Rowland, Kendrith M.

Abstract Background Management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) continues to present obstacles, as many pts develop resistance to or cannot tolerate standard of care treatments. Bria-IMT combines two modalities to both overcome immune exhaustion and minimize the toxic safety profiles commonly observed in contemporary late stage therapies: an allogeneic whole-cell vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM) and checkpoint inhibition (CPI). The SV-BR-1-GM cell line originates from breast cancer cells and are engineered to secrete GM-CSF and irradiated before administration. These cells upregulate surface presentation of tumor associated antigens on both HLA class I and II, enhancing tumor recognition by T cells. Coadministration w/ an anti-PD-1 CPI, the vaccine response is reinforced, counteracting the immuno-suppressive tumor microenvironment. Methods This phase I/II study evaluated the Bria-IMT regimen: low-dose cyclophosphamide (Day –2) followed by SV-BR-1-GM and CPI (pembrolizumab or retifanlimab), then low-dose local peg- interferon α. Cycles q3w. In the phase II study, pts were randomized 1:1 to start CPI immediately at cycle 1 (C1) or delayed start at cycle 2 (C2). There were 2 formulations of SV-BR-1-GM w/ IFNγ stimulation (IFNγ) or unstimulated (PH3). Cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), and PD-L1 expression scores on these cells were monitored as biomarkers. Candida skin test assessed anergy status before cycle 1, and a delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test to SV-BR-1-GM was assessed at each cycle w/ a small SV-BR-1-GM dose before the full dose. Results Results of the randomized phase II study cohort are reported (n = 32). Retifanlimab was co-administered w/ SV-BR-1-GM at C1 or C2. Median age 61 (41-80) years; median number of prior regimens was 6 (2-13). 20(63%) pts were ER+/PR+/HER2-; 3(9%) HER2+, and 9 (28%) triple-negative (TNBC). The Bria-IMT regimen was well tolerated, w/ no drop-outs attributable to Bria-IMT. The majority of adverse events (93.8%) grade 1-2, w/ (40.6%) grades 3 and 4. Common AEs included injection site reactions (53%), nausea (43.8%), and fatigue (34%). The median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.5 (range: 1.8-24.5) and overall survival (OS) 9.5 (2.4-31.6) months. One patient remains on therapy, approaching 25 months of PFS. PFS and OS among pts who received immediate vs. delayed start of CPI (PFS 3.7 vs. 3.3 mo, HR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.3-1.2, p=0.16 | OS 13.3 vs. 7.4 months, HR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.34-1.8, p = 0.56). Pts who received the SV-BR-1-GM Ph3 formulation (n=21) had an increase in both PFS (4.1 vs 2.6 months, p = 0.005) and OS (16.6 vs. 9.1 months, HR: 0.6; 95% CI 0.2 - 1.4, p = 0.24); best objective response rate was 12% and the clinical benefit rate was 53%. In ER+/PR+/HER2-, overall OS was 11.7 (3.5-31.6) mo, 17.3 mo (3.5-27.9) in Ph3; HER2+ 7.2 (4.7-24.5) mo, all received Ph3; TNBC 9.9 (2.4-23.0) mo, 16.6 mo (2.4-23.0) in Ph3. In pts w/ available data, pts w/ post-dose CTC count < 5 significantly improved OS compared w/ a CTC count > 5 (16.6 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.0003). Pts w/ positive DTH response had significantly improved PFS (3.6 vs. 2.4 months, p = 0.01) and OS (11.9 vs. 4.7 months, p < 0.0001). Conclusions In heavily pretreated MBC pts, the Bria-IMT regimen demonstrated promising results and a favorable safety profile across all subtypes of breast cancer. A clinically meaningful, though not statistically significant, difference in OS was observed between pts receiving CPI at C1 versus C2. Superior outcomes were observed in pts receiving SV-BR-1-GM w/o IFNγ incubation, guiding selection of Ph3 formulation for ongoing and subsequent clinical trials. Pts w/ post-dose CTC count < 5, and positive DTH response had significantly improved outcomes. On basis of these results, a randomized phase III trial comparing the Bria-IMT regimen to physician's choice is ongoing (NCT06072612). Trial information: NCT03328026. Citation Format: C. Nangia, S. Chumsri, K. Rowland, L. Negret, J. Knecth, B. Bayer, T. Aghajanian, W. Williams, G. Del Priore, C. Calfa. Survival Results of Phase II Bria-IMT Allogenic Whole Cell-Based Cancer Vaccine [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS1-13-23.

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.

