Wolf, Denise M.

Abstract Background: In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, the addition of P to standard NAC resulted in more than doubling of the pathologic complete response (pCR) rates for both hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/HER2- and triple-negative (TN) early breast cancer (EBC) patients (pts) compared to NAC only (Nanda et al, JAMA Oncol, 2020). At 3 years, distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) rates in pts with pCR following NAC+P was >95%. We hypothesized that ctDNA can serve as a predictive biomarker of response and survival in pts treated with NAC. Methods: A personalized ctDNA test (Signatera) was performed on 511 serial plasma samples from 138 pts with high-risk HR+/HER2- (n=77) or TN (n=61) stage II/III EBC. Pts received P with paclitaxel (Tx) followed by AC (P arm, n=42) or standard NAC only (n=96), an exploratory subset of pts evaluated for P efficacy. Plasma was collected; pretreatment (T0), 3 weeks after treatment initiation (T1), between Tx+/-P and AC regimens (T2), and prior to surgery (T3). ctDNA was deemed positive with a minimum of 2 of the pt specific tumor mutation fragments detected in cfDNA. Association of ctDNA with response and survival was analyzed using logistic and Cox regressions with pCR and DRFS as endpoints. Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Results: Detection of ctDNA decreased over time (P arm: T0-81%, T1-50%, T2-19%, T3-3%) and NAC only: T0-82%, T1-65%, T2-26%, T3-10%). ctDNA data at T0 and T1 was available for 96% (132/138) of pts in P arm or NAC only (Table). Among ctDNA+ patients at baseline, clearance at T1 was significantly associated with pCR (OR=1.92, ctDNA+/-; OR=0.27, ctDNA+/+; LR p<0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment for HR status and treatment (LR p<0.001) and P arm or NAC only (P: LR p=0.03; NAC: LR p=0.01). ctDNA data at T0, T1, and T2 was available for 86% (118/138) pts. (Table). Among all ctDNA+ pts at baseline, dynamics through T2 was associated with pCR (OR=1.44, ctDNA+/-/-; OR=0.33, ctDNA+/+/-, OR=0.12, ctDNA+/+/+; LR p=0.0011). This association remained significant when adjusted for HR status and treatment (LR p<0.001). Analysis within individual treatments showed significant association for NAC (LR p=0.040) and a non-significant trend in NAC+P (LR p=0.063), likely due to smaller sample size. All pts who achieved pCR were ctDNA- at T3 (n=34). Among those who failed to achieve pCR (n=81), DRFS was significantly better in ctDNA- (n=72/81; 20 in P and 52 in NAC) versus ctDNA+ pts (n=9/81; 1 in P and 8 in NAC) (adjusted HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.05-0.37). Conclusions: These exploratory results align with our previous findings that early clearance of ctDNA during NAC treatment was significantly associated with increased likelihood of achieving pCR. Additionally, we show that ctDNA clearance can be an early surrogate marker for therapy response assessment. Residual ctDNA after neoadjuvant treatment was a significant predictor of metastatic recurrence and death. Personalized monitoring of ctDNA during the course of NAC is feasible and provides information that can be combined with imaging and pathology, and may help to optimize decision making for de-escalation or escalation of therapy. Larger studies are ongoing. ctDNA dynamics and pCRctDNA status at T0 and T1 (n=132)ctDNA status at T0, T1, and T2 (n=118)ctDNA-/-ctDNA+/-ctDNA+/+ctDNA-/-/-ctDNA+/-/-ctDNA+/+/-ctDNA+/+/+Total, n (%)24 (18)28 (21)80 (61)22 (19)24 (20)43 (36)27 (23)pCR, n (%)9 (38)15 (54)11 (14)9 (41)12 (50)8 (19)2 (7)No pCR, n (%)15 (63)13 (46)69 (86)13 (59)12 (50)35 (81)25 (93) Citation Format: Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Denise Wolf, Derrick Renner, Svetlana Shchegrova, Lamorna Brown Swigart, Christina Yau, Gillian Hirst, Hsin-Ta Wu, Ekaterina Kalashnikova, Antony Tin, Amy Delson, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Raheleh Salari, Angel Rodriguez, Bernhard Zimmermann, Himanshu Sethi, Alexey Aleshin, Paul Billings, Laura Esserman, Minetta Liu, Rita Nanda, Laura van ‘t Veer, I-SPY 2 Investigators. Personalized ctDNA as a predictive biomarker in high-risk early stage breast cancer (EBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with or without pembrolizumab (P) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-02.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.

