Sammons, Sarah

Abstract Background: Most patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with endocrine therapy (ET) will ultimately develop resistance. A large unmet need exists especially when resistance occurs following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), which is potentially driven by a mutation in the ERα-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. In the ELAINE 1 trial, LAS monotherapy provided numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median 5.6 mos vs 3.7 mos; HR: 0.669 [95% CI, 0.445‒1.125], P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) compared with the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1141‒51). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial showed that LAS combined with abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ∼13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S et al. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1131‒40). The phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated based on these promising earlier-phase data. Recent results from postMONARCH confirmed superior efficacy of fulv/Abema over fulv/placebo (mPFS 6.0 mos vs 5.3 mos, HR 0.73 [0.57‒0.95], nominal P-value 0.017) in non-biomarker‒selected, mBC patients after progression on a prior CDK4/6i and aromatase inhibitor (AI), with similar HR in an ESR1-mutated cohort (Kalinsky K et al. J Clin Oncol 2025;43:1101‒12). Additionally, recent data from EMBER-3 demonstrated meaningful PFS with a novel ET combined with abemaciclib after progression on AI/CDK4/6i (Jhaveri KL et al. N Engl J Med 2025;392:1189‒202). The ELAINE 3, global trial will compare LAS/Abema with fulv/Abema in a post-CDK4/6i, ESR1-mutation‒selected, mBC population. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Patients are being enrolled at approximately 152 sites in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Italy, Israel, Poland, Romania, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States). Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an AI plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM (days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly) plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS per RESIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR); key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Safety, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, and quality of life (including vaginal health) will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test with an expected PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis. Enrollment is currently ongoing to meet the target sample size of 500 patients. Citation Format: M. P. Goetz, S. A. Wander, T. Bachelot, G. Curigliano, A. de Nonneville, E. N. Gal-Yam, K. Jhaveri, S. L. Sammons, S. Shen, C. J. Twelves, G. Gasper, P. V. Plourde, D. J. Portman, S. Damodaran. Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating ER+/HER2-, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-07-30.

PURPOSE Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader designed to deliver continuous ER target inhibition, including in ESR1- mutant breast cancer. This phase Ia/b trial determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy, in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer. The ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) ABC experience is reported here. METHODS An i3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by dose expansions of imlunestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemaciclib with or without aromatase inhibitor (AI), everolimus, or alpelisib. Imlunestrant was administered orally once daily and with the combination partner per label. RESULTS Overall, 262 patients with ER+/HER2– ABC were treated (phase Ia, n = 74; phase Ib, n = 188). Among patients who received imlunestrant monotherapy (n = 114), no dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations occurred. At the RP2D (400 mg once daily), patients (n = 51) reported grade 1-2 nausea (39.2%), fatigue (39.2%), and diarrhea (29.4%). Patients at RP2D had received previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i; 92.2%), fulvestrant (41.2%), and chemotherapy (29.4%) for ABC and achieved a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 8.3). Among patients who received imlunestrant + abemaciclib (n = 42) and imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI (n = 43), most (69.4%) were treatment-naïve for ABC; all were CDK4/6i-naïve. Patients treated with imlunestrant + everolimus (n = 42)/alpelisib (n = 21) had received previous CDK4/6i (100%), fulvestrant (34.9%), and chemotherapy (17.5%) for ABC. No new safety signals or interactions with partnered drugs were observed. The mPFS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to not available) for imlunestrant + abemaciclib and was not reached for imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI. The mPFS with imlunestrant + everolimus/alpelisib was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 19.1)/9.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 11.1). Antitumor activity was evident regardless of ESR1 mutation status. CONCLUSION Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy, had a manageable safety profile with evidence of preliminary antitumor activity in ER+/HER2– ABC.

