Patil, Sujata N

1052 Background: TIG, an agonistic anti-DR5 monoclonal antibody, triggers apoptosis in DR5+ human tumor cells without the aid of crosslinking. TIG has shown strong in vitro and in vivo activity against basal-like breast cancer cells that is enhanced by chemotherapy like paclitaxel. Methods: Randomized 2:1 phase II trial of nab-PAC with/without TIG in TNBC patients. Patients stratified by prior exposure to chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Patients received nab-PAC weekly x 3 and TIG every other week, every 28 days. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were safety, progression free survival (PFS), TIG immunogenicity, and PK. Biopsies and circulating tumor cells were collected. The trial was not powered to compare arms but allowed early stopping for futility and was sized to estimate ORR with 95% CI. Results: 64 patients enrolled, 60 treated; 39 in the combination arm and 21 in the nab-PAC arm. Of the 39 in the combination arm, there were 2 CR, 9 PR (1 near CR, 96% tumor reduction), 11 SD and 17 PD; ORR 28% (95% CI 14%-42%). Of the 21 in the single agent arm, there were no CR, 8 PR, 4 SD and 9 PD; ORR 38% (95% CI 17%-59%). Higher ORRs were seen in the chemotherapy naïve patients (58% vs. 15% combination and 42% vs. 35% single agent). 2 patients with CR, 1 near CR, and 1 PR in the combination arm are still on therapy (602+, 531+, 466+, 460+ days). PFS was similar in both groups (3.6 months); higher in chemotherapy naïve patients. Combination was well tolerated (most toxicities grade 1/2); the most common AEs were fatigue, alopecia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, anemia, neutropenia, nausea, thrombocytopenia, anorexia, diarrhea, and vomiting. No grade 4 or 5 toxicity. No apparent added toxicity with TIG was seen. Conclusions: Combination therapy with nab-PAC + TIG was well tolerated, without apparent improvement in ORR relative to nab-PAC alone; however, 4 subjects treated as first-line had prolonged clinical benefit with the combination, and correlative studies will investigate markers that might predict clinical outcome (Next-Gen genomic analysis). Clinical trial information: F101004001.

1006 Background: Patients (pts) with ER-/PR- MBC do not benefit from endocrine treatment (tx). Doane et al (Oncogene 2006;25:3994) described a subset of ER-/PR- BC with a gene expression profile similar to ER+ BC but characterized by AR expression and AR-dependent growth in vitro. Hence, we conducted a multicenter phase II trial (NCT00468715) of the AR antagonist, bicalutamide (B) for pts with AR+ ER-/PR- MBC. Methods: Pts with ER-/PR- (IHC <10%) MBC were consented to AR testing, confirmed centrally at MSKCC. If AR+ (DAKO IHC ≥10%), pts were eligible for tx if ECOG performance status (PS) <2 and normal organ function. No limit on prior tx except prior trastuzumab required if HER2+. Eligible AR+ pts who consented to tx received B 150mg orally daily in 28-day cycles (C). Toxicity assessed q4wks, response q12wks. Primary endpoint = clinical benefit rate (CBR): CR + PR + stable disease (ds) >6mo (SD). B would be considered worthy of further study if ≥4/28 pts have clinical benefit. Results: As of 12/21/11,436 pts consented for AR testing. 24 were ineligible, 12 await testing. 47/400 tested were AR+ (12%). 26 received tx with B (6 ineligible for tx, 15 are eligible for tx with B at progression (POD) if clinically appropriate and study slots remains). Two AR+ pts treated with B were ER+ and removed from study. Three have received tx <12wks. Treated pt characteristics (n=24): median(med)age 64 (41-83), PS 0 (0-1), HER2+ 1, visceral metastases 17. Prior chemotherapy: neo/adjuvant 16; med # regimens for MBC 1 (0-8). Med C# 3 (2-49+). Best response: (21 evaluable pts): CBR 19% (95% CI 5-42%), SD>6mo 4, CR/PR 0, SD<6mo 3, POD 14. Conclusions: ~12% of ER-/PR- MBC pts are AR+. For these pts, AR-inhibition with B is feasible, well tolerated, and has activity based on pre-specified criteria. This study has closed to accrual for AR testing as of 1/2012. These results of the primary endpoint are not expected to change by accrual of the 2 remaining pts. Supported by TBCRC/Breast Cancer Alliance/AstraZeneca. [Table: see text]

