Lin, N. U.

Abstract Background: Male breast cancer (MaBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast cancer cases. Our previous studies suggest that MaBC is biologically distinct from female breast cancer (FeBC), exhibiting a unique mutational profile and immune-genomic microenvironment. While the impact of these molecular alterations on site-specific metastases has been explored in FeBC, it remains poorly understood in MaBC. This gap limits accurate risk stratification and prediction of disease trajectory in male patients. In this study, we investigated site-specific genomic and immune alterations across metastatic sites in MaBC. Methods: 238 MaBC samples were tested by NGS (592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq) and WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). We performed analysis in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) subtypes which are most common in male. HR+HER2- was defined as estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive and HER2 IHC 1+ or 2+ with negative chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) assay. Immune cells were estimated using WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Gene expression profiles were analyzed for T-cell inflamed score, interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) score and MAPK Activation Score. We classified patients by site of biopsy/specimen site. Statistical significance was assessed with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, p<0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: Our cohort included 86 HR+HER2- MaBC samples biopsied from primary breast cancer (pBC) (n=39), bone (n=15), liver (n=8), lung (n=8), lymph nodes (n=7), and skin (n=9) mets. We report here only the data on statistically significant differences, but the overall landscape has been depicted across all defined-sites investigated. pBC showed a significantly lower prevalence of PIK3CA mutations (23.6% vs. 53.3%, p<0.05) compared to bone mets. ESR1 mutations were absent in pBC but present in 25% of liver and 25% of lung mets (all comparisons p<0.05). Immune profiling revealed reduced infiltration of M2 macrophages (4.3% vs. 6%, p<0.05) and neutrophil (2.2% vs. 6.9%, p<0.05) in pBC relative to bone Mets. Further, CD4+ T cells were lower in pBC compared to lymph nodes (0% vs. 2.4%, p<0.05). pBC had lower expression of immune checkpoint genes (PDCD1LG2, HAVCR2 and CD47) compared to other mets. pBC exhibited lower MAPK pathway activation score (-1.6 vs. 0.17, p=0.03) and a trend toward lower T cell-inflamed gene expression scores (-65 vs. 8, p=0.06) compared to bone mets. Bone mets had higher infiltration of M2 macrophage compared to lung (6% vs. 4.4%, p<0.05) and lymph node (6% vs. 4.5%, p<0.05). Neutrophil infiltration was elevated in bone versus liver (6.9% vs. 2%, p<0.05) but T regulatory cells were lower in bone compared to lymph nodes (1% vs. 2.4%, p<0.05). Bone showed reduced expression of CD47 (median TPM 50.6 vs. 109.9, p<0.05) compared to skin. Further bone had lower IFN-gamma scores (-0.41 vs. -0.17, p<0.05) compared to lymph node. Data on prior number and types of cancer treatment to give a context to the findings will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our study highlights that each MaBC metastatic site harbors a unique genomic and immune landscape that can influence tumor behavior and potentially impact patient prognosis. Better understanding of metastatic site-specific molecular features in larger cohorts can help in the future research efforts and guiding treatment decisions. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, P. Advani, P. Barreto Coelho, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Site specific Genomic and Immune Landscapes Underpinning in metastatic Male Breast Cancer [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 PS2-08-04.

