Rugo, Hope S.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [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 PD1-10.

Abstract Background: Chest wall recurrence may occur in up to 30% of patients with breast cancer, and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that immunotherapy may be beneficial in this setting because of the inflammatory nature of this disease, and the association of chest wall disease with lymphovascular invasion. Combination immunotherapy and chemotherapy may have a synergistic effect. In this study, we combined pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibody with carboplatin, in patients with chest wall disease. This combination has previously been shown to be effective in advanced lung cancer. Trial design: This is a 2:1 randomized phase II study of pembrolizumab and carboplatin (Arm A) versus carboplatin alone (Arm B) in patients with chest wall involvement from breast cancer. Pembrolizumab is dosed at 200 mg IV every 3 weeks, and carboplatin is dosed at AUC 5 IV every 3 weeks. Patients on Arm A have the option to continue on pembrolizumab alone after 6 cycles of combination treatment (Arm Ax). Patients on Arm B have the option to cross-over to pembrolizumab (+/- carboplatin) after 6 cycles of carboplatin alone (Arm Bx). Patients with HER2 positive disease may continue trastuzumab in addition to the study treatment. Patients undergo chest wall biopsies and peripheral blood collection for correlative studies at enrollment and after 2 cycles of treatment, and also imaging with CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis, and bone scan every 3 cycles. Eligibility criteria: Patients must have chest wall involvement from breast cancer, with or without distant metastases. Patients may have triple-negative breast cancer, hormone receptor positive, HER2- disease (after two prior lines of hormone therapy), or refractory HER2 positive disease. Patients may have received any number of lines of prior chemotherapy. A prior platinum is allowed as long as there was not disease progression on this agent. Specific Aims: 1. (Primary aim) Disease control rate in the chest wall and other distant sites at 18 weeks of treatment using RECIST 1.1 criteria, 2. progression-free survival, 3. toxicity, 4. response based on tumor PD-L1 expression, and 5. response based on irRECIST. Exploratory aims include evaluating: 1. Soluble PD-L1 expression, 2. changes in tumor and peripheral blood immune composition, 3. peripheral blood circulating tumor cells, 4. peripheral blood cell-free DNA, and 5. the association of MYC with PD-1 and TIM-3 on tumor cells, based on preclinical data to suggest that MYC may upregulate these inflammatory markers. Statistical Methods: 84 patients (56 in Arm A and 28 in Arm B) are being enrolled at 7 sites in the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. The study is powered to determine a 20% difference in disease control rates between arms (HR 0.52, α= 0.10, ß=0.20). A futility analysis was originally planned to occur for Arm B after 18 patients are enrolled, but a subsequent amendment has enabled an earlier assessment after 14 patients were enrolled. Accrual: Present accrual is 40 patients. (NCT03095352). This trial is funded in part by Merck and a Development Program Grant from the University of California San Francisco. Contact information: Neelima Vidula, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, nvidula@mgh.harvard.edu Citation Format: Neelima Vidula, Rita Nanda, Kathy Miller, Paula Pohlmann, Vandana Abramson, Leisha A. Emens, Ben H. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Andrei Goga, Hope S. Rugo. Translational breast cancer research consortium 044 trial: Randomized phase 2 study of pembrolizumab and carboplatin versus carboplatin alone for chest wall recurrence of breast cancer [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 OT-13-09.

