Awada, Ahmad

Abstract Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16). Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB (n = 24) and II (n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day (n = 4) and 4 mg every day (n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262). Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer.

TPS1136 Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, including those commonly implicated in breast tumorigenesis such as HER2, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. Ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90 being studied in over 20 clinical trials, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib is ~50x more potent than 1st-generation Hsp90 inhibitors, and has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. Mild to moderate, transient diarrhea is the most common adverse event associated with ganetespib infusion and is manageable with appropriate supportive care. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). In a phase I trial, ganetespib demonstrated single-agent clinical activity in HER2+ disease with an objective response rate (ORR) of 15% and a disease stabilization rate of 46% in heavily pretreated patients. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer. Methods: The ENCHANT-1 trial is an international, first-line Phase II study in two cohorts of breast cancer patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n=35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n=35). HER2+ patients must have received prior anti-HER2 therapy in the adjuvant setting. Patients are treated with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on a three out of four-week regimen. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic effects as assessed by PET/CT at week 3. Tumor genetic signature and proteomic profiling are performed on patient’s tumors in an effort to develop biomarkers of response. At the time of submission 6 patients have been enrolled into this study. Clinical trial information: NCT01677455.

1055^ Background: Key properties of QoL instruments in a clinical trial setting are reliability, the ability to detect a change, and content validity. Using data from the Study 301 phase III breast cancer trial, we report here content validity and ability to detect a change for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and breast cancer-specific QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 21-day cycles of either eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 given on Days 1 and 8, or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on Days 1-14. QoL questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Objective tumor response was evaluated (complete response [CR]; partial response [PR]; stable disease [SD]; progressive disease [PD]). Univariate and multivariate longitudinal analyses using weighted generalized estimating equations were employed to assess the responsiveness of the QoL scales to objective tumor response. Results: 1,102 patients were randomized (554 eribulin, 548 capecitabine). Global health status (GHS)/QoL scores were low at baseline (55). GHS/QoL scores were highest for patients with CR (70.8), followed by those patients with PR (63.5), SD (60.5), and PD (58.1). Physical functioning followed the same pattern: CR (98.3); PR (79.1); SD (72.8); PD (71.0). Role and social functioning scores were also responsive. Pain increased, while fatigue and body image worsened, with poorer tumor responses. Using the weighted generalized estimating equations, there were improvements in physical (34.78; p<0.01), cognitive (27.29; p<0.01), and social (22.04; p<0.01) functioning, and future perspective 11.47 (p<0.01), in patients who responded (CR and PR) to treatment compared with non-responders. Pain decreased significantly by 28.62 (p<0.01) on a 0-100 scale. Patients who responded also gained appetite and had fewer breast symptoms. Conclusions: These results suggest content validity of the EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires as they correlate with changes in objective tumor assessments. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

TPS1140^ Background: NKTR-102 is a topoisomerase I inhibitor-polymer conjugate that hydrolyzes to provide continuous exposure to SN-38. A phase 2 trial of single-agent NKTR-102 was conducted in pts with 3rd-line MBC; 2 schedules (q14d; q21d) investigated a dose of 145 mg/m2. ORR was 29% (including 3% CR) with the prior ATC subset demonstrating an ORR of 31%. Dosing q21d was better tolerated; in this arm, median PFS and OS equaled 5.3m and 13.1m, respectively. Trial Design: Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive single-agent NKTR-102 or TPC in an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase 3 study in pts with advanced breast cancer. Key Entry Criteria: Adult females, with ECOG 0 or 1 with adequate liver, kidney and marrow function. All pts must have received prior therapy with ATC (these drugs can be administered in the neo/adjuvant or locally advanced/metastatic setting). Prior A is not mandated if contraindicated. Prior toxicities must have resolved to ≤ Grade 1 (except sensory neuropathy ≤ Grade 2; complete resolution of prior diarrhea). Pts with brain metastases may be eligible, if lesions are stable for prior 3 weeks without steroids. Methods: Primary efficacy endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include: ORR by RECIST v1.1, clinical benefit rate (ORR+SD > 6 months), PFS and QoL. NKTR-102 is given IV at 145 mg/m2 over 90-min every 21 days without premedications. Pts randomized to TPC receive 1 of the following: eribulin, ixabepilone, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, paclitaxel, docetaxel or nab-paclitaxel (the agent must be available at the treating institution). Pts are stratified by region, prior eribulin and receptor status (TNBC, Her2+ or Other). Target Accrual: ~840 pts will be required for sufficient events to occur in the planned follow-up time; OS will be compared using a two-sided log-rank test; 1 interim analysis will occur when 50% of the deaths are reported. PK sampling is performed in a subset of pts. CTCs (isolated by Apocell ApoStream technology) are serially assessed for potential predictive markers of response and toxicity. Enrollment is expected to remain open until late 2013.

