neo-Bioscore in the pCR group differs by subtype. However, similar to the overall analysis, the Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic within subtypes in case of pCR. Overall, among the patients who did not achieve pCR, both RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were associated with EFS within ypStages I, II and III. However, the ypStage within which RCB and Neo-Bioscore are prognostic is different for each subtype. RCB class was prognostic in ypStage I in both HR+ subtypes: patients with ypStage-I/RCB-I had significantly improved survival compared to patients with ypStage-I/RCB-II (5-year EFS: 100% vs 83% in HR+HER2- and 95% vs 77% in HR+HER2+). In contrast, for patients with triple negative breast cancer, RCB class was prognostic within ypStage II and III. Analysis by clinical stage and the components of the three systems that contribute most to prognosis will be presented. Conclusions: The degree of response to NAC adds important information to pCR versus residual disease. The Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic among patients with pCR, suggesting that clinical stage (including subtype and grade) adds little information in the setting of a pCR. In contrast, both RCB and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic information to the conventional ypAJCC staging among non-pCR patients, suggesting that clinical stage, tumor biology as well as extent of residual disease all contribute to prognosis in the setting of residual disease after NAC. Citation Format: Marieke EM van der Noordaa, Christina Yau, Sonal Shad, Marie Osdoit, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Maria Del Monte-Millán, Miguel Martin, Sara Lopez Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebecca Gould, Vincent Valero, Gabe Sonke, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephan Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna MacKintosh, Fang Fan, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberley Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura van 't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman. Assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant therapy: A comparison between anatomic ypAJCC staging, residual cancer burden class and neo-bioscore [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 GS4-07.

Abstract Background MONARCH 3, a phase III trial (NCT02246621) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC), previously demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival in patients receiving abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This study evaluated patient-reported outcomes, including global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. Methods Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily; n = 328) or placebo (n = 165), plus 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole daily. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Breast Cancer–Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire HRQoL instruments were administered at baseline, every two cycles during cycles 2 through 19 (each cycle being 28 days), every three cycles thereafter, and once at a short-term posttherapy follow-up visit (approximately 30 days after discontinuation). Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD), respectively. Results Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. Although select scores statistically favored the placebo arm, global HRQoL, most symptoms, and functioning scales did not meet the threshold for clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm with statistically and clinically meaningful differences. There were no TTSD differences between treatment arms for global HRQoL, most symptoms (except diarrhea), or functioning. Conclusion Over a 2-year period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in global HRQoL, functioning, and most symptoms for patients receiving abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm, consistent with prior safety data, which has been shown to be manageable and reversible. Combined with clinical efficacy, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC. Implications for Practice The addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) was not associated with a clinically meaningful detriment in patient-reported global health-related quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prior studies have also demonstrated clinical efficacy of abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone, including improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. These results also complement previously reported toxicity data, as measured by investigator-assessed adverse events. Taken together, these results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC.

3519 Background: An understanding of the mechanisms of acquired resistance to CDK4 & 6 inhibitors, either alone or with endocrine therapy (ET), is an unmet need. Abemaciclib is a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor approved for treatment of HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here we evaluated acquired genomic alterations detected in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients (pts) treated with abemaciclib + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) or placebo + AI in MONARCH 3 or abemaciclib monotherapy in nextMONARCH 1. Methods: MONARCH 3 randomized postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC with no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting to abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H) or placebo + AI. nextMONARCH 1 randomized women with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on or after prior ET and CT to abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H) + tamoxifen, abemaciclib (150 mg Q12H), or abemaciclib (200 mg Q12H) + loperamide. Plasma from pts in the abemaciclib or placebo + AI arms (MONARCH 3) or abemaciclib monotherapy arms (nextMONARCH 1) was analyzed by the Guardant360 assay to identify potential tumor-related genomic alterations including point mutations, indels, amplifications, and fusions acquired at EOT in comparison with baseline. Results: For MONARCH 3, commonly acquired alterations at EOT included ESR1 (17%), TP53 (10%), EGFR (8%), FGFR1 (7%), and PDGFRA (7%) in the abemaciclib + AI arm, and ESR1 (31%), TP53 (10%), and BRCA1 (7%) in the placebo + AI arm. Acquired alterations more frequent for abemaciclib + AI pts included RB1 (6%), MYC (5%), and AR (5%), compared to 0% in the placebo + AI arm (p = 0.008 RB1; p = 0.015 MYC or AR). In contrast, acquired ESR1 alterations were less frequent with abemaciclib + AI vs placebo + AI (17% vs 31%, p = 0.038). In nextMONARCH 1, the most commonly acquired alterations with abemaciclib monotherapy were in TP53 (10%), EGFR (9%), RB1 (9%), MYC (9%), and MET (8%). In addition, acquired alterations in ESR1 (6%) and AR (3%) were also found. PIK3CA alterations were not frequently acquired (abemaciclib + AI 1%, placebo + AI 6%, abemaciclib monotherapy 5%). Conclusions: Acquired genomic alterations potentially associated with emerging mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib alone or in combination with AI may include RB1, MYC, or AR alterations, while the acquisition of ESR1 alterations was less common in pts treated with abemaciclib + AI compared to placebo + AI. These findings are hypothesis-generating and provide insight into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib vs ET. Clinical trial information: NCT02246621, NCT02747004 .

