Fleming, Gini F.

Importance The Breast Cancer Index (BCI) previously identified premenopausal patients with tumors in which the ratio of expression of HOXB13 relative to IL17BR (hereafter, BCI [H/I]–low tumors) as likely to derive greatest benefit from ovarian function suppression (OFS)–containing adjuvant therapy in the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) trial. Objectives To assess BCI as a predictive biomarker of benefit from exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS and to validate BCI as a prognostic biomarker for premenopausal patients. Design, Setting, and Participants This prognostic study used a prospective-retrospective translational design within the Tamoxifen and Exemestane (TEXT) and SOFT trials (enrolled November 2003 to April 2011). Blinded BCI testing in all available tumor samples was completed in March 2024. Premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer randomized to tamoxifen plus OFS or exemestane plus OFS who had BCI assessed were included. Analysis occurred from March to August 2024. Exposure 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS or exemestane plus OFS. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) for predictive analyses and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) for prognostic analyses after a median follow-up of 13 years in the TEXT cohort. Secondary objectives examined the predictive performance of BCI (H/I) in the combined TEXT and SOFT cohort overall and in prespecified clinical subgroups. Results Of 1782 patients in the TEXT study, 1034 (58.0%) had BCI (H/I)–low tumors; 915 (51.3%) of patients had N0 disease and 1077 (60.4%) were younger than 45 years. Patients with BCI (H/I)–low tumors had a 6.6% absolute benefit in 12-year BCFI (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85) for exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS, while those with BCI (H/I)–high tumors had a 6.3% absolute benefit (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.07; P for interaction = .29). Results were consistent in the combined TEXT plus SOFT cohort (2896 patients) and adjusting for clinicopathological variables. Clinical subgroup analyses consistently showed benefit of exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS for BCI (H/I)–low tumors, and more variable relative treatment effects among BCI (H/I)–high tumors, including by age. Post hoc exploratory time-varying estimates suggested the treatment × BCI associations may differ in years 0 to 5 vs greater than 5 years. BCI and BCI N+ as continuous indices were prognostic for distant recurrence in N0 (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.11-1.44; P < .001) and N1 (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21-2.05; P < .001) cancers. The 12-year DRFI was 96.3%, 90.3%, and 84.9% for BCI low-, intermediate-, and high-risk N0 cancers, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance In this study of premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, BCI (H/I) status did not clearly predict greater benefit of adjuvant exemestane plus OFS vs tamoxifen plus OFS for women with BCI (H/I)–low tumors than for those with BCI (H/I)–high tumors; BCI continuous indices were reconfirmed as prognostic for premenopausal women. These findings support prior results of SOFT, which compared tamoxifen-alone vs OFS with either exemestane or tamoxifen, indicating premenopausal patients with BCI (H/I)–low tumors may benefit from more intensive endocrine therapy.

