Canon, J-L.

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 <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.

Abstract Background: Ixabepilone, an epothilone B analog, has demonstrated single-agent activity in metastatic and neoadjuvant settings. The PACS08 trial aimed to compare adjuvant FEC100-Docetaxel regimen to FEC100-Ixabepilone in poor prognosis early breast cancer (BC) composed of patients presenting with triple-negative (TN) [i.e. estrogen receptor (ER)-/progesterone receptor (PR)-/HER2-] or ER+/PR-/HER2- tumor, which are subgroups significantly associated with worse prognosis. Patients and methods: Between 2007 and 2010, 762 patients with unilateral TNBC (n=592, 78%) or node-positive ER+/PR-/HER2- BC (n=170, 22%) were enrolled. Recruitment was interrupted due to BMS decision to stop ixabepilone development in adjuvant setting. Main inclusion criteria were: age<70 years, normal cardiac, hepatic, haematological and renal functions. Arm A: pts received 3 cycles of FEC100 (F and C, each at 500 mg/m2, E 100 mg/m2, every 3 weeks) followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks); Arm B, Ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 replaced Docetaxel. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and endocrine therapy was given to ER+ pts. ER, PR and HER2 status were validated by a central pathology review on 754 cases and Immunohistochemical detection of Ki67, EGFR, cytokeratins (CK) 5/6 and 14, was performed on tissue microarray (TMA). Results: Main pts characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms. As of September 2014, the median follow-up was 36 months. The safety profile indicates that Docetaxel is more often associated to significant haematological toxicities whereas both neurotoxicities and haematological toxicities are reported in Ixabepilone arm. Log-Rank tests indicate no difference between two arms in terms of both DFS and OS (HR=1.2, 95%CI (0.864-1.728), p=0.256 and HR=1.8, 95%CI (0.751-1.855), p=0.473, respectively). Pathological analysis of the PACS08 collection showed that TNBC displayed significantly higher proliferative activity as shown by mitotic count and Ki67 index (p<0.001). As compared to ER+/PR-/HER2- subgroup, TNBC showed distinct characteristics, and displayed a so-called basal-like phenotype in 80%. Further efficacy analyses are ongoing in order to study whether chemotherapy may have better prognosis according to pathological characteristics including tumor lymphocytic infiltrate. These additional data will be available for the SABCS2015 meeting. Conclusions: Our results indicate that Ixabepilone doesn't show higher efficiency compared to Docetaxel in adjuvant setting in poor prognosis early breast cancer. We have an unusual biological collection associated to our clinical data which will allow us to correlate efficacy data to breast cancer subgroups. Other several translational researches are still ongoing. Citation Format: Campone M, Lacroix-Triki M, Roca L, Spielmann M, Wildiers H, Cottu P, Kerbrat P, Levy C, Mayer F, Bachelot T, Wiston T, Eymard J-C, Uwer L, Machiels J-P, Verhoeven D, Jaubert D, Facchini T, Orfeuvre H, Canon J-L, Asselain B, Lemonnier J, Roché H. UCBG intergroup: 3-years efficacy results of the Unicancer-PACS08 trial including poor prognosis patients treated with docetaxel or ixabepilone in adjuvant setting. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-12-06.

Abstract Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, such as HER2, HIF1-a, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. The drug candidate, ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC. Early clinical trials documented ganetespib single agent activity in heavily pretreated HER2+ and TNBC patients. Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (BC). Methods: The ENCHANT-1 Trial is an international, first-line 2-cohort Phase 2 study in BC patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n = 35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n = 35). Patients who present with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks, for a total of up to 12 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic response as assessed by PET/CT at wk 3 utilizing modified EORTC criteria. Disease progression (PD) at wk 3 by PET imaging indicates discontinuation of study therapy, and is performed to quickly offer patients with metabolic PD a standard of care treatment. The study is designed as Simon 2-stage requiring at least one OR in 15 patients for the respective cohort to expand to 35 patients. A Steering Committee is established to oversee the overall study and review the interim results. Results: The study was initiated in 23 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 17 patients had been enrolled; TNBC (n = 15) and HER2 (n = 2). Here we report the interim analysis in the TNBC cohort. The median age was 54 years (range 30 -77) with ECOG PS 0 (n = 7/15). Most patients (n = 9) presented with de novo metastatic disease. 5 patients were not evaluable for PET assessment (3 had not yet reached wk 3 and 2 withdrawn before wk 3 for clinical progression), and 9 patients were not evaluable for objective response at wk 6 (3 withdrawn before or at wk 3 for clinical progression and 6 had not yet reached wk 6 evaluation). In the 10 patients with evaluable PET imaging, 9 patients achieved metabolic (m) response (2 mPR, 4 mSD with dominant tumor shrinkage and 3 SD) and one patient with mPD. In the 6 patients evaluable for OR at wk 6, one patient achieved PR, 2 SD and 3 PD. Treatment with ganetespib was well tolerated; the most common AEs were mild or moderate diarrhea (8/15, 53%), fatigue (5/15, 33%), decreased appetite (4/15, 27%), insomnia (4/15, 27%), and nausea (4/15, 27%). Conclusion: Ganetespib single agent was generally well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity TNBC patients as early as 3 weeks following treatment. PET seems to be a good tool to screen antitumor activity of new agents in early settings rather that in heavily pretreated patients. The TNBC cohort has met the protocol criteria for proceeding to stage 2. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-23.

