Back to Authors

Perlmutter, Jane

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5008-0406

Mayo Clinic

4Cancer Advocacy, Gemini Group, Ann Arbor, MI,

Citations 47

Abstract PS2-07: Outcomes associated with disseminated tumor cells at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer: The I-SPY SURMOUNT study
Magbanua, Mark Jesus M. , Veer, Laura van ‘t , Clark, Amy S. , Chien, A. Jo , Han, Heather, Beckwith, Heather , Liu, Minetta C. , Perlmutter, Jane , Bayne, Lauren J., Deluca, Shannon, Yee, Stephanie, Carpenter, Erica L. , Esserman, Laura, Veer, Laura J. van’t , Boughey, Judy C. , Wallace, Anne M. , Yau, Christina , Wileyto, E. Paul , Swigart, Lamorna Brown , Park, John , Chodosh, Lewis A. , DeMichele, Angela

Cancer Research | February 15, 2021 | Volume: 81 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: PS2-07-PS2-07

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-ps2-07 Get It

Abstract Background: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in bone marrow detected after treatment may represent occult residual disease. We enumerated DTCs after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients (pts) diagnosed with high-risk early stage breast cancer and examined the relationship of these cells with response and survival. Methods: I-SPY SURMOUNT is a sub-study of the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). Pts enrolled on I-SPY 2, who signed consent for this sub-study, had bone marrow aspirates (BMA) collected after NACT at the time of surgery. DTCs were isolated and enumerated from BMA using immunomagnetic enrichment/flow cytometry (IE/FC). DTCs were defined as EPCAM-positive and CD45-negative nucleated cells. Samples were considered positive using a predetermined threshold of >4 DTCs per mL (Magbanua et al, unpublished data). Pathologic response was assessed using the residual cancer burden (RCB) method at local sites, and pts underwent standard adjuvant therapy if indicated and follow up for recurrence events and death. Relationship of DTCs with clinicopathologic variables was examined using Chi-squared test. Group means were compared using t tests. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. Results: A total of 73 patients were enrolled, 51 of whom had successful DTC assessment. The median DTC per mL was 4 (interquartile range 1.2-11.6). 24/51 (47%) were DTC-positive. Clinical characteristics by DTC status are shown in the table. DTC-positive pts were significantly younger (p=0.02) and had larger pretreatment tumors (longest diameter by magnetic resonance imaging) compared to DTC-negative pts (p=0.032). DTCs were not associated with receptor subtype. Thirty pts (41%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). DTCs were not associated with pCR (p= 0.166); however, DTC-positive patients were significantly more likely to have residual cancer (RCB-II/III) after NACT compared to DTC-negative patients (OR 3.3, p=0.037). Median follow up of this cohort was 2.8 years (range: 0.9-4.8). Interim survival analysis showed that DTCs were not significantly correlated with EFS (p=0.6) or DRFS (p=0.41). Conclusions: Detection of DTCs at surgery after NACT is significantly more common in young patients, those with larger tumors, and those with residual disease at surgery. While these associations suggest higher risk for later recurrence, larger studies and longer follow up are necessary to determine if DTCs add prognostic value over pathologic evaluation alone for pts receiving NACT. Citation Format: Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Laura van 't Veer, Amy Clark, A. Jo Chien, Judy Boughey, Heather Han, Anne Wallace, Heather Beckwith, Minetta Liu, Christina Yau, E. Paul Wileyto, Lamorna Brown Swigart, Jane Perlmutter, Lauren Bayne, Shannon Deluca, Stephanie Yee, Erica Carpenter, Laura Esserman, John Park, Lewis Chodosh, Angela DeMichele. Outcomes associated with disseminated tumor cells at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer: The I-SPY SURMOUNT study [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 PS2-07.
Abstract PD1-10: Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL
Beckwith, Heather , Schwab, Richard J. , Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Wei, Shi , Chien, A. Jo , Albain, Kathy S. , Clark, Amy S. , Han, Heather, Nanda, Rita, Sanft, Tara , Perlmutter, Jane , Melisko, Michelle , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Wilson, Amy , Asare, Smita , Sanil, Ashish, Berry, Donald A. , Schwab, Richard, Yau, Christina , Kalinsky, Kevin M. , Wallace, Anne M. , Elias, Anthony , Yee, Douglas , Boughey, Judy C. , Isaacs, Claudine , Mitri, Zahi Ibrahim , Lang, Julie E. , Thomas, Alexandra , DeMichele, Angela , Rugo, Hope S. , Hylton, Nola M. , Symmans, W. Fraser , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | February 15, 2021 | Volume: 81 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: PD1-10-PD1-10

