Yee, Douglas

Abstract Purpose In breast MRI, contrast enhancement of normal fibroglandular tissue is referred to as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Hormonal status significantly affects the degree of BPE, potentially due to the association with mammary vascularity and activity1-5. Studies have shown that BPE may be associated with breast cancer survival6, treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)7,8 and future breast cancer risk9. In most patients undergoing NAC, BPE is suppressed by the nonspecific anti-proliferative effects of chemotherapy on normal breast and/or ovary5,10. However, some patients exhibit equivalent or even stronger BPE post-NAC compared to pre-NAC. We hypothesized that non-suppressed BPE in post-NAC MRI may be associated with inferior treatment response. This study aimed to investigate the association between BPE suppression and treatment response as defined by pathologic complete response (pCR). Methods This study included patients with stage II/III breast cancer enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL being treated with standard NAC with or without investigational agents. The whole cohort was split into two subgroups based on hormone receptor status (HR+, n= 536; HR-, n=452). Patients underwent dynamic contrast enhanced MRIs at four time points during NAC: baseline (T0), after 3 weeks of the first regimen (T1), inter-regimen (T2), and pre-surgery (T3). Using in-house software, the contralateral breast parenchyma was automatically segmented for the entire breast volume. Quantitative BPE (qBPE) was calculated as the mean early (~150s post-contrast injection) percent enhancement of the central 50% of the axial slices. A breast radiologist reviewed all exams and excluded those where automated segmentation failed to accurately define tissue. For T1, T2 and T3, BPE was categorized based on the change from T0 as suppressed (qBPE < qBPE[T0]) or non-suppressed (qBPE ≥ qBPE[T0]). Chi-squared test was used to examine the association between BPE suppression and pCR, with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results HR+ cohort: pCR rates were lower for patients with non-suppressed BPE than those with suppressed BPE at every visit (T1-T3) (Table 1). The difference was statistically significant at T2 (p=0.04) and T3 (p=0.01). Table 1: HR+ cohortpCR rate (%)No. of pCR patientsNo. of non-pCR patientsTotal number of patientsP valueOverall22.8122414536BPE at T1suppressed23.6822663480.45non-suppressed20.532124156BPE at T2suppressed25.7972803770.04*non-suppressed16.01789106BPE at T3suppressed25.7982833810.01*non-suppressed12.5128496 HR- cohort: pCR rates were slightly lower for the non-suppressed BPE group, but no statistically significant association was found (Table 2). Table 2: HR- cohortpCR rate (%)No. of pCR patientsNo. of non-pCR patientsTotal number of patientsP valueOverall44.7202250452BPE at T1suppressed46.81411603010.66non-suppressed44.45265117BPE at T2suppressed48.81441512950.79non-suppressed47.3434891BPE at T3suppressed49.31461502960.94non-suppressed48.9434588 Conclusion In HR+ breast cancer, lack of BPE suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. The contrasting results in HR+ and HR- cohorts are noteworthy in terms of the possible relationship between suppression of normal mammary and ovarian activity and treatment response in HR+ cancer. Reference Radiographics 2014; 34: 234-47. Radiology 1997; 203: 137-44. Radiology 1997; 203: 145-9. Breast J 2005; 11: 236-41. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 669-73. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 4705-16. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 1590-6. Transl Oncol 2015; 8: 204-9. J Clin Oncol 2019; : JCO1800378. Radiology 2015; 277: 687-96. Citation Format: Natsuko Onishi, Wen Li, David C. Newitt, Roy Harnish, Jessica Gibbs, Ella F. Jones, Alex Nguyen, Lisa Wilmes, Bonnie N. Joe, Michael J. Campbell, Amrita Basu, Laura J. van’t Veer, Angela DiMichele, Douglas Yee, Donald A. Berry, Kathy S. Albain, Judy C. Boughey, A. Jo Chien, Amy S. Clark, Kirsten K. Edmiston, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, David M. Euhus, Heather S. Han, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J. Khan, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L. Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W. Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K. Viscusi, Anne M. Wallace, Rachel Yung, Michelle E. Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Smita M. Asare, Julie E. Yau, Christina Yau, Laura J. Esserman, Nola M. Hylton. Lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression in breast MRI during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with inferior treatment response in hormone receptor positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-05.

