Tolaney, Sara M.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Anti-HER2 therapies have transformed the trajectory for patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) MBC. A subset of patients with HER2+ MBC do exceptionally well and remain on maintenance anti-HER2 therapy for many years. However, current therapy is non-curative and patients are treated indefinitely. While these therapies often are well-tolerated, they may cause significant toxicities, are expensive, and typically require frequent infusion and provider visits. Case reports and retrospective series demonstrate that some patients may do well after stopping anti-HER2 treatment. We currently lack prospective data on the likelihood of clinical impact of successful treatment discontinuation, outcomes among patients who progress and restart HER2-directed therapy, and tools to predict who may safely stop therapy. In this study, we will enroll pts with an exceptional response to anti-HER2 therapy. Pts may elect to either continue or stop anti-HER2 therapy and will be followed clinically and radiographically on a protocol-specified schedule. Considering the central role of patients in choosing the study intervention arm, and the unique nature of stopping therapy as a treatment intervention, patient advocates have been deeply involved in the study design to ensure patient concerns are being heard and addressed. We will retrospectively assess minimal residual disease (MRD), measured in plasma, as a biomarker of ongoing response, in a step toward shifting the treatment paradigm for pts with HER2+ MBC. METHODS: STOP-HER2 is a prospective, non-randomized, phase II, multicenter study of either continuation (cohort 1) or cessation (cohort 2) of anti-HER2 therapy in exceptional responders with HER2+ MBC. Eligible patients must have biopsy-proven HER2+ MBC by ASCO/CAP guidelines and must have been receiving first-line anti-HER2 therapy for MBC for at least 3 years without evidence of progressive disease (PD) as determined by the treating investigator. Patients with prior brain-only PD or oligo-PD outside the brain are eligible at least 2 years after local treatment to the central nervous system (CNS) and in absence of subsequent PD. Up to fifty-two participants will be enrolled into cohort 2, and an additional thirty participants enrolled into the cohort 1, at 10 US sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium. Co-primary endpoints are the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) in cohorts 2 and 1, separately. Secondary endpoints include the clinical benefit rate upon re-initiation of anti-HER2 therapy for patients in cohort 2 experiencing PD after treatment discontinuation; and 3-year overall survival in both cohorts. Correlative endpoints include MRD status at baseline and the correlation between MRD dynamics and outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected and analyzed, including quality of life, illness intrusiveness, financial toxicity, anxiety, and decision regret. The study will use a two-stage design to assess the primary objective of estimating the rate of participants who are free of progression at one year after discontinuing anti-HER2 therapy. If 50% or less are free of progression at one year, stopping HER2 therapy would not be considered a viable treatment plan (null hypothesis). The study is designed to have 80% power to reject the null hypothesis at the 10% type I error rate when 68% of exceptional responders are free of progression at one year after stopping HER2 therapy. STOP-HER2 began enrollment in Q2 2023 (NCT05721248). Citation Format: Heather Parsons, Kathryn Ruddy, Stefania Morganti, Karen Smith, Victoria Attaya, Eliza Kallfelz, Michelle DeMeo, Jamie LaScala, Shirley Mertz, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Adam Brufsky, Chau Dang, Susan Dent, Ahmed Elkhanany, WIlliam Gwin, Ciara O'Sullivan, Kathy Miller, Sara Nunnery, Elaine Walsh, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sara Tolaney, Nabihah Tayob, Antonio Wolff, Eric Winer, Mothaffar Rimawi, Ian Krop, Nancy Lin. The STOP-HER2 Trial: A Phase 2 Study of Stopping Trastuzumab - Outcomes in Patients with HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer (TBCRC 062) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO2-20-01.