TPS1127 Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene (LAS), an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, was evaluated in two phase 2 studies of women with ER+/HER2- mBC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 mos; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with LAS monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant (fulv), with a favorable safety profile (1). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that LAS plus abemaciclib (Abema) was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 mos, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (2). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LAS plus Abema versus fulv plus Abema. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 yrs; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or mBC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/mBC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive LAS 5 mg/day plus Abema 150 mg BID, or fulv 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then once monthly plus Abema 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected for genomic analyses at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit. Outcomes with LAS/Abema and fulv/Abema will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 mos for LAS/Abema and 7 mos for fulv/Abema (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 mos at approximately 125 global sites. 1. Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1141-1151. 2. Damodaran S, et al. Ann Oncol. 2023;34:1131-1140. Clinical trial information: NCT05696626 .

Abstract Background: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (BC) may develop resistance to endocrine therapy (ET), particularly following treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i), potentially driven by a mutation in the ERa-coding gene, ESR1. Lasofoxifene, an oral, next-generation ET and ER breast antagonist, had potent activity in mBC xenograft models expressing ESR1 mutations, either as a single agent or combined with a CDK4/6i. Subsequently, two phase 2 studies evaluated lasofoxifene in women with ER+/HER2- metastatic BC and an ESR1 mutation who had disease progression on previous ET and CDK4/6i. The ELAINE 1 trial showed numerically greater progression-free survival (PFS, median ~6 vs 4 months; P=0.138), objective response rate (ORR, 13% vs 3%; P=0.124), and clinical benefit rate (CBR, 37% vs 22%; P=0.117) with lasofoxifene monotherapy versus the ER degrader fulvestrant, with a favorable safety profile (Goetz MP, et al. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S1387). The single-arm, ELAINE 2 trial demonstrated that lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib was well tolerated with a median PFS of ~13 months, ORR of 56%, and CBR of 66% (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:suppl 16; abstr 1057). Based on these data, the phase 3, registrational, ELAINE 3 trial was initiated. Methods: ELAINE 3 (NCT05696626) is an open-label, phase 3, multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib versus fulvestrant plus abemaciclib. Key inclusion criteria are pre- and postmenopausal women and men aged ≥18 years; ER+/HER2-, locally advanced and/or metastatic BC (measurable and/or non-measurable disease); ≥1 acquired ESR1 mutation; progression on an aromatase inhibitor plus palbociclib or ribociclib as their first hormonal treatment for advanced/metastatic BC; and ≤1 line of chemotherapy in the advanced/metastatic setting. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive lasofoxifene 5 mg/day plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID, or fulvestrant 500 mg IM on days 1, 15, and 29, then 4 weekly plus abemaciclib 150 mg BID. Treatment will continue until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from the study. The primary endpoint is PFS; key secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, CBR, duration of response, and time to response. Time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, quality of life, and safety will also be evaluated. Blood samples for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected at screening, at weeks 4 and 8 and every 8 weeks thereafter, and at the final visit for genomic analyses. Outcomes with lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and fulvestrant/abemaciclib will be compared using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model and stratified logrank test. Expected PFS is ≥10.3 months for lasofoxifene/abemaciclib and 7 months for fulvestrant/abemaciclib (PFS hazard ratio of 0.68 at final analysis). The target sample size is 400, to achieve 90% power with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025 after 285 PFS events. Full recruitment is expected to occur over 18 months at 125 global sites. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Seth Wander, Thomas Bachelot, Gerald Batist, Javier Cortés, Massimo Cristofanilli, Giuseppe Curigliano, Alexandre de Nonneville, Einav Nili-Gal Yam, Komal Jhaveri, Cynthia Ma, Heather Parsons, Hope Rugo, Sarah Sammons, Daniel Stover, Chris Twelves, Aditya Bardia, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman, Senthil Damodaran. Trial in progress: Open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase 3, ELAINE 3 study of the efficacy and safety of lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib for treating locally advanced or ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation [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 PO1-18-12.

