Goetz, MP

Abstract Background: While TNBC remains the most aggressive type of breast cancer (BC), substantial heterogeneity in biology and outcomes exists among TNBC subtypes. Historically, risk stratification of TNBC has been based on anatomic factors such as tumor size, nodal involvement and presence of distant metastases. However, these features alone fail to accurately predict outcomes. Tumor immune infiltration (sTILs) and distribution of immune cell subsets in the perip heral blood (NLR) have emerged as variables reported to be associated with outcomes in TNBC. We sought to evaluate whether NLR and sTILs provided independent prognostic information in TNBC. Methods: From a cohort of 9,982 women who underwent BC surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between Jan 1985 and Dec 2012, we identified 605 centrally-confirmed TNBC tumors. Patients (pts) with prior BC, bilateral BC, non-invasive disease, stage IV, neoadjuvant therapy, endocrine therapy, or adenoid cystic histology were excluded. For eligible tumors, clinical and pathologic variables were evaluated, including peripheral blood NLR and central assessment of sTILs per the 2014 International TILs Working Group recommendations. We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between NLR and sTILs and constructed Cox Proportional Hazards Models to evaluate their association with invasive-disease free (IDFS) and overall survival (OS). NLR and sTILs were both analyzed as continuous variables. Results: Most pts had T1-2 (95%) and N0-1 disease (86%). Median OS follow-up was 10.6yrs. Median IDFS was 12yrs (95%CI 10.2-16.7) and median OS was 18.8yrs (95%CI 15.6-20.8). NLR and sTILs were available in 408 and 599 pts, respectively. The median NLR and sTIL content were 2.29 (0.14-10.50) and 20% (0-90%), respectively. NLR and sTILs were poorly correlated (PCC 0.0237). On univariate analysis (UVA), a higher NLR was associated with worse IDFS (HR 1.13; 95%CI 1.02-1.26, p=0.02) and OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31, p=0.01). Each 1% increment in sTILs was associated with improved IDFS (HR 0.99; 95%CI 0.98-0.99, p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-1.00, p<0.001). Among pts with high sTILs (≥20%), a higher NLR remained significantly associated with worse IDFS (HR 1.21; 95%CI 1.05-1.38, p=0.007) and OS (HR 1.25; 95%CI 1.09-1.44, p=0.001). In contrast, among pts with low sTILs (<20%), NLR was not associated with IDFS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.89-1.28, p=0.49) or OS (HR 1.07; 95%CI 0.88-1.30, p=0.49). The interaction test between NLR and sTILs did not reach statistical significance. A multivariate analysis (MVA; including age, menopausal status, histologic subtype, grade, tumor size, nodal stage, Ki-67, NLR, sTILs, adjuvant chemotherapy, type of surgery and adjuvant radiation) showed that sTILs remained independently associated with IDFS (HR 0.99, 95%CI 0.97-1.0, p=0.019) and OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97-1.0, p=0.044), whereas NLR did not. Conclusions: A lower NLR and a higher sTIL content were each associated with improved IDFS and OS among pts with nonmetastatic TNBC on UVA. However, when evaluated on a MVA, only sTILs remained independently associated with IDFS and OS. Our data suggest that the effect of sTILs on outcomes may not be modified by the NLR. Citation Format: Leon-Ferre RA, Polley M-Y, Liu H, Gilbert J, Cafourek V, Hillman D, Negron V, Boughey JC, Liu MC, Ingle JN, Kalari K, Couch FJ, Visscher DW, Goetz MP. Prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and its relation to stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-05-06.