Abstract Background: In MBC, CTC enumeration is highly prognostic for both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Multiparametric technologies enable for expanded phenotypic profiling of CTCs, including ER and HER2 assessment. Limited information is available on the concordance of CTC ER and HER2 levels compared to synchronously obtained tissue. We assessed the prognostic performance of CTC enumeration and phenotypic profiling of ER and HER2 on CTCs. Methods: The prospective, multi-institutional Aurora study enrolled pts with MBC of any subtype either at diagnosis of metastatic disease or at time of progression on any line of systemic therapy. Pts underwent a metastatic site biopsy, consented to archival primary tissue collection and donated blood samples serially every 3-4 months until progression. CTCs, from blood collected at study entry, were identified as nucleated, EpCAM+/ cytokeratin+/ CD45- cells using an automated imaging system (RareCyte, Seattle). ER and HER2 expression levels were measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), with thresholds above 80 (ER) and 160 (HER2) considered positive. Comparisons were made to total RNAseq from paired metastatic tissue biopsies. PFS and OS were calculated from the time of study entry to last follow up or death. Results: Baseline CTC enumeration was performed in 154 pts. The most common clinical subtype was HR+/HER2- (59.7%), followed by HER2-positive (16.8%) and TNBC (15.5%). The median lines of prior therapy were 1 (range 0-10). At least 1 CTC was identified in 68/154 pts (44%), 30 (19%) had ≥ 5 CTCs, and 15 (9.7%) had CTC clusters. The median CTC value was 0 (0-877). The presence of CTCs (≥1 or ≥5) and CTC clusters was adversely associated with PFS and OS (Table 1 Table 1. CTC survival analyses Number Median PFS PFS HR (95% CI) Median OS OS HR (95% CI) Presence of CTC 0 CTC 86 7.37 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 20.72 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 1 CTC 68 4.7 (0.43 - 19.5) 1.65 (1.16-2.36) 12.04. (0.43-44.1) 2.13 (1.44-3.16) Presence of ≥ 5 CTC <5 CTC 124 7.7 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 19.31 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 5 CTC 30 2.88 (0.43 - 18.7) 1.77 (1.15 - 2.71) 5.74 (0.43 - 29.3) 3.59 (2.26-5.70) Presence of clusters 0 clusters 139 7.37 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 18.06 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 1 cluster 15 1.91 (0.43 - 18.7) 2.06 (1.16 - 3.68) 3.42 (0.43 - 18.7) 5.44 (2.94-10.09) ). Across all subtypes, the median CTC ER-MFI across was 36.2 (range 4.2-10,016.6) and the median HER2-MFI was 139.6 (range 4.2-2480.5). We observed high intra-patient heterogeneity of ER-MFI (CV: 0.65 [0.34-1.25]) and HER2-MFI (CV: 0.79 [0.42-1.54]). Clinical metastatic subtype from metastasis at study entry was available in 54/68 pts with CTCs. Pts with clinical ER+ MBC had a higher median ER-MFI compared to clinical TNBC (111.9 vs 68.6, p = 0.02). However, 11 pts (26.8%) with clinical ER+ MBC had all CTCs with an ER-MFI <80. Lower ER expression was observed in CTCs collected after prior exposure to a SERD (median ER-MFI: post-SERD [n=8] 27 vs post-aromatase inhibitor [n=4] 252, p<2.22e-16). No correlations were observed between the median CTC ER-MFI or HER2-MFI and paired tissue ESR1 or ERBB2 RNA expression (n=66). Conclusions: CTCs are strongly predictive of PFS and OS. CTC ER- and HER2-MFI were highly heterogeneous without clear correlation with bulk tissue RNA expression. The clinical impact of discordant clinical receptor status and CTC receptor status warrants further exploration. Citation Format: K. V. Giridhar, W. C. Nenad, H. Ye, G. L. Wheeler, T. Hinoue, A. R. Michmerhuizen, B. M. Felsheim, U. R. Chandran, B. J. Kelly, E. R. Mardis, P. W. Laird, J. M. Balko, A. C. Garrido-Castro, S. Coppens, J. Bowen, R. Nanda, N. U. Lin, C. K. Anders, C. Isaacs, J. J. Tao, J. D. Anampa, N. Jahan, L. Huppert, A. DeMichele, B. H. Park, S. Vinayak, A. L. Delson, M. M. Magbanua, M. Balic, H. A. Parsons, A. V. Lee, L. A. Carey, L. Norton, A. C. Wolff, N. E. Davidson, I. Krop, T. A. King, C. M. Perou, K. A. Hoadley, Aurora US Metastases Network. Characterizing circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration and phenotypic profiling in blood with synchronously obtained tissue in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in TBCRC /AURORA US [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 PS2-07-17.