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-pd1-10 Get It

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of 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 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [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 PD1-10.
American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care
Dillmon, Melissa S., Levit, Laura A. , Moushey, E. Allyn, Alva, Ajjai , Blau, Sibel , Dickson, Natalie R. , Gönen, Mithat , González, Maria Magdalena, Hensold, Jack O. , Hinyard, Leslie , King, Tari A. , Lindsey, Stacie , Magnuson, Allison , Marron, Jonathan M. , Mcaneny, Barbara , McDonnell, Theresa Margaret, Nasso, S, Nowakowski, Grzegorz S. , Oettel, Kurt R., Patel, Manali I. , Patt, Debra A. , Perlmutter, Jane , Pickard, Todd , Rodriguez, Gladys , Rosenberg, Abby R. , Russo, Barry, Szczepanek, Connie M. , Smith, Cardinale B. , Teplinsky, Eleonora , Thota, Ramya , Zoň, Robin , Bourbeau, Brian , Foster, Shelagh E., Grubbs, Stephen, Hagerty, Karen L., Hurley, Patricia A. , Kamin, Deborah Y., Phillips, Jonathan , Schilsky, Richard L. , Burris, Howard A. , Hurley, Patricia , Rosenberg, Abby R , Pennell, Nathan A , Cannon, Timothy Lewis , Diehn, Maximilian , Mileham, Kathryn Finch , Srivastava, Piyush, Traina, Tiffany A , Bruinooge, Suanna S. , Schenkel, Caroline

Journal of Clinical Oncology | December 8, 2020 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 155-169

10.1200/jco.20.02953 Get It

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.
Abstract CT011: Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL
Haddad, Tufia C. , Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Chien, A. Jo , Borges, Virginia, Nanda, Rita , Albain, Kathy S. , Müller, Aixa , Kemmer, Kathleen, Clark, Amy S. , Perlmutter, Jane , Melisko, Michelle , Schwab, Richard B. , Wilson, Amy , Singhrao, Ruby , Asare, Smita , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Sanil, Ashish, Berry, Donald A. , Pusztai, Lajos , Han, Hyo S , Yau, Christina , Wolf, Denise M. , Wallace, Anne M. , Shatsky, Rebecca , Helsten, Teresa L. , Boughey, Judy C. , Falkson, Carla I. , Mukhtar, Rita A. , Elias, Anthony , Yee, Douglas , Kalinsky, Kevin M. , Isaacs, Claudine , Thomas, Alexandra , Hylton, Nola M. , Symmans, W. Fraser , Rugo, Hope S. , DeMichele, Angela , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | September 4, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 16_Supplement | Pages: CT011-CT011

10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-ct011 Get It

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.
Association of Event-Free and Distant Recurrence–Free Survival With Individual-Level Pathologic Complete Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stages 2 and 3 Breast Cancer
Yee, Douglas , Symmans, W. Fraser , Albain, Kathy S. , Chen, Yunn-Yi, Krings, Gregor , Wei, Shi , Harada, Shuko , Datnow, Brian, Fadare, Oluwole , Klein, Molly, Chen, Beiyun, Adamson, Kathi, Sams, Sharon B. , Mhawech‐Fauceglia, Paulette , Magliocco, Anthony M., Feldman, Mike, Rendi, Mara H. , Sattar, Husain, Zeck, Jay , Ocal, Idris Tolgay, Tawfik, Ossama , LeBeau, Lauren, Sahoo, Sunati , Vinh, Tuyethoa N., Chien, A. Jo , Forero‐Torres, Andres , Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Ellis, Erin D. , Lu, Janice , Lang, Julie E. , Clark, Amy S. , Nanda, Rita , Northfelt, Donald W. , Khan, Qamar J. , Viscusi, Rebecca K., Euhus, David , Edmiston, Kirsten K., Kemmer, Kathleen, Park, John W., Liu, Minetta C. , Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. , Leyland‐Jones, Brian , Tripathy, Debasish , Moulder, Stacy L. , Schwab, Richard B. , Lo, Shelly S. , Beckwith, Heather , Haugen, Patricia, Veer, Laura J. van’t , Perlmutter, Jane , Melisko, Michelle , Wilson, Amy , Peterson, Garry , Buxton, Meredith , Paoloni, Melissa, Clennell, Julia L. , Hirst, Gillian L. , Singhrao, Ruby , Steeg, Katherine, Matthews, Jeffrey B. , Asare, Smita , Sanil, Ashish, Esserman, Laura J. , Berry, Donald A. , Tripathy, Debu , Ocal, Idris T, Olopade, Olufunmilayo I , Symmans, W Fraser , Esserman, Laura J , Hirst, Gillian L , Yee, Douglas , DeMichele, Angela , Yau, Christina , Isaacs, Claudine , Chen, Yunn‐Yi , Krings, Gregor, Pambuccian, Stefan E. , Wallace, Anne M. , Pusztai, Lajos , Boughey, Judy C. , Elias, Anthony , Han, Hyo S , Chui, Stephen Y., Rugo, Hope S. , Helsten, Teresa L. , Hylton, Nola M. , Asare, Adam L. , Matthews, Jeffrey B., Berry, Scott

