Conte, PierFranco

AbstractBackgroundThe management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus.MethodsDuring the 14th Breast‐Gynecological and Immuno‐Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer.Results and ConclusionsThe consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de‐escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.

Background: The management of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is challenging with several controversies and unmet needs. During the 12th Breast-Gynaecological & Immuno-oncology International Cancer Conference (BGICC) Egypt, 2020, a panel of 35 breast cancer experts from 13 countries voted on consensus guidelines for the clinical management of TNBC. The consensus was subsequently updated based on the most recent data evolved lately. Methods: A consensus conference approach adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was utilized. The panellists voted anonymously on each question, and a consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer. The final consensus was later circulated to the panellists for critical revision of important intellectual content. Results and conclusion: These recommendations represent the available clinical evidence and expert opinion when evidence is scarce. The percentage of the consensus votes, levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are presented for each statement. The consensus covered all the aspects of TNBC management starting from defining TNBC to the management of metastatic disease and highlighted the rapidly evolving landscape in this field. Consensus was reached in 70% of the statements (35/50). In addition, areas of warranted research were identified to guide future prospective clinical trials.

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.

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.

Purpose Trastuzumab and pertuzumab are human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –targeted monoclonal antibodies, and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody–drug conjugate that combines the properties of trastuzumab with the cytotoxic activity of DM1. T-DM1 demonstrated encouraging efficacy and safety in a phase II study of patients with previously untreated HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Combination T-DM1 and pertuzumab showed synergistic activity in cell culture models and had an acceptable safety profile in a phase Ib and II study. Methods In the MARIANNE study, 1,095 patients with centrally assessed, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer and no prior therapy for advanced disease were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control (trastuzumab plus taxane), T-DM1 plus placebo, hereafter T-DM1, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab at standard doses. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), as assessed by independent review. Results T-DM1 and T-DM1 plus pertuzumab showed noninferior PFS compared with trastuzumab plus taxane (median PFS: 13.7 months with trastuzumab plus taxane, 14.1 months with T-DM1, and 15.2 months with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab). Neither experimental arm showed PFS superiority to trastuzumab plus taxane. Response rate was 67.9% in patients who were treated with trastuzumab plus taxane, 59.7% with T-DM1, and 64.2% with T-DM1 plus pertuzumab; median response duration was 12.5 months, 20.7 months, and 21.2 months, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events was numerically higher in the control arm (54.1%) versus the T-DM1 arm (45.4%) and T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm (46.2%). Numerically fewer patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events in the T-DM1 arms, and health-related quality of life was maintained for longer in the T-DM1 arms. Conclusion T-DM1 showed noninferior, but not superior, efficacy and better tolerability than did taxane plus trastuzumab for first-line treatment of HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer.

Abstract Background: T-DM1, an antibody-drug conjugate composed of trastuzumab, a stable linker, and the cytotoxic agent DM1, is in development for the treatment of HER2−positive cancers. Single-agent T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) has demonstrated clinical activity in 2 phase II studies (TDM4258g and TDM4374g) in patients with pretreated HER2−positive MBC. The efficacy and safety of T-DM1 vs trastuzumab + docetaxel was investigated in patients with no prior MBC treatment in the randomized phase II study TDM4450g/BO21976. Here we report the PK of T-DM1 from that study and compare these data with those from studies that enrolled pretreated patients. Methods: In all 3 studies, PK parameters, including maximum concentration (Cmax), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), terminal half-life (t½), steady-state volume of distribution (Vss), and clearance (CL) were estimated by noncompartmental analysis (NCA) for serum T-DM1, serum total trastuzumab (conjugated and unconjugated), and plasma DM1. The effects of baseline trastuzumab and HER2 extracellular domain (ECD) concentration on T-DM1 exposure were explored and the relationship between T-DM1 exposure and clinical response (objective response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) was modeled. Results: T-DM1 PK from evaluable patients enrolled in 3 studies are shown in Table 1. No significant correlations were observed between efficacy (as measured by ORR) and T-DM1 exposure (AUC, Cmax) after administration of T-DM1 to pretreated patients; efficacy-exposure analyses (ORR and PFS) for previously untreated patients will be presented. Patients with measurable concentrations of trastuzumab at baseline had a greater AUC during cycle 1; however, this did not impact ORR. Baseline circulating HER2 ECD concentrations also had no effect on ORR for pretreated patients. The impact of baseline trastuzumab and HER2 ECD concentrations on ORR and PFS in previously untreated patients will be presented. Conclusions: Single-agent T-DM1 has similar PK in patients who have received prior therapy for MBC and in those who have not. The PK of T-DM1 was not affected by prior trastuzumab treatment or by circulating HER2 ECD, and no significant correlations were observed between efficacy (ORR) and T-DM1 exposure (AUC, Cmax) or HER2 ECD for pretreated patients. The relationships between efficacy and T-DM1 exposure and HER2 ECD concentrations will be presented for patients without prior MBC treatment. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-12-13.

Abstract Abstract #6114 Introduction:
 Symptomatic patients (pts) with performance status (KPS) 70-80 with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have worse prognosis than pts with good performance status and are often excluded from clinical trials. Ixabepilone (ixa), the first in a new class of antineoplastic agents, showed clinical benefit in 2 large clinical trials in combination with capecitabine (C) in MBC pts with tumors resistant to (study 046; JCO; 2007) or pretreated with anthracycline (A) and taxane (T) (study 048). In 048, ixa + C, compared to C alone, showed significant increases in PFS (HR 0.79 [0.69-0.90] and ORR (43% vs 29%). A trend toward increased OS was seen in 048 (HR 0.90 [0.78-1.03]) and 046 (HR 0.90 [0.77-1.05]) which did not reach statistical significance. In 046 and 048 trials, a survival benefit was seen with ixa + C in a predefined analysis in a subset of symptomatic KPS 70-80 pts (HR: 0.75 [0.58-0.98], 0.76 [0.60-0.96], respectively). We present a predefined pooled analysis of clinical outcomes in symptomatic pts from both studies to better evaluate the treatment effect in this subset.
 Methods:
 1973 pts with MBC previously treated with an A and T were randomized in phase III trials 046 and 048 to receive ixa (40mg/m2 IV over 3h Q3w) + C (1000mg/m2 PO BID x14d Q3w) or C alone (1250mg/m2 PO BID x14d Q3w). 606 pts from the 2 studies were KPS 70-80. Study outcomes included ORR, PFS and OS.
 Results:
 ORR, PFS and OS favored ixa + C in this pt population.
 
 In asymptomatic pts (KPS 90-100), similar improvement was observed in PFS and ORR; no benefit in OS was seen. Incidence of key treatment related grade 3/4 AEs for ixa + C in this subset of pts was similar to the overall population.
 Conclusions:
 In the pooled analysis, ixa + C demonstrates a survival benefit (2.8 mo) for symptomatic pts (KPS 70-80) failing A and T, which was consistently seen in this pt population in the individual studies as well, indicating that symptomatic pts can benefit from management of their disease and achieve overall clinical benefit with ixa combination. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 6114.