Abstract Background: AI's are more effective than TAM in ER+ breast cancer. In AI refractory MBC, the response rate to TAM is 0% (Osborne 2011). Z-Endx is an active metabolite of TAM and among TAM treated women in the adjuvant and metastatic settings, reduced CYP2D6 metabolism and low Endx concentrations (Css <20 nM) have been associated with increased likelihood of disease recurrence. Preclinical studies have demonstrated greater Z-Endx exposure and anti-tumor activity with oral Z-Endx compared to equivalent doses of oral TAM (Reid 2014) Methods: We conducted a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the toxicities, clinical activity, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of Z-Endx in patients (pts) with ER+, AI refractory MBC. Unlimited prior endocrine regimens were allowed. An accelerated titration schedule was applied (2 pts/dose level) until moderate toxicity or DLT, followed by a 3+3 design and then to expansion cohorts (40, 80, and 100 mg/day). Z-Endx was administered orally once daily (28 day cycle). Eye exams were performed at baseline, and end of cycles 2 and 6. PK was performed during cycle 1 and prior to subsequent cycles. For pts in the expansion cohorts, tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline for DNA sequencing (Foundation Medicine). Plasma cholesterol levels were obtained at baseline and after 1 cycle. Results: From March 2011 to Dec 2014, 41 pts (38 evaluable), median age 60, received Z-Endx once daily encompassing 7 dose levels (20-160 mg/daily). The median number of prior hormonal regimens was 2 and 3 for the dose escalation and expansion cohorts, respectively. Dose escalation was stopped at 160 mg/day given MTD not reached and attainment of mean Endx Css of 3.6 uM. Cycle 1 DLT (PE) was observed in one patient (60 mg). No eye toxicity was observed. PK demonstrated mean Endx Css of > 1 uM at all dose levels ≥ 40 mg/day. Antitumor activity was observed at multiple dose levels including 3 confirmed partial responses and an additional 7 with stable disease for ≥6 cycles. Of these 10 pts, 9 had prior progression on both AI and fulvestrant and 3 additionally on TAM. After 1 cycle, total and LDL cholesterol decreased > 20 points in 54% and 40% of pts, respectively. Tumor sequencing in the expansion cohorts (n=14) did not identify ESR1 mutations; however, ESR1 amplification was identified in 1 pt with prolonged stable disease (>200 days). Of 6 pts with rapid progression (≤2 cycles), 4/6 had either CCND1 amplification (n=1) or at least one of the following activating mutations: ERBB2 L755S (n=1), AKT1 E17K (n=1), MTOR E1799K (n=1). Conclusions: The direct administration of Z-END provides substantial drug exposure, acceptable toxicity, and "proof of principle" antitumor activity in endocrine resistant MBC. While the MTD was not determined, the goal of achieving Endx Css concentrations of > 1 uM was achieved. Tumor sequencing identified pts with predicted and confirmed endocrine resistance. A randomized phase II comparing endoxifen (80 mg/day) with TAM in AI refractory MBC was recently activated (NCT02311933). Supported in part by CA 133049, CA186686, CA15083, CA116201, and CA15083. Citation Format: Goetz MP, Suman VJ, Reid JM, Northfelt DW, Mahr MA, Dockter T, Kuffel M, Buhrow SA, Safgren SL, McGovern RM, Collins JM, Streicher H, Hawse JR, Haddad TC, Erlichman C, Ames MM, Ingle JN. Final results of a first-in-human phase I study of the tamoxifen (TAM) metabolite, Z-Endoxifen hydrochloride (Z-Endx) in women with aromatase inhibitor (AI) refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NCT01327781). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-03.

Abstract Background: Tumorigenesis involves both genetic and epigenetic changes. Epigenetic alterations are reversible and are promising cancer therapeutic targets. Decitabine (5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine), a DNA methyltransferase inhibitor, is FDA approved for hematological malignancies. However, the effect of decitabine in breast cancer is not completely understood. Previous reports indicated that one decitabine mechanism involves regulation of protein levels for DNMT1, the major DNA methyltransferase that methylates hemimethylated CpG di-nucleotides in DNA. However, the E3 ligase involved in this process has not been identified. Whether decitabine also regulates DNMT3A and 3B in a similar fashion remains unclear. Therefore, our goals were to 1) understand mechanisms underlying decitabine action, 2) test the antitumor activity of decitabine in breast cancer models and 3) identify biomarkers associated with response to decitabine. Methods and Results: Western blots of breast cancer cell lines showed that DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B protein levels decreased following decitabine treatment without a reduction in mRNA