Abstract Background: The I-SPY 2 TRIAL enrolls women with locally advanced, molecular high-risk breast cancer. An integrated Residual Cancer Burden (iRCB), based on MRI volume change through treatment, is used to predict pathologic complete response (pCR) in the randomization/evaluation Bayesian engine. With the goal of effective de-escalation of treatment for patients exhibiting an early response, biomarkers are being assessed for their ability to predict pCR, alone or with MR data, during treatment. Here, we present the results of a pilot study to examine if invasive tumor cellularity in mid-treatment tissue core biopsies predicts pCR in a 40-patient cohort of I-SPY 2 patients. Other pathologic variables evaluated include Ki67, tumoral histologic features, and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs). Methods: I-SPY 2 TRIAL pathologists (N=4) were provided images of H&E-stained and Ki67 IHC- labelled (DAKO/Agilent, clone MIB-1) core biopsy sections from 40 patients at the inter-regimen time point, ~12-weeks into treatment. Of the 40 patients, 35 had 4 cores, 3 had 3 cores, and 2 had 2 cores assessed. In total, images from 153 cores were evaluated. For each core, pathologists were asked to score the % area occupied by tumor bed (treatment changes and/or residual cancer), % of viable invasive tumor (0-100%) within tumor bed (with Nottingham grading, % Ki67 labelled, and % sTILs, using standardized guidelines). As decided by the pathologist group, only cores with identified tumor bed were included in the initial analysis. Concordance between pathologists was assessed for all scored criteria, using % agreement for dichotomous variables, and Pearson correlation (r)/standard deviation (sd) for continuous variables. The maximum and average cellularity recorded over all cores/patient, averaged over all pathologists, were analyzed for association with pCR using t- tests (significance threshold: p<0.05). Fisher’s Exact test was used for dichotomous variables, and Pearson’s correlation for association of continuous variables with the residual cancer burden (RCB) index. Results: Pathologist were in general agreement about the presence or absence of tumor bed, with greater than 82% agreement between any two (83-96%), and an overall agreement of 77%. For scoring the % of the tumor bed involved by invasive cancer, correlations between pairs of pathologists ranged from 0.79-0.95 (mean(r)=0.87, sd=5%), and agreement on a binary presence/absence of invasive cancer was 78%. Both the mean (t-test: p=7.59E-05) and maximum (t-test: p=0.0012) %invasive tumor at 12 weeks, scored as an average over all pathologists, were significantly higher in patients who did not achieve pCR than in responders. We also treated %invasive cellularity as a dichotomous variable (present/absent). 90% (9/10) of patients scored by all pathologists as 0% invasive tumor cells (absent) achieved a pCR, vs only 20% (6/30) of patients scored as >0% invasive cellularity by one or more pathologists (present) (OR=32, Fisher p=0.0005); yielding a positive predictive value for pCR of 0.9. Ki67 and sTILS at 12 weeks were fairly concordant across pathologists ((r,sd)=(0.92, 8.45%) and (0.82,5.5%), respectively), but did not associate with response (p>0.05 for pCR, RCB01, or RCB index). Tumor histologic grade at 12 weeks, assessed in 29/30 patients with non-zero cellularity, trended toward association (Fisher p=0.078): 44% (4/9) with Grade 3 went on to have a pCR, vs. 15% (2/13) with Grade 2 and 0 with Grade 1. These data demonstrate the utility of invasive tumor cellularity as a predictor of pCR in a clinical setting. Conclusion: In this pilot study we demonstrate that the absence of invasive cancer cells within identified tumor bed in mid-treatment core biopsy samples is highly predictive of pCR. Citation Format: Sara J Venters, Denise M Wolf, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Christina Yau, Amy L Delson, Bev Parker, Ron Balassanian, Jodi Carter, Yunn-Yi Chen, Kimberly Cole, Laila Khazai, Molly Klein, Dina Kokh, Gregor Krings, Sunati Sahoo, Jane Wei, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Laura J Esserman, Laura J van't Veer, W Fraser Symmans. Assessing biomarkers to inform treatment de-escalation: Mid-treatment biopsy cellularity predicts pCR in the I-SPY 2 Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-02.

