Berry, Donald A.

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 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.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, response-adaptive randomization phase 2 trial to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer - weekly paclitaxel + investigational treatment x 12 wks followed by doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide(AC) q3 wks x 4 vs. weekly paclitaxel/AC (control). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). The goal for all investigational arms 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 a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by hormone-receptor (HR) & HER2 status & MammaPrint (MP). Findings from the graduated, previously reported Pembro4 arm (Nanda et al, ASCO 2017) supported investigation of de-escalating therapy, and determining if pembrolizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody) alone q3 wks x 4 after weekly paclitaxel x 12 wks + pembrolizumab q3 wks x 4 was sufficient to sustain response without AC. Methods: Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ were ineligible. MRI scans (at baseline, 3 wks, 12 wks, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients (pts). Pts who receive non-protocol therapy (e.g., carboplatin or AC for the Pembro8-noAC arm) count as non-pCR. Pembro8-noAC was open to HER2- pts for evaluation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2-, and HR-/HER2-. Regimens exit the trial for futility (<10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% <probability of success <85%), or safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Pembro8-noAC was randomized to 73 pts, 3 of whom progressed while receiving pembrolizumab alone on study. Randomization to this arm continued after the first report because the rate of progression during AC over the course of the trial was estimated to be 6.5% based on serial MRI studies. However, notification of the third case prompted the study team to ask the DSMB for the summary response for this arm. Although it did not meet formal stopping rules for either graduation or futility, Pembro8-noAC was not near the target threshold pCR rates of 60% for HR-/HER2- and 30% for HR+/HER2+. As a result of this information, combined with the on-treatment progressions, assignment to Pembro8-noAC was discontinued. Treatment with pembrolizumab alone was no longer allowed due to the potential concern for progression, and investigators were given the option to administer AC with pembrolizumab or proceed with definitive surgery following the 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab. 34 pts had surgery results at the time the study was closed. Of the remaining 39 pts, 34 pts have on-therapy MRI assessments. Estimated pCR rates were based on all pts with information at the time (see table). Immune-related adverse events included grade 3 colitis (n=2), grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1), grade 3 transaminitis (n=1), grade 3 hypothyroidism (n=1), and grade 1-2 adrenal insufficiency (n=5). Conclusion: Although Pembro8-noAC is performing at least as well as standard paclitaxel/AC, the likelihood is very low that the regimen would be successful in a phase 3 trial. Pembrolizumab alone following 12 weeks of paclitaxel + pembrolizumab was not sufficient to sustain a response. This was quickly assessed with a small number of patients. Estimated pCR rateSignature(95% prob interval)Pembro8-noACControlHER2-0.210.2(0.09-0.32)(0.15-0.25)HR-/HER2-0.270.27(0.09-0.45)(0.19-0.35)HR+/HER2-0.150.15(0.01-0.29)(0.09-0.20) Citation Format: Minetta C. Liu, Patricia A Robinson, Christina Yau, Anne M Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kathy S Albain, Judy C Boughey, Heather S Han, Anthony D Elias, Kevin Kalinsky, Amy S Clark, Kathleen Kemmer, Claudine Isaacs, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Nola M Hylton, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Patricia K Haugen, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of a novel agent plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from 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 P3-09-02.