Abstract Introduction: Although HER2+ breast cancer (BC) is considered a moderately immunogenic tumor, several studies have shown a role of pre-existing immunity associated with favorable long-term prognosis and better response to treatment. In this study, we performed exploratory analyses to assess whether the efficacy of HER2 targeted treatment in the MARIANNE trial correlated with immune gene expression. Methods: MARIANNE (NCT01120184) is a phase 3 study in patients (pts) with centrally confirmed HER2+ local advanced/metastatic BC naïve to prior treatments in the advanced disease. Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to trastuzumab+taxane (HT), T-DM1, or T-DM1+Petuzumab (P) and the trial showed noninferior PFS of T-DM1 and T-DM1+P vs HT. Gene expression (RNA) analysis was performed on tumor samples by a custom 800-gene codeset on the nCounter platform. PD-L1, CD8 expressions and immune gene signatures (sign) analyses were assessed by multivariate Cox regression models using median (cut-off) as categorical variable and adjusted by prior HT, presence of visceral disease, world region, baseline ECOG, measureable disease at baseline, therapy setting, HER2 mRNA expression, PIK3CA mutation status. Results: MARIANNE randomized 1095 pts (HT, n=365; T-DM1, n=367; T-DM1+P, n=363). Gene expression results were available for 671 pts (61.3% of the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) which was representative of ITT. In ITT, HR below 1 was observed when comparing pts with high (>median) vs low (≤median) immune gene expression by clinical outcome suggesting a potential association of high immune marker expression with improved PFS (Table 1) and to some extent with OS (data not shown). This association was primarily observed in the T-DM1 arm where the HR suggested a risk reduction of disease progression(PD)/death especially in the high Teff, high PD-L1 and high CD8 subgroups, and to some extent in the HT arm (Table 1). When assessing the predictive impact on PFS by comparing T-DM1 vs HT, HR below 1 was observed especially in pts with high Teff signature, high PD-L1 and high CD8 expressions (HR 0.67 (95% CI (0.47-0.95)), HR 0.68 (95% CI (0.48-0.97), and HR 0.64 (95%CI 0.44-0.93), respectively). When comparing T-DM1+P vs. HT, HR below 1 was observed especially in pts with low Teff signature and low PD-L1 expression (HR 0.70 (95% CI (0.50-0.99), and HR 0.68 (95% CI (0.48-0.96) respectively). No clear differences between immune gene expression subgroups was observed when comparing treatment arms in regards to OS (data not shown). Conclusions: In the exploratory analysis from the MARIANNE study, high immune gene expression, especially in the high PD-L1, CD8 and Teff subgroups, showed an association with improved clinical benefit with HRs reflecting for a risk reduction of PD/death for PFS and partially for OS. This association was less obvious in the T-DM1+P arm. When comparing the treatments effect, the data showed a potential impact of high Teff signature, and high CD8 and PD-L1 expressions on T-DM1 and less on HT. The potential opposite association of low Teff signature and low PD-L1 expression with improved benefit in the T-DM1+P arm was unexpected and needs further investigation. Table 1: Prognostic biomarker effect on PFSBiomarker by categories (>Median vs ≤Median)HR (95% CI) ITT n=671HR (95% CI) HT n=220HR (95% CI) T-DM1 n=227HR (95% CI) T-DM1+P n=224Teff sign0.89 (0.73-1.09)0.97 (0.68-1.38)0.64 (0.45-0.91)1.09 (0.75-1.58)Th1 cytokine sign0.91 (0.74-1.11)0.92 (0.64-1.31)0.78 (0.55-1.11)0.96 (0.67-1.36)Checkpoint inhibitor sign0.95 (0.78-1.15)0.91 (0.64-1.29)0.90 (0.64-1.26)1.02 (0.71-1.47)PD-L10.80 (0.66-0.98)0.79 (0.55-1.13)0.62 (0.44-0.87)1.07 (0.74-1.55)CD80.91 (0.75-1.11)1.10 (0.77-1.57)0.66 (0.46-0.93)0.98 (0.68-1.41) Citation Format: Edith A Perez, Sanne Lysbet de Haas, Carlos H Barrios, Wolfgang Eiermann, Masakazu Toi, Young-Hyuck Im, Pier Franco Conte, Miguel Martin, Tadeusz Pienkowski, Xavier B Pivot, Howard A Burris III, Chiara Lambertini, Silke Hoersch, Monika Patre, Paul Anthony Ellis. Association of immune gene expression with outcome in the MARIANNE phase 3 clinical trial in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [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 PD5-11.

