O’Sullivan, Ciara C.

Abstract Background: In ER+ breast cancer (BC) models, Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation is associated with expansion of CD44+/CD24low/- tumor initiating cells, down-regulation of ERα, and endocrine therapy resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, can restore ERα expression and endocrine sensitivity. Early phase studies evaluating alisertib alone or with fulvestrant for ER+ metastatic BC (MBC) demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising antitumor activity [Haddad, Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018]. A phase II trial was conducted to determine if the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib improved objective response rate (ORR) and to assess clinical activity of alisertib alone or with fulvestrant in patients (pts) with prior fulvestrant and CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to Arm A, alisertib (50 mg PO BID Days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 q 28 days) or Arm B, alisertib with fulvestrant (500 mg IM Day 1, 15 for Cycle 1 and q 28 days thereafter). Eligibility included postmenopausal women, history of ER+ BC, prior fulvestrant, ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy lines, and measurable disease. Stratification factors included prior CDK4/6i, ER level (<10%, ≥10%), and primary/secondary endocrine resistance. Pts on Arm A could cross over to Arm B at progression. With 45 pts per arm, a one sided alpha=0.15 sequential binomial test would have an 85% chance of detecting an increase of ≥ 20% in the ORR of ArmB when the true ORR for Arm A is ≤ 20%. ORR was defined as a partial response (PR) + complete response (CR) by RECIST v.1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), 24-week clinical benefit rate (CBR = CR + PR + absence of progression for> 6 cycles), overall survival, duration of response (DoR), and safety. Blood and tumor specimens were collected at baseline, end of Cycle 1, and progression. Results: Pts enrolled July 2017 - November 2019 with 118 pre-registered, 96 registered, and 90 evaluable for the primary endpoint (Arm A: 45, Arm B: 45). Median age was 60 (range 33, 85). Nearly all received prior fulvestrant (n=89, 98.9%), aromatase inhibitor (n=83, 92.2%), and CDK4/6i (n=88, 97.8%). Most had secondary endocrine resistance (n=71, 78.9%). Pre-registration biopsy for ER was positive in 84 pts (86.7%) and negative in 6 pts (13.3%). More pts on Arm B had prior everolimus (A: 35.6%, B: 57.8%) and prior chemotherapy (A: 44.4%, B: 55.6%) for MBC. The ORR for alisertib and fulvestrant was 20.0% (90% CI: 10.9-32.3%), not significantly greater than alisertib alone 17.8% (90% CI: 9.2-29.8%). The 24-week CBR for Arm A was 42.2% (90% CI: 29.7-55.6%; n=19, including 7 PR) and Arm B was 31.1% (90% CI: 19.9-44.3%; n=14, including 8 PR). As of July 1, 2020, the median DoR was not reached in either arm. The median PFS time was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.9 - 9.3) for Arm A and 5.1 months (95%CI: 3.8 - 7.6) for Arm B. Seventeen pts (18.9%) remain on treatment (A: 12, B: 5) having received at least 11 cycles (range up to 32+ cycles). At least one dose reduction was required for pts (A: 19, B: 18), most commonly due to neutropenia. The most common severe (grade ≥3) adverse events included neutropenia (n=19, 42.2% in each arm), anemia (A: 15.6%, B: 8.8%), and fatigue (n=5, 11.1% Arm B only). Pts discontinued therapy due to disease progression equally in each arm (n=28, 62.2%), however more pts on Arm B (n=12) than Arm A (n=5) discontinued therapy due to toxicity, refusal or other reasons. Conclusion: While the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib did not improve ORR, promising clinical activity with alisertib monotherapy was observed overall and notably for pts with endocrine and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. More severe toxicities and treatment discontinuation were observed in pts receiving combination therapy. Correlative blood (CTC/cfDNA) and tissue (AURKA, ERα, and stemness biomarkers) studies are underway. Citation Format: Tufia Haddad, Antonino D'Assoro, Vera Suman, Jodi Carter, Brendan McMenomy, Erica Mayer, Meghan Karuturi, Aki Morikawa, Paul Marcom, Claudine Isaacs, Sun Young Oh, Amy Clark, Ingrid Mayer, Khandan Keyomarsi, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Ciara O'Sullivan, Prema Peethambaram, Timothy Hobday, Minetta Liu, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Randomized phaseII trial to evaluate alisertib alone or combined with fulvestrant for advanced, endocrine-resistant breast cancer (TBCRC 041) [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 PD2-05.

Abstract The management of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)–positive breast cancer (BC) has rapidly evolved over the last 20 years. Major advances have led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of 7 HER2‐targeted therapies for the treatment of early‐stage and/or advanced‐stage disease. Although oncologic outcomes continue to improve, most patients with advanced HER2‐positive BC ultimately die of their disease because of primary or acquired resistance to therapy, and patients with HER2‐positive early BC who have residual invasive disease after preoperative systemic therapy are at a higher risk of distant recurrence and death. The concept of treatment de‐escalation and escalation is increasingly important to optimally tailor therapy for patients with HER2‐positive BC and is a major focus of the current review. Research efforts in this regard are discussed as well as updates regarding the evolving standard of care in the (neo)adjuvant and metastatic settings, including the use of novel combination therapies. The authors also briefly discuss ongoing challenges in the management of HER2‐positive BC (eg, intrinsic vs acquired drug resistance, the identification of predictive biomarkers, the integration of imaging techniques to guide clinical practice), and the treatment of HER2‐positive brain metastases. Research aimed at superseding these challenges will be imperative to ensure continued progress in the management of HER2‐positive BC going forward.

