DeMichele, Angela

Abstract Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), generally considered aggressive with few options beyond standard chemotherapy, is currently experiencing a period of optimism, with multiple trials showing increased efficacy of platinum containing regimens (with and without PARP-inhibition), and more recently, immunotherapy. In I-SPY 2, veliparib/carboplatin (VC) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Pembro) graduated in the TN subtype. As part of the I-SPY 2 biomarker program, we previously identified the signature PARPi7, a measure of DNA repair deficiency (DRD), as predicting response to VC. As well, immune signatures, including one representing dendritic cells, predicted response to Pembro. Here we investigate the overlap between these biomarkers to identify patient subgroups more likely to respond to immunotherapy or platinum-based therapy and estimate response rates to VC and Pembro in patients positive for one, both, or neither biomarker. Methods: 153 TNBC patients (Control: 85; VC: 39; Pembro: 29) were considered in this analysis. Continuous DNA repair deficiency and immune signatures assayed at the pre-treatment time point were evaluated as published (Wolf, 2017; Danaher, 2017). To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate pCR rates by arm for patient subsets defined by biomarker combinations. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability; and this analysis does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Using the optimal dichotomizing cutpoints, 54% of TNBC patients are classified as DRD+, and 67% Immune+. As expected, DRD+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to VC (75%); and Immune+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to Pembro (82%). Combining these biomarkers, 40% of TNBC are positive for both biomarkers, 40% for only one biomarker (26% Immune+/DRD-, 14% Immune-/DRD+), and 20% for neither. The Immune+/DRD+ TN subset predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro has a higher estimated pCR rate to both VC and Pembro relative to control (estimated pCR rates: VC: 75%, Pembro: 73% vs. control: 18%). In contrast, the Immune+/DRD- group, predicted to be sensitive to Pembro, has the highest pCR rate to Pembro (VC: 48%, Pembro: 83% vs. control 21%), whereas the Immune-/DRD+ group is most responsive to VC (VC: 63%, Pembro: 41% vs. control 29%). For the 20% of Immune-/DRD- TNBC patients, their estimated response rates are lower than the biomarker-positive patients (VC: 27%, Pembro: 43% vs. control: 19%). Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes capturing immune activation and DNA repair deficiency may predict response of TNBC and help prioritize selection of platinum or immunotherapy containing regimens. Citation Format: Denise M. Wolf, Christina Yau, Julia Wulfkuhle, Emanuel Petricoin, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Gillian Hirst, Smita Asare, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Rita Nanda, Minetta Liu, Laura Esserman, Laura van t' Veer. Integration of DNA repair deficiency and immune biomarkers to predict which early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients are likely to respond to platinum-containing regimens vs. immunotherapy: The neoadjuvant 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 2679.

Abstract ctDNA analysis offers a non-invasive approach for monitoring response and resistance to treatment. Serial ctDNA testing during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) may provide early indicators of emerging resistance and disease progression. In this study, we analyzed ctDNA from high-risk early breast cancer patients who received NAT and definitive surgery in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). We hypothesize that (1) assessment of ctDNA levels early in treatment will improve the performance of molecular and imaging-based predictors of pathologic complete response (pCR) to NAT; and (2) levels of ctDNA after NAT are associated with residual cancer burden and recurrence [distant recurrence free survival (DRFS)]. Methods: ctDNA analysis was performed in 84 high-risk stage II and III breast cancer patients randomized to neoadjuvant investigational agent (n=52), AKT inhibitor MK-2206 (M) in combination with paclitaxel (T) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) (M+T->AC), or standard-of-care (T->AC) (n=32). HER2+ patients also received trastuzumab (H). Serial plasma was collected before NAT (T0), early treatment (3 weeks, T1), between regimens (12 weeks, T2), and after NAT prior to surgery (T3). Mutational profiles derived from pretreatment tumor biopsy and normal matched DNA whole exome sequencing were used to design personalized assays targeting 16 patient-specific somatic variants to detect ctDNA in serial plasma. Results: Of the 84 patients in this study, 43% were HR-/HER2- (TNBC), 35% HR+/HER2-, and 23% HER2+. In total, 74% (61 of 83), 35% (28 of 79), 14% (9 of 65), and 8% (5 of 61) were positive for ctDNA at timepoints T0, T1, T2, and T3, respectively. At T0, ctDNA positivity and levels (average number of mutant molecules detected per mL) were significantly associated with increased tumor burden (by clinical and MRI examination), more aggressive tumor biology (as reflected in higher Mammaprint scores and grade) and subtype (HER2+ and TNBC). Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the 84 patients achieved a pCR and all patients who were ctDNA-positive at T3 (n=5) did not achieve a pCR. Currently, data are being collected to: (1) assess the relationship of ctDNA and MRI imaging in predicting tumor response to therapy; (2) examine the relationship of ctDNA levels before and after NAT with 3-year DRFS and event-free survival (EFS). The results of these analyses will be presented at the SABCS 2018 meeting. Conclusions: Our study provides a platform to evaluate the clinical significance of ctDNA for serial monitoring of response to NAT. Accurate and early response prediction by highly sensitive ctDNA analysis can facilitate a timely and judicious change in treatment to improve patients' chances of achieving a pCR. Finally, personalized ctDNA testing may complement imaging and pathologic evaluation of tumor response to fine-tune pCR as a surrogate endpoint for improved DRFS and EFS. Citation Format: Magbanua MJM, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst GL, Yau C, Wolf D, Ma AA, Bergin E, Venters S, Sethi H, Wu H-T, Salari R, Tin T, Sawyer S, Louie M, Zimmermann B, Lin C-HJ, Keats J, Liang WS, Cuyugan L, Enriquez D, Tripathy D, Chien AJ, Forero A, DeMichele A, Liu M, Delson AL, Asare S, Esserman L, van't Veer L, I-SPY 2 Consortium. Personalized serial circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in high-risk early stage breast cancer patients to monitor and predict response to neoadjuvant therapy and outcome in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-01.

Abstract Background: In women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual cancer burden (RCB) predicts distant recurrence and survival. In those with high risk tumors, locoregional recurrence (LRR) remains a concern, and has been associated with type of local therapy received. We evaluated the impact of local therapy on LRR in the ISPY-2 TRIAL. Methods: Data were analyzed in Stata 14.2, using Chi2 test, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model. RCB was considered a categorical variable (0/1 versus 2/3), as described in prior publications. Breast surgery categories were lumpectomy +/- radiotherapy, or mastectomy +/- radiotherapy. Axillary surgery was defined as sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery (≤6 nodes removed) or axillary dissection (>6 nodes). Results: Follow up data from the I-SPY2 TRIAL were available for 630 patients (median follow up 2.76 yrs, range 0.4-7.2). Type of local therapy was significantly associated with clinical stage at presentation, with stage III patients most frequently undergoing mastectomy + radiation (p<0.001). Women with higher RCB were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those with lower RCB (61.3% vs 48.8% mastectomy rate, p=0.002), and more likely to receive adjuvant radiotherapy (62.0% vs 53.9%, p=0.048). There was no association between clinical stage, type of surgery, or radiotherapy and LRR (Table). Higher RCB was significantly associated with LRR, with 3 year locoregional recurrence free rate of 95.1% in RCB 0/1 versus 89.9% in RCB 2/3 (p=0.003). In a Cox model adjusting for clinical stage, tumor subtype, surgical therapy, RCB status, nodal radiation, and age, significant predictors for LRR were tumor subtype and RCB status. Hazard ratio (HR) for LRR in those with RCB 0/1 was 0.39 compared to those with RCB 2/3 (95% CI 0.17-0.87, p=0.021). There was no difference in LRR between breast conservation and mastectomy; within the breast conservation group, those who had lumpectomy alone had higher hazard of LRR compared to those having lumpectomy + radiation (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-9.2, p=0.043). Conclusions: Extent of surgical therapy was not associated with local tumor control, regardless of advanced tumor stage at presentation. Rather, tumor biology and response to therapy were the best predictors of LRR. These data highlight the opportunity to minimize the morbidity of extensive surgical therapy for patients with excellent response to systemic therapy. LRR rates by clinical features and treatment status FrequencyLRR RateP valueClinical Stage 0.5I240 (47.5%)5.8% II185 (36.6%)8.7% III80 (15.8%)6.3% Tumor Subtype 0.014ER+PR+Her2-161 (26.4%)3.1% ER+PR-Her2-56 (9.2%)3.6% Her2+176 (28.9%)6.3% Triple negative216 (35.5%)11.1% Local therapy 0.169Lumpectomy85 (13.5%)11.8% Lumpectomy with radiation198 (31.4%)5.6% Mastectomy173 (27.5%)5.2% Mastectomy with radiation174 (27.6%)8.6% Axillary surgery 0.23None5 (0.8%)20% SLN329 (52.2%)5.8% ALND296 (47%)8.5% Axillary radiation 0.535Yes42 (6.7%)9.5% No588 (93.3%)7.0% Axillary management 0.2No surgery or radiation5 (0.8%)20.0% SLN312 (50%)5.3% SLN+Axillary radiation17 (2.7%)8.3% ALND271 (43%)10.3% ALND+Axillary radiation25 (4%)5.4% RCB 0.0020/1293 (50.1%)3.8% 2/3292 (49.9%)10.3% Citation Format: Silverstein J, Suleiman L, Yau C, Price ER, Singhrao R, Yee D, DeMichele A, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chien AJ, Forero-Torres A, Wallace AM, Pusztai L, Ellis ED, Elias AD, Lang JE, Lu J, Han HS, Clark AS, Korde L, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Khan QJ, Viscusi RK, Euhus DM, Edmiston KK, Chui SY, Kemmer K, Wood WC, Park JW, Liu MC, Olopade O, Leyland-Jones B, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Berry DA, Asare SM, Esserman LJ, Boughey JC, Mukhtar RA. The impact of local therapy on locoregional recurrence in women with high risk breast cancer in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-01.

Abstract Background: The explosion in new treatment options targeting immune checkpoints, HER signaling, DNA repair deficiency, AKT, and other pathways calls for updated breast cancer subtypes beyond HR and HER2 status to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Here we leverage the I-SPY 2 TRIAL biomarker program over the past 8 years across 10 treatment arms to elucidate a minimal set of biomarkers that may improve response prediction in a modern treatment context, and to investigate which new patient phenotypes are identified by these response-predictive biomarkers. Methods: 986 patients were considered in this analysis. Treatments included paclitaxel alone (or with trastuzumab (H) in HER2+) or combined with investigational agents: veliparib/carboplatin (VC); neratinib; MK2206; ganitumab; ganetespib; AMG386; TDM1/pertuzumab (P); H/P; and pembrolizumab (Pembro). 24 prospectively defined, mechanism-of-action and pathway-based expression and phospho-protein signatures/biomarkers assayed from pre-treatment biopsies were previously found to be predictive in a particular agent/arm in pre-specified analysis. Here we evaluate these biomarkers in all patients. We assessed association between each biomarker and response in the population as a whole and within each arm and HR/HER2 subtype using a logistic model. To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds for select biomarkers, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Our analysis is exploratory and does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Our initial set of 24 predictive biomarkers reflects DNA repair deficiency (n=2), immune activation (n=7), ER signaling (n=2), HER2 signaling (n=4), proliferation (n=2), phospho-activation of AKT/mTOR (n=2), and ANG/TIE2 (n=1) pathways, among others. Biomarkers reflecting similar biology are correlated and cluster together. We make use of this correlation structure to reduce the dimensionality of the biomarker set to five predictive signals: proliferation, DNA repair deficiency (DRD), immune-engaged (Immune+), luminal/ER (lum), and HER2-activated. These biomarkers, when dichotomized, identify patient groups with differential predicted sensitivities to I-SPY 2 agents and are present at different proportions within receptor subtypes. For instance, in the HER2- subset, Immune+/DRD+ patients are predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro, and account for 39% of TN, but only 12% of HR+HER2-. On the other end of the spectrum, only 17% of TN are Immune-/DRD-, compared to the majority (56%) of HR+HER2-. There are also subsets of patients positive for only one marker. For the HER2+ subset, 67% are HER2-activated+, and 25% lum+; of these HER2-activated+ patients are more likely to be Immune+ (44%), vs 23% in lum+. HER2-activated+/Immune+ patients have higher predicted sensitivity to HER2-targeted agents than lum+ or Immune- patients. In all, these molecular phenotypes predict sensitivity to one or more I-SPY 2 investigational agents for 75% of the ˜ 1000 patients. Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes reflecting proliferation, immune engagement, HER2-activation, luminal/ER-signaling, and DNA repair deficiency may provide a roadmap to guide treatment prioritization for emerging therapeutics. Citation Format: Wolf DM, Yau C, Wulfkuhle J, Petricoin E, Campbell M, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Asare S, Zhu Z, Lee EP, Delson A, Pohlmann P, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Hylton N, Liu MC, Symmans F, DeMichele A, Yee D, Berry D, Esserman L, van 't Veer L. Identifying breast cancer molecular phenotypes to predict response in a modern treatment landscape: Lessons from ˜1000 patients across 10 arms of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-10-02.

