Goetz, Matthew Bidwell

Abstract Background: Germline Pathogenic Variants (PVs) in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, and PALB2 are known to increase breast cancer (BCa) risk, but the effect of these PVs on tumor biology is not well-understood. Ki-67 is an established prognostic marker in hormone receptor (HR) positive breast cancer but the distribution of Ki-67 in breast cancer associated with germline PVs is not known. Methods: The study included patients with loco-regional (Stage I-III) HR-positive (ER+ or PR+), HER2-negative invasive ductal or lobular breast cancer evaluated at Mayo Clinic for curative intent treatment between 2012 and 2021. PV carrier status was ascertained in more than two-thirds of cases from germline whole exome sequencing (Regeneron) of patients who participated in a prospective registry at Mayo Clinic. Additional PV carriers were identified through a review of the results of clinical germline genetic testing in electronic medical records aided by natural language processing. Clinically performed Ki-67 values were abstracted from electronic medical records and analyzed as continuous and categorical variables (low: < 20% vs. high: ≥20%). Throughout the timeline of the study, a consistent method for assessment of Ki-67 was utilized at Mayo Clinic, Rochester: Immunohistochemical staining of the Ki-67 antigen in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was performed using MIB-1 clone, the scanned slides were reviewed by a technologist and traced areas further analyzed for Ki-67 using Aperio Software. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy prior to the assessment of Ki-67, with metastatic disease at diagnosis, with PVs in two or more genes of interest, or unknown germline PV or Ki-67 status were excluded from the analysis. Multiple primary tumors in the same patient diagnosed within one year of each other were analyzed independently. The control (non-carrier) group included randomly selected patients from the prospective registry who tested negative for PVs in the five genes over the same time period. Ki-67 values were compared between germline PV carriers and non-carriers in a multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for sex, race, age at diagnosis, stage at presentation, and histology of the tumor. Results: A total of 113 HR+/HER2- tumors from 111 PV carriers (ATM: 27, BRCA1: 24, BRCA2: 28, CHEK2: 22, and PALB2:12) along with 431 HR+/HER2- tumors from 422 randomly selected non-carriers were evaluated. The majority (>95%) of patients were non-Hispanic White. Germline PV carriers in each gene were diagnosed at a significantly younger age (P< 0.05) compared to non-carriers. The median Ki-67 value was 12 (Range: 1 to 93) for non-carriers, 16 (Range: 0 to 79) for ATM, 31 (Range: 4 to 86) for BRCA1, 30 (Range: 6 to 80) for BRCA2, 13 (Range: 1 to 38) for CHEK2, and 20 (Range: 3 to 46) for PALB2 PV carriers. In multivariable analysis, compared to non-carriers, we observed significantly higher odds of a high Ki67 value (≥20%) for tumors arising from germline PV carriers in BRCA1 (Odds Ratio (OR): 7.3, 95%CI: 2.3 – 23.3, p< 0.001), BRCA2 (OR: 3.0, 95%CI: 1.2 – 7.4, p=0.02) and PALB2 (OR: 3.9, 95%CI: 1.1 – 14.5, p=0.04). No such relationship was observed with either ATM (OR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.4 – 2.9, p=0.81) or CHEK2 (OR: 0.8, 95%CI: 0.3 – 2.2, p=0.63). Conclusion: This study reveals that HR+/HER2- tumors in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 PV carriers have a significantly higher Ki-67 expression compared to non-carriers. These findings have implications for understanding prognosis and endocrine response PV with HR+ breast cancer. Further exploration of the relationships between Ki67 and germline PV status is necessary to personalize systemic therapy options in germline PV carriers. Acknowledgments: Thank you to Regeneron Genetics Center. The study was funded in part by the NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence in Breast Cancer [P50CA116201] to Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Department of Oncology Small Grants Program, and the Paul Calabresi Program at Mayo Clinic Citation Format: Robert Scheel, Grace Choong, Tara Rao, Nicholas Boddicker, Chunling Hu, Jie Na, Vinod Kaggal, Sean Murphy, Karthik Giridhar, Saba Yasir, Matthew Goetz, Fergus Couch, Siddhartha Yadav. Ki-67 Expression in Breast Cancer associated with ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-08-07.