Abstract Background: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are increasingly used in the treatment of breast cancer due to their superior efficacy compared to conventional chemotherapy. The management of male breast cancer is largely extrapolated from clinical data in females and evidence regarding the efficacy of ADCs in men remains limited. This study aimed to compare survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients treated with ADCs across the spectrum of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. Methods: We included total of 2,954 (Male: 34, Female: 2,920 breast cancer samples) from patients who underwent treatment with ADCs. We excluded patients with triple-negative breast cancer status due to the rarity of this subtype in males and the worse prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer, so that the cohorts would be more homogeneous without overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer in females. We categorized patients by HER2 status as: HER2-null (if there was 0% stain on HER2 IHC), HER2-ultra low (if HER2 IHC was 0 but with stain 1-10%), HER2-low (if HER2 IHC was 1+ or 2+ with a negative chromogenic in situ hybridization [CISH] assay), and HER2-positive (if HER2 IHC was 3+ or 2+ with a positive CISH assay). Real-world median overall survival was derived from insurance claims and calculated from the start of first ADC with either trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) or trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) or sacituzumab govitecan (SG) to last contact using Kaplan-Meier. Statistical significance was assessed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U. Results: The distribution of sex by HER2 expression group was: HER2-null: 8 males vs 612 females; HER2-ultra low 6 males vs 467 females; HER2-low 11 males vs 903 females; HER2-positive 9 males vs 938 females. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or SG in the HER2-null cohort was 21.31 months in males vs 15.72 months in females (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 - 2.01, p=0.67); in the HER2-ultra low cohort was 17.73 months in males vs 14.47 months in females (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.26 - 2.63, p=0.76); in the HER2-low cohort was 11.08 months in males vs 18.62 months in females (HR 1.53, 95% CI 0.63 - 3.7; p=0.34). In the HER2-positive cohort, 5/9 males (55.5%) and 544/938 females (58%) were treated with T-DXd. Median survival from treatment initiation with either T-DXd or T-DM1 in the HER2-positive cohort was 36.55 months in males vs 46.52 months in females (HR 1.77, 95% CI 0.84 - 3.74, p=0.12). Conclusions: In this study, survival appears to be comparable between males and females with breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression when both are treated with ADCs, although the survival in the HER2-positive cohort appears numerically lower in males, consistent with data on HER2-positive MaBC. An important limitation is the small sample size of the male breast cancer cohorts, and the lack of a categorization of HER2 in HR+ vs HR-, for the small MaBC sample size. However, to our knowledge this is the first analysis evaluating outcomes of men treated with ADCs across the spectrum of HER2 expression. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, S. Gandhi, S. Chumsri, S. Graff, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Comparative efficacy of antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) in male versus female breast cancer across the spectrum of HER2 expression [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 PS4-01-13.