Abstract Background: A variety of investigational HER2-inhibitor agents/combinations have been tested in I-SPY 2, including neratinib (N), TDM1 combined with pertuzumab (P) (TDM1/P), and trastuzumab (H) combined with pertuzumab (H/P; prior to this combination becoming standard of care), all with trastuzumab as control (Ctr). All three experimental arms graduated, showing improved efficacy over control in one or more receptor subsets (HR+HER2+, HR-HER2+, or/and HER2+). Here we assess 10 biomarkers in the HER2, ER/PR, and proliferation pathways on multiple levels of resolution (expression, protein, phospho-protein) as predictors of response in these four arms, hypothesizing that highly HER2-activated, proliferative tumors may be more sensitive to HER2-inhibition than those that are more luminal and quiescent. Methods: 192 HER2+ patients were considered in this analysis: (31 Ctr, 65 N, 52 TDM1/P, and 44 H/P). 10 biomarkers relating to HER2, ER, or proliferation were evaluated from pre-treatment biopsies: HER2 IHC (n=145), 3 expression signatures (n=192), BluePrint subtype (n=192), and 5 protein/phospho-protein analytes by RPPA (n=175). Each biomarker was tested for association with pCR in the whole population and within each arm using a logistic model. This analysis was adjusted for HR status and treatment arm as covariates, and performed within receptor subtypes. This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers. Results: In the population as a whole, HER2 and HER2-signaling biomarkers, evaluated at multiple levels of resolution: IHC, total-/phospho-protein by RPPA, and mRNA (HER2 amplicon module) - are highly correlated (rho=0.8 [0.65-0.92]). Higher HER2 levels and activity are associated with response: HER2 IHC 3+ status (LR p=0.00032), total quantitative ERBB2 protein by RPPA (LR p=5.4E-09), ERBB2 activation levels (LR p=6.58E-06 (pERBB2 (Y1248)) and 9.95E-06 (pEGFR Y1173)), and the ERBB2 amplicon expression signature (LR p=2.38E-08). In contrast, higher average ER/PR expression associates with non-response to HER2-targeted therapy (LR p=4.28E-08). Both HER2 and ER/PR signaling phenotypes are captured by BluePrint subtyping; and consistent with the individual pathway markers, tumors classified Luminal-type had a lower pCR rate relative to those classified as Her2-type (or Basal-type) (LR p=4.84E-11). These associations all retain significance in a model adjusting for HR status and treatment arm, and in the HR+HER2+ subset. In addition, we quantitatively assessed proliferation markers at the total protein (RPPA: Ki67), phospho-protein (pAURKA) and mRNA (proliferation signature Module11_Prolif) levels. All three proliferation biomarkers predict response overall; but this association is strongest within the HR+HER2+ subset (LR p=0.0012 (Module11_prolif), 0.0036 (pAURK), and 0.045 (Ki67)). None of the biomarkers tested were associated with response in the HR-HER2+ subset. Numbers are small within individual arms. Within the HR+HER2+ subtype, higher HER2 and lower ER/PR is observed in responders in all experimental arms; but the proliferation markers Module11_Prolif (LR p=0.0031) and Ki67 total protein (LR p=0.0029) are associated with response to TDM1/P but not H/P or N. Conclusion: High HER2 signaling at the expression, protein, and phospho-protein levels, and low ER signaling, all predict response to HER2-inhibition across treatment arms. Proliferation markers may be useful for prioritizing therapies in the HR+HER2+ subset. Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Julia Wulfkuhle, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Smita M. Asare, Gillian L. Hirst, Laura Sit, Jane Perlmutter, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Minetta Liu, John Park, Angela DeMichele, Douglas Yee, Don Berry, Laura Esserman, Emanuel Petricoin, Laura van t' Veer. HER2 signaling, ER, and proliferation biomarkers predict response to multiple HER2-targeted agents/combinations plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-02.