Abstract Purpose: PACS 01 trial demonstrated that the sequential adjuvant chemotherapy with FEC100 followed by docetaxel (D) significantly improves disease-free and overall survival in node-positive(N+) early breast cancer (BC). However, Triple negative (TN) and ER+/ PR-/HER2− subgroups are significantly associated to a worse prognosis even after adjunction of D. As Ixabepilone (Ixa) has notable preclinical and clinical activity in these subgroups, the PACS 08 trial aims to compare standard FEC100-D regimen to 3 cycles of FEC100 followed by 3 cycles of Ixa. We report the preliminary results of the toxicity profile. Patients and methods: Patients (pts) had localized resectable unilateral ER-/PR-/HER2− or ER+/PR-/HER2− BC. Main inclusion criteria were: age<70 years, normal cardiac, hepatic, haematological and renal functions. Arm A: pts received 3 cycles of FEC100 (F and C, each at 500 mg/m2, E 100 mg/m2, every 3 weeks) followed by 3 cycles of D (100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks); Arm B, Ixa 40 mg/m2 replaced D. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and endocrine therapy was given to ER+ pts. A 5% absolute difference in disease-free survival at 5 years is the main statistical end-point. Results: Between October 2007 and September 2010, 762 pts with TNBC or ER+/PR-/HER2− BC were enrolled. Recruitment was interrupted due to BMS decision to stop Ixa development in adjuvant setting. Main pts characteristics were well balanced between the 2 arms: median age 53 years, postmenopausal 57.8%, conservative surgery 68.4%, node positive 59.5%. A total of 755 pts were evaluable for safety. Treatment was completed for 93.4% and 86.1% of pts in arms A and B, respectively. During FEC100 sequence, toxicities were well balanced between the two arms. From cycle 4, whereas Gr3/4 sensory neurotoxicity (12pts; 3.5%) and thrombopenia (7pts; 2%) were reported in Ixa arm, none of these toxicities was reported in the D arm (p0.001). There were significantly more Gr3/4 neutropenia on day 21 in Ixa arm (13pts, 6.6% vs 4pts, 1.9%; p<10.005). No significant difference was observed for febrile neutropenia. Fewer cutaneous toxicities were observed in Ixa arm (2pts, 0.6% vs 10pts, 2.6%; p<0.05). No significant difference was observed neither for motor neurotoxicity or hepatic function between two arms. More pts discontinued treatment in Ixa arm compared to D arm (49pts (13%) vs 26pts (7%), p<0.05). Main reasons were Gr3/4 haematological adverse events (AE) and Gr3/4 neurotoxicities for Ixa arm and due to GR3/4 haematological AE for D arm. One non expected Gr4 bullous dermatitis was reported during the first Ixa cycle. 2 deaths due to septic shock occured in Ixa arm (both at cycle 4 for a 56- and a 66-year-old woman). However, according to the IDMC no obvious precipitating factor questioning the Ixa arm was identified. Conclusion: Our results indicate that D arm is more often associated to significant haematological toxicities, whereas both neurotoxicities and haematological toxicities are reported in the Ixa arm. Although significantly more pts discontinued treatment due to adverse events in Ixa arm compared to D arm, Ixa may still represent a promising therapeutic option for pts in the adjuvant setting especially for poor prognosis BC. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-18-04.