Abstract Background: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common breast cancer (BC) subtype, accounting for up to 15% of cases. Although several biologic differences between ILC and invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST) have been described, most data are derived from primary tumors. In contrast, the biology of metastatic ILC remains poorly defined. This study aimed to investigate the unique genomic, transcriptomic, and immune landscapes of metastatic ILC using a multi-omic approach. Methods: This real-world study included patients with confirmed NST or pure ILC who had a biopsy of a metastatic lesion or a breast lesion in the setting of known metastatic disease. Tumors underwent whole exome sequencing (NGS 592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq), whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS, NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). Demographic and baseline molecular features were compared across histologic subtypes. Tumor mutational burden (TMB; high ≥10 mut/MB) was assessed by NGS. Immune cell populations were estimated by RNAseq deconvolution (quanTIseq). Pathway enrichment analysis was determined by GSEA. Overall survival (OS) was defined from the date of biopsy to death from any cause using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Statistical tests included chi-square and Mann-Whitney U with multiple testing correction (q<0.05). Results: Among 2,651 metastatic BC samples (ILC n = 608; NST n = 2,043), patients with ILC were older (median 67 vs 63 yrs) and more likely white (81.5% ILC vs 73.1% NST), all p<0.05. By IHC, ILC were more frequently HR+/HER2- (83.6% vs 55.9%), less commonly triple-negative (11.9% vs 29.8%) or HER2+ (4.6% vs 14.3%), all p<0.05. PAM50 subtypes differed between ILC and NST: luminal A (Lum A) (31.1% vs 13.7%) and luminal B (Lum B) (44.9% vs 43.8%) intrinsic subtypes were enriched in ILC, while NST was more frequently basal (1.2% vs 22.4%) and HER2-enriched (19.8% vs 22.2%), all p<0.05. Within luminal BC, Lum B was more common than Lum A in both histologies, but Lum A was proportionally more frequent in ILC (ILC: 40.3% Lum A vs 59.7% Lum B; NST: 23.4% Lum A vs 76.6% Lum B), p<0.0001. Comparative multi-omic analysis focused on the 922 HR+/HER2- tumors (ILC n = 275; NST n = 647). Compared to NST, ILC had higher frequency of CDH1 (87.3% vs 6.1%), PIK3CA (52.7% vs 38.5%), FOXA1 (9.0% vs 3.4%), ERBB2 (7.1% vs 2.0%), ARID1A, and NF1 (both q < 0.05) mutations and TMB high (17.7% vs 9.9%), but lower frequency of TP53 (15.7% vs 33.3%), ESR1 (10.9% vs 18.1%) and GATA3 (2.3% vs 14.9%) mutations along with FGFR1 amplifications (15.3% vs 6.7%), all q<0.05. ILC had higher expression of androgen receptor (91.2% vs 83.5%, q<0.05) and higher MAPK activation score (-0.81 vs -1.19, q<0.05), consistent with a luminal, hormone-driven phenotype. NST tumors demonstrated enrichment of pathways involved in the cell cycle and metabolic activity, including E2F targets, G2M checkpoint, MYC targets, mTORC1 signaling, glycolysis, and unfolded protein response (NES: 1.5-2.7, FDR<0.25). ILC tumors had higher infiltration of B cells, dendritic cells, neutrophils, NK cells and M2 macrophages, but lower M1 macrophages, all q<0.05. ILC had differential expression of immune checkpoint genes (upregulation: CD274 (PD-L1), PDCD1 (PD-1), TNFSF14, CEACAM1, CD160, fold change (FC): 1.2-1.5; down: HAVCR2 (TIM-3): FC: 1.2), all q<0.05. Median OS (mOS) was similar between luminal ILC and NST (33.8 vs 35.4 months (mo); HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.91-1.3). No mOS difference was seen between Lum A ILC and NST (47.4 vs 50.5 mo; HR 1.0, 0.84-1.43), while Lum B ILC had worse mOS than NST (27.4 vs 35.3 mo; HR 1.3, 1.1-1.6). Conclusions: This study represents the largest cohort to date with multi-omic characterization of metastatic ILC, revealing distinct genomic, transcriptomic, and immune features compared to NST. These findings highlight the unique biology of ILC and may inform future subtype-specific therapeutic strategies. Citation Format: G. Nader-Marta, S. Kumar Deshmukh, K. Fanucci, P. Tarantino, S. Schnitt, A. Lee, S. Oesterreich, S. Wu, J. Xiu, P. Advani, M. Lustberg, N. Lin, S. Tolaney, E. Mayer, O. Metzger, G. Sledge Jr., R. Jeselsohn. The Genomic, Transcriptomic, and Immune Hallmarks of Metastatic Lobular Breast Cancer [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 PD9-07.