Harbeck, Nadia

Abstract Cancer outcomes vary widely between individual patients, each accumulating an irregular record of treatments, diagnoses, measurements, and complications. Current prognostic models reduce this complexity into a single snapshot, focus on narrow clinical settings, and rarely generalize across hospitals. Here we introduce Chronicle , an explainable transformer that learns from entire patient trajectories to predict diverse clinical outcomes throughout the disease course while capturing both short- and long-term temporal dependencies. Trained on 53.7 million longitudinal data points from 51,711 patients spanning 67 cancer types, Chronicle operates natively on irregular data without imputation and jointly predicts eight endpoints within a flexible framework adaptable to additional outcomes. Chronicle outperformed cross-sectional models for overall survival prediction (C-index 0.84 vs 0.76-0.79), stratified patients more accurately than established prognostic systems, including TNM stage, and predicted seven adverse event and transfusion endpoints (AUC 0.80-0.92). Applied without retraining to 69,341 patients in Germany, Switzerland, and the United States, Chronicle generalized across healthcare systems and improved further with local fine-tuning. Integrated explainability traced each risk update to patient-specific clinical factors, revealing distinct temporal persistence of prognostic information, with relevance half-lives ranging from weeks for therapies to nearly one year for baseline characteristics. These findings demonstrate that learning from hospital-wide patient trajectories enables interpretable and continuously updated predictions, providing a scalable framework to support individualized treatment decisions.

1001 Background: Imlunestrant (imlu) is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen receptor degrader. The EMBER-3 trial, in patients (pts) with ER+, HER2- ABC who had disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, showed significant progression free survival (PFS) improvement with imlu vs standard therapy (SOC, fulvestrant or exemestane) in pts with ESR1 mutations ( ESR1 m), and with imlunestrant+abemaciclib (imlu+abema) vs imlu in all pts, regardless of ESR1 m. Exploratory PRO analyses are presented here. Methods: EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at baseline (BL) and every 8 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified QLQ-C30 analysis used a longitudinal mixed model for repeated measures to calculate mean change from BL in pts with BL and ≥1 post-BL score. PRO-CTCAE (diarrhea frequency) was administered weekly, reporting 0 (never) to 4 (almost constantly). PRO-CTCAE (injection site reaction [ISR]) was administered to fulvestrant recipients weekly for 2 weeks post-injection, reporting yes/no (pain, swelling, redness). Descriptive analysis was used for PRO-CTCAE. Results: In pts with ESR1 m, imlu monotherapy was associated with many improved or maintained EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, whereas scores with SOC were declined or maintained. Specifically, pts with ESR1 m on imlu had improved global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QOL) and physical function (PF) scores, while scores with SOC declined (mean change differences between treatments: 9.9 [0.1, 19.7] and 6.2 [-0.8, 13.1], respectively). These PRO findings mirror the PFS findings in this group. In the overall population, GHS/QOL scores declined similarly with imlu vs SOC (mean change differences: 0.5 [-4.7, 5.7]), while PF scores were maintained with imlu vs a slight decline with SOC (mean change difference: 2.5 [-1.1, 6.1]). Most fulvestrant recipients (72%) reported ISR at any time while on treatment, with a mean of 31% during the first week of the first 6 cycles. Imlu+abema vs imlu showed broadly similar declines in all pts, with minimal mean change differences in GHS/QOL and PF scores (0.8 [-7.4, 5.9]; -2.2 [-6.6, 2.2], respectively). Pts reported similarly low rates of “frequent” or “almost constant” diarrhea with imlu (3%) and SOC (2%) and higher rates with imlu+abema (22%). Conclusions: PROs from EMBER-3 demonstrated that patients with ESR1 m had better GHS/QOL and PF with imlu vs SOC, mirroring efficacy results. While the frequency of CTCAE defined ISRs was low, the high rate of PRO-CTCAE ISR demonstrates that this clinically relevant adverse event is underappreciated by physicians. Additionally, all pts had generally comparable GHS/QOL and PF with imlu+abema vs imlu. Overall, these results support the efficacy and safety of imlu compared to existing SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04975308 .

AbstractBackgroundThe management of early breast cancer (BC) has witnessed an uprise in the use of neoadjuvant therapy and a remarkable reshaping of the systemic therapy postneoadjuvant treatment in the last few years, with the evolution of many controversial clinical situations that require consensus.MethodsDuring the 14th Breast‐Gynecological and Immuno‐Oncology International Cancer Conference held in Egypt in 2022, a panel of 44 BC experts from 13 countries voted on statements concerning debatable challenges in the neo/adjuvant treatment setting. The recommendations were subsequently updated based on the most recent data emerging. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop this consensus. A consensus was achieved when ≥75% of voters selected an answer.Results and ConclusionsThe consensus recommendations addressed different escalation and de‐escalation strategies in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy for early BC. The recommendations recapitulate the available clinical evidence and expert opinion to individualize patient management and optimize therapy outcomes. Consensus was reached in 63% of the statements (52/83), and the rationale behind each statement was clarified.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Two years of adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) resulted in a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) that persisted beyond the 2-year treatment period in patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Here, we report 5-year efficacy results from a prespecified overall survival (OS) interim analysis. In the intent-to-treat population, with a median follow-up of 54 months, the benefit of abemaciclib was sustained with hazard ratios of 0.680 (95% CI, 0.599 to 0.772) for IDFS and 0.675 (95% CI, 0.588 to 0.774) for DRFS. This persistence of abemaciclib benefit translated to continuous separation of the curves with a deepening in 5-year absolute improvement in IDFS and DRFS rates of 7.6% and 6.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 6% and 5.3% at 4 years and 4.8% and 4.1% at 3 years. With fewer deaths in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared with the ET-alone arm (208 v 234), statistical significance was not reached for OS. No new safety signals were observed. In conclusion, abemaciclib plus ET continued to reduce the risk of developing invasive and distant disease recurrence beyond the completion of treatment. The increasing absolute improvement at 5 years is consistent with a carryover effect and further supports the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk EBC.