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib is approved both for high-risk early breast cancer as well as advanced breast cancer (ABC) in the first- and second-line setting. In MONARCH 2, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant significantly improved both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC with disease progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). In MONARCH 3, the addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.540; 95% CI, 0.418-0.698; p=0.000002) as initial therapy in HR+, HER2- ABC. At the last interim OS analysis (~252 events, at 5.8 years follow-up [FU]), a numerically favorable median OS difference (12.6 months) was observed (HR, 0.754; 95% CI, 0.584-0.974; p=0.0301, non-significant [NS]). Here, we present the final OS analysis of MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621). Methods: MONARCH 3 is a randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study of abemaciclib + NSAI (anastrozole or letrozole) vs placebo + NSAI in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC without prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. OS was a gated secondary endpoint and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS) an exploratory endpoint. Final OS analysis was planned after approximately 315 OS events had occurred in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with a split alpha between the ITT population and the subgroup with visceral disease (sVD) according to a prespecified graphical testing scheme. Kaplan-Meier method and stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used for time-to-event analyses. All reported p-values are two-sided. Results A total of 493 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib + NSAI (n=328) or placebo + NSAI (n=165). After a median FU of 8.1 years, 7% of patients were still receiving treatment in the abemaciclib arm vs 3% in the placebo arm. In the ITT population, 314 OS events were observed (198 deaths among 328 patients [60%] in the abemaciclib arm and 116 among 165 [70%] in the placebo arm; HR, 0.804; 95% CI, 0.637-1.015; p=0.0664, NS). Median OS was 66.8 months in the abemaciclib arm and 53.7 months in the placebo arm, a numerical difference of 13.1 months in the ITT population. In the sVD, 178 events were observed (113 deaths among 173 patients [65%] in the abemaciclib arm and 65 among 90 [72%] in the placebo arm; HR, 0.758; 95% CI, 0.558-1.030; p=0.0757, NS). Median OS was 63.7 months in the abemaciclib arm and 48.8 months in the placebo arm, a numerical difference of 14.9 months in the sVD. Consistent OS differences were observed across prespecified subgroups. PFS benefit was sustained (median 29.0 vs 14.8 months; HR, 0.535; 95% CI, 0.429-0.668; nominal p<0.0001) with substantial difference in 6-year PFS rates (23.3% vs 4.3% for abemaciclib vs placebo). CFS was also improved with abemaciclib vs placebo (median 46.7 vs 30.6 months; HR, 0.693; 95% CI, 0.557-0.863; nominal p=0.0010). No new safety signals were observed with longer term use. Conclusion In patients with HR+, HER2- ABC, abemaciclib in combination with a NSAI resulted in numerically longer OS compared to NSAI alone; however, statistical significance was not reached after a median FU of 8.1 years. The clinically meaningful improvement in median OS (>13 months) combined with the sustained significant improvement in median PFS (>14 months) and substantial extension in median CFS (>16 months) continue to support the use of abemaciclib in combination with NSAI as first-line therapy in ABC. Citation Format: Matthew Goetz, Masakazu Toi, Jens Huober, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Olivier Trédan, Inhae Park, Mario Campone, Shin-Cheh Chen, Luis Manual Manso, Shani Paluch-Shimon, Orit C. Freedman, Valerie Andre, Abhijoy Saha, Gertjan van Hal, Ashwin Shahir, Hiroji Iwata, Stephen RD Johnston, Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Xavier Pivot, Sara Tolaney, Sara Hurvitz, Antonio Llombart. MONARCH 3: Final overall survival results of abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor as first-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS01-12.

Background: Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations. Methods: This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity. Results: 1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32–1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24–2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70–6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71–5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83–12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63–3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20–2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66–3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89–22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status. Conclusions: Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Funding: This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication. Clinical trial number: CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701 .

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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.