e13124 Background: Bria-IMT, an allogeneic whole-cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM), was administered w/ an anti PD1 checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) to evaluate its safety and efficacy in advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells were engineered to directly stimulate anti-tumor immunity through expression of tumor associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance endogenous dendritic cell activation. Addition of a CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM action by overcoming the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment and may have a differential impact vs monotherapy SV-BR-1-GM. Methods: In this exploratory analysis of the Phase 1 + randomized Phase 2, HLA matching status was assessed to explore potential correlations w/ clinical outcomes. Pts were stratified by overall HLA match by Class I or II (0 vs ≥1 matches), formulation and MBC subtype to assess objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Partial HLA matching (≥1 Class I and ≥1 Class II allele) was also analyzed. Results: In the total pt population, the ORR was 10%, CBR 56%, PFS 3.2 months and OS 9.9 months. In those pts treated w/ the phase 3 formulation, ORR was 15%, CBR 63%, PFS 3.6 months and OS 13.4 months. Using available HLA data (n = 52), 25% had 0, 34.6% 1, 32.6% 2, and 8% ≥3 matches. While OS and PFS were greater (Undefined vs 8.5 mos ; p = .02) in pts without an HLA match compared w/ those w/ ≥1 match (see Table), ORR and CBR were similar. This was also the case for pts who had 0 HLA Class I matches vs those w/ ≥1 Class I match (15.6 vs 7.2 mos; p = .002). ORR, CBR, PFS and OS were generally similar for pts who had 0 Class II HLA matches vs those w/ ≥1 match. Pts who matched at least at 1 Class I and 1 Class II allele had a higher ORR and CBR than those who matched at a single Class I or a single Class II allele although PFS and OS were similar between the groups. Similar observations were seen for pts treated w/ the phase 3 formulation. Conclusions: Matching at Class I seemed to decrease PFS & OS, but did not have a similar effect on ORR and CBR. Both matched and non matched pts demonstrated favorable OS and response rates. These findings support further investigation into specific mechanisms and the clinical significance of HLA matching in immunotherapy response. A randomized phase 3 trial is ongoing comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician's choice (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 . n (Evaluable) % of Cohort Best ORR Best CBR PFS OS Full Cohort 52 (41) 10% 56% 3.2 9.9 No Match (Overall) 13 (10) 25% 20% 60% 4.2 Undefined Any Match (Overall) 39 (31) 75% 6% 55% 3 8.5 MHC Class I No Match / Any Match 27 (20) / 25 (21) 52% / 48% 10% /10% 55% /57% 3.5 / 2.7 15.6 / 7.23 MHC Class II Any Match 27 (19) 52% 11% 63% 3.2 11.4 MHC Class I&II Match 13 (9) 25% 22% 77% 2.8 8.6 Phase 3 Formulation (N=35) 35 (27) 15% 63% 3.57 13.43 No Match (Phase 3 Formulation) 11 (9) 31% 22% 67% 5.6 Undefined MHC Class I&II Match (Phase 3 Formulation) 11 (7) 31% 29% 71% 2.7 7.23

1096 Background: Bria-IMT is a combination immunotherapy consisting of allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM) administered w/ immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells are engineered to directly stimulate anti tumor immunity via expression of tumor associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance dendritic cell activation. Addition of CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM to overcome the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment. Methods: This Ph I/randomized Ph II study evaluated the Bria-IMT regimen in pts w/ metastatic breast cancer; CTX (300 mg/m²) on day -2/-3, SV-BR-1-GM and CPI on Day 0, w/ low dose peg interferon α at inoculation sites on day 2 (±1) . Phase II pts were randomized 1:1 to receive CPI at cycle 1 or cycle 2. Two SV-BR-1-GM formulations (w/ vs w/o IFNγ incubation) were evaluated. Biomarkers included cancer-associated macrophage-like cells, circulating tumor cells, PD-L1 scores, and delayed-type hypersensitivity skin tests. Results: 54 pts (22 Ph I, 32 Ph II) enrolled; 11 received pembrolizumab, 44 retifanlimab (1 crossover). 