Abstract Background: Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) has been shown on the patient level to predict excellent long-term event-free survival outcomes. Residual cancer burden (RCB) quantifies the extent of residual disease for patients who did not achieve pCR. A high proportion of metastatic events to the central nervous system (CNS), a known chemotherapy sanctuary site, was previously observed among the small number of relapses in patients achieving a pCR (Symmans et al 2017), raising the possibility that these CNS events may be independent of response in the breast. I-SPY2 is an adaptively randomized, phase II, platform trial that evaluates new drugs and combinations in the neoadjuvant setting for women with high-risk primary breast cancer. In this study, we evaluated the type and sites of recurrences by RCB classes in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Methods: I-SPY 2 patients enrolled prior to 11/2016 across 9 experimental and control arms, with available RCB and event-free survival (EFS) data were included in this analysis. The median follow-up is 3.8 years. We summarized the EFS event type, further sub-dividing the distant recurrence events by their site of relapse (CNS-only, CNS and other sites, Non-CNS). We estimated the overall and site-specific distant recurrence incidence in each RCB class at 3 years using a competing risk (Fine-Gray) model. In addition, we assessed the association between RCB and distant recurrence free survival including all distant recurrences (DRFS), as well as excluding the CNS-only recurrences (non-CNS DRFS) using a Cox model. Our statistics do not adjust for multiplicities beyond variables evaluated in this study. Results: Among 938 subjects, there were 180 EFS events, including 28 (16%) local recurrences (without distant recurrence and/or death) and 152 DRFS events. Among the DRFS events, 25 patients died without a distant recurrence. 127 experienced distant recurrences, including 22 (17.3%) with CNS-only, 16 (12.6%) with CNS and other sites, 87 (68.5%) with non-CNS distant recurrence; 2 (1.6%) patients had missing recurrence site information. Incidence of CNS-only recurrences are low and are similar across RCB classes (pCR/RCB-0 (n=338): 1%, RCB-I (n=129): 3%, RCB-II (n=328): 2%, RCB-III (n=143): 2% at 3 years). In contrast, the incidence of non-CNS recurrences increase with increasing RCB (RCB-0: 2%, RCB-I: 4%, RCB-II: 11%, RCB-III: 19% at 3 years). DRFS of RCB-I patients do not significantly differ from those achieving a pCR/RCB-0 (DRFS at 3 years: 92% vs. 95%, hazard ratio: 1.77 (0.87-3.63)); the small numerical difference is further reduced when the CNS-only recurrences are excluded (non-CNS DRFS at 3 years: 95% vs. 96%, hazard ratio: 1.48 (0.61-3.58)). CNS recurrences among DRFS events are proportionally higher within the pCR (5/16 (31%)) and RCB-I (5/12 (42%)) than in the RCB-II (8/57 (14%)) and RCB-III (4/42 (9%)) groups largely because of the relative low frequency of non-CNS recurrence events. Conclusions: In our high-risk I-SPY 2 cohort, CNS-only recurrences are uncommon but appear similar across RCB groups, independent of response, suggesting that the CNS is a treatment sanctuary site. In contrast, non-CNS recurrence rates increase as RCB increases. These findings, if confirmed, support the use of RCB to identify patients with excellent outcomes beyond those achieving a pCR; and suggest that inclusion of CNS only recurrences as an outcome event may impact the association between neoadjuvant therapy response and long-term outcome. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Angela DeMichele, W. Fraser Symmans, Lajos Pusztai, Douglas Yee, Amy S. Clark, Christos Hatzis, Jeffrey B. Matthews, Jodi Carter, Yunn-Yi Chen, Kimberly Cole, Laila Khazai, Molly Klein, Dina Kokh, Gregor Krings, Sunati Sahoo, Kathy S. Albain, A. Jo Chien, 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, Nola M. Hylton, Judy C. Boughey, Michelle E. Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Laura J. van' t Veer, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Site of recurrence after neoadjuvant therapy: Clues to biology and impact on endpoints [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 P2-20-02.