Abstract Background: Combination treatments of CDK4 & 6 inhibitors (CDK4 & 6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) have improved outcomes in patients with HR-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Aside from estrogen receptor positivity (ER+), predictive biomarkers of clinical benefit from CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET remain elusive. We assessed clinical outcomes by genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients treated with abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) versus placebo plus NSAI in the Phase 3 study MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). Methods: MONARCH 3 randomized 493 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC who had no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting to treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI or placebo plus NSAI. Biomarker analysis of baseline ctDNA was an exploratory objective; plasma was analyzed by the Guardant360 next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay to identify potential tumor-related (i.e., somatic) genomic alterations including point mutations (SNV), indels, amplifications, and fusions in over 70 cancer-related genes. Genomic alterations detected in baseline ctDNA were associated with clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Baseline ctDNA results were available for 295 patients (201 abemaciclib; 94 placebo) with 83% of patients harboring one or more detectable genomic alterations. Commonly altered genes of interest (% frequency) detected in baseline ctDNA included: PIK3CA (38%); TP53 (26%); EGFR (15%); FGFR1 (12%); NF1 (12%); MYC (9%); CCND1 (9%); ESR1 (5%).Overall, patients treated with placebo plus NSAI who harbored detectable ctDNA genomic alterations had shorter median PFS compared to patients without detectable genomic alterations, as shown in the Table (14.9 months [95% CI: 11.0-23.1] vs 19.2 months [95% CI 9.4-NR]). Moreover, genomic alterations in EGFR, FGFR1, MYC, and CCND1 were associated with median PFS <12 months with placebo plus NSAI. However, consistent with the intent-to-treat population, the addition of abemaciclib to NSAI benefitted these genomic subgroups, regardless of ctDNA gene alterations. Additional genomic results, including alterations in cell cycle-associated genes, will be presented. Conclusions: In this exploratory subgroup analysis, the presence of detectable ctDNA genomic alterations was associated with shorter PFS with placebo plus NSAI. Consistently, abemaciclib added to NSAI improved outcomes for genomically identified subgroups. In contrast to prior studies, there was no subgroup (e.g., patients harboring FGFR1 alterations) that did not derive benefit from abemaciclib, supporting the efficacy of abemaciclib, including in difficult to treat tumors. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigations in clinical studies of CDK4 & 6i in combination with ET. TableAbemaciclib + NSAIPlacebo + NSAIEvents, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Events, n/NMedian PFS (95% CI)Hazard Ratio (95% CI)OVERALLITT population170 / 32828.2 (23.7 - 33.9)123 / 16514.8 (11.2 - 19.2)0.52 (0.42 - 0.66)TR population93 / 20138.7 (31.1 - NR)71 / 9416.5 (11.7 - 23.1)0.45 (0.33 - 0.61)Any Gene AlterationDetected83 / 16634.1 (27.2 - 40.0)62 / 7914.9 (11.0 - 23.1)0.47 (0.34 - 0.66)Not detected10 / 35NR (36.4 - NR)9 / 1519.2 (9.40 - NR)0.31 (0.13 - 0.78)TP53Detected29 / 5327.0 (14.1 - NR)19 / 2315.4 (5.7 - 30.4)0.53 (0.30 - 0.95)Not detected64 / 14839.9 (34.1 - NR)52 / 7117.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.42 (0.29 - 0.60)EGFRDetected10 / 26NR (32.4 - NR)16 / 1710.9 (2.1 - 24.7)0.20 (0.09 - 0.47)Not detected83 / 17536.4 (27.7 - NR)55 / 7717.