Abstract Background: In an adaptive randomized trial, when new treatment combinations are being tested, it is important to be able to identify patients who are progressing on treatment so that they can be changed to a different therapeutic regimen. We know that even within the molecularly high risk patients in I-SPY 2, there is considerable variation in biology. In this study, we will present results of using MRI-calculated functional tumor volume (FTV) to identify tumor progression for each breast cancer subtype. Methods: Patients (n=990) enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL who were randomized to the graduated experimental drug arms or controls from 2010 to 2016 were analyzed. Four MRI exams were performed for each patient: pre-NAC (T0), after 3 weeks of NAC (T1), between regimens (T2), and post-NAC (T3). Functional tumor volume (FTV) was calculated at each exam by summing voxels meeting enhancement thresholds. Tumor progression at T1, T2 or T3 was identified by a positive FTV change relative to T0. Visual inspection was used to exclude false progression due to strong background parenchymal enhancement post-contrast, prominent vessels, motion, or insufficient image quality. pCR was defined as no invasive disease in the breast and lymph nodes. Negative predictive value for pCR was defined as:NPV=number of true non-pCRs / number of patients with MRI assessed tumor progressions, where “true non-pCRs” referred to patients who were non-pCRs at surgery and were assessed as progressors by MRI. The analysis was performed in the full cohort and in sub-cohorts defined by HR and HER2 statuses. Results: Out of 990 patients, 878 had pCR outcome data (pCR or non-pCR, pCR rate = 35%). Total and non-pCR numbers for each subtype, number of patients with tumor progression assessed by MRI at T1, T2, and T3, and NPVs, are shown in Table 1. In the full cohort, the NPV increased consistently over treatment, from T1 (NPV=83%) to T2 (93%), and to T3 (100%). The HER2+ cancer subtypes showed fewer MRI-assessed tumor progressions than HER2- subtypes: e.g. 10/209 (5%) vs. 108/669 (16%) at T1. NPV was 100% for HER2+ subtypes at T1 and T2 except for a single misclassification of a HR- tumor at T1. Only 6 tumor progressors, all HER2- were identified at T3, and all were confirmed at surgery as non-pCRs (NPV=100%). For HR+/HER2-, the NPV increased slightly from 89% at T1 to 91% at T2, while triple negative subtype had a more substantial increase, from 78% to 92%. Conclusions: Our study showed strong association between tumor progressors assessed by MRI with true non-pCRs after NAC. For HER2+ tumors, although MRI progressors are rare, they strongly indicate non-pCR at all treatment time points, while HER2- subtypes show more accurate results later in treatment. We are evaluating MRI change at 6 weeks to determine if that time point is sufficient to predict progressors. Table 1 MRI assessed tumor progression at different treatment time pointN/non-pCRs/%non-pCRMRI assessed tumor progressionT1 (after 3 weeks)T2 (inter-regimen)T3 (post-NAC)NNPV (%)NNPV (%)NNPV (%)Full cohort878/572/65%11883.14192.76100%HR+/HER2-344/280/81%4588.91190.93100%HR+/HER2+134/85/63%610021000N/AHR-/HER2+75/23/31%47521000N/Atriple negative325/184/57%6377.82692.33100% Citation Format: Wen Li, Natsuko Onishi, David C Newitt, Jessica Gibbs, Lisa J Wilmes, Ella F Jones, Bonnie N Joe, Laura S Sit, Christina Yau, A. Jo Chien, Elissa Price, Kathy S Albain, Theresa Kuritza, Kevin Morley, Judy C Boughey, Kathy Brandt, Sadia Choudhery, Amy S Clark, Mark Rosen, Elizabeth S McDonald, Anthony D Elias, Dulcy Wolverton, Kelly Fountain, David M Euhus, Heather S Han, Bethany Niell, Jennifer Drukteinis, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K Viscusi, Anne M Wallace, Douglas Yee, Rachel Yung, Smita M Asare, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Donald A Berry, Angela DeMichele, Hiroyuki Abe, Deepa Sheth, Kirsten K Edmiston, Erin D Ellis, Richard Ha, Ralph Wynn, Erin P Crane, Charlotte Dillis, Michael Nelson, An Church, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J Khan, Karen Y Oh, Neda Jafarian, Dae Hee Bang, Christiane Mullins, Stefanie Woodard, Kathryn W Zamora, Haydee Ojeda-Fornier, Pulin Sheth, Linda Hovanessian-Larsen, Mohammad Eghtedari, Michael Spektor, Marina Giurescu, Mary S Newell, Michael A Cohen, Elise Berman, Constance Lehman, William Smith, Kim Fitzpatrick, Marisa H Borders, Wei Yang, Basak Dogan, Sally Goudreau, Thelma Brown, Laura J Esserman, Nola M Hylton. Breast cancer subtype specific association of pCR with MRI assessed tumor volume progression during NAC in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-04.