1087 Background: EP is a unique topoisomerase 1 inhibitor that provides continuous exposure to SN38. EP demonstrated a 29% overall response rate in patients with mBC, leading to a phase III global BEACON study in patients with mBC. CTCs in patient blood samples provide a minimally invasive approach to detect PD markers of drug activity. We developed quantitative multiplex immunofluorescent assays to measure target-specific PD biomarkers for EP in CTCs isolated pre- and post-treatment. Methods: Assays for Top1, Top2, g-H2Ax, Rad51, ABCG2, and Ki-67 were developed using control (0.1% DMSO) and drug-treated (SN38, 10 uM) tumor cell lines (HCT116, MCF7, A549, SKBr3) and PBMCs from healthy donors. The optimal antibody for each biomarker was then multiplexed in a panel with antibodies against cytokeratin, CD45 and DAPI for phenotypic identification of CTCs. For analysis of BEACON pts, serial 7.5 mL whole blood samples were drawn and shipped ambient to Apocell (Houston, TX) for further processing. PBMCs were separated and CTCs were isolated using ApoStream technology. CTCs were stained for PD markers and analyzed using an iCys laser scanning cytometer equipped with image analysis software. Results: Antibodies bound to tumor cells showed staining confined to the nucleus (Top1, Top2, g-H2AX, Ki-67) or membrane (ABCG2), exhibited defined peak separation from their isotype controls, and signal strength correlated with cellular expression of high and low levels of markers. To date, ~ 80% of BEACON pts consent to participate in the CTC sub-study. As of 30 Oct 2012, data from 167 pre-dose blood samples from BEACON pts were available. 99% of blood samples were successfully processed. 93% had detectable CTCs, yielding a median of 216 CTCs (range: 7.5-14816). Staining was positive for Top1, Top2, g-H2Ax, Rad51, ABCG2, and Ki-67 in 82%, 89%, 16%, 53%, 31%, 52% of samples, respectively. Conclusions: EP target-specific pharmacodynamic biomarkers can be reliably measured in CTCs isolated from patients participating in BEACON. Sample collection and analysis of pre- and post-treatment samples is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01492101.

1050^ Background: In a phase III trial comparing eribulin (E) vs. capecitabine (C) in pts with locally advanced or MBC, a trend for improved OS was observed but a statistically significant superiority was not demonstrated with E vs. C for OS or PFS. The AE profiles were consistent with known side effects. We now report QoL results from this trial. Methods: Pts received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, or C 1.25 g/m2 BID orally on Days 1-14, of a 21-day cycle. Eligible pts had received prior therapy including an anthracycline and taxane, and were receiving study drug as 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-line therapy for advanced disease. QoL, a secondary objective, was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after starting treatment (or until progressive disease or treatment change), and at unscheduled visits. Longitudinal analyses were carried out using weighted generalized estimating equations adjusted for non-random attrition due to death within 12 months. Model covariates were time (visit), region, and baseline QoL. The primary endpoint was change from baseline for Global Health Status (GHS)/overall QoL; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline for each functional domain, and signs/symptoms. Results: 1,102 pts were randomized (E 554; C 548). GHS/QoL scores were low at baseline for E (56.3) and C (54.7) on a scale of 0 (worse) to 100 (best). GHS/QoL and cognitive functioning improved significantly more in pts receiving E vs. C, (6.5 [p=0.048] and 15.3 [p<0.001], respectively). Emotional functioning improved significantly for pts receiving C vs. E (3.3; p=0.033). Pain was comparable at baseline, and was lower at subsequent visits with both treatments. Patient-reported signs/symptoms in favor of E included nausea and vomiting (E1.9; p=0.043) and diarrhea (-3.7; p=0.001); systemic side effects (5.2; p<0.001) and upset by hair loss (9.3; p=0.023) favored C. Conclusions: GHS/QoL scores improved more in pts receiving E than C. E showed advantages in terms of gastrointestinal effects while C had advantages in relation to hair loss. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

