Marcom, P. Kelly

ImportanceAurora A kinase (AURKA) activation, related in part to AURKA amplification and variants, is associated with downregulation of estrogen receptor (ER) α expression, endocrine resistance, and implicated in cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, upregulates ERα and restores endocrine sensitivity in preclinical metastatic breast cancer (MBC) models. The safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib was demonstrated in early-phase trials; however, its activity in CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding fulvestrant to alisertib on objective tumor response rates (ORRs) in endocrine-resistant MBC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted through the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, which enrolled participants from July 2017 to November 2019. Postmenopausal women with endocrine-resistant, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative MBC who were previously treated with fulvestrant were eligible. Stratification factors included prior treatment with CDK 4/6i, baseline metastatic tumor ERα level measurement (<10%, ≥10%), and primary or secondary endocrine resistance. Among 114 preregistered patients, 96 (84.2%) registered and 91 (79.8%) were evaluable for the primary end point. Data analysis began after January 10, 2022.InterventionsAlisertib, 50 mg, oral, daily on days 1 to 3, 8 to 10, and 15 to 17 of a 28-day cycle (arm 1) or alisertib same dose/schedule with standard-dose fulvestrant (arm 2).Main Outcomes and MeasuresImprovement in ORR in arm 2 of at least 20% greater than arm 1 when the expected ORR for arm 1 was 20%.ResultsAll 91 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.3] years; 1 American Indian/Alaskan Native [1.1%], 2 Asian [2.2%], 6 Black/African American [6.6%], 5 Hispanic [5.5%], and 79 [86.8%] White individuals; arm 1, 46 [50.5%]; arm 2, 45 [49.5%]) had received prior treatment with CDK 4/6i. The ORR was 19.6%; (90% CI, 10.6%-31.7%) for arm 1 and 20.0% (90% CI, 10.9%-32.3%) for arm 2. In arm 1, the 24-week clinical benefit rate and median progression-free survival time were 41.3% (90% CI, 29.0%-54.5%) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.9-10.0), respectively, and in arm 2 they were 28.9% (90% CI, 18.0%-42.0%) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-7.8), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events attributed to alisertib were neutropenia (41.8%) and anemia (13.2%). Reasons for discontinuing treatment were disease progression (arm 1, 38 [82.6%]; arm 2, 31 [68.9%]) and toxic effects or refusal (arm 1, 5 [10.9%]; arm 2, 12 [26.7%]).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that adding fulvestrant to treatment with alisertib did not increase ORR or PFS; however, promising clinical activity was observed with alisertib monotherapy among patients with endocrine-resistant and CDK 4/6i–resistant MBC. The overall safety profile was tolerable.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02860000

525 Background: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status can be used to identify patients who are eligible for treatment with DNA damaging agents. Using a 3-biomarker Genomic Instability Score (GIS) threshold of ≥42, studies have previously examined the association between HRD status and outcomes in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, evidence suggests that a GIS threshold of ≥33 may be more appropriate. Here, we conducted an exploratory analysis evaluating the ability of ≥33 and ≥42 GIS thresholds to predict response to platinum-based treatment in patients with TNBC. Methods: Patients across 5 cohorts (TBCRC0301, TBCRC0082, NCT013725793, PrECOG 01054, combined cisplatin cohort4) were included in this analysis if they had a primary TNBC diagnosis, received neoadjuvant platinum-based treatment, had a valid GIS, and had known pathologic complete response (pCR) status. GIS was determined by a combination of loss of heterozygosity, telomeric-allelic imbalance, and large-scale state transitions.4,5 BRCA mutation status was defined by loss of function resulting from a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), were calculated by comparing binary threshold status and binary pCR status. Results: A total of 204 tumors (158 BRCAwt; 33 BRCAm; 13 unknown) were included; pCR to platinum-based treatment occurred in 55 cases (39 BRCAwt; 14 BRCAm; 2 unknown). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were comparable between the ≥33 and ≥42 GIS thresholds, with the ≥33 threshold producing higher sensitivity values. This was true when thresholds were applied to all samples and to BRCAwt samples only (Table). Among patients who achieved pCR in response to platinum-based treatment, 5.5% of patients in the full cohort and 7.7% of those in the BRCAwt cohort had a GIS between 33-41. Conclusions: To ensure that the majority of patients likely to benefit from treatment are identified, a GIS of ≥33 may be the most appropriate threshold to predict response to platinum-based treatment in patients with TNBC; however, a prospective trial will be needed to confirm these findings. Additional studies will be important to determine whether this threshold may be appropriate to determine eligibility for other DNA-damaging agents such as PARP inhibitors. 1. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(11):1518-25 2. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):31-7. 3. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(3):629-38. 4. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3764-73. 5. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;16(6):1-9. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Only half of hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts) benefit from endocrine therapy (ET). Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are prognostic in pts with MBC using CellSearch® technology. The CTC-endocrine therapy index (CTC-ETI) provides semi-quantitative analyses of CTC-ER (estrogen receptor), BCL2, HER2, and Ki67 expression. We hypothesized that CTC-ETI high (elevated CTC number and/or low expression of ER and BCL2, and high expression of HER2 and Ki-67) might predict resistance to ET in a prospective, multi-institutional clinical trial: COMETI-P2-2012.0 (NCT01701050). Methods: 121 pts with ER+, HER2 negative (-), and progressive MBC after one or more lines of ET or within 12 months (mos) of completing adjuvant ET, who were initiating a new ET, were enrolled after informed consent. CTC and CTC-ETI were determined as previously reported (Paoletti C et al, CCR 2015) at baseline (BL), 1, 2, 3, and 12 mos, and/or at the time of progression. Imaging was performed every 3 mos. Association of CTC levels and CTC-ETI with patient outcomes (progression free survival (PFS); rapid progression (RP) defined as progression within 3 mos) was assessed using logrank and Fisher's exact tests. Trial design estimated 85 PFS and 51 RP events, providing >90% power (2-sided a=0.05); pts with unsuccessful BL CTC-ETI or ineligible were unevaluable. Only baseline (BL) data are reported in this abstract. Results: 32% of enrolled pts had progression within 12 mos of completing adjuvant ET, whereas 40%, 20%, and 8% had 1, 2, ≥3 lines of ET for MBC. CTC-ETI was successfully determined in 93% of pts (90% CI, 88% to 97%). CTC were ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml whole blood in 37/108 (34%) pts evaluable for clinical validity. Elevated CTC was associated with worse PFS (median (m) PFS: 3.3 vs. 5.9 mos; P<0.01). Low, intermediate, and high CTC-ETI were observed in 75 (69%), 6 (6%), and 27 (25%) pts, respectively. CTC-ETI was associated with PFS (logrank P<0.01): pts with low, intermediate, and high CTC-ETI had mPFS of 5.7, 8.5, and 2.8 mos, respectively. In the 96 pts eligible for determination, elevated CTC was associated with RP, (65.6% vs. 42.2%; P=0.05) as was CTC-ETI (P=0.003): 79.2% (95% CI, 57.8% to 92.9%) of pts with high CTC-ETI had RP versus 41.2% (95% CI, 29.4% to 53.8%) with low CTC-ETI; in the small group with intermediate CTC-ETI 1 of 4 pts (25%) had RP. Conclusions: In this multi-institutional, prospective study, CTC-ETI was accurately determined, confirming the previously established analytical validity of the assay, meeting the primary objective of the trial. Elevated CTC and CTC-ETI high compared to low were associated with poor outcomes to ET. CTC-ETI distribution resulted in a small number of patients assigned to the intermediate group, restricting our ability to associate this group with outcomes. These results suggest that CTC-biomarker phenotype and enumeration have clinical validity. CTC-ETI may identify ER+ HER2– MBC pts who are unlikely to benefit from ET and might be better treated with ET in combination with other therapies or proceed to chemotherapy. Further analyses including CTC-ETI at serial time points during ET are planned. Citation Format: Paoletti C, Regan MM, Liu MC, Marcom PK, Hart LL, Smith II JW, Tedesco KL, Amir E, Krop IE, DeMichele AM, Goodwin PJ, Block M, Aung K, Cannell EM, Darga EP, Baratta PJ, Brown ME, McCormack RT, Hayes DF. Circulating tumor cell number and CTC-endocrine therapy index predict clinical outcomes in ER positive metastatic breast cancer patients: Results of the COMETI Phase 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-01-01.