ImportanceYoung women with breast cancer who have germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2 face unique challenges regarding fertility. Previous studies demonstrating the feasibility and safety of pregnancy in breast cancer survivors included limited data regarding BRCA carriers.ObjectiveTo investigate cumulative incidence of pregnancy and disease-free survival in young women who are BRCA carriers.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsInternational, multicenter, hospital-based, retrospective cohort study conducted at 78 participating centers worldwide. The study included female participants diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at age 40 years or younger between January 2000 and December 2020 carrying germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and/or BRCA2. Last delivery was October 7, 2022; last follow-up was February 20, 2023.ExposurePregnancy after breast cancer.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary end points were cumulative incidence of pregnancy after breast cancer and disease-free survival. Secondary end points were breast cancer–specific survival, overall survival, pregnancy, and fetal and obstetric outcomes.ResultsOf 4732 BRCA carriers included, 659 had at least 1 pregnancy after breast cancer and 4073 did not. Median age at diagnosis in the overall cohort was 35 years (IQR, 31-38 years). Cumulative incidence of pregnancy at 10 years was 22% (95% CI, 21%-24%), with a median time from breast cancer diagnosis to conception of 3.5 years (IQR, 2.2-5.3 years). Among the 659 patients who had a pregnancy, 45 (6.9%) and 63 (9.7%) had an induced abortion or a miscarriage, respectively. Of the 517 patients (79.7%) with a completed pregnancy, 406 (91.0%) delivered at term (≥37 weeks) and 54 (10.4%) had twins. Among the 470 infants born with known information on pregnancy complications, 4 (0.9%) had documented congenital anomalies. Median follow-up was 7.8 years (IQR, 4.5-12.6 years). No significant difference in disease-free survival was observed between patients with or without a pregnancy after breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20). Patients who had a pregnancy had significantly better breast cancer–specific survival and overall survival.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this global study, 1 in 5 young BRCA carriers conceived within 10 years after breast cancer diagnosis. Pregnancy following breast cancer in BRCA carriers was not associated with decreased disease-free survival.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03673306

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

Abstract Background: Adjuvant ET has been the standard of care for patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) EBC. A significant proportion of patients with increased risk still experience disease relapse despite available ET and more optimum ET is needed to prevent patients developing incurable metastatic cancer. Distant recurrence risk ranges from 20% to 40% after 5 years of adjuvant ET, depending on clinicopathological (clin-path) features at diagnosis. Consequently, there is a need to further optimize adjuvant treatment, particularly in those patients who are at increased risk of recurrence. Imlunestrant is an orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) with pure antagonistic properties and the potential to overcome ET resistance. In early phase trials, imlunestrant monotherapy showed favorable safety with pharmacokinetic (PK) exposures exceeding fulvestrant and preliminary efficacy in ER+, HER2- advanced breast cancer patients (EMBER, Jhaveri 2022) along with robust biological/pharmacodynamic activity and tolerability in EBC (EMBER-2, Neven). Trial Design: EMBER-4 is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing imlunestrant versus physicians’ choice of ET, in patients who are at an increased risk of recurrence based on clin-path features and who have received 2 to 5 years of standard adjuvant ET. Approximately 6,000 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive imlunestrant (400 mg daily) for 5 years or physicians’ choice of adjuvant ET (tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor, AI, dosed per label). Study treatment duration is 5 years. Males and pre-/peri-menopausal women will receive concomitant treatment with a GnRH agonist if receiving imlunestrant or an AI. Stratification factors include time from initial adjuvant ET, use of prior adjuvant cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, nodal status, menopausal status, and geographic region. Eligibility criteria: Eligible patients are adult males and females (pre-, peri- or postmenopausal) with ER+, HER2- EBC who have completed definitive locoregional therapy and have received 2 to 5 years of prior adjuvant ET without disease recurrence, but who are at increased risk of recurrence based on clin-path features at diagnosis. Prior (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy with a CDK4/6- or PARP- inhibitor is permitted. Study endpoints: The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), excluding second non-breast primary invasive cancers. Key secondary endpoints include distant relapse-free survival, overall survival, IDFS including second non-breast primary invasive cancers, safety, PK and patient reported outcomes. Recruitment for EMBER-4 begins globally in Q4 2022. Citation Format: Komal Jhaveri, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Fabrice Andre, Matthew P. Goetz, Nadia Harbeck, Miguel Martín, Francois-Clement Bidard, Zachary M. Thomas, Suzanne Young, Roohi Ismail-Khan, Lillian M. Smyth, Michael Gnant. EMBER-4: A phase 3 adjuvant trial of imlunestrant vs standard endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with ER+, HER2- early breast cancer (EBC) with an increased risk of recurrence who have previously received 2 to 5 years of adjuvant ET [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-01-02.

