Symmans, W. Fraser

Abstract Background: It has become increasingly clear that effective treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) requires an in-depth understanding of the molecular differences between primary tumors and metastases. The AURORA US Network was established to collect primary breast cancer-metastasis pairs for multi-platform genomic profiling in order to identify the molecular drivers of metastatic disease. AURORA US has both a retrospective and prospective phase. This is the first report of the retrospective phase. Methods: Archived tissue samples from the primary tumor and at least one distant metastasis were retrospectively collected from 83 MBC patients. Following internal quality assessment, samples from 55 pts, including 105 distinct metastatic lesions, were subject to DNA low pass whole genome and exome sequencing, DNA methylation arrays, and RNA sequencing. Early analyses of these multi-platform data include: DNA methylation, tumor gene expression and microenvironmental signatures, somatic and germline variants, DNA copy number changes, and structural variants between breast primaries and matched metastases. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 49 years (25-76); 32 (58%) were Stage I or II at presentation, 27 (49%) had a family history of breast cancer, and 20 (36%) had a second breast primary. Median disease-free interval before developing MBC was 2 years (range 0-36, 5 patients presented with Stage IV). Median overall survival from initial presentation was 4 years (range 0-37). Median survival after developing MBC was 1 year (range 0-13), with a median of three treatments. Primary tissue samples were banked from 1977-2017 and metastases were banked from 1999-2017. Clinical phenotypes of the primaries included 27 HR+ (49%), 15 triple negative (TNBC, 27%), and 11 HER2+ (20%, 12 missing HER2 status). Intrinsic subtype distribution of the primaries included 17 Basal-like (31%), 17 Luminal A (31%), 7 Normal-like (13%), 5 HER2-enriched (9%), and 1 Luminal B, with 8 pending. All metastases from the Basal-like cases remained Basal-like, while metastases from luminal primaries tended to gain HER2-Enriched subtype features (5/18, p = 0.01). Overall, we identified significant metastasis-enriched alterations in metabolism pathways, an increase in proliferation, and the loss of differentiation signatures and immune infiltrates with progression; the latter being the most pronounced in brain metastases. The most frequent somatic mutations in this cohort were in TP53, NCOR1, and RUNX1. Interestingly, ERBB2, EGFR, and ATM were also mutated in ≥10% of the tumors sequenced. In almost all cases, CpG island hypermethylation was clonally present in the primary tumor and persisted stably in the majority of metastatic lesions. Promoter CpG island hypermethylation was also identified in some metastatic lesions at JAM3, an important cellular adhesion molecule,and this was accompanied by reduced mRNA expression. CONCLUSIONS: Collection of banked primary and metastatic tissue pairs identified a young MBC cohort with a high frequency of breast cancer family history and second breast primaries. Molecular characterization of luminal tumor pairs highlighted acquisition of aggressive traits including increased proliferation and loss of differentiation in the metastases. In contrast, basal-like pairs remained relatively unchanged, except for the loss of immune activation. Ongoing analyses to be presented include clonal heterogeneity and phylogeny, novel metastasis signature discovery, gene fusion, and endogenous retrovirus detection. Citation Format: Tari A King, Minetta C Liu, Marni B McClure, Toshinori Hinoue, Benjamin J Kelly, Chad J Creighton, Jay Bowen, Kristen Leraas, Robyn T Burns, Sara Coppens, Salma Rezk, Amy L Garrett, Justin M Balko, Joel S Parker, Ben H Park, Ian Krop, Carey Anders, Katherine A Hoadley, Julie Gastier-Foster, Mothaffar F Rimawi, Rita Nanda, Nancy U Lin, Claudine Isaacs, P. Kelly Marcom, Anna Maria Storniolo, Fergus J Couch, Elaine R Mardis, Adrian V Lee, Uma Chandran, Peter W Laird, Susan G Hilsenbeck, Larry Norton, Andrea L Richardson, W. Fraser Symmans, Lisa A Carey, Antonio C Wolff, Nancy E Davidson, Charles M Perou, the AURORA US Network. Multiplatform analysis of matched primary and metastatic breast tumors from the AURORA US Network [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 GS3-08.