Abstract Background: Strong background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) may cause overestimation in tumor volume measured from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, which may adversely affect the ability of MR tumor volume to predict treatment outcome for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Specifically, an overestimation of tumor volume can result in misclassification of patients with complete pathologic response (pCR) as non-responders, leading to less confidence in MRI prediction. As well, overestimation of extent of disease might lead to more aggressive surgical therapy than necessary. This study investigated whether high BPE in the contralateral breast influences the predictive performance of MRI-measured functional tumor volume (FTV) for patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing NAC. Methods: patients (n=990) enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL who were randomized to the graduated experimental drug arms or controls from 2010 to 2016 were analyzed. Each patient had 4 MRI exams: pre-NAC (T0), after 3 weeks of NAC (T1), between NAC regimens (T2), and post-NAC (T3). FTV was calculated at each MRI exam by summing voxels meeting enhancement thresholds. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in the contralateral breast was calculated automatically as mean percentage enhancement on the early (nominal 150sec post-contrast) image in the fibroglandular tissue segmented from 5 continuous axial slices centered in the inferior-to-superior stack. For each treatment time point, patients having both FTV and BPE measurements were included in the analysis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated as the association between FTV and pCR at T1, T2, and T3. The analysis was conducted in the full patient cohort and in sub-cohorts defined by hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. In each patient cohort, a cut-off BPE value was selected to classify patients with high vs. low BPE by testing AUCs estimated with low-BPE patients reached maximum when the cut-off value varied from median to maximum in steps of 10%. Results: Out of 990 patients, 878 had pCR outcome data (pCR or non-pCR, pCR rate = 35%). Table 1 shows the number of patients, pCR rate, and AUC of FTV for predicting pCR using all patients available vs. a subset patients with low BPE (< BPE cut-off). In the full cohort, AUC increased slightly across all time points after patients with high BPE were removed. In the HR+/HER2- subtype, AUC increased at T1 after removal of cases with high BPE (0.65 vs. 0.71). For HR-/HER2+, AUC increased substantially after removal of high BPE cases (0.65 to 0.86 at T1, 0.71 to 0.87 at T2, and 0.71 to 0.89 at T3), with greater improvement at the early time point (T1) compared to later time points (T2 and T3). Only a slight improvement in the AUC was observed in the HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2- subtypes across all time points. Conclusions: High background parenchymal enhancement adversely affected the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured by DCE-MRI, at early treatment time point for HR+/HER2- and across all time points for HR-/HER2+ cancer subtype. The adverse effect might be offset using subtype-optimized enhancement threshold in calculating functional tumor volume. Table 1 Effect of BPE on the prediction of pCR using FTV at various treatment time pointsT1T2T3npCR rateAUCBPE cut-offnpCR rateAUCBPE cut-offnpCR rateAUCBPE cut-offFullAll64734%0.662762334%0.701761134%0.6925Subset45334%0.6831133%0.7230534%0.72HR+/HER2-All26218%0.651924918%0.718225518%0.7519Subset13118%0.7124818%0.7120419%0.76HR+/HER2+All10636%0.642110538%0.62269634%0.7120Subset5332%0.668438%0.665740%0.73HR-/HER2+All5175%0.65204774%0.71204973%0.7116Subset3073%0.862871%0.872475%0.89HR-/HER2-All22842%0.682822243%0.751821143%0.6916Subset15940%0.7111137%0.7810540%0.75 Citation Format: Wen Li, Natsuko Onishi, David C Newitt, Roy Harnish, Ella F Jones, Lisa J Wilmes, Jessica Gibbs, Elissa Price, Bonnie N Joe, A. Jo Chien, Donald A Berry, Judy C Boughey, Kathy S Albain, Amy S Clark, Kirsten K Edmiston, Anthony D Elias, Erin D Ellis, David M Euhus, Heather S Han, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J