Abstract Background: Patients achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy have significantly improved event-free survival relative to those who do not; and pCR is an FDA-accepted endpoint to support accelerated approval of novel agents/combinations in the neoadjuvant treatment of high risk early stage breast cancer. Previous studies have shown that recurrence risk increased with increasing burden of residual disease (as assessed by the RCB index). As well, these studies suggest that patients with minimum residual disease (RCB-I class) also have favorable outcomes (comparable to those achieving a pCR) within high risk tumor subtypes. In this study, we assess whether integrating RCB with MRI functional tumor volume (FTV), which in itself is prognostic, can improve prediction of distant recurrence free survival (DRFS); and identify a subset of patients with minimal residual disease with comparable DRFS as those who achieved a pCR. Imaging tools can then be used to identify the subset that will do well early and guide the timing of surgical therapy. Method: We performed a pooled analysis of 596 patients from the I-SPY2 TRIAL with RCB, pre-surgical MRI FTV data and known follow-up (median 2.5 years). We first assessed whether FTV predicts residual disease (pCR or pCR/RCB-I) using ROC analysis. We applied a power transformation to normalize the pre-surgical FTV distribution; and assessed its association with DRFS using a bi-variate Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for HR/HER2 subtype. We also fitted a bivariate Cox model of RCB index adjusting for subtype; and assessed whether adding pre-surgical FTV to this model further improves association with DRFS using a likelihood ratio (LR) test. For the Cox modeling, penalized splines approximation of the transformed FTV and RCB index with 2 degrees of freedom was used to allow for non-linear effects of FTV and RCB on DRFS. Result: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is significantly associated with DRFS (Wald p<0.00001), and more effective at predicting pCR/RCB-I than predicting pCR alone (AUC: 0.72 vs. 0.65). Larger pre-surgical FTV remains associated with worse DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p <0.00001). The RCB index is also significantly associated with DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p<0.00001). Adding FTV to a model containing RCB and subtype further improves association with DRFS (LR p=0.0007). RCB-I patients have excellent DRFS (94% at 3 years compared to 95% in the pCR group). Efforts are underway to identify an optimal threshold for dichotomizing pre-surgical FTV and FTV change measures for use in combination with pCR/RCB-I class to generate integrated RCB (iRCB) groups as a composite predictor of DRFS. Conclusion: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is effective at predicting minimal residual disease (RCB0/I) in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Despite the association between FTV and RCB, FTV appears to provide independent added prognostic value (to RCB and subtype), suggesting that integrating MRI volume measures and RCB into a composite predictor may improve DRFS prediction. Citation Format: Hylton NM, Symmans WF, Yau C, Li W, Hatzis C, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chen Y-Y, Krings G, Wei S, Harada S, Datnow B, Fadare O, Klein M, Pambuccian S, Chen B, Adamson K, Sams S, Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Magliocco A, Feldman M, Rendi M, Sattar H, Zeck J, Ocal I, Tawfik O, Grasso LeBeau L, Sahoo S, Vinh T, Yang S, Adams A, Chien AJ, Ferero-Torres A, Stringer-Reasor E, Wallace A, Boughey JC, Ellis ED, Elias AD, Lang JE, Lu J, Han HS, Clark AS, Korde L, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Khan QJ, Viscusi RK, Euhus DM, Edmiston KK, Chui SY, Kemmer K, Wood WC, Park JW, Liu MC, Olopade O, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, Haugen PK, van't Veer LJ, Perlmutter J, Melisko ME, Wilson A, Peterson G, Asare AL, Buxton MB, Paoloni M, Clennell JL, Hirst GL, Singhrao R, Steeg K, Matthews JB, Sanil A, Berry SM, Abe H, Wolverton D, Crane EP, Ward KA, Nelson M, Niell BL, Oh K, Brandt KR, Bang DH, Ojeda-Fournier H, Eghtedari M, Sheth PA, Bernreuter WK, Umphrey H, Rosen MA, Dogan B, Yang W, Joe B, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Yee D, Pusztai L, DeMichele A, Asare SM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Refining neoadjuvant predictors of three year distant metastasis free survival: Integrating volume change as measured by MRI with residual cancer burden [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-07-03.