Abstract Background: Several studies suggest clinical utility of serial circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration as a means of assessing response status in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive pooled analysis comprising globally available data to further define and explore the role of CTC enumeration as a tool for early treatment monitoring in patients with MBC with a focus on the predictive power in different breast cancer subtypes and clinical settings. Methods: In a global effort, peer-reviewed published studies with data on repeated CTC assessments (CellSearch® technology; Menarini Silicon Biosystems; Bologna, Italy) in MBC patients were screened and investigators were asked to provide individual patient data for this pooled analysis. 2761 cases from 32 data sets with data on both baseline and one follow up CTC assessments were included in the analysis (median time interval between the two CTC assessments 35 days). Data were analyzed using log rank tests and Cox regressions to evaluate the association between serial CTC enumeration results and overall survival (OS) in the full patient cohort and defined subgroups. Results: 588 (21.3%) patients had no CTCs at both time points (neg/neg), 236 (8.5%) patients were CTC negative at baseline and CTC positive at follow up (neg/pos), 712 (25.8%) patients converted from CTC positive at baseline to CTC negative (pos/neg), and 1225 (44.4%) patients had at least one CTC at both time points (pos/pos). Log rank tests showed significant differences in OS between these four CTC change groups (p < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons except for the comparison between neg/pos and pos/neg, p = 0.015). Median OS for the neg/neg, neg/pos, pos/neg and pos/pos group was 45.6, 26.1, 34.6, and 17.6 months, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) (reference group neg/neg) were 1.38 (95% CI 1.16 - 1.64) for the pos/neg group, 1.78 (95% CI 1.43 - 2.22) for the neg/pos group, and 3.06 (95% CI 2.63 - 3.56) for the pos/pos group. Results were similar if a cutoff of 5 CTCs was used for CTC positivity (pos/neg group: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.25 - 1.63; neg/pos group: HR 2.39, 95% CI 1.91 - 2.99; pos/pos group: HR 3.54, 95% CI 3.12 - 4.02). In total, 2586 patients could be assigned to different tumor subtypes based on known hormone receptor (ER) and HER2 status of the primary tumor: 1513 (58.5%) patients had a luminal-like tumor (ER positive, HER2 negative), 682 (26.4%) patients had a HER2-positive tumor, and 391 (15.1%) patients had a triple-negative tumor. In patients with luminal-like tumors, the hazard ratios were 1.67 (95% CI 1.29 - 2.17), 2.01 (95% CI 1.45 - 2.77), and 3.87 (95% CI 3.09 - 4.83) for the pos/neg, neg/pos, and pos/pos group, respectively. In patients with HER2-positive tumors, the neg/pos group (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12 - 2.53) and the pos/pos group (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.58 - 2.83) showed significantly worse OS compared to the neg/neg group, while in triple-negative patients, the pos/pos group had a significantly shorter OS compared to the neg/neg group (HR 2.99, 95% CI 2.11 - 4.24). The results will be up-dated by inclusion of additional large data sets (CALGB 40502, CALGB 40503, COMET, SWOG S0500, TBCRC 001) for the analysis to be presented at SABCS 2020. Conclusion: This large pooled analysis confirms that at a median of 35 days after treatment initiation, follow-up CTC assessments strongly predict overall survival. These results suggest potential clinical utility of CTC monitoring as early response marker in MBC, especially in luminal-like tumors. Citation Format: Wolfgang J Janni, Tracy C. Yab, Daniel F. Hayes, Massimo Cristofanilli, Francois-Clement Bidard, Michail Ignatiadis, Meredith M. Regan, Catherine Alix-Panabières, William E. Barlow, Carlos Caldas, Lisa A. Carey, Luc Dirix, Tanja Fehm, Jose A. Garcia-Saenz, Paola Gazzaniga, Daniele Generali, Lorenzo Gerratana, Rafael Gisbert-Criado, William Jacot, Zefei Jiang, Evi Lianidou, Mark J.M. Magbanua, Luis Manso, Dimitrios Mavroudis, Volkmar Müller, Elisabetta Munzone, Klaus Pantel, Jean-Yves Pierga, Brigitte Rack, Sabine Riethdorf, Hope S. Rugo, Kostandinos Sideras, Stefan Sleijfer, Jeffrey Smerage, Justin Stebbing, Leon W.M.M. Terstappen, José Vidal-Martínez, Rita Zamarchi, Karthik Giridhar, Thomas W.P. Friedl, Minetta C. Liu. Clinical utility of repeated circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration as early treatment monitoring tool in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) - a global pooled analysis with individual patient data [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 GS4-08.