Abstract Background: The detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) may serve as an early indicator of emerging resistance and disease progression. In this study, we analyzed ctDNA from high-risk early breast cancer patients who received NAT and definitive surgery in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL (NCT01042379). We hypothesized that ctDNA can serve as a biomarker of response and survival in this setting. Methods: ctDNA analysis was performed on 291 plasma samples from 84 high-risk stage II and III breast cancer patients randomized either to an investigational agent MK-2206, an AKT inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) (n=52)—or standard-of-care (paclitaxel followed by AC) (n=32). HER2+ patients also received trastuzumab. Serial plasma was collected at pretreatment (T0), at 3 weeks after initiation of paclitaxel treatment (T1), between paclitaxel and AC regimens (T2), and after NAT prior to surgery (T3). A personalized ctDNA test was designed to detect a set of 16 patient-specific somatic variants, initially identified from whole exome sequencing of pretreatment tumor, then tested in plasma samples. Regions containing the somatic variants were amplified from cell-free DNA using specific polymerase chain reaction primers. Amplified products were subjected to ultra-deep sequencing (mean: 94,000x) to detect somatic variants. Association between ctDNA and clinicopathologic variables was assessed using Fisher’s exact test. Association of ctDNA with response and survival was analyzed using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. The survival endpoint of the study was distant disease-free survival. The median follow-up was 4.8 years. Results: At pretreatment (T0), 61 of the 84 (73%) patients had detectable ctDNA. Pretreatment (T0) ctDNA positivity and levels (mean mutant molecules per mL of plasma) were significantly associated with increased tumor burden (clinical T stage T3/T4), more aggressive tumor biology (higher Mammaprint scores) and subtype (HER2+ and Triple negative). CtDNA detection during NAT decreased over time (T0- 73%; T1- 35%; T2- 14%; T3- 9%). Of the 84 patients, 23 (27%) achieved pCR and all were ctDNA-negative after NAT (T3), while all 6 patients who had detectable ctDNA at T3 did not achieve pCR. Patients who cleared ctDNA early at T1 (n=27, 48% pCR rate) had significantly increased probability of achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) compared to those who remained ctDNA-positive (n=29, 17% pCR rate; Odds ratio=4.33, Likelihood ratio p=0.012). Patients who were ctDNA-positive at T3 (n=6) had significantly increased risk of metastatic recurrence (HR 14.7; 95% CI 1.6-131.5) compared to those who achieved pCR and were ctDNA-negative (n=17). The risk of metastatic recurrence in patients who cleared ctDNA during NAT was not significantly different from those who were negative at T0 and remained negative by T3 (hazard ratio, HR: 2.1, 95% CI: 0.22-20.2). Interestingly, patients who were ctDNA-negative (n=37) but failed to achieve pCR had similar risk of metastatic recurrence with those who achieved pCR (HR 1.4; 95% CI 0.15-13.5). Conclusions: Early clearance of ctDNA during NAT was significantly associated with increased likelihood of achieving pCR. Residual ctDNA after NAT was a significant predictor of metastatic recurrence, while clearance of ctDNA at any point during NAT was associated with improved outcomes. Taken together, personalized monitoring of ctDNA during NAT may aid in real-time assessment of treatment response and help fine-tune pCR as a surrogate endpoint of survival. Validation studies in a larger cohort are warranted. Citation Format: Mark Jesus M Magbanua, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Gillian Hirst, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Hsin-Ta Wu, Antony Tin, Svetlana Shchegrova, Himanshu Sethi, Raheleh Salari, Alexey Aleshin, Maggie Louie, Bernhard Zimmermann, Angela DeMichele, Minetta Liu, Amy Delson, Amy Jo Chien, Smita Asare, Laura Esserman, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Laura van't Veer. Personalized monitoring of circulating tumor DNA during neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer reflects response and risk of metastatic recurrence [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-01-04.

