Lin, Nancy U

Abstract Background Whether outcomes of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-associated breast cancer differ compared with sporadic tumors is controversial. We explored the impact of gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) status beyond established prognostic features. Methods We conducted 2 retrospective, matched cohort studies comparing gBRCA1/2 PV carriers and noncarriers with HER2-negative, stage I-III breast cancer (Clinical Outcomes Quality Database [COQD] cohort: 185 carriers, 555 noncarriers; Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study [YWS] cohort: 113 carriers, 226 noncarriers). Matching factors were age, stage, hormone receptor status, and year of diagnosis. Clinicopathological features, treatments, and survival outcomes were compared between carriers and noncarriers. Results Most patients in COQD had stage I-II disease (87.2%), and more carriers than noncarriers had genetic testing before diagnosis (33% vs 5.6%, P < .001). In YWS, 22.7% of patients had stage III tumors, and few were tested before diagnosis (14.8% of carriers vs 1.7% of noncarriers; P < .001). Carriers in COQD received chemotherapy more often than noncarriers (81.1 vs 67.0%, P < .001), including platinum (P = .010); the proportion was similar for carriers and noncarriers in YWS. After adjusting for chemotherapy, relapse-free survival was longer in carriers than noncarriers in COQD (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.48 [95% CI = 0.26 to 0.87], P = .016), and a favorable trend was observed for other survival outcomes in both cohorts. Triple-negative tumors appeared to drive the differences. Conclusions We observed a trend toward improved outcomes in gBRCA1/2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. These findings suggest that carriers should not receive more aggressive treatment solely based on their germline mutation status. Prospective clinical trials in this population are warranted.

Abstract Background The phase III RxPONDER trial has affected treatment for node-positive (1-3), hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer with a 21-gene recurrence score (RS) less than 26. We investigated how these findings apply to different racial and ethnic groups within the trial. Methods The trial randomly assigned women to endocrine therapy (ET) or to chemotherapy plus ET. The primary clinical outcome was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), with distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) as a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and survival outcomes, adjusting for clinicopathological characteristics, RS, and treatment. Results A total of 4048 women with self-reported race/ethnicity were included: Hispanic (15.1%), non-Hispanic Black (NHB) (6.1%), Native American/Pacific Islander (0.8%), Asian (8.0%), and non-Hispanic White (NHW) (70%). No differences in RS distribution, tumor size, or number of positive nodes were observed by race/ethnicity. Relative to NHWs, IDFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year IDFS 91.6% vs 87.1%, HR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.81) and better for Asians (91.6% vs 93.9%, HR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.46 to 0.91). Relative to NHW, DRFS was worse for NHB participants (5-year DRFS 95.8% vs 91.0%, HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.17 to 2.32) and better for Asians (95.8% vs 96.7%, HR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.95). Adjusting for clinical characteristics, particularly body mass index, diminished the effect of race on outcomes. Chemotherapy treatment efficacy did not differ by race/ethnicity. Conclusions NHB women had worse clinical outcomes compared with NHWs in the RxPONDER trial despite similar RS and comparable treatment. Our study emphasizes the persistent racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes while highlighting complex interactions among contributing factors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01272037.

Abstract Purpose: We previously demonstrated that high levels of circulating methylated DNA are associated with subsequent disease progression in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this study, we evaluated the clinical utility of a novel liquid biopsy-breast cancer methylation (LBx-BCM) prototype assay using the GeneXpert cartridge system for early assessment of disease progression in MBC. Experimental Design: The 9-marker LBx-BCM prototype assay was evaluated in TBCRC 005, a prospective biomarker study, using plasma collected at baseline, week 4, and week 8 from 144 patients with MBC. Results: At week 4, patients with MBC with high cumulative methylation (CM) had a significantly shorter median PFS (2.88 months vs. 6.60 months, P = 0.001) and OS (14.52 months vs. 22.44 months, P = 0.005) compared with those with low CM. In a multivariable model, high versus low CM was also associated with shorter PFS (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.20–3.01; P = 0.006). Change in CM from baseline to week 4 (OR, 4.60; 95% CI, 1.77–11.93; P = 0.002) and high levels of CM at week 4 (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.29–5.99; P = 0.009) were associated with progressive disease at the time of first restaging. A robust risk model based on week 4 circulating CM levels was developed to predict disease progression as early as 3 months after initiating a new treatment. Conclusions: The automated LBx-BCM prototype assay is a promising clinical tool for detecting disease progression a month after initiating treatment in women with MBC undergoing routine care. The next step is to validate its clinical utility for specific treatments.

Abstract Purpose: HER2 mutations (HER2mut) induce endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: In this single-arm multi-cohort phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy of neratinib plus fulvestrant in patients with ER+/HER2mut, HER2 non-amplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the fulvestrant-treated (n = 24) or fulvestrant-naïve cohort (n = 11). Patients with ER-negative (ER−)/HER2mut MBC received neratinib monotherapy in an exploratory ER− cohort (n = 5). Results: The clinical benefit rate [CBR (95% confidence interval)] was 38% (18%–62%), 30% (7%–65%), and 25% (1%–81%) in the fulvestrant-treated, fulvestrant-naïve, and ER− cohorts, respectively. Adding trastuzumab at progression in 5 patients resulted in three partial responses and one stable disease ≥24 weeks. CBR appeared positively associated with lobular histology and negatively associated with HER2 L755 alterations. Acquired HER2mut were detected in 5 of 23 patients at progression. Conclusions: Neratinib and fulvestrant are active for ER+/HER2mut MBC. Our data support further evaluation of dual HER2 blockade for the treatment of HER2mut MBC.

PURPOSE Conventional wisdom has rendered patients with brain metastases ineligible for clinical trials for fear that poor survival could mask the benefit of otherwise promising treatments. Our group previously published the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). Updates with larger contemporary cohorts using molecular markers and newly identified prognostic factors have been published. The purposes of this work are to present all the updated indices in a single report to guide treatment choice, stratify research, and define an eligibility quotient to expand eligibility. METHODS A multi-institutional database of 6,984 patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases underwent multivariable analyses of prognostic factors and treatments associated with survival for each primary site. Significant factors were used to define the updated GPA. GPAs of 4.0 and 0.0 correlate with the best and worst prognoses, respectively. RESULTS Significant prognostic factors varied by diagnosis and new prognostic factors were identified. Those factors were incorporated into the updated GPA with robust separation ( P < .01) between subgroups. Survival has improved, but varies widely by GPA for patients with non–small-cell lung, breast, melanoma, GI, and renal cancer with brain metastases from 7-47 months, 3-36 months, 5-34 months, 3-17 months, and 4-35 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Median survival varies widely and our ability to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases has improved. The updated GPA (available free at brainmetgpa.com) provides an accurate tool with which to estimate survival, individualize treatment, and stratify clinical trials. Instead of excluding patients with brain metastases, enrollment should be encouraged and those trials should be stratified by the GPA to ensure those trials make appropriate comparisons. Furthermore, we recommend the expansion of eligibility to allow for the enrollment of patients with previously treated brain metastases who have a 50% or greater probability of an additional year of survival (eligibility quotient > 0.50).