Abstract Introduction: Acquired ESR1 mutations (mutESR1) after long-term endocrine therapy drive treatment resistance, metastasis, and poor prognosis for patients (pts) with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene (LAS), a selective estrogen receptor modulator, alone or with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) reduced tumor growth better than fulvestrant (Fulv) in mutESR1 BC xenograft models. ELAINE 1 is a randomized trial of LAS vs Fulv in pts with mutESR1 and prior progression on aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6i. Preliminary results (ESMO 2022) showed that LAS prolonged median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared with Fulv with a favorable safety profile. Here, we report changes in ESR1 ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) from baseline to 8 wks and their associations with clinical benefit (CB) and mPFS. Methods: ELAINE 1 pts were randomized to oral LAS 5 mg daily or IM Fulv 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, then every 4 wks, until disease progression or severe toxicity. ctDNA mutESR1 mutations (baseline and 8 wks) were assessed using the Sysmex Inostics OncoBeam or SafeSeq assays—which detect mutESR1 at low allele fractions. MAF changes from baseline to wk 8 were characterized as decreased (decrease in ESR1 MAF or fully cleared), increased (increase in MAF), or equivocal (polyclonal patients [>1 mutESR1] with some increasing and decreasing MAF trends); correlations with PFS and CB were explored. Efficacy measures included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and CB at 24 wks (CB defined as response or stable disease ≥24 wks). Results: 103 pts received LAS (n=52) or Fulv (n=51). Most common baseline ESR1 variants detected were D538G (56%), Y537S (39%), Y537N (29%), E380Q (22%); 56 (54%) pts were polyclonal. Of the 61 pts with evaluable baseline and wk 8 ctDNA, LAS decreased mutESR1 MAF in 29/35 pts (83% [11 complete clearance]) while Fulv decreased mutESR1 MAF in 16/26 pts (61.5% [6 complete clearance]) (Table). mPFS with LAS was 8 and 4 mos for pts with decreased/cleared MAF and increased MAF, respectively, and with Fulv was 4.5 and 2.8 mos, respectively (Table). LAS decreased the common mutESR1 variants more frequently than Fulv (median relative change -87.1% vs -14.7%). In pts with decreased MAF, CB was observed in 16/29 LAS pts (55%) and 4/16 Fulv pts (25%). The predictiveness of ESR1 MAF clearance for CB was also explored. Of 11 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking LAS, 10 achieved CB, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.9%. In contrast, 2/6 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking Fulv had CB for a PPV of 33.3%. Sensitivity for predicting CB based on direction of ESR1 MAF change was 94% with LAS and 80% with Fulv. In pts with Y537S MAF (n=33), LAS decreased Y537S in 13/15 (87%), with a median relative MAF decrease of 89%. In marked contrast, Fulv increased Y537S MAF in 11/18 pts (61%), corresponding to an MAF relative increase of 82%. LAS and Fulv resulted in complete clearance of Y537S MAF in 33% and 6% of pts, respectively. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that LAS more effectively decreased or cleared mutESR1 than Fulv. Further, mutESR1 clearance was associated with prolonged PFS and more CB in LAS but not Fulv pts, suggesting that LAS results in robust mutESR1 target engagement. Taken together, our data suggest mutESR1 as a potential liquid biomarker for predicting response to LAS in mutESR1, endocrine-resistant mBC pts. Table. Change from baseline to week 8 in ESR1 MAF and clinical benefit at 24 weeks. CI, confidence interval; MAF, mutant allele fraction; ND, none detected; PFS, progression-free survival. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Einav Gal-Yam, Daniel Stover, Sarah L. Sammons, Stephanie L. Graff, Grace Wang, Massimo Cristofanilli, Gary Riordan, Hillary S. Sloane, Dominic Carroll, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman. Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with lasofoxifene or fulvestrant in the ELAINE 1 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-05-04.