Abstract Background: The ATEMPT trial primary analysis found that one year of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) achieved a 3-year iDFS of 97.8% for patients with stage I HER2+ breast cancer, but was not associated with fewer clinically relevant toxicities (CRTs) compared with paclitaxel and trastuzumab (TH). In this end-of-study analysis, we report 5-year survival outcomes and correlative analyses from the trial. Methods: Patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2+ breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for one year or TH and received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 IV with weekly trastuzumab IV followed by trastuzumab for 9 months. The co-primary objectives were to compare the incidence of CRTs between the 2 arms and to evaluate iDFS in patients receiving T-DM1. To investigate proteomic correlates of recurrence, spatial proteomic analyses were performed on samples from 13 patients experiencing iDFS events (cases) and 24 matched controls using the NanoString GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiler. The impact of HER2 heterogeneity on outcomes was investigated among 17 cases and 51 matched controls by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). HER2 genetic heterogeneity was assessed by scrutinizing the whole tumor area and defined as the occurrence of HER2 gene amplification in >5% but < 50% invasive tumor cells. The risk of recurrence was evaluated centrally with the HER2DX genomic assay from 225 primary tumor samples. Germline whole genome sequencing (WGS) was conducted among 55 patients experiencing T-DM1-induced thrombocytopenia and/or bleeding and 55 matched controls to identify genomic correlates for this side effect. Results: A total of 497 patients who initiated protocol therapy were included in this analysis (383 T-DM1 and 114 TH). After a median follow up 5.8 years, among patients receiving T-DM1 there were a total of 11 iDFS events, with 3 distant recurrences. The 5-year iDFS for T-DM1 was 97.0% (95% CI, 95.3-98.8%), the 5-year recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.6% (95% CI: 97.4-99.8%) and the 5-year overall survival (OS) for T-DM1 was 97.8 % (95% CI, 96.3-99.3%). Although the study was not powered to evaluate the efficacy of TH, among the 114 patients receiving TH, a total of 9 iDFS events were observed, including 2 distant events; the 5-year iDFS with TH was 91.3% (95% CI: 86.0-96.9%), 5-year RFI was 93.3% (95% CI: 88.6-98.2%) and 5-year OS was 97.9% (95% CI: 95.2-100%). A total of 56 samples were evaluable for heterogeneity analyses, among which 14% (n=8) harbored HER2 genetic heterogeneity. Spatial proteomic analyses found that NF1 (adjusted p=0.72 × 10-6) and CTLA-4 (adjusted p=0.15 × 10-3) were significantly upregulated in primary samples from cases, while cleaved caspase 9, CD25, GITR, ICOS, p53 and PD-L2 were significantly upregulated in controls (all with adjusted p< 0.05). Germline WGS found that the top gene associations with thrombocytopenia and thrombocytopenia or bleeding were ALMS1 (p=0,19 × 10-3) and APBA3 (p=0,23 × 10-3), respectively, although none reaching the threshold for genome wide significance. rs62143195 and rs114169776 were the top single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with thrombocytopenia and thrombocytopenia or bleeding, respectively. Data on the impact of HER2 heterogeneity and of HER2DX score on survival outcomes will be presented. Conclusion: With longer follow-up, adjuvant T-DM1 confirmed outstanding long-term outcomes among patients with stage I HER2+ breast cancer, demonstrating a 5-year RFI of 98.6%. Spatial proteomic analyses identified a potential association between NF1 and CTLA-4 expression with recurrence. Details on the impact of HER2 heterogeneity and HER2DX assay on prognosis will be presented. Citation Format: Paolo Tarantino, Nabihah Tayob, Chau T Dang, Denise Yardley, Steven J. Isakoff, Vicente Valero, Meredith Faggen, Therese Mulvey, Ron Bose, Douglas Weckstein, Antonio C. Wolff, Katherine Reeder-Hayes, Hope Rugo, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Dan Zuckerman, Lowell Hart, Vijayakrishna K. Gadi, Michael Constantine, Kit Cheng, Audrey Merrill Garrett, Paul K. Marcom, Kathy S. Albain, Patricia DeFusco, Nadine Tung, Blair Ardman, Rita Nanda, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Mothaffar Rimawi, Vandana Abramson, Paula R. Pohlmann, Catherine Van Poznak, Andres Forero-Torres, Minetta C. Liu, Kathryn Ruddy, Yue Zheng, Romualdo Barroso-Sousa, Adrienne Waks, Michelle K. DeMeo, Molly K. DiLullo, Giuseppe Curigliano, Harold Burstein, Ann Partridge, Eric Winer, Giuseppe Viale, Winnie Hui, Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, Bryan P. Schneider, Aleix Prat, Ian Krop, Sara Tolaney. Adjuvant Trastuzumab Emtansine Versus Paclitaxel plus Trastuzumab for Stage I HER2+ Breast Cancer: 5-year results and correlative analyses from ATEMPT (TBCRC033) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD18-01.