Abstract Importance: It is essential to refine the populations most likely to benefit from targeted chemotherapy combinations. Background: MINDACT showed that molecularly low risk patients, as assessed by the Amsterdam 70-gene profile MammaPrint® (Agendia) (MP), did not benefit from chemotherapy. In the I-SPY2 trial, MP low risk Hormone Receptor (HR) positive/HER2 negative patients are not eligible; however, HR negative or HER2 positive patients were considered high risk and included for treatment with chemotherapy plus novel agents. The neoadjuvant setting provides an opportunity to evaluate whether molecularly low risk HER2 positive patients are good candidates for neoadjuvant chemo/anti-HER2 therapy, where pathologic complete response (pCR) and 3-year outcomes are measured. Objective: To evaluate and further characterize the fraction of and outcomes for patients molecular low-risk disease in the I-SPY2 trial. Methods: The I-SPY2 platform trial is an ongoing multicenter phase 2 multi-arm study utilizing adaptive design and evaluating efficacy and tolerability of investigational agents in combination with standard-of-care chemotherapy for patients with high-risk anatomic stage II/III breast cancer. Patients with HR+HER2- MP low-risk tumors are not eligible. All enrolled patients undergo pretreatment biopsy for genomic evaluation of early recurrence risk with MP for risk stratification and with the 80-gene BluePrint® (Agendia) test for intrinsic subtype classification. Primary endpoint of the study is pCR in breast and lymph nodes (ypT0/is, ypN0). Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS) and distant-recurrence free survival (DRFS). Following standard neoadjuvant treatment with or without a concomitant investigational agent, patients are followed for long-term outcomes. EFS and DRFS at 3 and 5 years in the pCR vs non-pCR groups within histologic and molecular subtypes are determined using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: Of the 1038 enrolled patients by November 2016, 24 patients (3.2%) had molecular low-risk disease as determined by MP. Of these, 21 (87.5%) had HR+HER2+, 1 (4.2%) had HR-HER2+, and 2 (8.4%) had HR-HER2-. BluePrint expression subtyping classified 17 as luminal-type, 6 HER2 enriched-type and 1 basal type. One patient withdrew consent for follow-up. Of the 23 remaining, none achieved pCR and only one (HR+/HER2+) had an EFS event (with median follow-up of 4.3 years). Overall, EFS and DRFS data were available for 950 of the 1038 patients (as of February 2019), with median follow-up of 3.8 years. Of the 173 HR+HER2+ in this cohort, 20 (11.6%) had molecular low-risk tumors. The EFS and DRFS for the 173 HER2+HR+ pCR group is 97% and 98% (non-pCR group 89% and 94%), respectively at 3 years. Removing the molecular low-risk HER2+ patients from the denominator reveals the worse outcome for patients with non pCR: EFS 86% and DRFS 92% at 3 years. The difference is more apparent at 5 years, changing from 74% to 66% for EFS and from 81% to 75% for DRFS. Intrinsic subtypes vary and do not predict early risk. Conclusions: I-SPY2 focuses on women with high clinical risk with only 3.2% of enrolled patients having low molecular risk tumors. However, 12% of HER+ breast cancer enrolled patients had molecular low risk tumors of which 95% were also HR+. In this group, early recurrence is very low despite absence of pCR and irrespective of intrinsic subtype. Refining the population using molecular high-risk classification of patients reveals a greater difference between the pCR and non-pCR groups within the HR+HER2+ subtype in the EFS and DRFS analysis. Clinical trial designs could address the opportunity to find more targeted and less toxic treatments for the HER2+ low molecular risk patient population. Citation Format: Paula R Pohlmann, Christina Yau, Angela DeMichele, Claudine Isaacs, Judy C Boughey, Nola Hylton, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, W. Fraser Symmans, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Donald A Berry, Laura Esserman. Amsterdam 70-gene profile (MammaPrint) low risk, even in the HER2 positive subset, identifies a population of women with lower early risk for recurrence despite low response rates to chemotherapy and to HER2 targeted therapy [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 P6-10-06.