Abstract Background monarchE is a phase 3, open-label study evaluating abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) compared to ET alone in patients with node positive, HR+, HER2-, high risk early breast cancer (EBC) that resulted in a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) at a pre-planned interim analysis. Following the positive interim analysis, patients continued to be followed for IDFS, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Methods After surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, 5,637 patients with HR+, HER2-, high risk EBC were randomized (1:1) to standard of care adjuvant ET with or without abemaciclib (150 mg BD for 2 years). Patients with ≥4 positive nodes, or 1-3 nodes and either grade 3 disease, tumor size ≥5 cm, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible. Here we present results of the primary outcome IDFS analysis which was planned after approximately 390 IDFS events. Results At the primary outcome analysis, median follow-up was approximately 19 months in both arms (an increase of 3.5 months from the interim analysis). A total of 1437 (25.5%) patients had completed the 2-year treatment period; 3281 (58.2%) were still in the 2-year treatment period. With 395 IDFS events observed in the intent-to-treat population, abemaciclib plus ET continued to demonstrate superior IDFS versus ET alone, with a 28.7% reduction in the risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0009; HR = 0.713; 95% CI = 0.583, 0.871). Two-year IDFS rates were 92.3% in the abemaciclib plus ET arm and 89.3% in the ET alone arm. There was a consistent benefit of abemaciclib in all prespecified subgroups. The addition of abemaciclib to ET also resulted in an improvement in distant relapse-free survival (DRFS). Overall survival was immature at the time of analysis. A key secondary endpoint was efficacy in patients with centrally assessed high Ki-67 (≥20%) (Ki-67H) (n=2498). Disease characteristics were well balanced between the arms of this population. Abemaciclib plus ET demonstrated superior IDFS vs ET alone, with a 30.9% reduction in risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0111; HR = 0.691; 95% CI = 0.519, 0.920) and 2-year IDFS rates of 91.6% and 87.1%, respectively. An improvement in DRFS treatment effect was also observed in the Ki-67H population. At the time of data cutoff, the median treatment duration of abemaciclib was 17.3 months and the median duration of ET was balanced between the arms (18.3 months in the abemaciclib arm and 18.7 months in the ET alone arm). Safety was consistent with the results at the interim IDFS analysis and with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. Conclusions At the primary outcome analysis, with a median follow-up of approximately 19 months, abemaciclib combined with ET continued to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement in IDFS in patients with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk, EBC with a statistically significant improvement in IDFS in patients with central Ki-67 ≥20%. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03155997 Table 1: PrimaryOutcome EfficacyIntent-to-Treat PopulationIntent-to-Treat PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationEndpointAbemaciclib + ET N=2808ET alone N=2829Abemaciclib + ET N=1262ET alone N=1236IDFS# events, n (%)163 (5.8)232 (8.2)82 (6.5)115 (9.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.713 (0.583, 0.871)p=.0111 0.691 (0.519, 0.920)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)92.3 (90.9, 93.5)89.3 (87.7, 90.7)91.6 (89.4, 93.4)87.1 (84.3, 89.5)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95% CI)3 (1.1, 5.0)4.5 (1.2, 7.7)DRFS# events, n (%)131 (4.7)193 (6.8)65 (5.2)102 (8.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.687 (0.551, 0.858)0.609 (0.445, 0.833)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)93.8 (92.6, 94.9)90.8 (89.3, 92.1)93.6 (91.6, 95.1)88.5 (85.7, 90.7)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95%CI)3 (1.2, 4.8)5.1 (2.1, 8.1) Citation Format: Joyce A. O'Shaughnessy, Stephen Johnston, Nadia Harbeck, Masakazu Toi, Young-Hyuck Im, Mattea Reinisch, Zhimin Shao, Pirkko Liisa Kellokumpu Lehtinen, Chiun-Sheng Huang, Alexey Tryakin, Matthew Goetz, Hope S Rugo, Elzbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Michael Andersson, Kenji Tamura, Guenther G. Steger, Lucia Del Mastro, Joanne Cox, Tammy Forrester, Sarah Sherwood, Xuelin Li, Ran Wei, Miguel Martin, Priya Rastogi. Primary outcome analysis of invasive disease-free survival for monarchE: abemaciclib combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy for high risk early breast cancer [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 GS1-01.

Abstract Background Abemaciclib demonstrated efficacy in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. Here we provide a comprehensive summary of the most common adverse events (AEs), their management, and whether AEs or dose reductions influenced progression-free survival (PFS), in the MONARCH 2 and 3 trials. Materials and Methods Incidence of the most clinically relevant AEs, management, and outcomes were summarized. Time-dependent covariate analyses examined the impact of dose reductions on PFS. PFS was estimated for patients with and without early onset of diarrhea or neutropenia. Results The most frequently reported AE was diarrhea, with clinically significant diarrhea (grade ≥2) reported for 42.8% of patients taking abemaciclib. Median time to onset was 1 week, and duration ranged from 6 to 12 days, depending on grade and study. Diarrhea was adequately managed by antidiarrheal medication (72.8%), dose omissions (17.3%), and reductions (16.7%). The highest rates of grade ≥2 diarrhea were observed in the first cycles and decreased in subsequent cycles. Neutropenia (grade ≥3) occurred in 25.4% of abemaciclib-treated patients. Neutropenia resolved with dose omissions (16.8%) and/or dose reductions (11.2%). Incidence of febrile neutropenia (0.7%) or other relevant grade ≥3 hematological events (<9%) was low. Venous thromboembolic events (5.3%) were primarily treated with anticoagulants. Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (3.4%) was treated with corticosteroids and/or antibiotics. PFS benefit of abemaciclib was not impacted by dose reductions or early onset of toxicities. Conclusion Abemaciclib was generally well tolerated. The most common AEs were effectively managed by supportive medications, and/or dose adjustments, with no detriment to PFS. Implications for Practice Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant or nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors is generally well tolerated in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. In MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3, any-grade diarrhea and grade ≥3 neutropenia were effectively managed with supportive medication and/or dose adjustment. Venous thromboembolic events were treated with anticoagulants and did not often require treatment discontinuation. Interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis was infrequent and treated with corticosteroids and/or antibiotics. Clinicians should be aware of and implement management strategies, including dose adjustments according to local labels, for commonly occurring and serious adverse events to ensure continued treatment and optimize clinical benefit/risk ratio.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.