Abstract Introduction: CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) are FDA approved for treatment of hormone receptor (HR) positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Recent work demonstrated that a rise in MCV was correlated with longer median progression free survival (Anampa et al, Haemoatologica 2018). We performed a single-institution retrospective analysis to evaluate whether palbociclib induced early changes in MCV serve as a pharmacodynamic biomarker to predict response to CDK4/6i. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of 81 patients with HR+, HER2- MBC treated with CDK4/6i as first line metastatic treatment at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Hematologic indices were abstracted pretreatment and at the start of each cycle through the start of cycle 4 (C4). Wilcoxon signed test was used to examine the changes in MCV (ΔMCV) comparing pretreatment up to C4 and ΔMCV between cycles. Optimal cut points for ΔMCV were determined using Cutoff finder (Budczies et al., PLOS One 2012). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations of MCV and time to treatment failure (TTF), which was defined as the time from the start of the analyzed cycle to treatment discontinuation for any reason(in months). As eight comparisons were made, a Bonferroni correction established p-value <0.00625 as the adequate cutoff for statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using JMP (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Results: 60/81 patients had pretreatment and at least one subsequent lab data point that included MCV. The pretreatment mean hemoglobin (Hgb) was 12.8 [standard deviation (SD) 1.37 g/dL] and 6/60 (10.2%) patients with Hgb <11.0 g/dL. Mean pretreatment MCV was 89.0 femtoliters/cell [fl (SD 4.63)] and no macrocytosis (defined as MCV >100 fl) was observed. At C4, the mean Hgb was 12.1 g/dL (SD 1.11) with 4/49 (8.2%) with Hgb <11.0 g/dL. The C4 mean MCV was 96.6 fl (SD 5.23) and 8/29 (16.3%) developed macrocytosis. Wilcoxon signed analysis showed a significant increase in ΔMCV pretreatment to C2 [n=51, median 1.5 with interquartile range (IQR) -0.1-3.2, p<0.0001], C2 to C3 (n=44, median 2.9, IQR 1.4-5.2, p<0.0001), and C3 to C4 (n=41, median 3.4, IQR 1.9-4.9, p<0.0001). A rise in MCV≥8.15 from pretreatment to C4 was associated with a non-statistically significant improvement in TTF [n=49, hazard ratio (HR) 0.38, p = 0.06]. Between C2 and C3, a rise in MCV ≥2.9 was associated favorably with TTF (n=44, HR 0.36, p = 0.029). The estimated probability of remaining on treatment at 30 months was higher in those with C2-C3 ΔMCV ≥2.9 [44.1%; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 17.3-68.2%] compared to those with a C2-C3 ΔMCV <2.9 (10.1%; 95%CI 1.5-28.7%). Discussion: We observed an increase in MCV in all patients receiving CDK4/6i by start of C4. The rise in MCV during CDK4/6i treatment may reflect drug induced cell-cycle arrest in hematopoietic cells. Evaluation in larger studies is needed to validate dynamic changes in MCV as a predictive biomarker of response to CDK4/6i therapy. Citation Format: Grace Mei Yee Choong, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Ciara C O'Sullivan, Kathyrn J Ruddy, Tufia C Haddad, Timothy J Hobday, Prema P Peethambaram, Charles L Loprinizi, Minetta C Liu, Vera J Suman, Matthew P Goetz, Karthik V Giridhar. Evaluation of mean corpuscular volume (MCV) as a pharmacodynamic predictive biomarker in patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [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 P1-19-42.

Prior to the advent of the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab, human epidermal growth-factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) was associated with an aggressive clinical course and poor survival outcomes. In the era of effective HER2-directed therapies, median survival rates for patients with metastatic HER2+ BC now approach 5 years. Despite these improvements, the majority of affected patients unfortunately die from disease. Therapies to overcome treatment resistance are being actively pursued. One strategy has been to target the cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 (CDK4/6), as they are downstream of HER2 and many of the cellular pathways driving resistance to HER2-targeted therapies, and play a key role in proliferation by controlling transition through the G1 restriction point to the S phase of the cell cycle. In this article, we review the published literature with regard to the rationale for CDK4/6-directed therapies in HER2+ BC and discuss ongoing clinical research and new challenges in the field.