JAMA Oncology | July 23, 2020 | Volume: 6 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1355

10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2535 Get It

Abstract PD9-05: 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
Newitt, David C. , Harnish, Roy, Gibbs, Jessica , Jones, Ella F. , Wilmes, Lisa J., Joe, Bonnie N. , Campbell, Michael J. , Veer, Laura J. van’t , DiMichele, Angela, Berry, Donald A. , Albain, Kathy S. , Chien, A. Jo , Clark, Amy S. , Edmiston, Kirsten K., Ellis, Erin D. , Euhus, David , Han, Heather, Khan, Qamar J. , Lu, Janice , Mitri, Zaha, Nanda, Rita, Northfelt, Donald W. , Sanft, Tara, Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Viscusi, Rebecca K., Yung, Rachel L. , Melisko, Michelle , Perlmutter, Jane , Schwab, Richard B. , Asare, Smita , Yau, Julie E., Onishi, Natsuko , Li, Wen , Nguyen, Alex , Basu, Amrita B , Yee, Douglas , Boughey, Judy C. , Elias, Anthony , Isaacs, Claudine , Lang, Julie E. , Meisel, Jane Lowe , Sanft, Tara , Wallace, Anne M. , Rugo, Hope S. , Symmans, W. Fraser , Yau, Christina , Esserman, Laura J. , Hylton, Nola M.

Cancer Research | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: PD9-05-PD9-05

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-pd9-05 Get It

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 PD9-04: Breast cancer subtype specific association of pCR with MRI assessed tumor volume progression during NAC in the I-SPY 2 trial
Newitt, David C. , Gibbs, Jessica , Wilmes, Lisa J., Jones, Ella F. , Joe, Bonnie N. , Sit, Laura , Chien, A. Jo , Price, Elissa R. , Albain, Kathy S. , Kuritza, Theresa , Morley, Kevin , Brandt, Kathy R., Choudhery, Sadia, Clark, Amy S. , Rosen, Mark, Wolverton, Dulcy , Fountain, Kelly , Euhus, David , Han, Heather, Niell, Bethany L. , Drukteinis, Jennifer S. , Lu, Janice , Mitri, Zaha, Nanda, Rita , Northfelt, Donald W. , Sanft, Tara, Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Viscusi, Rebecca K., Yung, Rachel L. , Asare, Smita , Melisko, Michelle , Perlmutter, Jane , Schwab, Richard B. , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Berry, Donald A. , Abé, Hiroyuki , Sheth, Deepa , Edmiston, Kirsten K., Ellis, Erin D. , Ha, Richard , Wynn, Ralph, Crane, Erin P., Dillis, Charlotte, Nelson, Michael T. , Church, An , Khan, Qamar J. , Oh, Karen Y. , Jafarian, Neda, Bang, Dae Hee , Mullins, Christiane, Woodard, Stefanie , Ojeda-Fornier, Haydee, Sheth, Pulin , Hovanessian‐Larsen, Linda , Eghtedari, Mohammad , Spektor, Michael , Giurescu, Marina E., Newell, Mary S. , Cohen, Michael A. , Berman, Elise, Smith, William P. , Fitzpatrick, Kim, Borders, Marisa H. , Yang, Wei , Goudreau, Sally , Brown, Thelma, Li, Wen , Onishi, Natsuko , Yau, Christina , Boughey, Judy C. , McDonald, Elizabeth S. , Elias, Anthony , Lang, Julie E. , Meisel, Jane Lowe , Sanft, Tara , Wallace, Anne M. , Yee, Douglas , Rugo, Hope S. , Symmans, W. Fraser , DeMichele, Angela , Isaacs, Claudine , Zamora, Kathryn , Lehman, Constance Dobbins , Dogan, Basak E , Esserman, Laura J. , Hylton, Nola M.