Abstract Purpose: We evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) hormone receptor–positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients randomized to letrozole alone or letrozole plus bevacizumab in the first-line setting (CALGB 40503). Experimental Design: Blood samples were collected at pretreatment and three additional time points during therapy. The presence of ≥5 CTCs per 7.5 mL of blood was considered CTC positive. Association of CTCs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed using Cox regression models. Results: Of 343 patients treated, 294 had CTC data and were included in this analysis. Median follow-up was 39 months. In multivariable analysis, CTC-positive patients at baseline (31%) had significantly reduced PFS [HR, 1.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–1.97] and OS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.49–2.93) compared with CTC negative. Failure to clear CTCs during treatment was associated with significantly increased risk of progression (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.58–3.07) and death (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.36–4.88). CTC-positive patients who received only letrozole had the worse PFS (HR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.54–3.47) and OS (HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.59–4.40). Median PFS in CTC-positive patients was significantly longer (18.0 vs. 7.0 months) in letrozole plus bevacizumab versus letrozole arm (P = 0.0009). Restricted mean survival time analysis further revealed that addition of bevacizumab was associated with PFS benefit in both CTC-positive and CTC-negative patients, but OS benefit was only observed in CTC-positive patients. Conclusions: CTCs were highly prognostic for the addition of bevacizumab to first-line letrozole in patients with HR+ MBC in CALGB 40503. Further research to determine the potential predictive value of CTCs in this setting is warranted.

TPS1114 Background: Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy is being studied in metastatic breast cancer, and may have durable outcomes. Chest wall recurrence represents a difficult to treat subtype of breast cancer with a poor prognosis, with lymphovascular invasion in the primary tumor a significant risk factor. Given the inflammatory nature of this disease and the association of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) expression with lymphovascular invasion, we hypothesized that the combination of pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, with carboplatin may be effective as treatment for breast cancer chest wall recurrences. Methods: This randomized phase II study is enrolling 84 patients with breast cancer involving the chest wall, who may also have distant metastases. Patients receive treatment with pembrolizumab 200 mg and carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (Arm A, n = 56) followed by maintenance pembrolizumab +/- carboplatin (Arm Ax), or carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles (Arm B, n = 28) with an option to cross-over to pembrolizumab +/- carboplatin on progression (Arm Bx). Patients with all disease subtypes, triple-negative, hormone receptor positive/HER2- after 2 prior lines of hormone therapy, and HER2+ disease (with the option to continue trastuzumab) are eligible, with no limit on the number of prior therapies. Prior platinum chemotherapy is allowed in the absence of overt disease progression. Patients undergo clinical assessment with every cycle of treatment including chest wall photography, scans (CT chest, abdomen, and pelvis) every 2 cycles, and have peripheral blood and chest wall biopsies collected at baseline and the start of cycle 3 for correlative studies. The primary endpoint is the disease control rate in the chest wall and distant sites at 18 weeks of treatment based on RECIST 1.1. The study is powered to determine a 20% difference in disease control between arms (hazard ratio 0.52, α = 0.10, β = 0.20). Additional endpoints include response by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and irRECIST, progression-free survival, and toxicity. Chest wall tumor samples will be analyzed for changes in tumor immune composition, and PD-L1 and MYC oncogene expression, based on preclinical data to suggest that PD-L1 may be upregulated by MYC. Peripheral blood samples will be evaluated for changes in PD-L1 expression, cell-free DNA, and circulating tumor cells with treatment. The study is enrolling patients at 7 sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC), with current enrollment of 38/84 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03095352 .

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance on the clinical management of cancer cachexia in adult patients with advanced cancer. METHODS A systematic review of the literature collected evidence regarding nutritional, pharmacologic, and other interventions, such as exercise, for cancer cachexia. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs published from 1966 through October 17, 2019. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS The review included 20 systematic reviews and 13 additional RCTs. Dietary counseling, with or without oral nutritional supplements, was reported to increase body weight in some trials, but evidence remains limited. Pharmacologic interventions associated with improvements in appetite and/or body weight include progesterone analogs and corticosteroids. The other evaluated interventions either had no benefit or insufficient evidence of benefit to draw conclusions on efficacy. Limitations of the evidence include high drop-out rates, consistent with advanced cancer, as well as variability across studies in outcomes of interest and methods for outcome assessment. RECOMMENDATIONS Dietary counseling may be offered with the goals of providing patients and caregivers with advice for the management of cachexia. Enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition should not be used routinely. In the absence of more robust evidence, no specific pharmacological intervention can be recommended as the standard of care; therefore, clinicians may choose not to prescribe medications specifically for the treatment of cancer cachexia. Nonetheless, when it is decided to trial a drug to improve appetite and/or improve weight gain, currently available pharmacologic interventions that may be used include progesterone analogs and short-term (weeks) corticosteroids.