Veer, Laura van’t

Abstract Background:Pathologic complete response(pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is an established prognostic biomarker for high-risk breast cancer(BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. I-SPY 2 uses response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer; the goal is to identify regimens that have ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (statistical significance) in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status and MammaPrint (MP). We report the results for Ganetespib, a selective inhibitor of Hsp90 that induces the degradation/deactivation of key drivers of tumor initiation, progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis.Ganetespib + taxanes previously have resulted in a superior therapeutic response compared to monotherapy in multiple solid tumor models including BC. Methods:Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening and participation. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible for randomization. QTcF >470msec and HbA1C >8.0% were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, +3 cycles, following weekly paclitaxel, T, and pre-surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to improve the efficiency of adaptive randomization. Ganetespib was given with weekly T at 150 mg/m2 IV weekly (3 weeks on, 1 off). Patients were premedicated (dexamethasone 10mg and diphenhydramine HCl 25-50 mg, or therapeutic equivalents). Analysis was intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCRs. The Ganetespib regimen was open only to HER2- patients, and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results:Ganetespib did not meet the criteria for graduation in the 3 signatures tested. When the maximum sample size was reached, accrual stopped. Ganetespib was assigned to 93 patients; there were 140 controls. We report probabilities of superiority for Ganetespib over control and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in a neoadjuvant phase 3 trial equally randomized between Ganetespib and control, for the 3 biomarker signatures, using the final pCR data from all patients. Safety data will be presented. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability Ganetespib Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Ganetespib Success in a Phase 3 Trial Ganetespib N = 93Control N = 140 All HER2-26% (16%-37%)18% (8%-28%)91%47%HR+/HER2-15% (4%-27%)14% (4%-24%)60%19%HR-/HER2-38% (23%-53%)22% (9%-35%)96%72% Conclusion:The I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization model efficiently evaluates investigational agents in the setting of neoadjuvant BC. The value of I-SPY 2 is that it provides insight as to the regimen's likelihood of success in a phase 3 neoadjuvant study. Although no signature reached the efficacy threshold of 85% likelihood of success in phase 3, we observed the most impact in HR-/HER2- patients, with a 16% improvement in pCR rate. While our data do not support the continued development of Ganetespib alone for neoadjuvant BC, combinations with Ganetespib, which could potentiate its effect, may be worth pursuing in I-SPY 2 or similar trials. Citation Format: Forero A, Yee D, Buxton MB, Symmans WF, Chien AJ, Boughey JC, Elias AD, DeMichele A, Moulder S, Minton S, Kaplan HG, Albain KS, Wallace AM, Haley BB, Isaacs C, Korde LA, Nanda R, Lang JE, Kemmer KA, Hylton NM, Paoloni M, van't Veer L, Lyandres J, Perlmutter J, Hogarth M, Yau C, Sanil A, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Efficacy of Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-11-02.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is an established prognostic biomarker for aggressive HER2+ breast cancer (BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. Pertuzumab (P) has established survival benefit in the metastatic setting, and received accelerated approval in the neoadjuvant setting when combined with trastuzumab (H) and docetaxel(D) as part of a complete treatment regimen for early breast cancer. We tested its ability, when combined with standard therapy (paclitaxel, T, and H) to improve pCR (ypT0ypN0) over TH in the adaptively randomized, phase II, I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant trial. Methods: Enrolled patients (pts) had invasive BC ?2.5 cm in HER2-positive subsets. Pts were adaptively randomized to control (TH, qwk x 12) or THP (P, q3wk x 4) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4 and surgery. To compare THP to TH we utilized all control pts accrued over the course of the trial, adjusting for potential differences due to time period treated, which were informed by the several other treatment arms that have been in the trial. Adaptive assignment to the experimental arms was based on current Bayesian probabilities of superiority over control. “Graduation” by signature and futility stopping were based upon Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 2-arm, N = 300 phase III randomized 1:1 trial of THP vs. TH with pCR endpoint. Results: THP met the predictive probability criterion and graduated in 3 signatures: all HER2+, HER2+/HR+, and HER2+/HR- (See Table 1). Final accrual: 44 THP and 31 TH. Safety data will be shown. Conclusions: I-SPY 2's standing platform trial efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined pt subsets. THP -> AC substantially improves pCR rates over standard TH -> AC in all 3 HER2+ signatures, including HR+ and HR- subsets. APHINITY, a trial of adjuvant pertuzumab with a primary outcome of invasive disease-free survival, is ongoing. Table 1Signature*Estimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Signature*THPControl (TH)Probability THP Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIIHER2+54% (38%-70%)22% (5%-39%)99.8%96%HER2+/HR+44% (24%-63%)17% (0%-34%)99%91%HER2+/HR-74% (53%-95%)33% (6%-59%)99.8%98%*HR = Hormone Receptor Citation Format: Meredith Buxton, Angela M. DeMichele, Stephen Chia, Laura van't Veer, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Henry Kaplan, Julie Lang, Douglas Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Stacy Moulder, Kathy Albain, Judy Boughey, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara Haley, Susan Minton, Andres Forero, Rita Nanda, Anthony Elias, Larissa Korde, Rebecca Viscuzi, Hope Rugo, Richard Schwab, Fraser Symmans, Melissa Paoloni, Nola Hylton, Michael Hogarth, Julia Lyandres, Jane Perlmutter, Ashish Sanil, Christina Yau, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Efficacy of pertuzumab/trastuzumab/paclitaxel over standard trastuzumab/paclitaxel therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT106.

AbstractAutomated methods are needed to facilitate high‐throughput and reproducible scoring of Ki67 and other markers in breast cancer tissue microarrays (TMAs) in large‐scale studies. To address this need, we developed an automated protocol for Ki67 scoring and evaluated its performance in studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We utilized 166 TMAs containing 16,953 tumour cores representing 9,059 breast cancer cases, from 13 studies, with information on other clinical and pathological characteristics. TMAs were stained for Ki67 using standard immunohistochemical procedures, and scanned and digitized using the Ariol system. An automated algorithm was developed for the scoring of Ki67, and scores were compared to computer assisted visual (CAV) scores in a subset of 15 TMAs in a training set. We also assessed the correlation between automated Ki67 scores and other clinical and pathological characteristics. Overall, we observed good discriminatory accuracy (AUC = 85%) and good agreement (kappa = 0.64) between the automated and CAV scoring methods in the training set. The performance of the automated method varied by TMA (kappa range= 0.37–0.87) and study (kappa range = 0.39–0.69). The automated method performed better in satisfactory cores (kappa = 0.68) than suboptimal (kappa = 0.51) cores (p‐value for comparison = 0.005); and among cores with higher total nuclei counted by the machine (4,000–4,500 cells: kappa = 0.78) than those with lower counts (50–500 cells: kappa = 0.41; p‐value = 0.010). Among the 9,059 cases in this study, the correlations between automated Ki67 and clinical and pathological characteristics were found to be in the expected directions. Our findings indicate that automated scoring of Ki67 can be an efficient method to obtain good quality data across large numbers of TMAs from multicentre studies. However, robust algorithm development and rigorous pre‐ and post‐analytical quality control procedures are necessary in order to ensure satisfactory performance.

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.