PURPOSE APOBEC mutagenesis underlies somatic evolution and accounts for tumor heterogeneity in several cancers, including breast cancer (BC). In this study, we evaluated the characteristics of a real-world cohort for time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) plus endocrine therapy (ET) and immune checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS Comprehensive genomic profiling results from 29,833 BC samples were analyzed for tumor mutational burden and APOBEC signatures. For clinical outcomes, a deidentified nationwide (United States–based) BC Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB) was evaluated with log-rank and Cox models. Patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) BC who received first-line ET and CDK4/6i were included. Eligible patients from Mayo Clinic and Duke University were HR+ HER2– BC with sequencing data between September 2013 and July 2020. RESULTS Of 29,833 samples sequenced, 7.9% were APOBEC+ with a high rate in invasive lobular carcinoma (16.7%) and in metastatic tumors (9.7%) relative to locally biopsied BC (4.3%; P < .001). In CGDB, 857 patients with HR+ HER2– BC received ET plus CDK4/6i in the first line. APOBEC+ patients had significantly shorter TTD on ET plus CDK4/6i than APOBEC– patients, 7.8 (95% CI, 4.3 to 14.6) versus 12.4 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 14.1; hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.39; P = .0036). Clinical benefit to immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed in HR+ HER2–, APOBEC+, tumor mutational burden–high patients, with four of nine CGDB patients (TTD 0.3-11.3 months) and four of six patients in Duke/Mayo cohorts (TTD 0.9-40.5 months) with a TTD of ≥ 3 months. CONCLUSION APOBEC+ HR+ HER2– patients had shorter TTD on first-line ET plus CDK4/6i relative to APOBEC– patients. Further research is needed to optimize the treatment of APOBEC+ HR+ HER2– BC and to investigate the efficacy of immunotherapeutic strategies in this population.

Abstract Background: APOBEC mutagenesis underlies somatic evolution and accounts for tumor heterogeneity in several cancers, including BC. In our clinical experience, HR+HER2- BC with an APOBEC signature do poorly on standard of care (SOC) first line endocrine therapy (ET) + CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) and need additional treatment options. Here we evaluated the characteristics of a real-world cohort for time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) on SOC and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).Methods: Hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results from 29,833 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue biopsies of all BC subtypes were analyzed. For outcomes (TTD and OS), this study used a de-identified nationwide (US-based) BC clinico-genomic database (CGDB, ~800 sites of care, 1/2011 - 12/2020). HR+HER2- metastatic BC pts who received first line ET + CDK4/6i were included (CGDB cohort).TTD was defined as the difference between the first and last drug episode within a given line of treatment (LOT). LOT were derived based on FH algorithms. OS was defined as the time from LOT start to the date of death or data cutoff. Log-rank test and Cox model were used to evaluate the difference in outcomes. To reduce the impact of confounding variables (Age at Dx, Stage at Dx, Tumor Type, Metastases sites, TMB group (≥10 vs &lt;10), SOC treatment