33 (61%) pts were ER+/PR+/HER2-, 18 (33%) TNBC, 3 (6%) HER2+. Median OS, PFS, ORR, and CBR were evaluated against two pivotal Ph 3 trials, ASCENT 1 (SG in TNBC) and TROPiCS-02 2 (SG in HR+/HER2- MBC) (see Table 1). In randomized pts, C1 vs C2 CPI had PFS (3.7 vs 3.2 mos, P=0.09) and OS (11.4 vs 7.4 mos, P=0.19). Pts receiving Ph 3 formulation (w/o IFNγ; N=37) had greater PFS (3.6 vs 2.6 mos, P=0.01) and OS (13.4 vs 6.9 mos, P=0.01). Bria-IMT was well tolerated w/ no Tx related D/Cs. Conclusions: The Bria-IMT Ph 3 formulation cohort OS was comparable to ASCENT and TROPiCS-02 (13.43 vs 11.8, 14.4 mos), exceeding TPC arms (6.9, 11.2 mos). CBR (61%) compared favorably to ASCENT (40%) and TROPiCS-02 (34%); ORR (14%) matched or exceeded TPC arms (4%, 14%). These outcomes were observed in a more heavily pretreated population, demonstrating Bria-IMT’s clinical activity. Randomized Ph 2 results suggest efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated MBC, w/ no significant OS difference between C1 and C2 CPI initiation and 22% of pts still in active survival follow up. Superior outcomes w/ the Ph 3 formulation support its continued evaluation. A randomized Ph 3 trial is ongoing, comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician’s choice (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 . Trial (Cohort) Age (Median, Range) Prior Therapies (Median) OS (Median, mos) PFS (Median, mos) ORR (%) CBR (%) Bria-IMT (Overall Cohort) 61 (38-81) 6 (2-13) 9.9 (1.8-30.3) 3.6 10% 55% Bria-IMT (Ph 3 Formulation) 62 (44-80) 6 (2-13) 13.43 (1.8-30.3) 3.6 (1.8-16.5) 14% 61% ASCENT (SG) 54 (27-82) 4 (2-17) 11.8 4.8 31% 40% ASCENT (TPC) 53 (27-81) 4 (2-14) 6.9 1.7 4% 8% TROPiCS-02 (SG) 57 (49-65) 3 14.4 5.5 21% 34% TROPiCS-02 (TPC) 55 (48-63) 3 11.2 4 14% 22% References: Bardia A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2024 May 20;42(15):1738-1744Rugo, Hope S et al. The Lancet, Volume 402, Issue 10411, 1423 – 1433.

Abstract Background: Bria-IMT™ is a combination immunotherapy consisting of allogeneic whole-cell cancer vaccine (SV-BR-1-GM) administered w/ immune checkpoint inhibitor (CPI). SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells have been engineered to directly stimulate anti-tumor immunity through expression of tumor-associated antigens and secretion of GM-CSF to enhance dendritic cell activation. Addition of CPI potentiates SV-BR-1-GM to overcome the immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment. Methods: This Phase I and randomized phase II combination study evaluated the Bria-IMT™ regimen: preconditioning w/ CTX (300 mg/m2) on day -2 or -3, SV-BR-1-GM inoculation and CPI administration on Day 0, and low-dose peg- interferon α at inoculation sites 2 (±1) day post-SV-BR-1-GM. Phase II pts were randomized 1:1 to receive CPI at cycle 1 (immediate) or cycle 2 (delayed). Two SV-BR-1-GM formulations (w/ and w/o IFNγ incubation) were evaluated. Biomarkers included cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs), circulating tumor cells (CTCs), PD-L1 scores, and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin tests. Results: 54 pts (22 in Phase I, 32 in Phase II) enrolled. 11 pts received pembrolizumab, 44 retifanlimab, w/ 1 pt transitioning from pembrolizumab to retifanlimab. Median age 61(38-81) years; median 6(2-13) prior regimens. 33(61%) pts were ER+/PR+/HER2-, 18(33%) TNBC, and 3(6%) HER2+. Bria-IMT regimen was well tolerated, w/ no attributable Tx D/C. 67% of adverse events grade 1-2; 13% ≥ grade 3 including pulmonary embolism, increased lipase, and dehydration. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.9 (1.8 - 30.3) mos w/ 13% of pts in active survival follow-up. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.2 (1.1-16.5) mos w/ 1 pt still in treatment (16.5 mos). Pts treated w/ ph 3 formulation (w/o IFNγ; N = 37) had significantly improved PFS (3.6 vs. 2.6 mos, P=0.01) and OS (13.4 vs. 6.9 mos, P=0.01); in evaluable pts, objective response rate was 14% and clinical benefit rate 61%. Randomized pts receiving ph 3 formulation had not reached median OS. In randomized pts, C1 vs C2 CPI initiation showed greater PFS (3.7 vs. 3.2 mos, P=0.09) and OS (11.4 vs. 7.4 mos, P=0.19). OS in pts w/ no HLA match was undefined vs 8.6 mos in pts w/ any match (P = 0.04). DTH (+) vs (-) correlated w/ greater OS (11.9 vs. 4.7 mos, P= &lt;0.0001) and PFS (3.5 vs. 2.4 mos, P=0.001). Conclusion: Randomized phase 2 Bria-IMT demonstrated efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated MBC. Post-progression survival exceeding median OS in pts still undergoing survival follow-up suggests long-term benefit extending beyond treatment period. C1 vs C2 CPI initiation showed no statistical or clinically significant difference in OS. Superior outcomes w/ phase 3 formulation support its use in future trials. These results confirm earlier reports of the trial and an even greater benefit. A randomized phase 3 trial is ongoing comparing Bria-IMT vs treatment of physician's choice (NCT06072612). Trial Information: NCT03328026 Citation Format: Saranya Chumsri, Chaitali Nangia, Minal Barve, Kendrith Rowland, Ralph Boccia, John Knecht, Blaise Bayer, Marcela Salgado, Tamar Aghajanian, William V. Williams, Charles Wiseman, Giuseppe Del Priore, Carmen Calfa. Survival outcomes in a randomized phase 2 ofBria-IMT: An allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT100.