Abstract Background Adjuvant abemaciclib (a CDK4 and 6 inhibitor) combined with ET resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk EBC in the monarchE trial, and is an approved adjuvant therapy for these patients. Here we present efficacy results from a pre-specified overall survival interim analysis (OS IA2) which was planned to occur 2 years (yrs) after the primary outcome analysis. Methods Pts were randomized (1:1) to receive ET for up to 10 yrs +/- abemaciclib for 2 yrs (study treatment period). High-risk EBC was defined as either ≥4 positive axillary lymph nodes (ALN), or 1-3 ALN with either Grade 3 disease and/or tumor ≥5 cm (Cohort 1). While the proliferation biomarker Ki-67 was centrally assessed in all pts with available tissue sample, an additional smaller group of pts with 1-3+ ALN and central Ki-67 ≥20% as the only high-risk feature were included (Cohort 2). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population consisted of both Cohort 1 (5120 pts) and Cohort 2 (517 pts). Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. Results At a median follow-up of 42 months, all pts were off abemaciclib. IDFS and DRFS data illustrate a sustained benefit beyond the treatment period. In the ITT population, the HR for IDFS was 0.664 (95% CI: 0.578, 0.762) and DRFS was 0.659 (95% CI: 0.567, 0.767). At 4 yrs, this reflected an improvement in IDFS rates from 79.4% to 85.8% (absolute difference 6.4%), and in DRFS rates from 82.5% to 88.4% (absolute difference 5.9%). The continued separation of the curves was associated with an increase in absolute benefit in IDFS 4-year rates compared to 2-and 3-year IDFS rates (absolute difference 2.8% and 4.8% respectively). While OS remained immature, there was a lower number of deaths observed in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared to the ET alone arm (157 [5.6%] vs 173 [6.1%], HR 0.929 [95% CI: 0.748, 1.153], p = 0.503), suggesting that the robust benefit in IDFS and DRFS began to translate into a numerically favorable OS HR. As previously described, within Cohort 1, a Ki-67 index of ≥20% was associated with a worse prognosis, but similar abemaciclib treatment effects were observed regardless of Ki-67 index. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusion The clinically meaningful benefit of adjuvant abemaciclib added to ET in HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC persists beyond completion of abemaciclib therapy, yielding an increase in absolute IDFS and DRFS benefit at 4 yrs. While OS remains immature at this time, the lower number of deaths in the abemaciclib arm compared to the ET arm suggest that a survival signal favoring abemaciclib is emerging. Citation Format: Stephen Johnston, Masakazu Toi, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Priya Rastogi, Mario Campone, Patrick Neven, Chiun Sheng Huang, Jens Huober, Georgina Garnica Jaliffe, Irfan Cicin, Sara Tolaney, Matthew P. Goetz, Hope Rugo, Elżbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Lucia Del Mastro, Chikako Shimizu, Ran Wei, Ashwin Shahir, Maria Munoz, Belen San Antonio, Valerie Andre, Nadia Harbeck, Miguel Martín. Abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer: results from a pre-planned monarchE overall survival interim analysis, including 4-year efficacy outcomes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-09.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

PURPOSE CALGB 40603 ( NCT00861705 ), a 2 × 2 randomized phase II trial, demonstrated that adding carboplatin or bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel (wP) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer. We now report long-term outcomes (LTOs) and correlative science end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate LTOs in 443 patients who initiated study treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics, pathologic response, calculated residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with residual disease (RD), treatment assignment, and dose delivery during wP on LTOs, including event-free survival (EFS). Genomic predictors of treatment response and outcomes were assessed on pretreatment tumor samples by mRNA sequencing. RESULTS Among baseline characteristics, only the clinical stage was associated with LTOs. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, LTOs were not significantly improved with either carboplatin or bevacizumab, overall or in patients with basal-like subtype cancers by genomic analysis. Patients with pCR (n = 205, 46.3%) had significantly higher 5-year EFS (85.5% v 56.6%, log-rank P < .0001) and overall survival (87.9% v 63.4%, P < .0001) rates compared with patients with RD, even those with RCB class I. Among clinical and genomic features, evidence of immune activation, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and low B-cell receptor evenness, was associated with pCR and improved EFS. CONCLUSION Despite higher pCR rates, neither carboplatin nor bevacizumab appeared to improve LTOs although the study was not powered to assess these secondary end points. pCR was associated with superior LTOs even when compared with minimal RD. Markers of immune activation in pretreatment tumor biopsies were independently associated with higher pCR rates and improved survival.