Abstract Purpose: Our goal was to determine if the HRDefine biomarker combining methylation and mutation assessment of key homologous recombination repair genes identifies BRCA wildtype (BRCAwt) ovarian cancer (OC) with outcomes similar to BRCA mutated (BRCAm) OC within the context of a frontline PARP inhibitor trial for advanced ovarian cancer. Methods: We performed an exploratory biomarker analysis of blood and neoplastic samples from the VELIA trial, a phase 3 study evaluating the PARP inhibitor veliparib as frontline maintenance therapy in OC. We developed a highly sensitive droplet digital PCR assay for quantitative BRCA1 and RAD51C promoter methylation and assessed germline/somatic mutations using the BROCA next generation sequencing platform. Cases were grouped into: BRCAm, HRDefine positive (BRCAwt HRDefine+), and HRDefine negative (BRCAwt HRDefine-). Carcinomas were considered HRDefine+ if quantitative BRCA1 or RAD51C promoter methylation was >/= 60% or if a germline or somatic pathogenic variant (PV) was identified in the following non-BRCA HRR repair genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, PALB2, BARD1. For this analysis, the control group included the two study arms with placebo maintenance compared to the investigational arm of veliparib with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance (veliparib throughout group). HRDefine was compared to the Myriad genomic instability score (GIS) used as HRD assessment in the trial. Progression free survival (PFS) was compared using log rank tests. Results: Among 1140 VELIA participants, biomarker analysis could be performed for 487 cases. Of these, 255 (52%) were BRCAm, 60 (12%) were BRCAwt HRDefine+, and 172 (35%) were BRCAwt HRDefine-. BRCAwt HRDefine+ was driven by promoter methylation (57%), germline (40%), or somatic (3%) PVs. Median PFS (months, all arms combined) was 26 months (BRCAm), 27 months (BRCAwt HRDefine+), and 15 months (BRCAwt HRDefine-), with corresponding hazard ratios (HR) of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.39-0.65) and 0.50 (0.34-0.73) versus HRDefine-. All HRDefine+ molecular subgroups were associated with longer PFS, including RAD51C/D mutations (HR 0.44, 0.25-0.77) and promoter methylation (HR 0.60, 0.36-0.97). HRDefine positivity was significantly associated with improved PFS compared to HRDefine-/GIS low (n=60 vs n=111, median PFS 27 versus 14 months, HR 0.44, 0.30-0.65), while the HRDefine- cases with high GIS demonstrated a trend toward an intermediate PFS (n=56, median 18 months, HR 0.67, 0.45-1.01). When compared by treatment arm, median PFS was significantly longer in the veliparib throughout arm compared to control only for the BRCAm group (32 months vs 23 months, HR 0.61, 0.42-0.87), though the analysis was underpowered for the BRCAwt HRDefine+ sub-group (30 months vs 25 months, HR 0.79, 0.4-1.57). Conclusions: HRDefine identifies BRCAwt OC associated with a PFS that is like that of BRCAm cases and may improve stratification for PARP inhibitor therapy beyond current HRD assays. GIS may have some, albeit reduced, prognostic implication that is independent of HRDefine. Citation Format: Isabel V. Rodriguez, Marc Radke, Ronit Katz, Persephone Miller, Paula Ladd, Nithisha Khasnavis, Jennifer Ochoa, Melanie Dillon, Heather Lankes, Peter Ansell, Carol Aghajanian, Gini Fleming, Michael Birrer, Scott Kaufmann, Charles Leath, Kathleen Moore, Theresa Werner, Linda Van Le, Robert L. Coleman, Elizabeth M. Swisher. Application of HRDefine: a biomarker for identifying root causes of homologous recombination deficiency to a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of veliparib in front-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (VELIA/GOG-3005) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Advances in Ovarian Cancer Research; 2025 Sep 19-21; Denver, CO. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(18_Suppl):Abstract nr A044.

5515 Background: Clear cell ovarian carcinoma (CCOC) is a chemoresistant subtype of ovarian cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been reported to have clinical activity in CCOC. Additionally, CCOC harbors molecular alterations suggesting a role for anti-angiogenic agents. We therefore conducted a single-arm two-stage phase 2 trial to investigate the clinical activity of the combination of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab with the anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor lenvatinib in patients (pts) with CCOC. Methods: Pts with CCOC and measurable disease received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks and lenvatinib 20 mg daily. Pts could have received an unlimited number of prior therapies; prior bevacizumab and immune checkpoint inhibitors were allowed, but prior lenvatinib was exclusionary. Malignant bowel involvement was not allowed. Co-primary endpoints were objective response rate (H 0 5%; H a 25%) and rate of PFS at 6 months (mo) per RECIST v1.1 (H 0 10%; H a 30%), restricting the probabilities of type I and type II errors to 10% and 10%, respectively. Two pts with objective responses or 3 pts progression-free and alive at 6 mos were needed to proceed from stage 1 (n=18) to stage 2 (n=13); 5 pts with objective responses or 6 pts progression-free and alive at 6 mos were needed to declare the combination worthy of further study. Results: Data cut-off occurred 22-Oct-2024. Of 30 enrolled pts, 83.3% were white; the mean age among all pts was 54.1 years. 30% of pts (9/30) experienced a confirmed response (2 CR, 7 PR); an additional 3 pts (10%) experienced unconfirmed PRs and 4 pts (13.3%) had SD ≥6 mo. As of data cut-off, 3 pts (10%) had not yet reached their first radiographic assessments, and 17 pts were still receiving study therapy. With a median of 9.72 mo of follow up, 16 pts were alive and progression-free at 6 months. The estimated 6-month PFS was 75.96% (95% CI 53.82-88.51%). Median PFS was 10.9 mo. The estimated 12-month PFS was 48.86% (95% CI 23.67-70.04%). The most common any-grade TRAEs were hypertension (71%), hypothyroidism (66%), and fatigue (60%). There were no unanticipated TRAEs. Conclusions: The combination of pembrolizumab/lenvatinib demonstrates encouraging evidence of clinical activity in CCOC, with 9 pts experiencing a confirmed response and 16 pts alive and progression-free at 6 months. As both co-primary endpoints of the study were met, enrollment closed with 30 pts. Updated data for all pts will be reported. There were no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT05296512 .