Abstract Background Adjuvant abemaciclib (a CDK4 and 6 inhibitor) combined with ET resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk EBC in the monarchE trial, and is an approved adjuvant therapy for these patients. Here we present efficacy results from a pre-specified overall survival interim analysis (OS IA2) which was planned to occur 2 years (yrs) after the primary outcome analysis. Methods Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive ET for up to 10 yrs +/- abemaciclib for 2 yrs (study treatment period). High-risk EBC was defined as either ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALN), or 1-3 ALN with either Grade 3 disease and/or tumor ≥5 cm (Cohort 1). While the proliferation biomarker Ki-67 was centrally assessed in all pts with available tissue sample, an additional smaller group of pts with 1-3+ ALN and central Ki-67 ≥20% as the only high-risk feature were included (Cohort 2). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of both Cohort 1 (5120 pts) and Cohort 2 (517 pts). Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. Results At a median follow-up of 42 months, all pts were off abemaciclib. IDFS and DRFS data illustrate a sustained benefit beyond the treatment period. In the ITT population, the HR for IDFS was 0.664 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.762) and DRFS was 0.659 (95% CI: 0.567, 0.767). At 4 yrs, this reflected an improvement in IDFS rates from 79.4% to 85.8% (absolute difference 6.4%), and in DRFS rates from 82.5% to 88.4% (absolute difference 5.9%). The continued separation of the curves was associated with an increase in absolute benefit in IDFS 4-year rates compared to 2-and 3-year IDFS rates (absolute difference 2.8% and 4.8% respectively). While OS remained immature, there was a lower number of deaths observed in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared to the ET alone arm (157 [5.6%] vs 173 [6.1%], HR 0.929 [95% CI: 0.748, 1.153], p = 0.503), suggesting that the robust benefit in IDFS and DRFS began to translate into a numerically favorable OS HR. As previously described, within Cohort 1, a Ki-67 index of ≥20% was associated with a worse prognosis, but similar abemaciclib treatment effects were observed regardless of Ki-67 index. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion The clinically meaningful benefit of adjuvant abemaciclib added to ET in HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC persists beyond completion of abemaciclib therapy, yielding an increase in absolute IDFS and DRFS benefit at 4 yrs. While OS remains immature at this time, the lower number of deaths in the abemaciclib arm compared to the ET arm suggest that a survival signal favoring abemaciclib is emerging. Citation Format: Stephen Johnston, Masakazu Toi, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Priya Rastogi, Mario Campone, Patrick Neven, Chiun Sheng Huang, Jens Huober, Georgina Garnica Jaliffe, Irfan Cicin, Sara Tolaney, Matthew P. Goetz, Hope Rugo, Elżbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Lucia Del Mastro, Chikako Shimizu, Ran Wei, Ashwin Shahir, Maria Munoz, Belen San Antonio, Valerie Andre, Nadia Harbeck, Miguel Martín. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer: results from a pre-planned monarchE overall survival interim analysis, including 4-year efficacy outcomes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-09.

Background: Abemaciclib is the first and only cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitor approved for adjuvant treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−), node-positive, and high-risk early breast cancer (EBC), with indications varying by geography. Premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2− tumors may have different tumor biology and treatment response compared to postmenopausal patients. Objectives: We describe the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) for the large subgroup of premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2− EBC in monarchE. Design: Randomized patients (1:1) received adjuvant ET with or without abemaciclib for 2 years plus at least 3 additional years of ET as clinically indicated. Methods: Patients were stratified by menopausal status (premenopausal versus postmenopausal) at diagnosis. Standard ET (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor) with or without gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist was determined by physician’s choice. Invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) by menopausal status were assessed at data cutoff on 1 April 2021 (median follow-up of 27 months). Results: Among randomized patients, 2451 (43.5%) were premenopausal and 3181 (56.4%) were postmenopausal. The choice of ET for premenopausal patients varied considerably between countries. Treatment benefit was consistent across menopausal status, with a numerically greater effect size in premenopausal patients. For premenopausal patients, abemaciclib with ET resulted in a 42.2% and 40.3% reduction in the risk of developing IDFS and DRFS events, respectively. Absolute improvement at 3 years was 5.7% for IDFS and 4.4% for DRFS rates. Safety profile for premenopausal patients was consistent with the overall safety population. Conclusion: Abemaciclib with ET demonstrated clinically meaningful treatment benefit for IDFS and DRFS versus ET alone regardless of menopausal status and first ET, with a numerically greater benefit in the premenopausal compared to the postmenopausal population. Safety data in premenopausal patients are consistent with the overall safety profile of abemaciclib.