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with breast cancer is associated with improved survival. Further assessment of the extent of residual disease, using the pathological anatomic American Joint Committee on Cancer staging method (ypStage) or the Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) method, have been shown to add prognostic information for patients with residual disease. Neo-Bioscore, an alternate system to classify response to NAC, includes clinical stage at diagnosis and biology and defines eight prognostic groups. The goal of this study was to compared three scoring systems (anatomic ypStage (7th ed), RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore) and assess whether RCB Class and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic value in the context above anatomic ypStage, the most commonly used method for post-neoadjuvant residual disease assessment. Methods: Data from 5161 patients treated with NAC was pooled from 12 sites. Patients without clinical and pathological staging were excluded, as were patients with HER2+ breast cancer who did not receive neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy, leaving 3730 for analysis. PCR was defined as no residual invasive tumor in breast and nodes, i.e. RCB-0 or ypT0/Tis and ypN0. Patients with discordant pCR status by RCB Class vs ypStage (n=9) were excluded. Associations between each scoring system and event-free survival (EFS) were evaluated using the log rank test. EFS at 5 years was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. Associations between Neo-Bioscore and EFS were assessed in the pCR group. For patients with residual disease, we assessed RCB and Neo-Bioscore within each ypStage. Analysis was performed overall and within subtype. Subgroups with <5 patients were excluded from the survival analyses. Results: ypAJCC staging, RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were all associated with EFS in the overall population and within each subtype (log rank p<0.0001). Of note, 13 patients with a Neo-Bioscore of 7 all recurred or died within 19 months of follow-up. Overall, 34% (1264/3721) of patients achieved a pCR. Their Neo-Bioscore ranges from 0-5, where 3% (37/1264) has a Neo-Bioscore of 5 despite achieving pCR. The Neo-Bioscore was not associated with EFS in case of a pCR, with EFS estimates at 5 years of 95%, 94%, 92%, 93%, 90% and 92% for Neo-Bioscores 0-5 respectively. As HR and HER2 status are components of the score, the range of Neo-Bioscore in the pCR group differs by subtype. However, similar to the overall analysis, the Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic within subtypes in case of pCR. Overall, among the patients who did not achieve pCR, both RCB class and Neo-Bioscore were associated with EFS within ypStages I, II and III. However, the ypStage within which RCB and Neo-Bioscore are prognostic is different for each subtype. RCB class was prognostic in ypStage I in both HR+ subtypes: patients with ypStage-I/RCB-I had significantly improved survival compared to patients with ypStage-I/RCB-II (5-year EFS: 100% vs 83% in HR+HER2- and 95% vs 77% in HR+HER2+). In contrast, for patients with triple negative breast cancer, RCB class was prognostic within ypStage II and III. Analysis by clinical stage and the components of the three systems that contribute most to prognosis will be presented. Conclusions: The degree of response to NAC adds important information to pCR versus residual disease. The Neo-Bioscore was not prognostic among patients with pCR, suggesting that clinical stage (including subtype and grade) adds little information in the setting of a pCR. In contrast, both RCB and Neo-Bioscore provide additional prognostic information to the conventional ypAJCC staging among non-pCR patients, suggesting that clinical stage, tumor biology as well as extent of residual disease all contribute to prognosis in the setting of residual disease after NAC. Citation Format: Marieke EM van der Noordaa, Christina Yau, Sonal Shad, Marie Osdoit, Tessa G Steenbruggen, Diane de Croze, Anne-Sophie Hamy, Marick Lae, Fabien Reyal, Maria Del Monte-Millán, Miguel Martin, Sara Lopez Tarruella, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Judy C Boughey, Matthew Goetz, Tanya Hoskin, Rebecca Gould, Vincent Valero, Gabe Sonke, Maartje van Seijen, Jelle Wesseling, John Bartlett, Stephan Edge, Mi-Ok Kim, Jean Abraham, Carlos Caldas, Helena Earl, Elena Provenzano, Stephen-John Sammut, David Cameron, Ashley Graham, Peter Hall, Lorna MacKintosh, Fang Fan, Andrew K Godwin, Kelsey Schwensen, Priyanka Sharma, Angela DeMichele, Janet Dunn, Louise Hiller, Larry Hayward, Jeremy Thomas, Kimberley Cole, Lajos Pusztai, Laura van 't Veer, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman. Assessing prognosis after neoadjuvant therapy: A comparison between anatomic ypAJCC staging, residual cancer burden class and neo-bioscore [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 GS4-07.