levels. Bioinformatic analysis of DNA methyltransferase sequences revealed a potential TRAF6 binding motif, and the interaction with TRAF6 (TNF receptor-associated factor 6) was confirmed by IP. TRAF6 functions as an E3 ligase. To determine whether TRAF6 might be the E3 ligase responsible for the degradation of DNMTs after decitabine treatment, we knocked down TRAF6 by RNA interference or knocked out the TRAF6 gene by CRISPR/Cas9. Down regulation of TRAF6 attenuated DNMT ubiquitination and increased DNMT protein levels, suggesting that TRAF6 might mediate proteasome-dependent degradation of all three DNMTs. This was further confirmed by reconstituting the knockout cells with WT and a TRAF6-C70A mutant, followed by assessing DNMT protein levels. Global DNA methylation was also increased after TRAF6 depletion and was confirmed in TRAF6 knock out cells in which DNMT levels were unaffected by decitabine. Cell cytotoxicity and colony forming assays showed that TRAF6 knockout cells were resistant to decitabine, suggesting that a major decitabine mechanism of action is through the regulation of TRAF6 which, in turn, degrades DNMTs, leading to decreased global methylation. Finally, decitabine significantly induced TRAF6 at both mRNA and protein levels, a process that might create positive feedback leading to increased degradation of DNMT proteins upon decitabine treatment. Based on these results, we further hypothesized that levels of the three DNMTs might influence decitabine response. Using 18 breast cancer patient derived xenograft (PDX) models, we found a wide range of DNMT protein levels regardless of ER/HER2 status. DNMT levels in the PDX models were directly associated with sensitivity to decitabine treatment, confirming our hypothesis. Conclusion: Our data showed that decitabine might be an effective agent for treating breast cancer and revealed a novel mechanism underlying decitabine treatment. Baseline DNMT protein levels may serve as a biomarker for predicting decitabine drug response. Citation Format: Yu J, Qin B, Boughey JC, Moyer AM, Visscher DW, Sinnwell JP, Yin P, Thompson KJ, Docter TJ, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, Wieben ED, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Jones KN, McLaughlin SA, Copland JA III, Moreno Aspitia A, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Ingle JN, Lou Z, Weinshilboum R, Goetz MP, Wang L. Regulation of DNA methyltransferases via TRAF6 determines breast cancer response to decitabine. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-51.

Abstract Background: Both HR deficiency and BRCA mutation status predict response to platinum-based therapy and BRCA mutation status predicts docetaxel resistance. However, the association of either biomarker with response to the individual elements of either AC or taxanes (T) is unknown since T is commonly given concomitantly with or after anthracyclines (A). We evaluated the association of HRD and BRCA mutation status with response to neoadjuvant weekly T followed by AC or (F)EC in high-risk breast cancer. Methods: We studied 140 high risk Stage I-III breast cancer patients (pts), enrolled in the breast cancer genome guided therapy study (BEAUTY), obtaining biopsies for DNA/RNA sequencing and MRI imaging to assess response to neoadjuvant weekly T (+trastuzumab+/-pertuzumab for HER2+ disease) followed by AC or (F)EC. Germline BRCA status and HR status of tumor samples (Myriad laboratories) were obtained. HR deficient tumor was defined as HRD score ≥42 or BRCA mutation. MRI response by changes in tumor size after 12 weeks of T was classified by WHO criteria. pCR was defined as ypT0/Tis ypN0. Both MRI response after T and pCR (after T and AC) were examined in terms of germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut vs. gBRCAwt) and tumor HR deficiency. Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 8 withdrew consent and 2 carboplatin treated pts were excluded. Germline data were available for 124/130 pts. 12 patients had BRCA deleterious germline mutations (4 BRCA1, 8 BRCA2). MRI partial (PR)/complete response (CR) rate to T was 47.3% (95% CI: 37.8-57.0%) in the BRCAwt group and 66.7% (95% CI: 34.9-90.1%) in the BRCAmut group. No MRI CR's were observed in BRCA1 mut pts. In contrast, pCR rate was 50% in the 12 gBRCAmut pts (95% CI: 21.1-78.9%) and 31.3% in the 112 gBRCAwt pts (95% CI: 22.8-40.7%). HR deficiency status has thus far been determined for 74 pts: 26 pts have HD deficient tumors: 18 TNBC, 5 Luminal B, 2 ER-/HER2+; and 1 ER+/HER2+. Determination of HR deficiency is ongoing and will be reported for the full cohort in terms of 12 week MRI response to T and pCR to T+AC. HR deficientMolecular Subtypeyes (%)no (%)TBD (%)Luminal A0/112/11 (18.2)9/11 (81.8)Luminal B5/37 (13.5)13/37 (35.1)19/37 (51.3)Luminal NOS0/21/2 (50)1/2 (50)ER+/Her2+1/17 (5.8)14/17 (82.4)2/17 (11.8)ER-/Her2+2/20 (10)11/20 (55)7/20 (35)Triple Negative18/43 (41.9)6/43 (18.6)17/43 (39.5)germline BRCA statusMRI partial response after T (%)MRI complete response after T (%)pCR after T&AC (%)BRCA11/4 (25)0/42/4 (50)BRCA25/8 (62.5)2/8 (25)4/8 (50)BRCAwt35/112 (31.3)18/112 (16.1)35/112 (31.3) Conclusion: In the setting of neoadjuvant weekly T followed by AC, pCR rates were non-significantly higher in pts with BRCA1 mutations. While we observed no overall association between BRCA mutation status and response rates to taxanes; nearly all MRI responses to taxanes (partial and complete) were observed in the BRCA2 group. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and to determine whether BRCA status can be used to select therapy. HR deficiency is uncommon in luminal A and HER2+, frequent in TNBC, and the association of HRD with both MRI response to taxanes and pCR will be reported at the meeting. Citation Format: Boughey JC, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, McLaughlin SA, Moreno Aspitia A, Moyer AM, Northfelt DW, Gray RJ, Vedell PT, Tang X, Dockter TJ, Jones KN, Felten SJ, Conners AL, Hart SN, Visscher DW, Wieben ED, Ingle JN, Hartman A-R, Timms K, Elkin E, Jones J, Wang L, Weinshilboum RW, Goetz MP. Role of germline BRCA status and tumor homologous recombination (HR) deficiency in response to neoadjuvant weekly paclitaxel followed by anthracycline-based chemotherapy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-29.

Abstract Background: Estrogen receptor beta (ERβ), unlike ERα, classically functions as a tumor suppressor in vitro. However, ERβ's biological functions in vivo and predictive/prognostic value in breast cancer are controversial. Methods: Expression of ERβ protein was determined using a well characterized and validated ERβ specific monoclonal antibody that only recognizes the full-length form of this receptor (PPG5/10) in the following 3 cohorts: 1) a cohort with all breast cancer subtypes (n = 182), 2) a prospective NCCTG adjuvant tamoxifen trial for postmenopausal women with ERα positive breast cancer with long-term follow-up (n = 198) and 3) a cohort of 80 triple negative breast cancers (TNBCs). To elucidate the biological functions of ERβ in breast cancer, novel ERβ expressing MCF7 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines were developed and characterized using multiple techniques and were examined for responsiveness to various ERβ targeted therapies. Results: About one-third of all breast tumors, regardless of sub-type, were shown to express nuclear ERβ and this expression was independent of ERα or HER2. In the NCCTG 89-30-52 cohort, breast cancer recurrence rates were significantly associated with ERβ protein expression with 10 year recurrence rates of 25%, 15% and 4% for zero, low or high levels of ERβ expression respectively. Interestingly, in TNBCs, nuclear ERβ was expressed at intermediate or high levels in 24% of tumors. In the triple negative MDA-MB-231 cell line, expression of ERβ led to inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis in response to estrogen and multiple ERβ specific agonists. Conversely, these same treatments induced proliferation of ERβ-expressing MCF7 cells which endogenously express ERα. However, ERβ expression sensitized MCF7 cells to the anti-proliferative effects of anti-estrogens. Microarray analysis and RT-PCR profiling of MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells revealed that estrogen and ERβ agonists highly induced the expression of multiple cystatins, a family of small secreted cysteine protease inhibitors which function as tumor suppressors, and potently inhibited canonical TGFβ signaling. Conditioned media isolated from estrogen or ERβ agonist treated MDA-MB-231-ERβ cells suppressed the proliferation rates and inhibited TGFβ signaling in other TNBC cell lines, effects that were completely reversed following the depletion of cystatins from the conditioned media. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that ERβ is expressed in a substantial proportion of breast cancers and may have value as a predictive and/or prognostic biomarker. Therapeutic targeting of ERβ may have clinical benefit in multiple breast cancer sub-types; however, the specific drug of choice may vary based on ERα status. Specifically, we have demonstrated that ERβ expression in ERα+ MCF7 cells sensitizes them to the effectiveness of anti-estrogens, an observation that was confirmed in women enrolled in a prospective adjuvant tamoxifen trial. In TNBCs, where targeted therapies are lacking, our data suggest that targeting ERβ with either estrogen or ERβ specific agonists will elicit anti-tumor effects through the induction of cystatins and inhibition of TGFβ signaling resulting in tumor regression and improved patient outcomes. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P6-04-03.