Cancer Research | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: PD9-04-PD9-04

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-pd9-04 Get It

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 P6-02-01: The effect of background parenchymal enhancement on the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured in MRI
Li, Wen , Newitt, David C. , Harnish, Roy, Jones, Ella F. , Wilmes, Lisa J., Gibbs, Jessica , Price, Elissa R. , Joe, Bonnie N. , Chien, A. Jo , Berry, Donald A. , Albain, Kathy S. , Clark, Amy S. , Edmiston, Kirsten K., Ellis, Erin D. , Euhus, David , Han, Heather, Khan, Qamar J. , Lu, Janice , Mitri, Zaha, Nanda, Rita , Northfelt, Donald W. , Sanft, Tara, Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Viscusi, Rebecca K., Yung, Rachel L. , Melisko, Michelle , Perlmutter, Jane , Schwab, Richard J. , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Asare, Smita , Goudreau, Sally , Abé, Hiroyuki , Sheth, Deepa , Wolverton, Dulcy , Fountain, Kelly , Ha, Richard , Wynn, Ralph, Crane, Erin P., Dillis, Charlotte, Kuritza, Theresa , Morley, Kevin , Nelson, Michael T. , Church, An , Niell, Bethany L. , Drukteinis, Jennifer S. , Oh, Karen Y. , Jafarian, Neda, Brandt, Kathy R., Choudhery, Sadia, Bang, Dae Hee , Mullins, Christiane, Woodard, Stefanie , Ojeda-Fornier, Haydee, Eghedari, Mohammad, Sheth, Pulin , Hovanessian‐Larsen, Linda , Rosen, Mark, Spektor, Michael , Giurescu, Marina E., Newell, Mary S. , Cohen, Michael A. , Berman, Elise, Smith, William P. , Fitzpatrick, Kim, Borders, Marisa H. , Yang, Wei , Onishi, Natsuko , Boughey, Judy C. , Elias, Anthony , Isaacs, Claudine , Lang, Julie E. , Meisel, Jane Lowe , Sanft, Tara , Wallace, Anne M. , Yee, Douglas , Rugo, Hope S. , Schwab, Richard, Symmans, W. Fraser , Yau, Christina , DeMichele, Angela , Zamora, Kathryn , McDonald, Elizabeth S. , Lehman, Constance Dobbins , Dogan, Basak E , Esserman, Laura J. , Hylton, Nola M.

Cancer Research | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: P6-02-01-P6-02-01

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p6-02-01 Get It

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 P4-10-02: HER2 signaling, ER, and proliferation biomarkers predict response to multiple HER2-targeted agents/combinations plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in the I-SPY 2 trial
Wulfkuhle, Julia , Asare, Smita , Hirst, Gillian L. , Sit, Laura , Perlmutter, Jane , Liu, Minetta C. , Berry, Donald A. , Petricoin, Emanuel F. , Veer, Laura van ‘t , Hirst, Gillian L , Wolf, Denise M. , Yau, Christina , Swigart, Lamorna Brown , Park, John , DeMichele, Angela , Yee, Douglas , Esserman, Laura J. , Veer, Laura J. van’t

Cancer Research | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: P4-10-02-P4-10-02

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p4-10-02 Get It

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 P3-11-02: 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
Lo, Shelly S. , Chien, A. Jo , Lu, Janice , Albain, Kathy S. , Stringer-Reasor, Erica , Clark, Amy S. , Ellis, Erin D. , Perlmutter, Jane , Schwab, Richard B. , Melisko, Michelle , Veer, Laura J. van’t , Wilson, Amy , Singhrao, Ruby , Asare, Smita , Sanil, Ashish, Berry, Donald A. , Helsten, Teresa L. , Yau, Christina , Kalinsky, Kevin M. , Elias, Anthony , Wallace, Anne M. , Lang, Julie E. , Boughey, Judy C. , Yee, Douglas , DeMichele, Angela , Isaacs, Claudine , Rugo, Hope S. , Hylton, Nola M. , Symmans, W. Fraser , Esserman, Laura J.

Cancer Research | March 26, 2020 | Volume: 80 | Issue: 4_Supplement | Pages: P3-11-02-P3-11-02

10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p3-11-02 Get It

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.