Abstract Background: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), commonly known as ovarian cancer (OvCa), is the deadliest gynecological malignancy. High tumor expression of either NR3C1 mRNA (encoding the glucocorticoid receptor or GR) or GR protein (IHC) are associated with poor overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with advanced stage OvCa. We hypothesized that high GR expression and associated GR transcriptional activity favor OvCa cell survival and chemotherapy resistance, thereby reducing OS. Here we investigated whether a GR transcriptome-based gene signature (GR-sig) would be a better prognosticator than tumor NR3C1 mRNA expression alone. Methods: mRNAs up- or downregulated >1.5 fold after glucocorticoid treatment (Dex) in one or both cultured OvCa cell lines (OVSAHO and HEYA8) were defined as differentially expressed genes (DEGs). DEGs were then identified in n=1247 unique OvCa microarrays from 15 publicly available Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets with matched pt OS (training set). We then used the OS data to train a Cox proportional hazards model. The “best subset selection” (BeSS) algorithm and bootstrap sampling identified those GR-regulated DEGs whose tumor mRNA expression correlated most significantly with pt OS, creating a GR-sig “risk score.” Subsequently, all n=522 microarray and n=374 RNA-seq publicly available samples from the OvCa TCGA were used as two independent validation sets. Microarray and RNA-seq data were normalized using the MAS5 and FPKM-UQ algorithms respectively. The two validation sets were independently stratified relative to the median training set risk score into low- and high-risk score groups. To examine the prognostic ability of NR3C1 mRNA expression alone, the median training set NR3C1 expression value was used to stratify validation set pts into low- and high-expression groups. In all cases, OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: We identified n=2288 protein-coding DEGs in one or both cell lines. Of these genes, n=1251 were expressed in each GEO microarray sample (training set). A 10-gene GR-signature (GR-Sig) was then identified using the BeSS algorithm and bootstrap sampling, yielding a median training set risk score of 1.02. In both the microarray and RNA-seq validation datasets, the 10-gene GR-sig risk score was associated with significant OS differences between low- and high-risk score groups (microarray p = 0.018; RNA-seq p = 0.00049). In contrast, the OS difference between low- and high- NR3C1 mRNA expression groups did not reach significance (microarray p = 0.12; RNA-seq p = 0.28). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, a 10-gene GR-sig derived from OvCa GR-regulated DEGs performed better as a prognosticator than NR3C1 mRNA expression alone. Prospective application of the GR-sig may be useful in stratifying patients for treatment response with novel agents in OvCa clinical trials. Citation Format: Ananth V. Panchamukhi, Lei Huang, Eleanore P. Gray, Yuanhang Liu, Manisha Taya, Jennifer T. Veneris, Xiaonan Hou, S John Weroha, Balázs Győrffy, Gini F. Fleming, Chen Wang, Suzanne D. Conzen. Development of a prognostic ovarian cancer gene signature based on glucocorticoid receptor transcriptional activity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 4739.

ImportanceAdjuvant ovarian function suppression (OFS) with oral endocrine therapy improves outcomes for premenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer but adds adverse effects. A genomic biomarker for selecting patients most likely to benefit from OFS-based treatment is lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the predictive and prognostic performance of the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) for OFS benefit in premenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective-retrospective translational study used all available tumor tissue samples from female patients from the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT). These individuals were randomized to receive 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen alone, tamoxifen plus OFS, or exemestane plus OFS. BCI testing was performed blinded to clinical data and outcome. The a priori hypothesis was that BCI HOXB13/IL17BR ratio (BCI[H/I])–high tumors would benefit more from OFS and high BCI portended poorer prognosis in this population. Settings spanned multiple centers internationally. Participants included premenopausal female patients with HR+ early breast cancer with specimens in the International Breast Cancer Study Group tumor repository available for RNA extraction. Data were collected from December 2003 to April 2021 and were analyzed from May 2022 to October 2022.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary end points were breast cancer–free interval (BCFI) for the predictive analysis and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) for the prognostic analyses.ResultsTumor specimens were available for 1718 of the 3047 female patients in the SOFT intention-to-treat population. The 1687 patients (98.2%) who had specimens that yielded sufficient RNA for BCI testing represented the parent trial population. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 12 (10.5-13.4) years, and 512 patients (30.3%) were younger than 40 years. Tumors were BCI(H/I)-low for 972 patients (57.6%) and BCI(H/I)-high for 715 patients (42.4%). Patients with tumors classified as BCI(H/I)-low exhibited a 12-year absolute benefit in BCFI of 11.6% from exemestane plus OFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48 [95% CI, 0.33-0.71]) and an absolute benefit of 7.3% from tamoxifen plus OFS (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48-0.97]) relative to tamoxifen alone. In contrast, patients with BCI(H/I)-high tumors did not benefit from either exemestane plus OFS (absolute benefit, −0.4%; HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.70-1.53]; P for interaction = .006) or tamoxifen plus OFS (absolute benefit, −1.2%; HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.72-1.54]; P for interaction = .11) compared with tamoxifen alone. BCI continuous index was significantly prognostic in the N0 subgroup for DRFI (n = 1110; P = .004), with 12-year DRFI of 95.9%, 90.8%, and 86.3% in BCI low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk N0 cancers, respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this prospective-retrospective translational study of patients enrolled in SOFT, BCI was confirmed as prognostic in premenopausal women with HR+ breast cancer. The benefit from OFS-containing adjuvant endocrine therapy was greater for patients with BCI(H/I)-low tumors than BCI(H/I)-high tumors. BCI(H/I)-low status may identify premenopausal patients who are likely to benefit from this more intensive endocrine therapy.