506 Background: Pembro is an anti-PD-1 antibody with single agent activity in HER2– metastatic BC. I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 platform trial which evaluates novel neoadjuvant therapies; the primary endpoint is pathological complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). We report current efficacy results, with final results at ASCO. Methods: Patients (pts) with invasive BC ≥2.5 cm by exam or ≥2 cm by imaging are assigned weekly paclitaxel x 12 (control) +/- an experimental agent, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide x 4. Combinations of hormone-receptor (HR), HER2, & MammaPrint (MP) status define the 8 signatures studied. MP low HR+ BC is excluded. Adaptive randomization is based on each arm’s Bayesian probability of superiority over control. Graduation by signature is based on an arm’s Bayesian predictive probability of a successful 1:1 randomized phase 3 trial with a pCR endpoint. We provide raw & Bayesian estimated pCR rates adjusted for covariates, time effects over the course of the trial, & serial MRI modeling for pts not yet assessed for pCR surgically. Results: 69 pts were randomized to pembro (HER2- subsets only) from Dec 2015 until it graduated in Nov 2016. 46 pts have undergone surgery (table); the other 23 have on-therapy MRI assessments. In 29 HR–/HER2– (TNBC) pts, pembro increased raw & estimated pCR rates by >50% & 40%, respectively; in 40 HR+/HER– pts, it did so by 13% and 21%. 5 pts had immune-related grade 3 adverse events (AEs); 1 hypophysitis & 4 adrenal insufficiency. 4 pts presented after completion of AC (149-179 d after starting pembro); 1 presented prior to AC (37 d after starting pembro). 7 pts had grade 1-2 thyroid abnormalities. Conclusion: Pembro added to standard therapy improved pCR rates in all HER2- BCs that meet I-SPY 2 eligibility, especially in TNBC. Immune-mediated AEs were observed; pt follow up is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (P), an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been approved for treatment of microsatellite instability-high and mismatch repair deficient cancers. In I-SPY 2, patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy alone or in combination with an experimental agent. P was one of the experimental agents evaluated in HER2- patients in I-SPY 2 and graduated in the TN, HR+HER2-, and HER2- signatures. We hypothesize that a combination of two signatures predicting response to veliparib/carboplatin therapy in I-SPY 2 [MammaPrint High2 (MP2)/PARPi7-high] and reflecting DNA damage repair deficiency, may also predict response to P. In addition, we also tested 9 gene expression signatures reflecting different aspects of DNA damage and repair: FA, MMR, BER, HR, TLS, NER, NHEJ, DR, and DNA damage sensing (DDS) pathways. Methods: Data from 249 patients (P: 69 and controls: 180) were available. Pre-treatment biopsies were assayed using Agilent gene expression arrays. All I-SPY 2 qualifying biomarker analyses follow a pre-specified analysis plan. We used logistic modeling to assess biomarker performance. A biomarker is considered a specific predictor of P response if it associates with response in the P arm but not the control arm, and if the biomarker x treatment interaction is significant (likelihood ratio test, p<0.05). This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and within receptor subsets, sample size permitting. For successful biomarkers, we use Bayesian modeling to estimate the pCR rates of 'predicted sensitive' patients in each arm. Our statistics are descriptive rather than inferential and do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers outside this study. Results: MP2 status associates with pCR in P (OR=7.7; p=0.00021), but also to a lesser extent in the control arm (OR=2.4:p=0.045), with an OR ratio of 3.3 which trends toward significance, even after adjusting for HR status (LR p=0.083). A majority of TN patients are MP2; and TN/MP2 patients have an estimated pCR rate of 67% in P (vs. 23% in control). Although only ~30% of HR+HER2- patients were MP2, their estimated pCR rate in P is 61%, compared to 29% in unselected HR+/HER2- patients. PARPi7 predicted response in the P arm only in the HR+HER2- group (LR p= 0.025), but not in the population as a whole or the TN subtype. Combining MP2 and PARPi7 into MP2/PARPi7-high did not improve performance over MP2 as a single biomarker. Of the 9 DDR pathway signatures tested, both BER and DDS associate with pCR in P, but only DDS (which includes ATM, ATR, CHEK1-2) associates with pCR in the P arm (LR p=0.00029), and not the control arm (LR p=0.53), with a significant interaction with treatment (LR p=0.0064) that retains significance in a model adjusting for HR status. When dichotomized to optimize the biomarker x treatment interaction, the estimated pCR rate is 75% in P vs 18% in control, in the DDS+ subset. Conclusion: In this small study, MP2 status and a DNA damage sensing pathway but not the PARPi7 or other repair pathways show promise as predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibition therapy in breast cancer. Citation Format: Yau C, Wolf D, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Sanil A, Singhrao R, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Asare S, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L, van 't Veer L, Nanda R, Liu M, Yee D. Analysis of DNA repair deficiency biomarkers as predictors of response to the PD1 inhibitor pembrolizumab: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial for stage II-III high-risk breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-14.

Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (Pembro), an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been approved for the treatment of a variety of cancers including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma. Pembro was recently evaluated in HER2- breast cancer patients in the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL and graduated in the triple negative (TN), HR+HER2-, and HER2- signatures. HER2- patients were randomized to receive Pembro+paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (P+T -> AC) vs. T -> AC. We and others have shown that TN breast cancers tend to have high numbers of immune infiltrates, including T cells and tumor associated macrophages (TAMs). We evaluated expression signatures representing 14 immune cell types (TILs, T cells, CD8 T cells, exhausted T cells, Th1, Tregs, cytotoxic cells, NK, NK CD56dim, dendritic cells, mast cells, B cells, macrophages, and neutrophils) as specific predictors of response to Pembro. Methods: Data from 248 patients (Pembro: 69; controls: 179) were available. Pre-treatment biopsies were assayed using Agilent gene expression arrays. Signature scores are calculated by averaging cell type specific genes. All I-SPY 2 qualifying biomarker analyses follow a pre-specified analysis plan. We used logistic modeling to assess biomarker performance. A biomarker is considered a specific predictor of Pembro response if it associates with response in the Pembro arm but not the control arm, and if the biomarker x treatment interaction is significant (likelihood ratio test, p<0.05). This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as covariates, and within receptor subsets. For successful biomarkers, we use Bayesian modeling to estimate the pCR rates of 'predicted sensitive' patients in each arm. Our statistics are descriptive rather than inferential and do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers outside this study. Results: 10 out of the 14 cell-type signatures tested are associated with response in the Pembro arm. Higher expression levels of 9 of these cell-type signatures are associated with higher pCR rates (T cells, exhausted T cells, Th1, cytotoxic cells, NK, NK CD56dim, dendritic cells, B cells, and macrophages), whereas higher mast cell signature expression is associated with non-pCR. Interestingly, many of these same signatures also associate or trend towards association with response in the control arm; and in a model adjusting for HR status, only 3 of these signatures (Th1, B cells and dendritic cells) show significant interaction with treatment. Within the whole population and the TN subtype, the dendritic cell signature is the strongest predictor of specific response to Pembro (OR/1SD: 4.04 and 4.4, LR p < 0.001 overall and in TN). Although other immune signatures (T cells, exhausted T cells, NK, and macrophages) also associate with response in the Pembro arm in the TN subtype, only the dendritic cell and Th1 signatures have a significant interaction with treatment. In contrast, in the HR+HER2- subtype, only 3 signatures (Th1, B cells, and mast cells) associate with response to Pembro; but none of these signatures have significant interaction with treatment. Of note, in both the Pembro and control arms, HR+HER2- patients with higher average mast cell marker expression have lower pCR rates (OR/1SD: 0.33 and 0.51, LRp: 0.006 and 0.04 in Pembro and control arm). Conclusion: As expected, multiple immune cell expression signatures are predictive of response in the Pembro arm; but only dendritic cells and Th1 cells are specific to Pembro in both the population as a whole and the TN subtype. Interestingly, the presence of mast cells may impede response, especially in HR+HER2- patients. Correlation of these signatures with multiplex-IF immune markers is pending. Citation Format: Campbell M, Yau C, Borowsky A, Vandenberg S, Wolf D, Rimm D, Nanda R, Liu M, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Asare S, van't Veer L, Yee D, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L. Analysis of immune infiltrates (assessed via multiplex fluorescence immunohistochemistry) and immune gene expression signatures as predictors of response to the checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab in the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD6-08.