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

e21681 Background: Maintaining quality of life with minimal symptoms is an important goal of cancer treatment. We surveyed patients undergoing cancer treatment about their preferences for information about the long-term symptom burden associated with their current treatment. Methods: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment were enrolled at two large cancer centers from 1/2014 to 7/2015. At the time of enrollment patients reported their household income, employment, performance status and their agreement with the statement, “It would be useful to know the percentage of patients having persistent symptoms more than a year after getting the same treatment I am getting.” Treatment intention (curative vs. palliative) was reported by the treating oncologist. Results: 196 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 55.7 (range 20-80); 54% were female, 69% were white, and 60% were receiving palliative treatment. The majority (83%) of patients either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. In univariable analyses, this preference did not significantly differ based on patient-reported performance status, sex, age, treatment intent, race, or household income. Using a more stringent criterion to dichotomize the outcome, 59% of participants strongly agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent were significantly more likely to strongly agree (72% vs. 51%, p = 0.0035). In a multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, income level, employment status, and patient-reported performance status, participants undergoing curative versus palliative treatment had 3.1 times the odds (95% CI 1.47-6.65) of strongly agreeing. Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing cancer treatment wanted to know what symptoms to expect in the future, and this was independent of patient demographics. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent are significantly more likely to want this information than patients undergoing palliative treatment. Symptom data collected through research studies and registries should be summarized by treatment and other key predictors and made available to patients.

6523 Background: Treatment for most types of cancer results in work disruptions. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for not working during cancer therapy using a patient-reported outcome tool. Methods: Patients of all cancer types, who were undergoing treatment with curative or palliative intent, were enrolled in a survey-based study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the North Carolina Cancer Hospital from 1/2014 to 7/2015. All patients working full- or part- time at the time of cancer diagnosis were included in this analysis. Patient reported outcomes were collected using a survey tool at any time during active cancer treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was self-reported work status at the time of survey completion. Results: Of 119 patients who were working before their cancer diagnosis, 68% were working at the time of survey completion. The mean age was 52.9 (range 20-80). Younger age was associated with working: 82% of patients age < 40 were working during treatment vs. 31% of patients age > 65 (p=0.01). The number of days patients reported being completely unable to work in the past month was significantly associated with work status; only 26% of patients who missed > 10 days continued to work compared to 69% who missed ≤ 10 days (p<0.01). Patients who report having a flexible work schedule were 23% more likely to continue to work during treatment (69% vs. 46%, p=0.01). In a multivariable model controlling for having an employer contingent health plan, and household income > 200% of the federal poverty level (fpl), only age, having a flexible work schedule, and inability to work > 10 days were independently associated with work status during treatment (Table). Conclusions: Having a flexible work schedule allowed for more work interruptions without job loss. Patients who are likely to miss more than 10 days of work and who have inflexible work schedules are at high risk of unemployment and should be targeted for employment retention initiatives. [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: Tigatuzumab (TIG), an agonistic anti-DR5 antibody, triggers apoptosis in DR5+ human tumor cells without crosslinking. TIG has strong in vitro/in vivo activity against basal-like breast cancer cells enhanced by chemotherapy agents. This study evaluates activity of TIG and chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Experimental Design: Randomized 2:1 phase II trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PAC) ± TIG in patients with TNBC stratified by prior chemotherapy. Patients received nab-PAC weekly × 3 ± TIG every other week, every 28 days. Primary objective was within-arm objective response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were safety, progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit, and TIG immunogenicity. Metastatic research biopsies were required. Results: Among 64 patients (60 treated; TIG/nab-PAC n = 39 and nab-PAC n = 21), there were 3 complete remissions (CR), 8 partial remissions (PR; 1 almost CR), 11 stable diseases (SD), and 17 progressive diseases (PD) in the TIG/nab-PAC arm (ORR, 28%), and no CRs, 8 PRs, 4 SDs, and 9 PDs in the nab-PAC arm (ORR, 38%). There was a numerical increase in CRs and several patients had prolonged PFS (1,025+, 781, 672, 460, 334) in the TIG/nab-PAC arm. Grade 3 toxicities were 28% and 29%, respectively, with no grade 4–5. Exploratory analysis suggests an association of ROCK1 gene pathway activation with efficacy in the TIG/nab-PAC arm. Conclusions: ORR and PFS were similar in both. Preclinical activity of TIG in basal-like breast cancer and prolonged PFS in few patients in the combination arm support further investigation of anti-DR5 agents. ROCK pathway activation merits further evaluation. Clin Cancer Res; 21(12); 2722–9. ©2015 AACR. See related article by Paoletti et al., p. 2771

Abstract Background: Our group and others have identified a subset of ER/PR(−) breast cancers characterized by expression of the androgen receptor (AR) and androgen-dependent growth (Doane 2006). We conducted a proof-of-concept multicenter phase II study to test the efficacy of the AR-antagonist, bicalutamide for the treatment of AR(+) ER/PR(−) MBC (NCT00468715). Results of the primary endpoint, clinical benefit rate (CBR), were presented at ASCO (Gucalp 2012). Data for the impact of bicalutamide on circulating hormone levels in women are limited. Elevations in serum testosterone (T) and estradiol (E) have been observed for men treated with bicalutamide. We hypothesized comparable patterns of change in circulating endocrine markers in response to bicalutamide for women with MBC. Methods: Patients (pts) with AR(+) (IHC ≥10%), ER/PR(−) (IHC &lt;10%) MBC were eligible for treatment (tx) if ECOG performance status ≤2 and normal organ function regardless of menopausal status. There was no limit to prior tx except prior trastuzumab required if HER2(+). Tx consisted of bicalutamide 150mg orally daily in 28-day cycles (C). Toxicity assessed q4 weeks, response q12wks. Primary endpoint was CBR. Peripheral blood was collected for total and free T, E and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) at baseline, start of C2 (C2) and at end of study (EOS). Standard institutional assays were used. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was done to compare baseline to C2 and EOS values. Results: 26 patients with AR(+) ER/PR(−) MBC were treated on study. Evaluable number (n) of pts at baseline, C2 and EOS are 26, 26 and 19 respectively. Two pts remain on study. Menopausal status: pre=2, post=24. Baseline median total and free T and estradiol were consistent with expected norms, however a wide range was observed (Table). There were no significant differences observed for median free T, total T, E or SHBG between baseline and C2 or baseline and EOS. Changes in hormone levels could not be stratified by menopausal status or response to bicalutamide given small sample size. Given the wide range of baseline values, we examined the percent change for each endocrine biomarker from baseline to C2 and EOS. As shown in the Table, there was no difference in median percent change observed across time points for each biomarker. Conclusions: No discernible patterns of change in T, E or SHBG were observed in response to bicalutamide therapy when given to women for the treatment of AR(+), ER/PR(−) MBC. These circulating hormones require further evaluation for use as a pharmacodynamic marker. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-02.

Abstract Purpose: Patients with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer generally do not benefit from endocrine-targeted therapies. However, a subset with androgen receptor (AR) expression is predicted to respond to antiandrogen therapies. This phase II study explored bicalutamide in AR-positive, estrogen receptor (ER), and progesterone receptor (PgR)-negative metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Tumors from patients with ER/PgR-negative advanced breast cancer were tested centrally for AR [immunohistochemistry (IHC) &gt; 10% nuclear staining considered positive]. If either the primary or a metastatic site was positive, patients were eligible to receive the AR antagonist bicalutamide at a dose of 150 mg daily. Clinical benefit rate (CBR), the primary endpoint, was defined as the total number of patients who show a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) &gt; 6 months; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. Correlative studies included measurement of circulating endocrine markers and IHC surrogates for basal-like breast cancer. Results: Of 424 patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer, 12% tested AR-positive. The 6-month CBR was 19% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7%–39%] for bicalutamide. The median PFS was 12 weeks (95% CI, 11–22 weeks). Bicalutamide was well-tolerated with no grade 4/5 treatment-related adverse events observed. Conclusion: AR was expressed in 12% of patients with ER/PgR-negative breast cancer screened for this trial. The CBR of 19% observed with bicalutamide shows proof of principle for the efficacy of minimally toxic androgen blockade in a select group of patients with ER/PgR-negative, AR-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 19(19); 5505–12. ©2013 AACR.