Toppmeyer, Deborah

Abstract Background Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Methods The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. Results Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. Conclusions Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

AbstractChemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (henceforth, neuropathy) is often dose limiting and is generally managed by empirical dose modifications. We aimed to (1) identify an early time point that is predictive of future neuropathy using a patient‐reported outcome and (2) propose a dose‐adjustment algorithm based on simulated data to manage neuropathy. In previous work, a dose‐neuropathy model was developed using dosing and patient‐reported outcome data from Cancer and Leukemia Group B 40502 (Alliance), a randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel or ixabepilone as first‐line chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. In the current work, an early time point that is predictive of the future severity of neuropathy was identified based on predictive accuracy of the model. Using the early data and model parameters, simulations were conducted to propose a dose‐adjustment algorithm for the prospective management of neuropathy in individual patients. The end of the first 3 cycles (12 weeks) was identified as the early time point based on a predictive accuracy of 75% for the neuropathy score after 6 cycles. For paclitaxel, nanoparticle albumin–bound paclitaxel, and ixabepilone, simulations with the proposed dose‐adjustment algorithm resulted in 61%, 48%, and 35% fewer patients, respectively, with neuropathy score ≥8 after 6 cycles compared to no dose adjustment. We conclude that early patient‐reported outcome data on neuropathy can be used to guide dose adjustments in individual patients that reduce the severity of future neuropathy. Prospective validation of this approach should be undertaken in future studies.

503 Background: TAILORx established that endocrine therapy (ET) alone is non-inferior to adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) plus ET in EBC and a 21-gene RS of 11-25, with some benefit if ≤50 years (y) with RS 16-25 (PMID: 29860917). We evaluated whether clinical risk (tumor size & histologic grade) provides additional prognostic information to RS, a secondary trial objective. Methods: Clinical risk by was assessed by Adjuvant! (version 8.0) using MINDACT criteria (PMID 27557300), defined as low clinical risk (LCR - tumor ≤3 cm and low grade, <2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade) or high clinical risk (HCR -not meeting LCR criteria). Results: Of 9427 women with RS and clinical risk information, 70% were LCR and 30% HCR, with comparable distribution by age ( ≤50 vs. >50). The RS was 26-100 in 9% of LCR and 27% of HCR patients, with similar distributions by age. Although LCR/HCR provided additional prognostic information in each RS category for iDFS, including RS 0-10 (9-year rates 86.7% vs. 75.7% LCR vs. HCR), 11-25 (85.4% vs. 78.9%), and 26-100 (82.0% vs. 70.4%), iDFS rates were similar irrespective of CT (no vs. yes) in the entire RS 11-25 cohort whether LCR (85.8% vs. 85.1%) or HCR (79.8% vs. 77.9%). DRFI rates were also similar irrespective of CT in the RS 11-25 cohort or > 50y group whether LCR (96.0% vs. 96.1% overall; 96.5% vs. 96.0% > 50y) or HCR (92.3% vs. 89.9% overall; 91.7% vs. 90.7% >50y). For women ≤50y, the absolute reduction in distant recurrence from CT with a RS of 16-20 (N=923) was -0.2% (standard error [SE]±2.1%) for LCR vs. 6.5%(SE±4.9%) for HCR (vs. 1.6%[SE±1.9%] overall), whereas for a RS 21-25 (N=492) it was 6.4% (SE±4.9%) for LCR vs. 8.6% (SE±6.2%) for HCR (vs. 6.5%[SE±3.7%] overall). Conclusions: Clinical risk stratification provides additional prognostic information to the 21-gene RS, but not prediction of CT benefit in the overall TAILORx population or those > 50y, and facilitates more refined estimates of absolute CT benefit for women ≤50y with a RS 16-25. (Funded by National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, Breast Cancer Research Foundation). Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

1088 Background: Standard first-line treatment for mTNBC is chemotherapy. However, outcomes are poor, and new treatment options are needed. Cohort B of KEYNOTE-086 (NCT02447003) assessed the safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with PD-L1–positive mTNBC. Methods: Men and women with centrally confirmed mTNBC, no prior systemic anticancer therapy for metastatic disease, ECOG PS 0-1, and a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1% received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 24 mo or until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or investigator or pt decision. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W for 12 mo and Q12W thereafter. Clinically stable pts with PD could remain on pembrolizumab until PD was confirmed on subsequent assessment. Primary end point was safety. Secondary end points included ORR, DOR, and PFS (RECIST v1.1, central review). Planned enrollment was 80 pts. This analysis included all pts who had ≥18 wk of follow-up as of Nov 10, 2016. Results: 79 of the first 137 pts with PD-L1–evaluable tumors (58%) had PD-L1 CPS ≥1%. Of the first 52 pts enrolled, 100% were women, median age was 53 y, 40% had elevated LDH, 69% had visceral metastases, and 87% received prior (neo)adjuvant therapy. After a median follow-up of 7.0 mo (range 4.4-12.5), 15 (29%) pts remained on pembrolizumab. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 37 (71%) pts, most commonly fatigue (31%), nausea (15%), and diarrhea (13%). 4 (8%) pts experienced 5 grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs: back pain, fatigue, hyponatremia, hypotension, and migraine (n = 1 each). No pts died or discontinued pembrolizumab due to an AE. ORR was 23% (95% CI 14%-36%). Best overall response was CR in 4%, PR in 19%, SD in 17%, PD in 58%, and not assessed in 2%. Median time to response was 8.7 wk (range 8.1-17.7). Median DOR was 8.4 mo (range, 2.1+ to 8.4), with 8 (67%) responses ongoing at cutoff. Median PFS was 2.1 mo (95% CI, 2.0-3.9); estimated 6-mo PFS rate was 29%. Conclusions: Data from the first 52 pts enrolled in KEYNOTE-086 cohort B suggest that pembrolizumab monotherapy has a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor activity as first-line therapy for PD-L1–positive mTNBC. Clinical trial information: NCT02447003.

