Rao, Ruta

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the https://www.asco.org/practice-patients/guidelines/guideline-methodology . ASCO Guidelines follow the https://www.asco.org/about-asco/legal/conflict-interest-coi . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To offer clinicians recommendations concerning breast cancer follow-up and surveillance after primary treatment. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS One randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified and formed the evidentiary basis for the surveillance mammography guideline recommendation. No RCTs were identified that evaluated different follow-up approaches by risk of relapse in patients treated for early-stage breast cancer. Given the dearth of evidence identified in the systematic review of the literature, formal modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations were generated. RECOMMENDATIONS The guideline offers recommendations on the role of a risk-based approach to the frequency and intensity of follow-up among patients with breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Either virtual or in-person visits can be offered. Certain patients at a high risk of cancer recurrence warrant closer surveillance, such as those patients with locally advanced disease or residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendations on the use of blood-based biomarkers and supplemental imaging are provided. Guideline recommendations will be updated once additional evidence-based tools become available to better individualize surveillance. Additional information is available at www.ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/breast-cancer .

Abstract The Phase 2 IMPRIME 1 study evaluated the combination of the pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP) Imprime with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab as second or later line of treatment (2 L+) for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Eligible patients with mTNBC received weekly Imprime (4 mg/kg) intravenously in combination with pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks). Primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory endpoints included correlations between immune cell activation markers in tumor tissues and blood and response to therapy. Of the 42 evaluable patients, six had a response (one complete, five partial), with an ORR of 14.3% by RECIST v1.1. Median PFS was 2.7 months, median OS was 16.4 months, and DCR was 54.8%, with responders achieving a median DoR of 15.2 months. Therapy was generally well tolerated and resulted in an increase of immune activation markers, with higher levels of activation in peripheral blood associated with response and improved survival. The combination of Imprime and pembrolizumab was safe and demonstrated immune activation in tumor tissues and peripheral blood in patients with TNBC. Improved response rates were observed compared to historical studies of ICI monotherapy in similar patient populations. Study number (ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration): NCT02981303.

1083 Background: T-DXd and SG are both FDA-approved treatments for patients (pts) with HER2-low MBC, but little data exists on the sequential use of these ADCs. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we identified pts with HER2-low MBC treated sequentially with both T-DXd and SG in either order, with or without intervening therapies (IntTx), at 5 academic centers between 2020-2023. We previously reported real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) and real-world overall survival (rwOS) by HR-status and ADC sequence order. Here we provide updated rwPFS and rwOS data, as well as new subgroup analyses by age, sites of disease, and use of IntTx between ADCs for HR- and HR+ disease. Results: 84 pts with HER2-low MBC treated with both T-DXd and SG were included, including 56 pts with HR+/HER2-low MBC (66.7%) and 28 pts with HR-/HER2-low MBC (33.3%). Prior to the start of ADC1, median age was 58 yrs and 22 pts were >65 yrs (26.2%), 65 pts (77.4%) had visceral disease, and 14 pts (16.7%) had central nervous system (CNS) disease. 36 pts (42.9%) had an IntTx between ADCs. Table 1 shows updated rwPFS and rwOS data by HR-status and ADC sequence order. For pts with HR+ and HR- MBC, there was no difference in ADC1 rwPFS or ADC2 rwPFS by age ≤65 vs. >65 yr or by presence vs. absence of visceral disease. For pts with HR- MBC, ADC1 rwPFS and rwOS was shorter for pts with CNS disease vs. pts without CNS disease (rwPFS 5.4 mo (n=6) vs. 8.5 mo (n=22), p=0.03; rwOS 11.6 mo vs. 21.1 mo, p<0.01 respectively). For pts with HR+ and HR- MBC, there was no difference in ADC2 rwPFS with or without receipt of IntTx. There was no difference in time to treatment failure for first IntTx vs. ADC2 if no InTx was given. Conclusions: This is one of the largest multicenter cohorts of pts treated with sequential ADCs for HER2-low MBC. Median rwPFS was longer for ADC1 than ADC2 in all subgroups, regardless of HR-status, ADC sequence order, age ≤65 or >65 yr, presence of visceral disease, or use of IntTx. Among pts with HR-/HER2-low MBC, pts with CNS disease had shorter ADC1 rwPFS and rwOS than pts without CNS disease. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is a known adverse event associated with Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs), causing fibrosis of the lung. In the DESTINY-Breast 04, TROPICS-02, and ASCENT trials the rate of ILD/Pneumonitis was 12.1%, 0.4%, and 0% respectively. In these studies, the time to first cross-sectional imaging after initiation of ADC was 6 weeks. However, prior treatment with a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor ADC was not permitted in these studies, so the influence of sequential ADC treatments remains unknown. Here, we aimed to characterize the frequency and management of ILD in sequential use of ADCs in a multi-institution retrospective analysis. Methods: We identified patients (pts) with HR+/HER2-low and HR-/HER2-low MBC who had received both Trastuzumab-deruxtecan (T-DXd) and Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) monotherapy (in either order, with or without intervening therapies) who were treated at five academic centers between 2020-2023. Patients had received treatment with the ADC in either routine clinical treatment or as a prior participant on a clinical trial with ADC monotherapy. Information regarding ILD diagnosis, imaging, timing of onset, peak and resolution along with management information was collected and analyzed. Retrospective assessment of ILD toxicity was graded using CTCAE v5.0, based on available clinical and radiographic reports. Results: 10/60 pts who received ADC therapy in this multi-institutional cohort were diagnosed with ILD (all grades). No differences in age or BMI were observed in those who developed ILD versus those who did not, and 9/10 pts were White, 1 was Asian, with a median age of 59 years (47-79 years). Pertinent history in these pts included 3/10 had a prior smoking history, 8/10 had a prior cardiac or pulmonary comorbidity (including sleep apnea, lung cancer, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, thrombosis, or stroke). Prior to receiving their first ADC, 7/10 patients had metastatic disease to the lung. All 10 patients were diagnosed with ILD during treatment with T-DXd. 4 pts initially received T-DXd, then developed ILD and then upon recovery, subsequently received SG. The remaining 6 pts initially received SG (with no reports of ILD), and then received T-DXd and subsequently developed ILD. In the entire cohort, the median time from ADC initiation to first CT scan was 8 weeks (range 1-22 weeks). Within the cohort that developed ILD, the median time from initiation of T-DXd to first CT scan was also 8 weeks (range 6-13 weeks). The median time to diagnoses of ILD was 3 months after initiation of T-DXd (range 0.4-14.5 months). Dyspnea was the most common presenting symptom in 9/10 pts and at diagnosis of ILD, dyspnea was graded as III in 6/10 pts, II in 3/10 pts, and I in 1/10 pts. Diagnostic evaluation included CT chest (9/10), pulmonary consultation (8/10), pulmonary function testing (2/10), and bronchoscopy (1/10). 4/10 patients presented at their highest-grade toxicity at diagnosis. All patients stopped T-DXd treatment, 7 were hospitalized, 7 required supplemental oxygen, and 8 were prescribed steroids for treatment. Of those receiving steroids, the most common starting dose was prednisone 1 mg/kg and doses ranged from 0.5 mg/kg to 9mg/kg prednisone equivalents. No patient received a secondary immunosuppressive agent. The steroid treatment duration ranged from 1-4 months. None of the 10 pts underwent re-challenge with T-DXd and 3/10 developed grade V ILD (death). Conclusion: We observed a 16.6% incidence of all grade ILD (5% grade V ILD) with T-DXd and 0% with SG. In this small cohort study, we did not observe a clear increased risk for ILD with sequential treatment of ADCs. Practice patterns were consistent with recommended diagnostic evaluation and steroid management. Additional strategies are needed to characterize pts most at risk for developing ILD and to identify situations where re-challenge may be safe. Citation Format: Sarah Premji, Laura Huppert, Reshma Mahtani, Samantha Fisch, Naomi Dempsey, Angelina Raimonde-Taylor, Saya Jacob, Laura Quintal, Jo Chien, Michelle Melisko, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Lauren Carcas, Manmeet Ahluwalia, Natasha Harpalani, Jenna Hoppenworth, Dame Idossa, Ruta Rao, Hope Rugo, Karthik Giridhar. Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) in Sequential Antibody Drug Conjugate (ADC) use in patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC): A Multi-Institutional experience [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 PO4-12-06.