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.52 (0.37 - 0.73)FGFR1Detected15 / 2532.8 (10.1 - NR)10 / 117.6 (1.9 - 15.4)0.37 (0.16 - 0.85)Not detected78 / 17639.9 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8319.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)NF1Detected10 / 2435.9 (27 - NR)8 / 1014.6 (1.6 - 33.4)0.33 (0.13 - 0.84)Not detected83 / 17738.7 (30.8 - NR)63 / 8417.5 (11.7 - 24.2)0.47 (0.33 - 0.65)MYCDetected11 / 1720.1 (5.5 - NR)9 / 106.5 (1.2 - 15.7)0.33 (0.13 - 0.86)Not detected82 / 18438.9 (32.9 - NR)62 / 8419.2 (14.6 - 26.5)0.45 (0.32 - 0.63)CCND1Detected8 / 1632.8 (5.5 - NR)10 / 107.2 (3.6 - 9.0)0.28 (0.10 - 0.77)Not detected85 / 18538.7 (31.1 - NR)61 / 8417.6 (14.6 - 25.5)0.48 (0.34 - 0.67)n = number of patients with events; N = total number of patients in the corresponding population and treatment arm; NR = not reached. TR population consists of patients in the ITT population from whom a valid baseline ctDNA result has been obtained. Citation Format: Matthew P Goetz, J. Thaddeus Beck, Mario Campone, Sara Hurvitz, Seock-Ah Im, Stephen Johnston, Antonio Llombart-Cussac, Miguel Martin, Joohyuk Sohn, Masakazu Toi, Lacey M Litchfield, Hillary T Graham, Hong Wang, Sameera R Wijayawardana, Valerie M Jansen, Angelo Di Leo. Efficacy of abemaciclib based on genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA from the MONARCH 3 study of abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor [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 PD2-06.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AI) demonstrated efficacy with a tolerable safety profile as initial treatment for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer in the MONARCH 3 trial. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, the updated progression-free survival (PFS) with 12 months of additional follow-up was 28.2 versus 14.8 months (HR [95% CI]: 0.525 [0.415, 0.665]; p<.0001) in the abemaciclib plus AI versus placebo plus AI arms, respectively. Here we report data from the additional 12 months of follow-up on tumor response for the ITT population and exploratory subgroups previously identified as significantly prognostic (Di Leo et al. 2018). Methods: In MONARCH 3, a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, 493 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting, received an AI (anastrozole or letrozole) plus abemaciclib or placebo. From the October 31, 2018 cutoff, secondary endpoints including objective response rate ([ORR], complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), time to response (TTR), and duration of response ([DoR], time from a confirmed CR or PR until disease progression or death) were assessed in the ITT population and exploratory subgroups previously reported as significantly prognostic. Waterfall plots will be used to illustrate the magnitude of change in tumor size for each subgroup (to be presented). Results: In patients with measurable disease, the ORR was 62.5% (95% CI: 56.7, 68.2) in the abemaciclib plus AI arm and 44.7% (95% CI: 36.2, 53.2) in the placebo plus AI arm (p≤.001). Additional follow-up confirmed that all prognostic subgroups received benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to AI, consistent with the ITT population, as evidenced by change in ORR, with the largest effects observed in subgroups of patients with liver metastases, progesterone receptor-negative tumors, high grade tumors, or treatment-free interval of <36 months (Table). Median TTR was similar between the two treatment arms (abemaciclib plus AI: 3.62 months; placebo plus AI: 3.65 months), and this was generally consistent across subgroups. Responses were more durable in the abemaciclib plus AI arm (median DoR: 32.71 months; 95% CI: 25.74, -) versus the placebo plus AI arm (median DoR: 17.49 months; 95% CI: 11.61, 22.19), including in poor prognostic subgroups. Conclusions: Extended follow-up in the MONARCH 3 trial further confirmed that the addition of abemaciclib to AI is associated with durable tumor responses, including those in patients