Abstract [Background] Patient advocates bring a unique, valuable perspective and presence to SPOREs. However, although patient advocates are recommended members of SPORE grants, guidelines are not given on the role of advocates or on measurement of the performance of advocates. [Methods] The Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer SPORE Patient Advocate Advisory Committee has developed a participation measurement tool. This tool will underpin and augment evaluations of the individual advocate contributions by the program PI and the SPORE project leaders. The Advocate Advisory Committee Chair will review the evaluations with the individual advocates. Annually, the advocate committee will review the performance of the group by the standard of the metrics. [Results] Advocates kept a log of their SPORE activities for four months then worked with a statistician to discern patterns of measurable, evaluable behaviors. The determined evaluable areas are training, scientific activity, meeting attendance, communication. Currently, those metrics are being tracked. Advocates developed the metrics together and report activities at the monthly advocate meetings. Currently, activities are simply tracked and categorized. No minimum standards are set. This will be the third step in the development of the metrics. [Conclusions] This approach is the first step in the development of meaningful evaluation of advocate SPORE activities. It quantifies the participation of advocates in the SPORE and provides the basis for developing a qualitative performance evaluation. The SPORE PI and the Committee Chair will use the evaluations to interpret the involvement of advocates in SPORE research and activities and to plan interventions to strengthen the advocate contributions to the SPORE. Citation Format: Cynthia Chauhan, Wayland Eppard, Lori Denison, Debra Gearhart, Lawanna Holmes, Ruth Kraft, Linda Miller, Mary A Sitta, Mary L Smith, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Measurements of advocate participation in and contributions to the Mayo Clinic breast cancer SPORE [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-04.

Abstract Abstract #404 Background: The oral HDACi vorinostat (V) sensitizes breast cancer cells to tubulin polymerizing agents and anti-VEGF directed therapies in vitro. We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of V plus paclitaxel (P) and bevacizumab (B) as first-line therapy for MBC.
 Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with measurable disease, ECOG PS 0 or 1, and no prior chemotherapy for MBC, received P (90mg/m2) on days 1, 8, 15 and B (10mg/kg) on days 1,15 every 28 days, plus V 200 mg (N=3) or 300 mg (N=28) BID orally for 3 days given the day before, day of, and day after each P dose. Response was assessed after every 3 cycles (RECIST). The trial was designed to distinguish between a response rate of < 40% vs. > 60% (alpha=0.10, beta=0.10) using Simon's optimal 2-stage design. At least 12 responses were required in the first 28 evaluable pts in the 1st stage and 21 of 41 in the 2nd stage.
 Results: There were no dose-limiting toxicities among the first 6 pts treated at the 1st (200 mg BID; N=3) and 2nd (300 mg BID; N=3) dose levels. Among the 26 evaluable pts treated at the recommended phase II dose of 300mg bid in the 1st stage, 14 patients had a partial response (PR-54%; 90% confidence interval [C.I.] 36%-71%), 6 had stable disease (SD) at 3 months and remain on treatment, 2 had SD as the best response with progressive disease (PD) at 11.8 and 15 months, and 4 had PD as their best response. Additionally, 2 of 3 pts treated at the first V dose level had a PR, indicating PR in 16 of 29 overall (55%, 90% C.I 38%-71%). Only 11 of 29 evaluable pts (38%) have progressed after a median followup of 10.5 months (R-2.3-14.9). Two pts had tumor biopsies and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) collected before and 4 hours after the 3rd V dose (300 mg BID) which showed increased acetylation of K69 lysine residue of the chaperone protein Hsp 90, upregulation of Hsp70, and downregulation of AKT by Western Blot, providing evidence of Hsp90 inhibition in tumor and PBMC.
 
 Gr 3-4 toxicities included neutropenia (26%), neuropathy (23%), fatigue (16%), thrombosis (10%), vomiting (6%), hypertension (3%), and diarrhea (3%).
 Conclusions: Our preliminary findings indicate that the HDACi V inhibits Hsp90 and downregulates AKT in breast cancer in vivo, and enhances the effectiveness of P plus B in MBC. Accrual is nearly complete and the final efficacy analysis will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 404.