Importance Requiring personalized genetic counseling may introduce barriers to cancer risk assessment, but it is unknown whether omitting counseling could increase distress. Objective To assess whether omitting pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling would increase distress during remote testing. Design, Setting, and Participants Making Genetic Testing Accessible (MAGENTA) was a 4-arm, randomized noninferiority trial testing the effects of individualized pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling on participant distress 3 and 12 months posttest. Participants were recruited via social and traditional media, and enrollment occurred between April 27, 2017, and September 29, 2020. Participants were women aged 30 years or older, English-speaking, US residents, and had access to the internet and a health care professional. Previous cancer genetic testing or counseling was exclusionary. In the family history cohort, participants had a personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer. In the familial pathogenic variant (PV) cohort, participants reported 1 biological relative with a PV in an actionable cancer susceptibility gene. Data analysis was performed between December 13, 2020, and May 31, 2023. Intervention Participants completed baseline questionnaires, watched an educational video, and were randomized to 1 of 4 arms: the control arm with pretest and/or posttest genetic counseling, or 1 of 3 study arms without pretest and posttest counseling. Genetic counseling was provided by phone appointments and testing was done using home-delivered saliva kits. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was participant distress measured by the Impact of Event Scale 3 months after receiving the results. Secondary outcomes included completion of testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret. Results A total of 3839 women (median age, 44 years [range 22-91 years]), most of whom were non-Hispanic White and college educated, were randomized, 3125 in the family history and 714 in the familial PV cohorts. In the primary analysis in the family history cohort, all experimental arms were noninferior for distress at 3 months. There were no statistically significant differences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months. The highest completion rates were seen in the 2 arms without pretest counseling. Conclusions and Relevance In the MAGENTA clinical trial, omitting individualized pretest counseling for all participants and posttest counseling for those without PV during remote genetic testing was not inferior with regard to posttest distress, providing an alternative care model for genetic risk assessment. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02993068

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The combined analysis of SOFT-TEXT compared outcomes in 4,690 premenopausal women with estrogen/progesterone receptor–positive (ER/PgR+) early breast cancer randomly assigned to 5 years of exemestane + ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen + OFS. After a median follow-up of 9 years, exemestane + OFS significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) and distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), but not overall survival, compared with tamoxifen + OFS. We now report DFS, DRFI, and overall survival after a median follow-up of 13 years. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the 12-year DFS (4.6% absolute improvement, hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.90; P < .001) and DRFI (1.8% absolute improvement, HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98; P = .03), but not overall survival (90.1% v 89.1%, HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.11), continued to be significantly improved for patients assigned exemestane + OFS over tamoxifen + OFS. Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors (86.0% of the ITT population), the absolute improvement in 12-year overall survival with exemestane + OFS was 2.0% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04) and 3.3% in those who received chemotherapy (45.9% of the ITT population). Overall survival benefit was clinically significant in high-risk patients, eg, women age < 35 years (4.0%) and those with > 2 cm (4.5%) or grade 3 tumors (5.5%). These sustained reductions of the risk of recurrence with adjuvant exemestane + OFS, compared with tamoxifen + OFS, provide guidance for selecting patients for whom exemestane should be preferred over tamoxifen in the setting of OFS. [Media: see text]

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690 ) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence. [Media: see text]

PURPOSE In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed. METHODS In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97). CONCLUSION This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).