with clinically poor prognostic characteristics. References: Di Leo A et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018;4:41. Clinical trial information: NCT02246621 This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company Table: Objective Response RateAbemaciclib + AIPlacebo + AIORR ChangeNn (%)Nn (%)%Measurable disease population269168 (62.5)13259 (44.7)17.8Liver metastasesYes4727 (57.45)306 (20.00)37.45No222141 (63.51)10253 (51.96)11.55Progesterone receptor statusNegative6137 (60.66)298 (27.59)33.07Positive206130 (63.11)10351 (49.51)13.60Treatment-free interval<36 months3117 (54.84)225 (22.73)32.11≥36 months7442 (56.76)3216 (50.00)6.76Tumor gradeHigh5739 (68.42)2811 (39.29)29.13Intermediate/ Low13992 (66.19)7535 (46.67)19.52ECOG PS111275 (66.96)5022 (44.00)22.96015793 (59.24)8237 (45.12)14.12Bone-only diseaseNo256162 (63.28)12253 (43.44)19.84YesNA*NA*NA*NA*NA*N= total number of patients in each subgroup; n= number of responder patients; NA=not applicable*Response rate not reported for bone-only disease because majority of lesions were not measurable Citation Format: Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Stephen Johnston, Miguel Martin, Jens Huober, Masakazu Toi, Valerie AnneMarie Andre, Holly Rene Martin, Molly Catherine Hardebeck, Angelo Di Leo, Matthew Philip Goetz. Updated subgroup tumor response of abemaciclib plus aromatase inhibitor for hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2 negative advanced breast cancer (MONARCH 3) [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 P1-19-09.

Abstract Background: Recent studies have demonstrated independent validation of the prognostic relevance of residual cancer burden (RCB) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, a pooled subject-level analysis of multiple cohorts is needed to determine estimates of long-term prognosis for each class of RCB in each phenotypic subtype of breast cancer (BC) to better inform on patient outcomes. Also, a pooled subject-level analysis allows more detailed analyses of generalizability of the prognostic meaning of RCB assessments in a broader experience of practice settings. Method: Subject-level RCB results, with relevant clinical and pathologic stage, tumor subtype and grade, demographic, treatment and follow-up data from 11 institutes/trials are being collected for combined analysis. The association between the continuous RCB index and event-free survival (EFS), and distant recurrence free survival (DRFS) were assessed using mixed effect Cox models with the incorporation of random RCB coefficients to account for between-study heterogeneity. We will also allow for differences in baseline hazard across biological BC subtypes and, if needed, across studies as well. In addition to this stratified mixed effect model, a multivariate analysis adjusting for age, T-category, nodal status and grade was performed within each subtype. In addition, mixed effect Cox models will be employed to evaluate association between RCB index with EFS and DRFS within each HR/HER2 subtype. Kaplan Meier estimates of EFS and DRFS at 5 and 10 years were computed for each RCB class within subtype. Results: We analyzed subject-level data from 9 institutes/trials representing 4077 patients currently available from an anticipated final total of 4,800 patients (to be presented at the meeting). There were 950 EFS and 876 DRFS events during follow up (median 65 months, IQR: 70 months). RCB index (continuous) was independently prognostic within each subtype: HR+/HER2- (EFS HR (per unit increase in RCB index) =1.64, 95%CI 1.48-1.82; DRFS HR=1.68, 1.51-1.87), HR+/HER2+ (EFS HR=1.80, 1.57-2.05; DRFS HR=1.93, 1.67-2.24), HR-/HER2+ (EFS HR=2.15, 1.76-2.62; DRFS HR=2.10, 1.77-2.50), and HR-/HER2- (EFS HR=2.05, 1.89-2.22; DRFS HR=2.16, 1.90-2.46); and remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis. Table 1 contains the response rate and estimated EFS at 5 years and 10 years for each RCB class within each HR/HER2 phenotype (DRFS results were similar). Conclusions: Long-term