1007 Background: Determining optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer depends on efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine if T is equivalent to AC but with reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts with operable breast cancer with 0-3 positive nodes were enrolled on a 2x2 factorial design study which addressed (1) superiority of 6 vs. 4 cycles of therapy (previously reported, Shulman, JCO 2012) and (2) equivalence of single-agent T to standard AC, defined as upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) of T vs. AC < 1.30 for the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). A planned target of 567 RFS events required 4,646 pts with 4 yrs FU. At activation in 2002, T (80mg/m2) was q1wk for 12 or 18 wks and AC (60/600 mg/m2) was q3wk for 4 or 6 cycles. In 2003 (570 pts enrolled) schedules were revised to 4 or 6 cycles q2wk for both T (175 mg/m2) and AC. The 6-cycle arms were dropped in 2008 (3,171 pts enrolled) due to slow accrual. Relative effectiveness of T to AC is shown by hazard ratio (HR). Logrank p-values are measures of discordance but are not relevant for the equivalence question and are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: After enrolling 3,871 pts, the study closed in 2010 due to slowing accrual. With a median follow-up of 6.1 yrs there are 437 RFS events. The HR of 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05-1.53; p = 0.02) does not allow a conclusion of equivalence of T with AC. With 266 deaths the HR for overall survival (OS) is 1.27 (95% CI=1.00-1.62; p = 0.05), favoring AC. The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 yrs is 3% (91 vs. 88%) for RFS and 1% (95 vs. 94%) for OS. All 9 treatment-related deaths were in pts receiving AC and are included in the survival analysis. The incidence of Grade 3+ toxicity for AC vs T was 33% vs. 4% for hematologic toxicity and 36% vs 22% for non-hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: This trial did not show equivalence of T to AC, a conclusion that is very unlikely to change with additional follow-up. T was less toxic than AC. Clinical trial information: CDR0000069444/NCT00041119.

510 Background: CALGB 9344 showed 4 cycles of paclitaxel (T) after 4 cycles of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) improved disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to 4 cycles of AC. Higher dose of A had no benefit (Henderson JCO ’03). Prior studies suggest HER2 is associated with benefit from standard vs low dose of C&A (Dressler JCO ’05). We hypothesized that HER2 might predict benefit from higher dose of A or from T, and that HER2 might refine the observed negative interaction of T with estrogen receptor (ER). Methods: 3121 node + women in CALGB 9344 received 4 q3wk cycles of AC (A: 60, 75, or 90 mg/m2) and then 4 cycles of T (175 mg/m2 q3wk) or no T. Blocks were collected from ∼2800 subjects. 2 sets of 750 patients each were randomly selected from these cases: Set 1 to develop hypotheses; Set 2 for validation. Tissue specimens were available from 643 (set1) and 679 (set2) cases (20% & 22% total enrolled in 9344 respectively). HER2 was evaluated by FISH and by IHC (by antibody cb11 and by Herceptest). Statistical analyses used Cox proportional hazards models, including interaction terms, and Kaplan-Meier estimates for comparing 5-yr DFS by treatment group. Results: In Set 1, all 3 assays suggested that T improved DFS for HER2+ but not for HER2-. For this single set the interaction was not statistically significant. There appeared to be an interaction of HER2, T and ER. IHC using cb11 was applied to Set 2, revealing nearly identical results. In the two sets combined (n=1322), the interaction between HER2 and T was statistically significant (p=0.013). The 3-way interaction of HER2, ER and T was hypothesis-generating and not tested statistically. Differences in 5-yr DFS rates (95% CI) for T vs. no T by HER2 and ER (both sets combined) There was no interaction between HER2 and dose of A. Conclusions: These results suggest that the benefit of adding T to AC is greater for HER2+ tumors, even if ER+, while T was of no apparent benefit in the ER+, HER2- group. Further validation is needed from remaining cases in 9344 and from other trials involving T. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

PURPOSEThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODSI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.RESULTSMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).CONCLUSIONThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

