Fleming, Gini F.

Abstract Purpose: Although high glucocorticoid receptor (GR) expression in early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer is associated with shortened relapse-free survival (RFS), how associated GR transcriptional activity contributes to aggressive breast cancer behavior is not well understood. Using potent GR antagonists and primary tumor gene expression data, we sought to identify a tumor-relevant gene signature based on GR activity that would be more predictive than GR expression alone. Experimental Design: Global gene expression and GR ChIP-sequencing were performed to identify GR-regulated genes inhibited by two chemically distinct GR antagonists, mifepristone and CORT108297. Differentially expressed genes from MDA-MB-231 cells were cross-evaluated with significantly expressed genes in GR-high versus GR-low ER-negative primary breast cancers. The resulting subset of GR-targeted genes was analyzed in two independent ER-negative breast cancer cohorts to derive and then validate the GR activity signature (GRsig). Results: Gene expression pathway analysis of glucocorticoid-regulated genes (inhibited by GR antagonism) revealed cell survival and invasion functions. GR ChIP-seq analysis demonstrated that GR antagonists decreased GR chromatin association for a subset of genes. A GRsig that comprised n = 74 GR activation-associated genes (also reversed by GR antagonists) was derived from an adjuvant chemotherapy-treated Discovery cohort and found to predict probability of relapse in a separate Validation cohort (HR = 1.9; P = 0.012). Conclusions: The GRsig discovered herein identifies high-risk ER-negative/GR-positive breast cancers most likely to relapse despite administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. Because GR antagonism can reverse expression of these genes, we propose that addition of a GR antagonist to chemotherapy may improve outcome for these high-risk patients. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3433–46. ©2018 AACR.

104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

LBA1 Background: Adjuvant endocrine therapy with AI vs T improves outcomes in postmenopausal HR+ BC. TEXT and SOFT were designed to test whether adjuvant AI improves outcomes in premenopausal women with HR+ BC treated with OFS (AI question) and to determine the value of OFS in women who remain premenopausal and are suitable for adjuvant T (OFS question). Methods: TEXT and SOFT, randomized phase 3 trials, enrolled 5,738 premenopausal women with HR+ early BC from Nov03 to Apr11 (2672 TEXT; 3066 SOFT). TEXT randomized women within 12wk of surgery to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS; chemotherapy (CT) was optional and concurrent with OFS. SOFT randomized women to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS vs T alone, either within 12wk of surgery if no CT planned, or within 8mo of completing (neo)adjuvant CT. OFS was by choice of 5y triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS: randomization until invasive local, regional, distant recurrence, or contralateral breast; 2nd malignancy; death). Due to low event rates, protocol amendments in 2011 changed the analysis plans to answer the AI question (E+OFS vs T+OFS) by joint analysis of TEXT and SOFT. By Q3’2013 with >5y median follow-up, 436 DFS events were projected, providing 84% power for HR=0.75 with E+OFS vs T+OFS (stratified logrank 2-sided α=0.05). Results: At 5.7y median follow-up, 514 (11%) DFS events were reported in the ITT population comparing E+OFS (n=2346) vs T+OFS (n=2344). Patients assigned E+OFS had significantly reduced DFS hazard (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86; P=0.0002) vs T+OFS; 5y DFS was 91.1% vs 87.3%. Reductions were similar for secondary endpoints of BC-free interval (HR=0.66 (0.55-0.80) 5y BCFI 92.8% vs 88.8%) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR=0.78 (0.62-0.97)), though not overall survival (HR=1.14 (0.86-1.51)) at this early follow-up (194 (4%) deaths). Grade 3-4 targeted AEs were reported in 31% E+OFS vs 29% T+OFS patients. Conclusion: In premenopausal women with HR+ BC, adjuvant treatment with E+OFS significantly reduced the risk of recurrence compared to T+OFS. Clinical trial information: NCT00066703 / NCT00066690 .

Abstract Background: The potential for exploiting BRCA deficiencies with DNA repair inhibitors has both pre-clinical and clinical support. ABT-888 (veliparib), a DNA repair inhibitor initially thought to target Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerases (PARP), has demonstrated in vitro inhibition of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficient mouse embryonic stell cells, with a larger effect on BRCA1 cells. We report on the pre-planned interim analysis of the efficacy of single agent veliparib in patients with either BRCA1 or BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer. Methods: BRCA 1 or 2 carrier patients with stage IV breast cancer, with measurable disease, without prior exposure to a PARP inhibitor or a platinum compound in the metastatic setting, were eligible. Velapirib was administered orally, at doses of 400 mg twice daily. Dose adjustments based on toxicity were permitted. Patients progressing on velapirib alone received carboplatin at an AUC of 5, IV, given Q 21 days, and velapirib 150 mg twice daily (the maximum tolerated dose [MTD] of the combination from our completed Phase I study: J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 [suppl; abstr 1024]). Patients were to be accrued from 7 NCI NO1- supported consortia. Initially 10 patients were to be accrued to each stratum (BRCA1 and BRCA2) to provide evidence of single agent activity. If there was sufficient activity to warrant consideration of velapirib as single agent therapy (defined as 2 or more confirmed partial [PR] or better responses out of 10 per stratum), an additional 12 patients would be accrued per stratum. Results: 20 evaluable patients (11 BRCA1 and 9 BRCA2 [1 in screening]) have been accrued, the majority with lung or liver as visceral metastatic sites of disease. Median age (range) is 46 (29-68) years. Tumors from 9 patients were hormone receptor positive. BRCA1 cohort: 4 of 11 patients are off treatment at a median of 2 months (1-4); 1 patient stopped velapirib due to toxicity (grade 2 rash/pruritus, grade 2 vomiting), 3 stopped for progressive disease (one with an unconfirmed PR). Seven patients are still on single agent veliparib with 1 unconfirmed PR, and 1 patient with two evaluations showing stable disease. BRCA2 cohort: 2 patients are off treatment at 2 months for progressive disease, 7 are still on treatment with 1 confirmed PR, and 3 unconfirmed PRs. Data on patients receiving combination of velapirib and carboplatin after progression is too early. Treatment-related toxicity is being updated and has so far been reported from 14 patients: 1 patient had grade 3 fatigue, 1 patient with liver metastasis had both grade 3 alanine aminotransferase elevation and grade 3 abdominal pain. Grade 2 toxicities occurring in more than 1 patient included nausea/vomiting (6 patients), chills (2 patients), and fatigue (2 patients). Conclusion: Velapirib has single agent activity in both BRCA1 and BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer patients, and is well-tolerated. Mature response, treatment, and toxicity data will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-05.