group, PIK3CA), inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. Eligible pts from Mayo Clinic and Duke University were HR+HER2- mBC with sequencing data from FMI between 9/2013-7/2020. Clinical data were manually extracted from Mayo and Duke EHR. Results: Of all 29,833 BC samples in the CGP cohort, 7.9% were APOBEC+ with high rate in invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) 16.7% vs. 4.9% in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and metastatic lesions 9.7% vs. 4.3% from breast. APOBEC+ samples had a higher median TMB 12.5 vs. 2.5 mut/Mb. In CGDB, 857 HR+HER2- BC met inclusion criteria; 69 (8%) pts were APOBEC+ and 788 (9.2%) were APOBEC-. APOBEC+ pts had significantly shorter TTD on SOC ET+CDK4/6i than APOBEC- pts, 7.8 (95% CI 4.3-14.6) vs. 12.4 (95% CI 11.2-14.1) months (p=0.0036). APOBEC+ pts also had noticeably shorter OS compared to APOBEC- pts, 32.4 (95%CI 19.8-47.4) vs. 40.5 (95%CI 36.9-45.7) months (p=0.06).Cox regression results indicate that the relative risk of shorter TTD for the APOBEC+ vs the APOBEC- was 1.6 (95%CI 1.03-2.39). Also, APOBEC+ pts had almost twice the risk that APOBEC- pts had of death (HR=1.96, 95%CI 1.2-3.3). In CGDB, there were 10 APOBEC+ pts who received ICI, 9/10 had evaluable TTD data, 4/9 were still on treatment as of Dec 2020. 5/9 received ICI monotherapy, 4 pts received ICI + chemotherapy. TTD ranged from 0.3 to 11.3 mo, 1 pt’s TTD was &gt; 6 mo. In Mayo and Duke cohort, there were 6 pts, 5/6 received ICI + chemotherapy. The TTD was 0.9-40.5 months with longest 2 pts receiving 5-FU plus ICI (11 and 40.5 months). To better understand the ICI treatment landscape, TTD in HR+HER2- hTMB MSS APOBEC- CGDB cohort (N=6) was analyzed: 5/6 had evaluable treatment data, 4/5 finished ICI treatment, 1 pt’s TTD was &gt; 3 mo, 0/5 had TTD &gt; 6 mo. Conclusions: APOBEC+ occurs in ~7% of BC and is more common in ILC and metastatic lesions. APOBEC+ HR+HER2- pts had shorter TTD and OS on SOC ET+CDK4/6i relative to APOBEC- pts. However, TTD on ICI tended to be longer in APOBEC+ pts, but our data is limited, and more research is needed. CGDB APOBEC+ vs. APOBEC- with SOC 1st lineAPOBEC+ (N=69)APOBEC- (N=788)p adjusted (FDR)*Age at Dx, Median (IQR)59.0 (53.0, 65.0)56.0 (47.0, 65.0)0.102Stage at Dx0.067- 0-III52 (75.4%)505 (64.1%)- IV11 (15.9%)245 (31.1%)- Not documented6 (8.7%)38 (4.8%)Metastasis free interval, yrs, Median (IQR)5.2 (3.0, 10.5)5.1 (2.8, 9.3)0.734Tumor Grade0.104- Grade 12 (2.9%)49 (6.2%)- Grade 234 (49.3%)259 (32.9%)- Grade 311 (15.9%)163 (20.7%)- Not documented22 (31.9%)317 (40.2%)Tumor Type0*- IDC7 (10.1%)251 (31.9%)- ILC30 (43.5%)138 (17.5%)- Other /Not documented32 (46.4%)399 (50.6%)Metastases sites0.734- Bone-only17 (24.6%)169 (21.5%)- CNS11 (15.9%)104 (13.2%)- Visceral41 (59.4%)514 (65.3%)TMB, Median (IQR)11.3 (8.8, 18.8)2.5 (1.3, 3.8)0*MSI0.946- MSI-H0 (0.0%)4 (0.5%)- MSI-I0 (0.0%)1 (0.1%)- MSS68 (98.6%)728 (97.2%)- Not documented1 (1.4%)16 (2.1%)BRCA5 (7.2%)45 (5.7%)0.734PIK3CA46 (66.7%)341 (43.3%)0.001*Treatments0.005*- AI + CDK4/6i31 (44.9%)510 (64.7%)- Fulvestrant + CDK4/6i38 (55.1%)278 (35.3%) Citation Format: Saranya Chumsri, Kira Raskina, Sarah Sammons, Laura Alder, Natalie Danziger, Alexa B Schrock, Kim McGregor, Ethan Sokol. APOBEC signature, clinical characteristics, and outcome in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) in real-world data (RWD) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD14-09.