LBA513 Background: Neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is a rational and effective approach to improving the breast conservation surgery (BCS) rate for postmenopausal patients with large, estrogen receptor (ER) rich breast cancers. Barriers to adopting this strategy include lack of experience in this management approach in the US and uncertainty regarding the comparative effectiveness of the three approved aromatase inhibitors for this indication. Methods: ACOSOG Z1031 is a multicenter, open-label, neoadjuvant phase III screening study that randomized postmenopausal women with clinical stage II/III ER rich (Allred score 6-8) breast cancer to 16 weeks of either exemestane (EXE) 25 mg daily, letrozole (LET) 2.5 mg daily, or anastrozole (ANA) 1 mg daily. At baseline study participants were either marginal for BCS (MBCS), candidates for mastectomy only (MO), or inoperable (IO). Planned enrolment was 125 patients per arm in order that the likelihood of the treatment with the “best” 16-week clinical response rate (based on caliper measurements) by WHO criteria (cRR) was included among the subset of treatments with “similar” cRR (90% power). Secondary endpoints included: extent of surgery, radiologic and pathologic response rates. Results: From 4/1/2006 to 10/1/2009, 377 postmenopausal women with clinical stage II or III ER rich breast cancer were enrolled. 374 women began treatment and were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. Median age was 66 yrs (range: 43-90 yrs), Median tumor size was 4.0 cm (range: 2-13 cm). The 16-week cRR was 60.5% (95%CI: 51.3-69.1%) for EXE; 70.9% (95% CI: 62.2-78.6%) for LET, and 66.7% (95% CI: 57.6-74.9%) for ANA. Seventeen patients did not have surgery due to refusal (12 pts), progression (3 pts) or other medical conditions (2 pts). The BCS rate was 78% (163/207) in MBCS group; 42% (77/163) in MO group; and 75% in IO group (3/4). Surgeons made the decisions regarding procedure choice 75% of the time in both the MBCS and the MO categories. Conclusions: This large multicenter screening trial selected non-steroidal AIs for further development due to their higher observed cRR. The study demonstrates that high response and breast conservation rates and low rates of disease progression can be achieved through patient selection based on high ER expression. We are currently refining our approach for early detection of poor response to AIs through an assessment of the tumor Ki67 proliferation index at 2 to 4 weeks (Z1031 Cohort B). [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Estrogen receptors are over-expressed in around 70% of breast cancer cases. The genetic changes that occur during aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment are not well understood and may differ depending upon the patient's response phenotype. Methods: We performed whole genome sequencing (WGS) of matched blood, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples from 22 estrogen receptor positive breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitors. For 5 cases, we performed the whole genome sequencing (WGS) on patients’ matched normal, two pre AI-treatment, and two post AI-treatment DNA isolates from biopsy samples. We validated all putative coding and non-coding somatic mutations using deep sequencing. By comparing the validated somatic mutations from pre- and post- AI treatment biopsy samples, we were able to determine the alterations in the tumor genomes. In every case we defined the clonal architecture of each pair of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples by comparing the variant allele frequencies from thousands of validated somatic mutations. Results: Comparisons of the two pre AI-treatment biopsy samples from the same patient indicates that the variant allele frequencies of mutations showed high concordances in all 5 cases, 0.74 to 0.95 range of correlation coefficient. Only a small percentage of somatic mutations were detected in one pre-treatment sample and not the other (4.65% overall). In comparing the somatic variations between pre-treatment and matched post-treatment biopsy samples in 22 cases, we found that patients with good clinical response to AI treatment retained known driver mutations only in their pre-treatment tumors. Conversely, those patients with poor clinical response presented new driver mutations in their post-treatment samples. Furthermore, the variant allele frequency for most mutated genes decreased in post AI treatment samples for patients with good AI treatment response; on the contrary, the variant allele frequency increased for patients with poor clinical response. Conclusions: From WGS of matched normal, pre-treatment, and post-treatment biopsy samples, we identified new driver genes mutated in patients with poor clinical response, while patients with good clinical response had lost mutated driver genes in their post-treatment biopsy samples. The genetic landscape revealed by WGS of pre-treatment and post-treatment biopsy samples reveals mutational repertoires are remodeled by AI therapy. This finding suggests deep sequencing of AI treated samples will be necessary to reveal the complete complement of mutations present in a patient's tumor. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-423. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-423