PURPOSE Evidence-based treatments for metastatic, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer to the CNS are limited. We previously reported modest activity of neratinib monotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases. Here we report the results from additional study cohorts. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with measurable, progressive, HER2-positive brain metastases (92% after receiving CNS surgery and/or radiotherapy) received neratinib 240 mg orally once per day plus capecitabine 750 mg/m 2 twice per day for 14 days, then 7 days off. Lapatinib-naïve (cohort 3A) and lapatinib-treated (cohort 3B) patients were enrolled. If nine or more of 35 (cohort 3A) or three or more of 25 (cohort 3B) had CNS objective response rates (ORR), the drug combination would be deemed promising. The primary end point was composite CNS ORR in each cohort separately, requiring a reduction of 50% or more in the sum of target CNS lesion volumes without progression of nontarget lesions, new lesions, escalating steroids, progressive neurologic signs or symptoms, or non-CNS progression. RESULTS Forty-nine patients enrolled in cohorts 3A (n = 37) and 3B (n = 12; cohort closed for slow accrual). In cohort 3A, the composite CNS ORR = 49% (95% CI, 32% to 66%), and the CNS ORR in cohort 3B = 33% (95% CI, 10% to 65%). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 and 3.1 months in cohorts 3A and 3B, respectively; median survival was 13.3 and 15.1 months. Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 toxicity (29% in cohorts 3A and 3B). Neratinib plus capecitabine is active against refractory, HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases, adding additional evidence that the efficacy of HER2-directed therapy in the brain is enhanced by chemotherapy. For optimal tolerance, efforts to minimize diarrhea are warranted.

TPS17 Background: Emerging studies suggest that breast cancer, particularly triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), may be sensitive to immunotherapy. However, the response rate of single agent immune checkpoint blockade agent in TNBC is rather low. Previous genomic study in residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed inverse correlations between MEK activation signature and the amount of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in residual disease samples as well as poor outcome. Preclinical study also showed that the combination of MEK inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 antibody in mouse model can eradicate TNBC tumors. Methods: This is a single arm, Phase I/II trial of Pembrolizumab (P) in combination with Binimetinib (B) in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. This trial is currently opened for accrual at Mayo Clinic in Florida and Minnesota. Patients with TNBC defined as ER ≤ 10% and PR ≤ 10% who received ≤ 3 prior lines with measurable disease will be enrolled. The primary objective of the Phase I part is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of B in combination with P and for the Phase II part is objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST criteria. The secondary endpoints include ORR by irRECIST, progression free survival, and overall survival. The total sample size is 15-38 patients with 6-12 patients in Phase I with 2 dose levels and 9-26 patients in Phase II. Simon’s Two-Stage Optimal Design is used to test the null hypothesis that this two-drug combination has an ORR of at most 15% vs. the alternative hypothesis that it has an ORR of at least 35%. Patients will receive single agent B for 2 weeks prior to starting P. A mandatory biopsy will be performed before starting B and an optional biopsy will be performed after 2 weeks of B. Tumor tissue will be evaluated for the amount and phenotypes of TILs, PD-L1 expression, and gene expression analysis using PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel, and PDJ amplification. Peripheral blood will be evaluated for circulating immunoregulatory cells, cytokine profiling, circulating tumor cells (CTCs), as well as p-ERK and PD-L1 expression on CTCs. Clinical trial information: NCT03106415.

Abstract Lessons Learned Accrual to renal cell carcinoma trials remains a challenge despite the lack of prolonged response to the available treatments. The observation of three responses among the 30 patients with median progression-free survival and overall survival of 8.3 and 15 months, respectively, indicates the combination has some activity, but it is not sufficient for further development. Background Treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) remains suboptimal. Preclinical data have previously shown that ixabepilone, a microtubule-stabilizing agent approved for the treatment of breast cancer, is active in taxane-sensitive and -resistant cells. In this single-arm phase II trial, we investigated a combination of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab in patients with refractory mRCC. Methods We enrolled 30 patients with histologically confirmed mRCC, clear cell subtype, who had not been previously treated with ixabepilone or bevacizumab but had received at least one prior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The treatment regimen consisted of 6 mg/m2 ixabepilone per day for 5 days and 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 21 days. After 6 cycles, the treatment interval could be extended to every 28 days. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the toxicity of the combination. Results The median number of prior therapies was two (range per patient one to five). Patients received a median of 8 cycles of ixabepilone plus bevacizumab (range 2–54). The median follow-up was 36.4 months (range 23.5–96.5). Nineteen patients (63.3%) had stable disease as a best response. Three patients (10%) had a partial response. The median PFS was 8.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9–10.6) and the median OS was 15.0 months (95% CI, 11.3–28.8). The total number of cycle for safety evaluation was 289. Grade 3/4 adverse events (>5% incidence) included lymphopenia (16.7%), hypertension (6.7%), and leukopenia (6.7%). Conclusion The combination of ixabepilone and bevacizumab was well tolerated, with modest activity in second - or later-line mRCC, but it is not recommended as a therapy without further clinical development. Alternative combinations with these agents could be explored in future studies.

In this issue of The Oncologist, Agarwal et al. report negative results from a phase I trial of LFA102. Although “negative” in terms of antitumor activity, the study provides useful pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information. Future trials evaluating PRLR blockers alone and in combination with other agents may still be warranted in patients with breast and prostate cancer.