Buxton, Meredith

Abstract Background: We hypothesize that response to the pan-ERBB inhibitor, neratinib (N), may be predicted by pre-treatment HER2-EGFR signaling. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, N graduated in the HR-/HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy. For HER2+ patients, N was administered in place of trastuzumab. We evaluated 18 HER family signaling proteins as biomarkers of N response using reverse phase protein microarray (RPMA) data from pre-treatment LCM purified tumor epithelium. Methods: 168 patients (N: 106, concurrent controls: 62) had RPMA and pCR data. 18 biomarkers relating to HER family signaling were evaluated: AKT S473, AKT T308, EGFR, EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1148, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 total, ERBB3 Y1289, ERK1/2 T202/Y204, Heregulin, mTOR, mTOR S2448, PI3K p85 Y458/p55 Y199, PTEN S380, and SHC Y317. We assessed association between biomarker and response in the N and control arms alone (likelihood ratio test), and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction) using a logistic model. Analysis was also performed adjusting for HR/HER2 status. In an exploratory analysis, we selected the marker with the greatest interaction (phosphorylated EGFR (Y1173)) to dichotomize patients optimally based on the data and assessed it in the context of the graduating signature by adding the EGFR Y1173-High patients to the HR-/HER2+ subtype and evaluating the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data and does not account for multiplicities. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Results: 7 HER pathway markers (EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2 total, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 Y1289, SHC Y317) are associated with response in the N but not the control arm. However, the difference in performance between arms did not reach significance by permutation testing. Adjusting for HR/HER2 status, EGFR Y1173 shows a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p = 0.049). In an exploratory analysis, we dichotomized patients by their EGFR Y1173 levels and evaluated the distribution of pCR rates (Table 1). Neratinib (n=106)Control (n=62)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=31)EGFR Y1173 High (n=75)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=29)EGFR Y1173 High (n=33)HR-/HER2+ (n=28)0 / 412 / 181 / 11 / 5Not HR-/HER2+ (n=140)3 / 2724 / 575 / 285 / 28Table 1 OR between EGFR Y1173 groups in the N relative to control arm is 10.1. When EGFR Y1173 High patients are added to the graduating HR-/HER2+ subset, the OR associated with treatment is 3.2 and is comparable to that in the HR-/HER2+ signature (OR: 2.1), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼50%. Evaluation of EGFR Y1173 under the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model is pending. Conclusion: Our sample size is too small to draw definitive conclusions. Our exploratory analysis reveals that HER family phosphoproteins associate with response to N, but only phosphorylated EGFR Y1173 appears to add value to the graduating signature. Given that this biomarker would expand the patient population that may benefit, it merits evaluation in other ongoing trials of neratinib. Citation Format: Julia D Wulfkuhle, Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Rosa I Gallagher, Ashish Sanil, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Meredith Buxton, Angela DeMichele, Nola Hylton, William F Symmans, Laura van't Veer, Douglas Yee, Melissa Paoloni, Laura Esserman, Donald Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Emanuel F Petricoin III. Evaluation of HER family protein signaling network as a predictive biomarker for pCR for breast cancer patients treated with neratinib in the I-SPY 2 trial [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 P3-06-15.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II neoadjuvant trial in women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Goal is to identify regimens that meet a high Bayesian predictive probability of statistical significance in a neoadjuvant 300-patient phase III trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Experimental regimens may “graduate” in 1 of 10 signatures, with a maximum of 120 patients. We report efficacy results for neratinib (N). Methods: Tumors ≥2.5cm by clinical exam & ≥2cm by imaging are eligible for screening. MP low risk/HR+/HER2- tumors are ineligible for randomization. Patients receive chemotherapy (paclitaxel qwk x 12, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2-3 wk x 4, T->AC). HER2- pts were randomized to N+T->AC vs. T->AC and HER2+ pts to N+T->AC vs. trastuzumab+T->AC. Analysis is intent-to-treat with pts who switch to non-protocol therapy regarded as non-pCRs. We provide estimated pCR rates (95% Bayesian probability intervals), probabilities of superiority of neratinib over control, and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in an equally randomized phase III trial. Results: Neratinib met the predictive probability criterion in HR-/HER2+, “graduated”, and accrual ceased [115 N patients (65 HER2+), 78 concurrently randomized controls (22 HER2+)]. The table shows results for all 10 signatures. Two patients (1 N and 1 control) withdrew consent and are not included. Conclusion: I-SPY 2's standing trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined patient subsets. In a modest number of patients, adaptive randomization successfully identified a biomarker signature (HR-/HER2+) for neratinib's further development. All HER2+ and MP+ tumors may also benefit from this regimen, consistent with preclinical data. Evaluation in I-SPY 3, a phase III registration trial, is planned. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability NeratinibIs Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIINeratinibControlALL32% (28-36%)23% (19%-28%)92%44%HR+23% (18%-28%)17% (11%-22%)81%40%HR-43% (37%-49%)31% (24%-38%)89%53%HER2+39% (33%-45%)23% (15%-30%)95%73%HER2-26% (21%-32%)24% (18%-29%)63%20%MP+*45% (38%-53%)29% (20%-39%)91%66%HR-/HER2-36% (29%-43%)30% (23%-38%)72%34%HR-/HER2+55% (46%-64%)32% (22%-43%)94%78%HR+/HER2+31% (24%-37%)17% (10%-24%)91%65%HR+/HER2-14% (8%-19%)16% (10%-21%)39%12%* MammaPrint 44K Array Low/High score was adjusted to MammaPrint High1 (MP-) or High2 (MP+), using a pre-defined median cut-point of I-SPY 1 participants, who fit the eligibility criteria of I-SPY 2. Citation Format: John W. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Laura van 't Veer, Nola Hylton, Fraser Symmans, Meredith B. Buxton, A. Jo Chien, Amy Wallace, Michelle Melisko, Richard Schwab, Judy Boughey, Debashish Tripathy, Hank Kaplan, Rita Nanda, Stephen Chui, Kathy S. Albain, Stacy Moulder, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Kirsten Edminston, Donald Northfelt, David Euhus, Qamar Khan, Julia Lyandres, Sarah E. Davis, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Laura J. Esserman, Donald A. Berry. Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT227. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT227

AbstractThe many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach. Clin Cancer Res; 21(13); 2911–5. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.