1022 Background: The Bria-IMT regimen is a combination immunotherapy using an allogeneic whole cell cancer vaccine combined with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Intradermally administered irradiated SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cells secrete GM-CSF and present tumor associated antigens (TAAs) on HLA-I and –II molecules to directly stimulate anti-tumor immunity. Anti-PD1 CPI further stimulates T-cells and synergizes with SV-BR-1-GM. Here we report the results of the phase 1/2 trial (NCT03328026) of Bria-IMT in metastatic/advanced breast cancer evaluating sequencing of SV-BR-1-GM inoculation and CPI. Methods: Analysis of the phase 1 with expansion phase 2 cohort randomized by sequence using SV-BR-1-GM, checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab or retifanlimab), low dose cyclophosphamide (Day –2) and post-dose local pegylated interferon α, with cycles every 3 weeks. In the 1:1 randomized cohort, CPI is either dosed at C1 prior to SV-BR-1-GM (original sequence) or delayed to C2 post-SV-BR-1-GM (alternative sequence). Cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) were monitored as biomarkers. Results: A total of 54 patients were dosed: 11 with pembrolizumab, 44 with retifanlimab (1 patient received pembrolizumab and later retifanlimab). Median age=61 (38-81); Median prior regimen=6 (2-13); 72% ER+/PR+/HER2-; 6% HER2+ and 22% triple negative. Bria-IMT regimen was well tolerated with only 9% drop-out rate due to AE. AEs related to IPs were seen in 74% of patients; the majority (91%) being grade 1-2, and few (1.7%) grade 4 cases including pulmonary embolism, dehydration and increased lipase. Among 30 patients with post-dose CAML/CTC data and evaluable outcome, CAML count <5 associates with disease control (p=0.06, Chi square test). Patients who developed DTH to SV-BR-1-GM had significantly better PFS and higher OS. Patients treated with phase III formulation had an increase in PFS. Quality of life improvement correlates with disease outcome and survival. Among the patients treated with the phase III formulation of SV-BR-1-GM (n=23 with evaluable outcomes), objective response rate (ORR) is 13% and disease control rate (DCR) is 61%, with median PFS and OS are 4.1 and 13.3 months, respectively. In the randomized portion, the original sequence cohort had higher DCR (43% vs 36%) and OS (P=0.08, HR 0.30, 95%CI 0.08-1.17) compared to the alternative sequence cohort. Conclusions: BRIA-IMT has shown a favorable safety profile while providing benefits to heavily treated aMBC patients. Superior outcomes and survival were seen in patients treated with the phase III formulation and regimen now being used in the ongoing Ph3 trial, confirming the improvement in efficacy of the novel regimen. The results from this randomized phase 2 study informed the study design of the ongoing Ph3 trial comparing BRIA-IMT to standard of care physician choice treatments (NCT06072612). Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 .

PURPOSE Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BRPC) after radical prostatectomy and a short PSA doubling time are at risk for distant metastases. Apalutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist, and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) prolong survival in the metastatic setting. We evaluated whether intensification of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in BRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS PRESTO is a randomized phase III, open-label trial in patients with BRPC and PSA doubling time ≤9 months (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03009981 ). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT control, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + apalutamide + AAP. The primary end point was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), defined as serum PSA >0.2 ng/mL after treatment completion. RESULTS Five hundred three patients were enrolled. The median PSA was 1.8 ng/mL (IQR, 1.0-3.6). At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA-PFS compared with the control arm (median, 24.9 months for ADT + apalutamide v 20.3 months for ADT; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.77]; P = .00047; median, 26.0 months for ADT + apalutamide + AAP v 20.0 months for ADT; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.71]; P = .00008). Median time to testosterone recovery did not differ across treatment arms. The most common grade ≥3 adverse event was hypertension (7.5%, 7.4%, and 18% in ADT, ADT + apalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide + AAP arms, respectively). CONCLUSION Intensified AR blockade for a finite duration prolongs PSA-PFS with a manageable safety profile, without adversely affecting time to testosterone recovery. The addition of apalutamide to ADT should be considered in patients with high-risk BRPC.