Introduction: The use of PET-CR as a surrogate endpoint would expedite the development of novel therapies and enable better estimates of sample size based on early outcomes of a trial. Previous studies have reported an association between end-of-therapy (EOT) PET results and long-term progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients receiving standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy. We have also previously shown that the overall predictability of PET-CR for PFS and OS in these trials is similar to that in 18 literature-based studies. (15-ICML 2019, P195). To assess the potential for PET-CR as a surrogate endpoint in registration trials, we conducted a prospectively designed individual patient-level-data meta-analysis of available clinical trials. Methods: We synthesized patient-level data from three prospective phase II and III trials (GOYA [NCT01287741], GATHER [NCT01414855], MAYO [NCT00670358]) conducted in previously untreated DLBCL patients, using a Bayesian hierarchical model. We considered the two treatment arms in GOYA (GOYA-R-CHOP [rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone] and GOYA-G-CHOP [obinutuzumab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone]) separate; hence a total of four arms, excluding patients without baseline PET scans. We investigated the relationship between PET-CR and long-term survival outcomes overall and within patient subgroups. We used Kaplan-Meier plots to compare survival endpoints by PET-CR status. We considered hypothetical RCTs that have PET-CR and PFS as endpoints to show how our model of the relationship between PET-CR and PFS can be used to predict the trial outcome. Results: We included 1496 patients (GOYA-R, GOYA-G, GATHER, MAYO, respectively: 665, 669, 100, 62). EOT PET-CR status was determined by the Lugano criteria in GOYA and by IHP in the other two studies. The overall rate of PET-CR was 72%; respectively 72%, 73%, 62% and 74% per arm. Panel A of the Figure shows Kaplan-Meier plots of PFS by PET-CR status. The Bayesian modeled hazard ratio (HR) comparing PET-CR versus nonCR was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.10, 0.15). The model can be used in planning a clinical trial as follows. Suppose a new therapy improves the PET-CR rate from 70% to 85%. Based on our model the expected HR for PFS treatment effect would be 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.84). The trial sample size required to demonstrate such an improvement with 90% power is about 650 patients, assuming an accrual rate of 50 patients per month and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months. Panel B of the Figure shows the model-based PFS HR and its CI (shaded) as it depends on the PET-CR rate of the new therapy. This plot also shows the estimated total trial sample size (in red), again assuming the relationship between PET-CR and PFS in our model. However, our model may not apply for the new therapy; and the trial could have an adaptive design with final sample size tailored to the accruing information about PET-CR and PFS and their relationship for the therapies in the trial. Conclusions: Achieving an EOT PET-CR in newly diagnosed DLBCL is highly predictive of favorable outcome in the populations we considered. The estimated HR is 0.13 for PFS, PET-CR versus nonCR, and it is 0.10 for OS. Based on our model, a treatment that improves PET-CR rate could be reasonably expected to have a benefit on PFS and OS, for the populations we considered. Whether a new therapy, with a different mechanism of action, that improves PET-CR rate will extend PFS in a clinical trial is less clear. An adaptive trial could be initiated based on our model as a hypothesis. This hypothesis can be verified or updated using accruing information in the trial itself. Our model can also help in planning clinical trials for re-estimating sample size during the trial and considering early stopping for futility. Further work should investigate the applicability of PET-CR in predicting PFS and/or OS for treatments that have different mechanisms of action and for other populations of patients. Acknowledgements: This work was funded by Genentech/Roche. Disclosures Berry: Berry Consultants, LLC: Consultancy, Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Berry Consultants, LLC is a company that provides statistical design and analysis services to pharmaceutical companies (including Genentech/Roche), medical device companies, U.S. NIH cooperative groups, patient advocacy groups, and international consortia. Broglio:Berry Consultants LLC: Employment. Ward:Hoffmann La Roche: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mattiello:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment. Sahin:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. Nielsen:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Employment, Equity Ownership. McGlothlin:Berry Consultants, LLC: Consultancy, Employment. Elliott:Berry Consultants, LLC: Employment. Sehn:Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Apobiologix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; TEVA Pharmaceuticals Industries: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Ortho: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Trněný:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Vitolo:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Speakers Bureau. Martelli:Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria; F. Hoffman-La Roche, Celgene, Janssen, Sandoz, Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kostakoglu:F. Hoffman-La Roche: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Nowakowski:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding.