O'Sullivan, Ciara Catherine

PURPOSE EA1181 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04266249 ) is a single-arm trial evaluating neoadjuvant taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP) in patients with clinical stage II/IIIa human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer. This report focuses on the secondary end points of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and associated factors. The primary end point—3-year recurrence-free survival among patients achieving a pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0)—will be reported when data mature. METHODS Patients received four cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) with either once per week paclitaxel (12 weeks) or docetaxel (every 3 weeks for four cycles), followed by surgery. Clinicopathologic characteristics were assessed in all patients. The HER2DX pCR score was determined using diagnostic biopsy samples in a representative subset. Logistic regression models identified factors associated with pCR. RESULTS A total of 2,175 patients were enrolled (781 HER2+/estrogen receptor‑negative [ER–]; 1,394 HER2+/ER+). Of 2,141 patients who initiated THP, the overall pCR rate was 43.8%: 63.7% in HER2+/ER– and 32.4% in HER2+/ER+ tumors. Higher pCR rates were observed in tumors that were ER-negative or low ER expressing, progesterone receptor-negative or low expressing, HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+, and in patients treated with once per week paclitaxel. T3 disease was associated with a lower pCR rate in HER2+/ER– tumors; otherwise, tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage did not significantly affect pCR. Among 569 patients assessed for HER2DX pCR scores, a high score was independently associated with higher pCR rates, after adjustment for clinicopathologic variables. CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant THP achieved pCR in nearly two-thirds of patients with HER2+/ER– and one third with HER2+/ER+ breast cancer. Low hormone receptor expression, HER2 IHC 3+ status, once per week paclitaxel use, and a high HER2DX pCR score were independent predictors of pCR. These findings should help optimize risk stratification and treatment personalization for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Abstract Purpose: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 <1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 <0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort). Results: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%–89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. Conclusions: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.