Abstract Background: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), generally considered aggressive with few options beyond standard chemotherapy, is currently experiencing a period of optimism, with multiple trials showing increased efficacy of platinum containing regimens (with and without PARP-inhibition), and more recently, immunotherapy. In I-SPY 2, veliparib/carboplatin (VC) and the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Pembro) graduated in the TN subtype. As part of the I-SPY 2 biomarker program, we previously identified the signature PARPi7, a measure of DNA repair deficiency (DRD), as predicting response to VC. As well, immune signatures, including one representing dendritic cells, predicted response to Pembro. Here we investigate the overlap between these biomarkers to identify patient subgroups more likely to respond to immunotherapy or platinum-based therapy and estimate response rates to VC and Pembro in patients positive for one, both, or neither biomarker. Methods: 153 TNBC patients (Control: 85; VC: 39; Pembro: 29) were considered in this analysis. Continuous DNA repair deficiency and immune signatures assayed at the pre-treatment time point were evaluated as published (Wolf, 2017; Danaher, 2017). To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate pCR rates by arm for patient subsets defined by biomarker combinations. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability; and this analysis does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Using the optimal dichotomizing cutpoints, 54% of TNBC patients are classified as DRD+, and 67% Immune+. As expected, DRD+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to VC (75%); and Immune+ patients have a high estimated pCR rate to Pembro (82%). Combining these biomarkers, 40% of TNBC are positive for both biomarkers, 40% for only one biomarker (26% Immune+/DRD-, 14% Immune-/DRD+), and 20% for neither. The Immune+/DRD+ TN subset predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro has a higher estimated pCR rate to both VC and Pembro relative to control (estimated pCR rates: VC: 75%, Pembro: 73% vs. control: 18%). In contrast, the Immune+/DRD- group, predicted to be sensitive to Pembro, has the highest pCR rate to Pembro (VC: 48%, Pembro: 83% vs. control 21%), whereas the Immune-/DRD+ group is most responsive to VC (VC: 63%, Pembro: 41% vs. control 29%). For the 20% of Immune-/DRD- TNBC patients, their estimated response rates are lower than the biomarker-positive patients (VC: 27%, Pembro: 43% vs. control: 19%). Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes capturing immune activation and DNA repair deficiency may predict response of TNBC and help prioritize selection of platinum or immunotherapy containing regimens. Citation Format: Denise M. Wolf, Christina Yau, Julia Wulfkuhle, Emanuel Petricoin, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Gillian Hirst, Smita Asare, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo Olopade, Rita Nanda, Minetta Liu, Laura Esserman, Laura van t' Veer. Integration of DNA repair deficiency and immune biomarkers to predict which early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients are likely to respond to platinum-containing regimens vs. immunotherapy: The neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2679.

2631 Background: Response to immune checkpoint inhibitors has been associated with immune activation and mutational load within a tumor. Previous results in other tumors have implicated MHC II protein tumor cell expression as a response predictor to immune checkpoint inhibitors. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, the anti-PD1 therapeutic antibody pembrolizumab (P) was available to HER2-negative subtypes and graduated in both the HR+/HER2- and TNBC signatures. Pre-specified biomarker analysis was performed to test tumor MHC II expression as a predictor of response to P in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL based on its central role in tumor antigen presentation. Methods: 156 patients (P: 67, controls: 89) had RPPA and pCR data. RPPA-based quantitative data for pan-MHC II protein isotypes HLA-DR/DP/DQ/DX and HLA-DR protein isotype was obtained from LCM-enriched tumor epithelium, and protein levels were assessed for association with pCR in the P and control arms separately using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (p < 0.05). Analysis was also performed in the HR+ and HR- subgroups. Markers were analyzed individually; p-values are descriptive and were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Results: Across all P- treated patients, the HLA class II molecules –DR and -DR/DP/DQ/DX had a positive association with response to P (p = 0.014 and p = 0.001). Expression of HLA-DR/DP/DQ/DX also had a positive association with response to P in HR+ tumors. Neither of these associations were seen in the control arm samples. Conclusions: The observation of elevation of MHC II protein expression in HER2- responding patients treated with P suggests that activation of antigen peptide exchange facilitated by these molecules in T and B cells may enhance response to P treatment.