1049^ Background: This phase III study, comparing eribulin versus capecitabine, showed a non-significant trend for superior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.00]; p = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS; HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.93, 1.25]; p = 0.31). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses previously presented showed that patients with triple-negative, ER-negative or HER2-negative disease may have a greater benefit in OS with eribulin compared with capecitabine. Here we present further pre-specified exploratory analyses of OS and PFS. Methods: Patients (eribulin n=554; capecitabine n=548) with locally advanced or MBC had received ≤3 prior chemotherapy regimens (≤2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients were randomized (stratified for geographic region and HER2 status) 1:1 to 21-day cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on days 1-14. Further pre-specified exploratory subgroups included: age; receptor status; number and setting of prior chemotherapy regimen(s); sites of disease; number of organs involved; and time to progression after last chemotherapy. Results: From analyses for OS, patients with only non-visceral disease (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33, 0.80), with >2 organs involved (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), who had progressed >6 months after last chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52, 0.95), or who had received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the metastatic setting (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), appeared to benefit more from treatment with eribulin compared with capecitabine. For OS, in no subgroup was a trend favoring capecitabine seen. Data for other pre-specified subgroups for both OS and PFS will be presented. Conclusions: In addition to patients with triple-, ER-, or HER2-negative disease, further pre-specified exploratory analyses suggest that other patient subgroups may particularly benefit from treatment with eribulin; further studies are warranted to address these hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

Abstract Background: TAK-228 is an investigational, oral and highly selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of TORC1/2. Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway with the dual TORC1/2 inhibitor TAK-228 may restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies in patients (pts) with breast cancer who have progressed on the combination of an endocrine agent plus a TORC1 inhibitor. Here we report data from the phase 2 portion of a phase 1b/2 study of TAK-228 plus exemestane (E) or fulvestrant (F). Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER+ and HER2-, inoperable or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) following everolimus (EVE) plus E or F after progression, received oral TAK-228 (4 mg QD) plus E (25 mg QD) or F (500 mg monthly) for 28-day cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (NCT02049957). Pts were enrolled into parallel cohorts based on prior response to EVE plus E or F and were given the same prior therapy (E or F) at their established dose: EVE-sensitive, defined as disease progression after complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or ≥6 mos stable disease (SD); or EVE-resistant, defined as disease progression without a CR or PR, or after &lt;6 mos SD. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate at 16 wks (CR, PR, or SD at 16 wks; CBR-16). Secondary endpoints included CBR at 24 wks (CBR-24), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: From Oct 2015 to Dec 2017, 94 pts were enrolled. Median age was 58 y (range 32–83). At baseline, most pts (67%) had stage IV disease and others were stage IA–IIIC (24%), other (3%) or unknown (5%); 94% of EVE-sensitive (93% E vs 100% F) and 88% of EVE-resistant pts (91% E vs 75% F) had received ≥4 prior lines of therapy. Pts received a median of 3 cycles (1–15) of TAK-228. At data cutoff (24 Apr 2018), 98% of pts had discontinued treatment, mainly due to PD (76%) or adverse events (AEs; 14%). CBR-16 was 41% (n=21) in EVE-sensitive and 26% (n=11) in EVE-resistant pts (table). CBR-24 was 24% in EVE-sensitive (19% E vs 50% F) and 23% in EVE-resistant (23% E vs 25% F) pts. Eleven of 21 pts who achieved CBR-16 also achieved CBR-24 (6 SD, 5 PR) in the EVE-sensitive cohort and 8 of 11 pts in the EVE-resistant cohort (6 SD, 2 PR). The ORR was 12% in EVE-sensitive pts and 9% in EVE-resistant pts (table). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.1 mos (2.2–5.5) and 3.4 mos (1.9–5.4), and median OS (95% CI) was 15.9 mos (14.1–19.5) and 14.0 mos (13.0–16.0) in the EVE-sensitive and -resistant cohorts, respectively. Drug-related any grade and grade ≥3 AEs were seen in 90% and 29% of pts, respectively. Most common drug-related any grade AEs were nausea (50%), fatigue (38%), hyperglycemia and diarrhea (each 29%); 22% of pts reported a serious AE. No deaths were reported. Treatment is ongoing in two pts. Conclusion: TAK-228 plus E or F showed modest clinical benefit in pts with previously treated, EVE-sensitive or -resistant MBC, with an acceptable safety profile. EVE-sensitive (N=51)EVE-resistant (N=43) TAK-228+TAK-228+Best response, n (%)E (n=43)F (n=8)E (n=35)F (n=8)ORR=CR+PR4 (9)2 (25)3 (9)1 (13)CR001 (3)0PR4 (9)2 (25)2 (6)1 (13)CBR-1617 (40)4 (50)9 (26)2 (25) Citation Format: Diamond JR, Potter D, Salkeni M, Silverman P, Haddad T, Forget F, Awada A, Canon J-L, Danso M, Lortholary A, Bourgeois H, Tan-Chiu E, Patel C, Neuwirth R, Leonard EJ, Lim B. Phase 2 safety and efficacy results of TAK-228 in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with everolimus [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-09.