Abstract Background: Data supporting high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) as a lone biomarker for an immune responsive tumor microenvironment (TME) or of response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is weak; yet the tumor agnostic approval in TMB-H advanced tumors makes ICI an option in the clinic. PDL-1 positivity (PDL-1+) is the only consistent biomarker for ICI benefit in metastatic triple-negative BC (mTNBC). We sought to further evaluate concurrent predictors of an immune responsive or non-responsive TME within TMB-H MBC. Methods: Tumor samples (N=5621) obtained from patients with MBC were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA (592-gene panel or whole exome sequencing) and RNA (whole transcriptome sequencing) at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project (Merino et al., 2020) recommendations, with the TMB-H threshold set to ≥ 10 muts/Mb, were used. PDL-1+ (≥1% immune cells stained) assessed by IHC (Ventana SP142). Deficient-mismatch repair (dMMR) and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) were determined by IHC and NGS, respectively. Gene expression profiling assessed 21 immune-related signatures and TMEs using MCP-counter (Betch et al., 2016) and quanTIseq (Finotello et al., 2019). Immune cell types were classified as immune-responsive (CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, B cells, myeloid dendritic cells, M1 macrophages, NK cells, and neutrophils) or non-responsive (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and monocytes). P-values adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Exploratory p-values reported for sub-analyses of TMB-H responsive vs nonresponsive TME and PDL1+ vs PDL1- subgroups. Results: TMB-H was identified in 461/5621 (8.2%) MBC samples. TMB-H tumors exhibit significant enrichment of dMMR/MSI-H (7 vs 0%, p&lt;0.0001) and IHC-PDL1+ (36 vs 28%, p&lt;0.05) compared to TMB-L. TMB-H was not associated with increased abundance or proportion of immune responsive cell types or immune response gene signatures (e.g. antigen presentation), yet positive trends were observed. To identify predictive biomarkers of immune responsive (hot) or non-responsive (cold) TME profiles within TMB-H MBC, we generated a composite TME score representing the overall proportion of hot vs cold immune cell types. APOBEC mutagenesis was common in TMB-H tumors (72%) and was more frequently associated with an immune cold TME (77 vs 66% in hot TME subgroup, p=0.068). Within TMB-H tumors, cold TMEs were enriched with mutations (muts) in PIK3CA (61 vs 47%), CHEK2 (5 vs 0%), CBFB (4 vs 0%), amplifications (amp) of CCND1 (13 vs 4%), FGF19 (16 vs 5%), FGF4 (11 vs 4%), and MMLT6 (6 vs 0%), and expression of IHC-AR (75 vs 58%) compared to hot TMEs (all p&lt;0.05). Hot TMEs had increased frequency of MSI-H (12 vs 5%) and KMT2D muts (12 vs 3%) compared to cold TMEs (all p&lt;0.05). Amongst TMB-H and TMB-L tumors, PDL1+ was significantly associated with increased proportion of immune responsive cell types (ie CD8+) compared to PDL1- tumors (0.14 vs -0.08 TME score, p&lt;0.0001). Comparison of TMB-H tumors by PDL1 status revealed enrichment of TP53 (67 vs 53%) and B2M (8 vs 0%) muts in PDL1+ tumors, while IHC-ER positivity (68 vs 54%) and CDH1 muts (32 vs 16%) were increased in PDL1- tumors (all p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: High TMB alone does not strongly correlate with immune infiltrate or immune response gene signatures in MBC. Within TMB-H MBC, concurrent mutations in MSI-H and KMT2D are associated with an immune responsive TME while mutations in PIK3CA, CHEK2, CBFB, amplifications of CCND1, FGF19, FGF4, and MMLT6, and expression of IHC-AR are associated with an immune non-responsive TME. Co-occurring biomarkers within TMB-H breast cancer warrant evaluation in prospective cohorts for response or resistance to ICI to help develop composite biomarkers in breast cancer. Citation Format: Sarah Sammons, Andrew Elliott, Jeremy Force, Saranya Chumsri, Carey Anders, Antoinette R Tan, Daniel Magee, Jia Zeng, W. Michael Korn, Mustafa Kahsraw, Evanthia T Roussos Torres. Concurrent predictors of an immune responsive tumor microenvironment within tumor mutational burden-high breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-08.