Abstract Background: Bria-IMT (SV-BR-1-GM) is an off-the-shelf whole tumor cell therapeutic vaccine engineered to express class I & class II HLAs, secrete GM-CSF, and function as antigen-presenting cells; with subsequent enhancements improving in-vitro characteristics. By expressing cancer antigens such as HER2/Neu and PRAME, SV-BR-1-GM also serves as the reservoir of cancer antigens to activates patient’s anti-tumor immune responses. The safety and efficacy of the ongoing clinical trial of SV-BR-1-GM in combination with a PD1 inhibitor are reported. We also report post-hoc exploratory data for patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer (aMBC) treated with SV-BR-1-GM regimens. Methods: Ongoing prospective, phase 1-2, with an expansion randomized phase 2 cohort (NCT03328026; 2018-present) using SV-BR-1-GM with a PD1 inhibitor (pembrolizumab or retifanlimab) with cycles every 3 weeks (16 patients dosed to date). SV-BR-1-GM “monotherapy” (NCT03066947; 2013-8), a completed prospective phase 1-2 results are also presented. Results: A total of 51 patients received any SV-BR-1-GM regimen; 27 in monotherapy (SV) and 24 in combination with a PD-1 inhibitor (CO) currently ongoing: 4 subjects from SV continued on with CO. Median prior regimens = 5; 61% ER or PR+; 6% ER or PR-/HER2+ and 29% triple negative. SV-BR-1-GM was well tolerated. Disease control rate was 40% with SV and 41% with CO in subjects with available assessment(s). Median PFS was 2.7 months with 6 having PFS &gt;150 days (150-226) for SV and 2.6 months with 5 &gt; 150 days (188-308) for CO. Per protocol, 23 patients had anergy testing prior to treatment. Among those with a normal immunologic response (n=13, 56%), disease outcomes included 4 SD and 2 PR (46% CBR) vs anergic patients (n=7, 30%) with 1 SD (14% CBR); 3 patients (13%) with unknown anergy testing had 0% CBR. All 7 anergic patients developed delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) injection site responses to SV-BR-1-GM. Subjects with DTH (injection site induration/erythema) had a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death (HR=0.096, 95%CI:0.02-0.50, p&lt;0.05). Subjects with a reduction in circulating tumor cells (CTC) also had an improvement in PFS (HR 0.08, p=.0012). Median OS (uncensored) was 11.2 months in CO (n = 8). 7 out of 20 (35%) for SV and 9 out of 22 subjects (41%) for CO with available data, exceeded prior PFS. Among HLA matched subjects 4/7 (57%) and 6/9 (67%), respectively, had an increase in PFS. PFS ratio improved independent of prior number of lines, HER2 or HR status. The greatest improvement in PFS on a SV-BR-1-GM was in a HLA matched subject (&gt;6mo). TEAEs occurred in 20/24 (83%) of subjects in CO including 9/24 (38%) with injection site AEs. There were no AEs of special interest eg cytokine storm. There were no Grade 5 and only 6 grade 4 AEs in CO. Conclusions: In an ongoing randomized phase 2, anergic patients had worse outcomes. SV-BR-1-GM was able to illicit an immune response regardless. Responses, stable disease and CBR were seen and associated with immune responses including injection site erythema/induration (DTH), CTC changes and tumor grade I/II. Patients with disease control had better quality of life. SV-BR-1-GM may be able to alter an anergic immune system for clinical benefit. Future pivotal trials will be based upon the ongoing confirmatory randomized clinical trial. Citation Format: Saranya Chumsri, Minal Barve, Chaitali Nangia, Bonnie L. Guerin, Jarrod Holmes, Karim Mohammed, John Knecht, Shaker Dakhil, William V. Williams, Charles Wiseman, Mingjin Chang, Miguel Lopez-Lago, John G. Knecht, Kendrith Rowland, Ralph V. Boccia, Giuseppe Del Priore, Carmen Calfa. Whole cell antigen presenting immune stimulating cells (Bria-IMT) for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT143.