Khan, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K Viscusi, Anne M Wallace, Douglas Yee, Rachel Yung, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Christina Yau, Smita M Asare, Angela DeMichele, Sally Goudreau, Hiroyuki Abe, Deepa Sheth, Dulcy Wolverton, Kelly Fountain, Richard Ha, Ralph Wynn, Erin P Crane, Charlotte Dillis, Theresa Kuritza, Kevin Morley, Michael Nelson, An Church, Bethany Niell, Jennifer Drukteinis, Karen Y Oh, Neda Jafarian, Kathy Brandt, Sadia Choudhery, Dae Hee Bang, Christiane Mullins, Stefanie Woodard, Kathryn W Zamora, Haydee Ojeda-Fornier, Mohammad Eghedari, Pulin Sheth, Linda Hovanessian-Larsen, Mark Rosen, Elizabeth S McDonald, Michael Spektor, Marina Giurescu, Mary S Newell, Michael A Cohen, Elise Berman, Constance Lehman, William Smith, Kim Fitzpatrick, Marisa H Borders, Wei Yang, Basak Dogan, Laura J Esserman, Nola M Hylton. The effect of background parenchymal enhancement on the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured in MRI [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-02-01.

Abstract Background: A variety of investigational HER2-inhibitor agents/combinations have been tested in I-SPY 2, including neratinib (N), TDM1 combined with pertuzumab (P) (TDM1/P), and trastuzumab (H) combined with pertuzumab (H/P; prior to this combination becoming standard of care), all with trastuzumab as control (Ctr). All three experimental arms graduated, showing improved efficacy over control in one or more receptor subsets (HR+HER2+, HR-HER2+, or/and HER2+). Here we assess 10 biomarkers in the HER2, ER/PR, and proliferation pathways on multiple levels of resolution (expression, protein, phospho-protein) as predictors of response in these four arms, hypothesizing that highly HER2-activated, proliferative tumors may be more sensitive to HER2-inhibition than those that are more luminal and quiescent. Methods: 192 HER2+ patients were considered in this analysis: (31 Ctr, 65 N, 52 TDM1/P, and 44 H/P). 10 biomarkers relating to HER2, ER, or proliferation were evaluated from pre-treatment biopsies: HER2 IHC (n=145), 3 expression signatures (n=192), BluePrint subtype (n=192), and 5 protein/phospho-protein analytes by RPPA (n=175). Each biomarker was tested for association with pCR in the whole population and within each arm using a logistic model. This analysis was adjusted for HR status and treatment arm as covariates, and performed within receptor subtypes. This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers. Results: In the population as a whole, HER2 and HER2-signaling biomarkers, evaluated at multiple levels of resolution: IHC, total-/phospho-protein by RPPA, and mRNA (HER2 amplicon module) - are highly correlated (rho=0.8 [0.65-0.92]). Higher HER2 levels and activity are associated with response: HER2 IHC 3+ status (LR p=0.00032), total quantitative ERBB2 protein by RPPA (LR p=5.4E-09), ERBB2 activation levels (LR p=6.58E-06 (pERBB2 (Y1248)) and 9.95E-06 (pEGFR Y1173)), and the ERBB2 amplicon expression signature (LR p=2.38E-08). In contrast, higher average ER/PR expression associates with non-response to HER2-targeted therapy (LR p=4.28E-08). Both HER2 and ER/PR signaling phenotypes are captured by BluePrint subtyping; and consistent with the individual pathway markers, tumors classified Luminal-type had a lower pCR rate relative to those classified as Her2-type (or Basal-type) (LR p=4.84E-11). These associations all retain significance in a model adjusting for HR status and treatment arm, and in the HR+HER2+ subset. In addition, we quantitatively assessed proliferation markers at the total protein (RPPA: Ki67), phospho-protein (pAURKA) and mRNA (proliferation signature Module11_Prolif) levels. All three proliferation biomarkers predict response overall; but this association is strongest within the HR+HER2+ subset (LR p=0.0012 (Module11_prolif), 0.0036 (pAURK), and 0.045 (Ki67)). None of the biomarkers tested were associated with response in the HR-HER2+ subset. Numbers are small within individual arms. Within the HR+HER2+ subtype, higher HER2 and lower ER/PR is observed in responders in all experimental arms; but the proliferation markers Module11_Prolif (LR p=0.0031) and Ki67 total protein (LR p=0.0029) are associated with response to TDM1/P but not H/P or N. Conclusion: High HER2 signaling at the expression, protein, and phospho-protein levels, and low ER signaling, all predict response to HER2-inhibition across treatment arms. Proliferation markers may be useful for prioritizing therapies in the HR+HER2+ subset. Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Julia Wulfkuhle, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Smita M. Asare, Gillian L. Hirst, Laura Sit, Jane Perlmutter, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Minetta Liu, John Park, Angela DeMichele, Douglas Yee, Don Berry, Laura Esserman, Emanuel Petricoin, Laura van t' Veer. HER2 signaling, ER, and proliferation biomarkers predict response to multiple HER2-targeted agents/combinations plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-02.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify (graduate) regimens with ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e., demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 1:1 randomized neoadjuvant trial with pCR endpoint within signatures defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2, and MammaPrint (MP) status. Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or safety concerns as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2+ patients, the I-SPY2 control arm was 12 weekly cycles of paclitaxel+trastuzumab (TH, control) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4 and surgery. Patritumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits HER3. In this experimental arm for HER2+ patients, patritumab was given q3w x 4 cycles (18mg/kg loading dose followed by 9mg/kg/dose) concurrent with paclitaxel and trastuzumab q1w x 12 weeks (PTH, treatment), followed by AC q2-3w. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 weeks after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Analysis was intention to treat. Patients who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Patients on treatment arm therapy at the time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Graduation potential was in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: all HER2+, HR-/HER2+, and HR+/HER2+. Results: The PTH regimen was stopped at the recommendation of the Safety Working Group and DSMB based on a safety event (bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, Gr 3) observed in one patient. At the time of arm closure, N=31 patients had received PTH treatment; 4 patients receiving PTH were changed to non-protocol therapy and removed from the analysis. The final estimated pCR report will consider 27 PTH and 31 TH as evaluable patients. Accrual was insufficient to assess graduation, however, there appears to be good signal in the HER2+HR- but not HER2+HR+ signatures. I-SPY 2 TRIAL Est. pCR at time of arm closureSignaturesPTH (Treatment)N= 31TH (Control)N = 31All (HER2+)0.40 (0.22 - 0.59), n=310.23 (0.09 - 0.37), n=31HR-/HER2+0.64 (0.36 - 0.91), n=110.30 (0.12 - 0.47), n=12HR+/HER2+0.28 (0.08 - 0.48), n=200.20 (0.06 - 0.34), n=19 HR+/HER2+0.28 (0.08 - 0.48), n=200.20 (0.06 - 0.34), n=19The patient who developed Gr3 sensorineural hearing loss 6 days after the 2nd patritumab (and 4th paclitaxel/trastuzumab) treatment, did not recover her hearing after patritumab was stopped, and also reported Gr3 vulvovaginal pain, vulvitis, and vaginal inflammation. Other gynecological symptoms in the PTH arm include: 1 pt with Gr1 vaginal hemorrhage, and 1 pt with Gr2 dyspareunia. There was a higher frequency of Gr3 hypokalaemia (12.5% vs. 3.2%). One pt in the PTH arm reported Gr3 small intestinal obstruction which resolved with conservative management. Conclusion: The I-SPY 2 study aims to assess the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a phase 3 neoadjuvant trial; PTH was stopped due to safety concerns, although there was activity in the HER2+ HR- signature. This is the first report of Gr3 hearing loss associated with patritumab/paclitaxel/trastuzumab, and thus attribution is uncertain. Citation Format: Teresa L Helsten, Shelly S Lo, Christina Yau, Kevin Kalinsky, Anthony D Elias, Anne M Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Janice Lu, Julie E Lang, Kathy S Albain, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Erin D Ellis, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Claudine Isaacs, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, Nola M. Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of patritumab/paclitaxel/trastuzumab over standard paclitaxel/trastuzumab in early stage, high-risk HER2 positive breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-02.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, response-adaptive randomization phase 2 trial to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer - weekly paclitaxel + investigational treatment x 12 wks followed by doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide(AC) q3 wks x 4 vs. weekly paclitaxel/AC (control). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). The goal for all investigational arms is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 1:1 randomized neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by hormone-receptor (HR) & HER2 status & MammaPrint (MP). Findings from the graduated, previously reported Pembro4 arm (Nanda et al, ASCO 2017) supported investigation of de-escalating therapy, and determining if pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) alone q3 wks x 4 after weekly paclitaxel x 12 wks + pembrolizumab q3 wks x 4 was sufficient to sustain response without AC. Methods: Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ were ineligible. MRI scans (at baseline, 3 wks, 12 wks, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients (pts). Pts who receive non-protocol therapy (e.g., carboplatin or AC for the Pembro8-noAC arm) count as non-pCR. Pembro8-noAC was open to HER2- pts for evaluation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2-, and HR-/HER2-. Regimens exit the trial for futility (<10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% <probability of success <85%), or safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Pembro8-noAC was randomized to 73 pts, 3 of whom progressed while receiving pembrolizumab alone on study. Randomization to this arm continued after the first report because the rate of progression during AC over the course of the trial was estimated to be 6.5% based on serial MRI studies. However, notification of the third case prompted the study team to ask the DSMB for the summary response for this arm. Although it did not meet formal stopping rules for either graduation or futility, Pembro8-noAC was not near the target threshold pCR rates of 60% for HR-/HER2- and 30% for HR+/HER2+. As a result of this information, combined with the on-treatment progressions, assignment to Pembro8-noAC was discontinued. Treatment with pembrolizumab alone was no longer allowed due to the potential concern for progression, and investigators were given the option to administer AC with pembrolizumab or proceed with definitive surgery following the 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab. 34 pts had surgery results at the time the study was closed. Of the remaining 39 pts, 34 pts have on-therapy MRI assessments. Estimated pCR rates were based on all pts with information at the time (see table). Immune-related adverse events included grade 3 colitis (n=2), grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1), grade 3 transaminitis (n=1), grade 3 hypothyroidism (n=1), and grade 1-2 adrenal insufficiency (n=5). Conclusion: Although Pembro8-noAC is performing at least as well as standard paclitaxel/AC, the likelihood is very low that the regimen would be successful in a phase 3 trial. Pembrolizumab alone following 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab was not sufficient to sustain a response. This was quickly assessed with a small number of patients. Estimated pCR rateSignature(95% prob interval)Pembro8-noACControlHER2-0.210.2(0.09-0.32)(0.15-0.25)HR-/HER2-0.270.27(0.09-0.45)(0.19-0.35)HR+/HER2-0.150.15(0.01-0.29)(0.09-0.20) Citation Format: Minetta C. Liu, Patricia A Robinson, Christina Yau, Anne M Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kathy S Albain, Judy C Boughey, Heather S Han, Anthony D Elias, Kevin Kalinsky, Amy S Clark, Kathleen Kemmer, Claudine Isaacs, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Nola M Hylton, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Patricia K Haugen, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of a novel agent plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-09-02.