Abstract Introduction. T-DXd is FDA-approved for patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive (HR+) or HR- HER2-low (IHC 1+ or 2+, ISH-) MBC and SG is FDA-approved for pts with HR+/HER2- and triple negative MBC. However, several outstanding questions impact the use of these drugs in clinic, including: 1) what is the efficacy and safety of these agents in real-world populations with diverse pt characteristics not well represented in the pivotal phase III trials, and 2) what is the impact of sequential treatment with ADCs on the efficacy and safety of these agents. Methods. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we identified pts with HR+/HER2-low and HR-/HER2-low MBC who had received both T-DXd and SG monotherapy (in either order, with or without intervening therapies) treated at 5 academic centers between 2020-2023. Pts received treatment per standard of care or on a clinical trial with ADC monotherapy. We describe pt demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment history, key safety parameters, and response and survival data by HR+ status and ADC sequence order. Results. Sixty pts with MBC treated sequentially with T-DXd and SG were included in this analysis, including 45 pts with HR+/HER2-low MBC (75.0%) and 15 pts with HR-/HER2-low MBC (25.0%). Most pts were female (n=59; 98.3%), non-Hispanic (n=49, 81.7%), and white (n=43, 71.7%). Median age at start of ADC #1 was 56.6 years (range 23-82). Prior to treatment with ADC #1, most pts had visceral disease (n=45, 75.0%) and 16 (26.7%) had central nervous system metastases. Among pts with HR+/HER2-low MBC, median time from MBC diagnosis to treatment with ADC #1 was 49.0 months, with 4 median lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting (2 endocrine, 2 chemo). Approximately half of the HR+ pts received T-DXd prior to SG (n=22, 48.9%; median 3.0 prior lines of therapy for MBC, range 1-9) while the other half received SG prior to T-DXd (n=23, 51.1%; median 4.5 prior lines of therapy for MBC, range 1-10). 44% (n=20) received an intervening therapy between ADCs. For HR+ pts who received T-DXd prior to SG, response and survival data is as follows for T-DXd and SG respectively: Overall response rate (ORR) [54.5% and 21.1%], time to next treatment (TTNT) [4.3 mo and 1.6 mo], and real-world overall survival (rwOS) [19.8 mo and 4.9 mo]. For HR+ pts who received SG prior to T-DXd, response and survival data is as follows for SG and T-DXd respectively: ORR [78.3% and 42.9%], TTNT [8.6 mo and 2.8 mo], and rwOS [22.3 mo and 7.3 mo]. Among pts with HR-/HER2-low MBC, median time from MBC diagnosis to treatment with ADC #1 was 8.2 months with 2 median lines of prior therapy in the metastatic setting (2 chemotherapy); 66.7% (n=10) received prior immunotherapy. Most HR- pts received SG prior to T-DXD (n=14, 93.3%) and 40.0% (n=6) received an intervening therapy between ADCs. For HR- pts who received SG prior to T-DXd, response and survival data is as follows for SG and T-DXd respectively: ORR [64.3% and 38.5%], TTNT [6.2 mo and 2.7 mo, and rwOS [15.7 mo and 6.5 mo]. In terms of key safety parameters during treatment with T-DXd, 13.3% of pts (8/60) required a dose reduction. 16.7% (10/60) were diagnosed with interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis of any grade including 3 pts with grade 3-4 ILD (5.0%) and 3 pts with grade 5 ILD (5.0%). During treatment with SG, 40.0% of pts (24/60) required a dose reduction. 83.3% (50/60) received growth factor support (24 pts primary prophylaxis; 26 pts secondary prophylaxis); 9 pts (15%) required treatment delay due to neutropenia. Conclusion. This study represents the largest multicenter series to date of pts treated with sequential ADCs for HR+/HER2-low or HR-/HER2-low. ORR was higher and TTNT was longer for ADC #1 than ADC #2 in all subgroups, regardless of HR+ status and ADC sequence order. An additional ~30 pts will be reported at time of final analysis. Future prospective studies are planned to further clarify the efficacy and safety of sequential ADC use and to identify biomarkers of response and resistance. Key demographic, clinical and treatment characteristics in pts with HR+ and HR- HER2-low MBC treated sequentially with T-DXd and SG (in either order, with or without intervening therapies) Abbreviations: T-DXd (trastuzumab deruxtecan), SG (sacituzumab govitecan), MBC (metastatic breast cancer), ADC (antibody drug conjugate), HR (hormone receptor), HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2), CNS (central nervous system), ET (endocrine therapy), ORR (overall response rate), TTNT (time to next treatment), rwOS (real world overall survival), CI (confidence interval) * Several pts on ADC #2 with ongoing treatment and first scan pending, hence smaller denominator for response assessment Citation Format: Laura Huppert, Reshma Mahtani, Samantha Fisch, Naomi Dempsey, Sarah Premji, Angelina Raimonde-Taylor, Saya Jacob, Laura Quintal, Jo Chien, Michelle Melisko, Ana Sandoval-Leon, Lauren Carcas, Manmeet Ahluwalia, Natasha Harpalani, Jenna Hoppenworth, Dame Idossa, Ruta Rao, Karthik Giridhar, Hope Rugo. Multicenter retrospective cohort study of the sequential use of the antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) and sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [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 PS08-04.