LBA1 Background: In hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer, the 21-gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score [RS]) is prognostic for distant recurrence, prognostic for low recurrence with endocrine therapy alone if low (0-10), and predictive of chemotherapy benefit if high (26 or higher). We performed a prospective, randomized trial of endocrine therapy (ET) versus chemoendocrine therapy (CET) in women with a mid-range RS of 11-25. Methods: Eligibility criteria included women 18-75 years of age with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer and tumors 1.1-5.0 cm in size (or 0.6-1.0 cm and int/high grade) and agreed to have chemotherapy assigned or randomized based on the RS. Women with a mid-range RS (11-25) were randomized to receive ET or CET. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), and the trial was designed to show non-inferiority for ET alone by not rejecting equality (hazard ratio [HR] margin up to 1.322 for omission of chemotherapy, 1-sided type I error rate 10%, type II error rate 5%). The target sample size was adjusted to compensate for non-adherence to randomized treatment, and the protocol-specified final analysis was triggered after 835 iDFS events. Results: Of the 10,253 eligible women enrolled between 4/7/06-10/6/10, 6711 (65.5%) had a RS of 11-25 and adequate information. There were 836 iDFS events at final analysis with a median followup of 90 months. ET was non-inferior to CET for iDFS (HR 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.94, 1.24, p=0.26) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. ET was also non-inferior for distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI; HR 1.03, p=0.80), recurrence-free interval (RFI; HR 1.12, p=0.28), and overall survival (OS; HR 0.97, p=0.80). Nine year rates were similar for iDFS (83.3% vs. 84.3%), DRFI (94.5% vs. 95.0%), RFI (92.2% vs. 92.9%), and OS (93.9% vs. 93.8%). Recurrence accounted for 338 (41.6%) the first iDFS event, of which 199 (23.8%) were distant recurrences. Treatment interaction tests were significant for age (iDFS p=0.03; RFI p= 0.02), but not menopause, tumor size, grade, or RS (continuous or RS 11-15, 16-20, 21-25). Conclusions: In women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, AN-negative breast cancer and a RS of 11-25, adjuvant ET was not inferior to CET in the ITT analysis. (Funded by NCI, BCRF, and Komen Foundation.) Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

Abstract Background: CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance) compared weekly NP or Ix to P; most patients received bevacizumab. Ix was inferior to P, and NP was not superior with a trend toward inferiority. Toxicity was increased in the experimental arms compared to P (Rugo et al, JCO 2015). We report long-term follow-up (FU) of this trial with an unplanned subset analysis in hormone receptor positive (HR+) and triple negative (TNBC) breast cancer. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive P (90 mg/m2), Ix (16 mg/m2) or NP (150 mg/m2) on a 3 week (wk) on, 1 wk off schedule, stratified by prior adjuvant taxane use and hormone receptor status. B was initially given to all patients, but became optional in 3/2011 and was added to stratification. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). With a target N=900 patients, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio of 1.36 (median PFS 10 vs 13.6 months). Eligibility included no prior chemotherapy for MBC, &gt;12 mo from adjuvant P and measurable disease. Results: 799 patients were randomized between 11/08 and11/11 (283 to P, 271 to NP, 245 to Ix); 98% received bevacizumab. 68% (546) had HR+ disease, 25% (201) had TNBC. Median FU is 5 years. Median PFS is unchanged at 10.8, 9.2 and 7.4 mo for P, NP and Ix with hazard ratios (95% CIs) of 1.13 (0.94-1.34) and 1.44 (1.2-1.72) for NP and Ix to P, respectively. Median OS was 27.1, 24.2 and 23.6 months for P, NP and Ix with hazard ratios of 1.10 (0.91-1.34) and 1.3 (1.07-1.57) for NP and Ix to P, respectively. The effects of NP vs P on PFS and OS were significantly modified by subtype (interaction p=0.0018 and 0.0073), whereas Ix vs P was unchanged (interaction p's &gt; 0.9, Table). More patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events in the experimental arms (14 vs 27 vs 23% for P, NP and Ix). Table P (mo)NP (mo)NP to P; HR (95% CI)Ix (mo)Ix to P, HR (95% CI)TNBC, PFS6.47.40.79 (0.55-1.12)15.61.39 (0.99-1.96)3HR+, PFS12.29.61.29 (1.04-1.59)181.5 (1.21-1.86)3TNBC, OS15.3210.74 (0.51-1.07)215.11.28(0.9-1.82)4HR+, OS33.226.61.25 (0.99-1.58)225.41.35(1.07-1.714Interaction tests: 1. p=0.0018; 2. p=0.0073; 3. p=0.96; 4. p=0.92 mo: months; HR: hazard ratio·· Conclusion: In patients with chemotherapy-naive MBC, Ix was inferior to P for PFS, and P was better tolerated than either NP or Ix. In this retrospective subset analysis, Ix and NP were inferior to P in HR+ disease, with a suggestion of improved PFS and OS with NP in patients with TNBC. Further investigation is required to explain and validate the subtype specificity seen in this exploratory analysis. Support: U10CA180820, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00785291 Citation Format: Rugo HS, Barry WT, Moreno-Aspitia A, Lyss A, Huebner L, Mayer EL, Naughton M, Layman RM, Carey LA, Somer RA, Toppmeyer D, Velasco M, Perez EA, Hudis CA, Winer E. Long-term follow-up of CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H (Alliance): A randomized phase III trial of weekly paclitaxel (P) compared to weekly nanoparticle albumin bound nab-Paclitaxel (NP) or ixabepilone (Ix) +/- bevacizumab as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [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 GS3-06.