Abstract Background: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown on the patient level to predict excellent long-term event-free survival outcomes. Residual cancer burden (RCB) quantifies the extent of residual disease for patients who did not achieve pCR. A high proportion of metastatic events to the central nervous system (CNS), a known chemotherapy sanctuary site, was previously observed among the small number of relapses in patients achieving a pCR (Symmans et al 2017), raising the possibility that these CNS events may be independent of response in the breast. I-SPY2 is an adaptively randomized, phase II, platform trial that evaluates new drugs and combinations in the neoadjuvant setting for women with high-risk primary breast cancer. In this study, we evaluated the type and sites of recurrences by RCB classes in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Methods: I-SPY 2 patients enrolled prior to 11/2016 across 9 experimental and control arms, with available RCB and event-free survival (EFS) data were included in this analysis. The median follow-up is 3.8 years. We summarized the EFS event type, further sub-dividing the distant recurrence events by their site of relapse (CNS-only, CNS and other sites, Non-CNS). We estimated the overall and site-specific distant recurrence incidence in each RCB class at 3 years using a competing risk (Fine-Gray) model. In addition, we assessed the association between RCB and distant recurrence free survival including all distant recurrences (DRFS), as well as excluding the CNS-only recurrences (non-CNS DRFS) using a Cox model. Our statistics do not adjust for multiplicities beyond variables evaluated in this study. Results: Among 938 subjects, there were 180 EFS events, including 28 (16%) local recurrences (without distant recurrence and/or death) and 152 DRFS events. Among the DRFS events, 25 patients died without a distant recurrence. 127 experienced distant recurrences, including 22 (17.3%) with CNS-only, 16 (12.6%) with CNS and other sites, 87 (68.5%) with non-CNS distant recurrence; 2 (1.6%) patients had missing recurrence site information. Incidence of CNS-only recurrences are low and are similar across RCB classes (pCR/RCB-0 (n=338): 1%, RCB-I (n=129): 3%, RCB-II (n=328): 2%, RCB-III (n=143): 2% at 3 years). In contrast, the incidence of non-CNS recurrences increase with increasing RCB (RCB-0: 2%, RCB-I: 4%, RCB-II: 11%, RCB-III: 19% at 3 years). DRFS of RCB-I patients do not significantly differ from those achieving a pCR/RCB-0 (DRFS at 3 years: 92% vs. 95%, hazard ratio: 1.77 (0.87-3.63)); the small numerical difference is further reduced when the CNS-only recurrences are excluded (non-CNS DRFS at 3 years: 95% vs. 96%, hazard ratio: 1.48 (0.61-3.58)). CNS recurrences among DRFS events are proportionally higher within the pCR (5/16 (31%)) and RCB-I (5/12 (42%)) than in the RCB-II (8/57 (14%)) and RCB-III (4/42 (9%)) groups largely because of the relative low frequency of non-CNS recurrence events. Conclusions: In our high-risk I-SPY 2 cohort, CNS-only recurrences are uncommon but appear similar across RCB groups, independent of response, suggesting that the CNS is a treatment sanctuary site. In contrast, non-CNS recurrence rates increase as RCB increases. These findings, if confirmed, support the use of RCB to identify patients with excellent outcomes beyond those achieving a pCR; and suggest that inclusion of CNS only recurrences as an outcome event may impact the association between neoadjuvant therapy response and long-term outcome. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Angela DeMichele, W. Fraser Symmans, Lajos Pusztai, Douglas Yee, Amy S. Clark, Christos Hatzis, Jeffrey B. Matthews, Jodi Carter, Yunn-Yi Chen, Kimberly Cole, Laila Khazai, Molly Klein, Dina Kokh, Gregor Krings, Sunati Sahoo, Kathy S. Albain, A. Jo Chien, Kirsten K. Edmiston, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, David M. Euhus, Heather S. Han, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J. Khan, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L. Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W. Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K. Viscusi, Anne M. Wallace, Rachel Yung, Nola M. Hylton, Judy C. Boughey, Michelle E. Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Laura J. van' t Veer, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Site of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy: Clues to biology and impact on endpoints [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-20-02.

PURPOSEThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODSI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.RESULTSMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).CONCLUSIONThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.