prognosis after pCR was similarly excellent in all phenotypic subtypes. RCB index and classification was independently and strongly prognostic in all subtypes, and generalizable to multiple practice settings. Prognostic differences by RCB class occurred within 5 years in HR- BC, but extended to 10 years in HR+ BC. RCB-I had slightly worse EFS than pCR in HR- BC and HR+/HER2+ BC (after 5 years), but the same EFS as pCR in HR+/HER2- BC. Complete analysis of all subjects, including neoadjuvant treatments, will be presented at the meeting. PhenotypeOutcomepCRRCB-IRCB-IIRCB-IIIHR+/HER2-Frequency (%)11%10%52%27%(N=1467)5 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)93% (89-98)82% (79-85)70% (65-75)10 yr EFS (95% CI)84% (75-93)88% (82-95)71% (67-75)52% (46-58)HR+/HER2+Frequency (%)38%18%35%9%(N=762)5 yr EFS (95% CI)94% (91-97)93% (88-98)78% (73-84)49% (37-65)10 yr EFS (95% CI)91% (86-96)79% (70-90)65% (59-73)42% (29-60)HR-/HER2+Frequency (%)66%11%18%5%(N=550)5 yr EFS (95% CI)93% (90-96)88% (79-97)60% (50-71)45% (30-69)10 yr EFS (95% CI)90% (86-94)84% (74-95)56% (46-68)45% (30-69)HR-/HER2-Frequency (%)41%13%33%13%(N=1293)5 yr EFS (95% CI)92% (90-94)85% (79-91)68% (63-72)28% (21-36)10 yr EFS (95% CI)87% (82-91)80% (72-88)63% (58-68)24% (18-33) Citation Format: Christina Yau, Marieke van der Noordaa, Jane Wei, Marie Osdoit, Fabien Reyal, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Miguel Martin, Maria del Monte, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Rebekah Gould, Jelle Wesseling, Tessa Steenbruggen, Maartje van Seijen, Gabe Sonke, Stephen Edge, Stephen-John Sammut, Elena Provenzano, Jean Abraham, Peter Hall, Ashley Graham, Lorna Mackintosh, David Cameron, Alice Wang, Priyanka Sharma, Kimberly Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Mi-Ok Kim, Laura van ‘t Veer, Laura Esserman, W. Fraser Symmans. Residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival outcomes in breast cancer: A multi-center pooled analysis [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 GS5-01.

Background In the phase 3 MARIANNE trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T‐DM1) with or without pertuzumab showed noninferior progression‐free survival and better tolerability than trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT) for the first‐line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive advanced breast cancer. This article reports the final descriptive overall survival (OS) analysis, updated safety data, and additional patient‐reported outcomes and biomarker analyses. Methods OS was assessed in 1095 patients with HER2‐positive breast cancer and no prior therapy for advanced disease who had been randomized to HT, T‐DM1 plus a placebo (hereafter T‐DM1), or T‐DM1 plus pertuzumab (T‐DM1+pertuzumab). A post hoc exploratory landmark analysis of OS, baseline patient and disease characteristics, and tumor biomarkers in patients with and without an objective tumor response (OR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors within 6.5 months of randomization was conducted. Results The median OS was similar across groups (50.9, 53.7, and 51.8 months for the HT, T‐DM1, and T‐DM1+pertuzumab groups, respectively). Among patients with an OR, the median OS was longer with T‐DM1 (64.4 months) and T‐DM1+pertuzumab (not reached) versus HT (56.3 months). No baseline characteristics or biomarkers were strongly associated with OR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was greater with HT (55.8%) than T‐DM1 (47.1%) or T‐DM1+pertuzumab (48.6%). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration (a 3‐point or greater change) in neurotoxicity symptoms was shorter with HT (2.1 months) and T‐DM1+pertuzumab (4.2 months) than T‐DM1 (6.2 months). Fewer patients reported alopecia and diarrhea and were bothered by treatment side effects in the T‐DM1 arm. Conclusions These results support T‐DM1 as a first‐line treatment for patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer who are deemed unsuitable for taxane‐based therapy.