Abstract Background: Pembrolizumab (P), an anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, has been approved for treatment of microsatellite instability-high and mismatch repair deficient cancers. In I-SPY 2, patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy alone or in combination with an experimental agent. P was one of the experimental agents evaluated in HER2- patients in I-SPY 2 and graduated in the TN, HR+HER2-, and HER2- signatures. We hypothesize that a combination of two signatures predicting response to veliparib/carboplatin therapy in I-SPY 2 [MammaPrint High2 (MP2)/PARPi7-high] and reflecting DNA damage repair deficiency, may also predict response to P. In addition, we also tested 9 gene expression signatures reflecting different aspects of DNA damage and repair: FA, MMR, BER, HR, TLS, NER, NHEJ, DR, and DNA damage sensing (DDS) pathways. Methods: Data from 249 patients (P: 69 and controls: 180) were available. Pre-treatment biopsies were assayed using Agilent gene expression arrays. All I-SPY 2 qualifying biomarker analyses follow a pre-specified analysis plan. We used logistic modeling to assess biomarker performance. A biomarker is considered a specific predictor of P response if it associates with response in the P arm but not the control arm, and if the biomarker x treatment interaction is significant (likelihood ratio test, p&lt;0.05). This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and within receptor subsets, sample size permitting. For successful biomarkers, we use Bayesian modeling to estimate the pCR rates of 'predicted sensitive' patients in each arm. Our statistics are descriptive rather than inferential and do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers outside this study. Results: MP2 status associates with pCR in P (OR=7.7; p=0.00021), but also to a lesser extent in the control arm (OR=2.4:p=0.045), with an OR ratio of 3.3 which trends toward significance, even after adjusting for HR status (LR p=0.083). A majority of TN patients are MP2; and TN/MP2 patients have an estimated pCR rate of 67% in P (vs. 23% in control). Although only ~30% of HR+HER2- patients were MP2, their estimated pCR rate in P is 61%, compared to 29% in unselected HR+/HER2- patients. PARPi7 predicted response in the P arm only in the HR+HER2- group (LR p= 0.025), but not in the population as a whole or the TN subtype. Combining MP2 and PARPi7 into MP2/PARPi7-high did not improve performance over MP2 as a single biomarker. Of the 9 DDR pathway signatures tested, both BER and DDS associate with pCR in P, but only DDS (which includes ATM, ATR, CHEK1-2) associates with pCR in the P arm (LR p=0.00029), and not the control arm (LR p=0.53), with a significant interaction with treatment (LR p=0.0064) that retains significance in a model adjusting for HR status. When dichotomized to optimize the biomarker x treatment interaction, the estimated pCR rate is 75% in P vs 18% in control, in the DDS+ subset. Conclusion: In this small study, MP2 status and a DNA damage sensing pathway but not the PARPi7 or other repair pathways show promise as predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibition therapy in breast cancer. Citation Format: Yau C, Wolf D, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Sanil A, Singhrao R, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Asare S, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L, van 't Veer L, Nanda R, Liu M, Yee D. Analysis of DNA repair deficiency biomarkers as predictors of response to the PD1 inhibitor pembrolizumab: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 trial for stage II-III high-risk breast cancer [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 PD6-14.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score &lt;-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T-&gt;AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- &gt;AC vs. T-&gt;AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T-&gt;AC vs. H+T-&gt;AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response. Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p &lt; 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1 MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated. Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.