Abstract Importance: It is essential to refine the populations most likely to benefit from targeted chemotherapy combinations. Background: MINDACT showed that molecularly low risk patients, as assessed by the Amsterdam 70-gene profile MammaPrint® (Agendia) (MP), did not benefit from chemotherapy. In the I-SPY2 trial, MP low risk Hormone Receptor (HR) positive/HER2 negative patients are not eligible; however, HR negative or HER2 positive patients were considered high risk and included for treatment with chemotherapy plus novel agents. The neoadjuvant setting provides an opportunity to evaluate whether molecularly low risk HER2 positive patients are good candidates for neoadjuvant chemo/anti-HER2 therapy, where pathologic complete response (pCR) and 3-year outcomes are measured. Objective: To evaluate and further characterize the fraction of and outcomes for patients molecular low-risk disease in the I-SPY2 trial. Methods: The I-SPY2 platform trial is an ongoing multicenter phase 2 multi-arm study utilizing adaptive design and evaluating efficacy and tolerability of investigational agents in combination with standard-of-care chemotherapy for patients with high-risk anatomic stage II/III breast cancer. Patients with HR+HER2- MP low-risk tumors are not eligible. All enrolled patients undergo pretreatment biopsy for genomic evaluation of early recurrence risk with MP for risk stratification and with the 80-gene BluePrint® (Agendia) test for intrinsic subtype classification. Primary endpoint of the study is pCR in breast and lymph nodes (ypT0/is, ypN0). Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS) and distant-recurrence free survival (DRFS). Following standard neoadjuvant treatment with or without a concomitant investigational agent, patients are followed for long-term outcomes. EFS and DRFS at 3 and 5 years in the pCR vs non-pCR groups within histologic and molecular subtypes are determined using the Kaplan Meier method. Results: Of the 1038 enrolled patients by November 2016, 24 patients (3.2%) had molecular low-risk disease as determined by MP. Of these, 21 (87.5%) had HR+HER2+, 1 (4.2%) had HR-HER2+, and 2 (8.4%) had HR-HER2-. BluePrint expression subtyping classified 17 as luminal-type, 6 HER2 enriched-type and 1 basal type. One patient withdrew consent for follow-up. Of the 23 remaining, none achieved pCR and only one (HR+/HER2+) had an EFS event (with median follow-up of 4.3 years). Overall, EFS and DRFS data were available for 950 of the 1038 patients (as of February 2019), with median follow-up of 3.8 years. Of the 173 HR+HER2+ in this cohort, 20 (11.6%) had molecular low-risk tumors. The EFS and DRFS for the 173 HER2+HR+ pCR group is 97% and 98% (non-pCR group 89% and 94%), respectively at 3 years. Removing the molecular low-risk HER2+ patients from the denominator reveals the worse outcome for patients with non pCR: EFS 86% and DRFS 92% at 3 years. The difference is more apparent at 5 years, changing from 74% to 66% for EFS and from 81% to 75% for DRFS. Intrinsic subtypes vary and do not predict early risk. Conclusions: I-SPY2 focuses on women with high clinical risk with only 3.2% of enrolled patients having low molecular risk tumors. However, 12% of HER+ breast cancer enrolled patients had molecular low risk tumors of which 95% were also HR+. In this group, early recurrence is very low despite absence of pCR and irrespective of intrinsic subtype. Refining the population using molecular high-risk classification of patients reveals a greater difference between the pCR and non-pCR groups within the HR+HER2+ subtype in the EFS and DRFS analysis. Clinical trial designs could address the opportunity to find more targeted and less toxic treatments for the HER2+ low molecular risk patient population. Citation Format: Paula R Pohlmann, Christina Yau, Angela DeMichele, Claudine Isaacs, Judy C Boughey, Nola Hylton, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, W. Fraser Symmans, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Donald A Berry, Laura Esserman. Amsterdam 70-gene profile (MammaPrint) low risk, even in the HER2 positive subset, identifies a population of women with lower early risk for recurrence despite low response rates to chemotherapy and to HER2 targeted therapy [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 P6-10-06.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PURPOSEThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODSI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.RESULTSMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).CONCLUSIONThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the 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 CT136.

Tamoxifen is biotransformed by CYP2D6 to 4‐hydroxytamoxifen and 4‐hydroxy N‐desmethyl tamoxifen (endoxifen), both with greater antiestrogenic potency than the parent drug. Patients with certain CYP2D6 genetic polymorphisms and patients who receive strong CYP2D6 inhibitors exhibit lower endoxifen concentrations and a higher risk of disease recurrence in some studies of tamoxifen adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer. We summarize evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for tamoxifen based on CYP2D6 genotype.

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.