Timms, Kirsten M.

525 Background: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status can be used to identify patients who are eligible for treatment with DNA damaging agents. Using a 3-biomarker Genomic Instability Score (GIS) threshold of ≥42, studies have previously examined the association between HRD status and outcomes in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, evidence suggests that a GIS threshold of ≥33 may be more appropriate. Here, we conducted an exploratory analysis evaluating the ability of ≥33 and ≥42 GIS thresholds to predict response to platinum-based treatment in patients with TNBC. Methods: Patients across 5 cohorts (TBCRC0301, TBCRC0082, NCT013725793, PrECOG 01054, combined cisplatin cohort4) were included in this analysis if they had a primary TNBC diagnosis, received neoadjuvant platinum-based treatment, had a valid GIS, and had known pathologic complete response (pCR) status. GIS was determined by a combination of loss of heterozygosity, telomeric-allelic imbalance, and large-scale state transitions.4,5 BRCA mutation status was defined by loss of function resulting from a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV), were calculated by comparing binary threshold status and binary pCR status. Results: A total of 204 tumors (158 BRCAwt; 33 BRCAm; 13 unknown) were included; pCR to platinum-based treatment occurred in 55 cases (39 BRCAwt; 14 BRCAm; 2 unknown). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were comparable between the ≥33 and ≥42 GIS thresholds, with the ≥33 threshold producing higher sensitivity values. This was true when thresholds were applied to all samples and to BRCAwt samples only (Table). Among patients who achieved pCR in response to platinum-based treatment, 5.5% of patients in the full cohort and 7.7% of those in the BRCAwt cohort had a GIS between 33-41. Conclusions: To ensure that the majority of patients likely to benefit from treatment are identified, a GIS of ≥33 may be the most appropriate threshold to predict response to platinum-based treatment in patients with TNBC; however, a prospective trial will be needed to confirm these findings. Additional studies will be important to determine whether this threshold may be appropriate to determine eligibility for other DNA-damaging agents such as PARP inhibitors. 1. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(11):1518-25 2. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):31-7. 3. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;151(3):629-38. 4. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(15):3764-73. 5. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;16(6):1-9. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Patients with homologous recombin ation (HR) deficient tumors may benefit from treatment with DNA damaging agents. Markers of genomic instability can be used to identify HR deficiency, including a 3-biomarker Genomic Instability Score (GIS). For patients with ovarian cancer (OC), the FDA-approved GIS threshold for identifying HR deficiency is 42, set as the 5th percentile for BRCA deficient tumors. Recently, a lower 1st percentile cutoff of 33 was explored in OC; this threshold was significantly associated with improved outcome after platinum-based treatment.1,2 Determining an optimal GIS threshold for different types of tumors is crucial, as the GIS distribution may vary between different cancers and even between different cancer subtypes. We propose GIS thresholds for breast cancer separately for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, using the exploratory threshold of 33 for OC as a comparator. Methods: GISs in BRCA deficient tumors were determined for patients newly diagnosed with varying stages of OC, TNBC, or ER+ breast cancer across 5 cohorts (Timms et al,3 TCGA,4 Abkevich et al,5 TBCRC008,6 the OlympiaD trial7). GIS was determined as a combination of loss of heterozygosity, telomeric-allelic imbalance, and large-scale state transitions. BRCA deficiency was defined by loss of function resulting from a pathogenic variant in BRCA1 or BRCA2 or by methylation of the BRCA1 promoter region, with loss of heterozygosity in the affected gene. GIS distributions in different cancer types and subtypes were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. A normal distribution was fit to GISs in BRCA deficient ER+ breast tumors. The 1st percentile of the fitted distribution was chosen as the threshold. Results: A total of 561 OC tumors (190 BRCA deficient), 99 TNBC tumors (44 BRCA deficient), and 406 ER+ breast tumors (76 BRCA deficient) were included across the 5 cohorts. When score distributions were evaluated for BRCA deficient tumors, the GIS distribution within ER+ breast cancer was significantly different than for OC (p=9.6x10-5) and TNBC (p=3.2x10-4). This indicates that different GIS thresholds are appropriate for breast cancer subtypes and that the GIS threshold developed for OC is not appropriate for ER+ breast cancer. The 1st percentile of a normal distribution fit in BRCA deficient ER+ breast cancer tumors yields a threshold of 24. Using this threshold, 45.1% (183/406; 75 BRCA deficient, 108 BRCA intact) of ER+ breast tumors were HR deficient. In contrast, the GIS distribution for TNBC was not significantly different than for OC (p=0.77). Using the exploratory threshold of 33, 63.6% (63/99; 44 BRCA deficient, 19 BRCA intact) of TNBC tumors were HR deficient. Conclusions: When compared to OC, the distribution of GIS in BRCA deficient tumors was different for ER+ breast cancer, but not for TNBC. These findings are consistent with the fact that OC and TNBC are known to have similar molecular signatures.8 Exploratory thresholds of 24 for ER+ breast cancer, and 33 for TNBC and OC could be examined to determine if these cutoffs are associated with a benefit from treatment with DNA targeting agents. Clinical validity and utility of these more inclusive 1% thresholds would require demonstration of correlation with clinical outcomes. The threshold difference observed between these cancer subtypes also suggests that cancer or cancer subtype specific thresholds may be needed as evaluations of HR deficiency expands beyond OC to identify candidates for PARP inhibitors. References: 1 Mol Cancer Res. 2018;16(7):1103-11. 2 Cancers. 2021;13(5):946. 3 Br J Cancer. 2012;107(10):1776-82. 4 Nature. 2012;490(7418):61-70. 5 Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(145):1-9. 6 J Nucl Med. 2015;56(1):31-7. 7 NEJM. 2017;377(17):1700. 8 Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(5):759. Citation Format: Kirsten M Timms, Lauren Lenz, Chris Neff, Cara Solimeno, Darl Flake, Judy C Boughey, Matthew P Goetz, Andrea Richardson, Anna Maria Storniolo, Alexander Gutin, Roisin M Connolly, Vered Stearns, Jerry S Lanchbury. Identifying homologous recombination deficiency in breast cancer: Genomic instability score thresholds differ in breast cancer subtypes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-09.

AbstractBackgroundBRCA1 methylation has been associated with homologous recombination deficiency, a biomarker of platinum sensitivity. Studies evaluating BRCA1-methylated tubal and ovarian cancer (OC) do not consistently support improved survival following platinum chemotherapy. We examine the characteristics of BRCA1-methylated OC in a meta-analysis of individual participant data.MethodsData of 2636 participants across 15 studies were analyzed. BRCA1-methylated tumors were defined according to their original study. Associations between BRCA1 methylation and clinicopathological characteristics were evaluated. The effects of methylation on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were examined using mixed-effects models. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results430 (16.3%) tumors were BRCA1-methylated. BRCA1 methylation was associated with younger age and advanced-stage, high-grade serous OC. There were no survival differences between BRCA1-methylated and non–BRCA1-methylated OC (median PFS = 20.0 vs 18.5 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.16; P = .98; median OS = 46.6 vs 48.0 months, HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.18; P = .96). Where BRCA1/2 mutations were evaluated (n = 1248), BRCA1 methylation displayed no survival advantage over BRCA1/2-intact (BRCA1/2 wild-type non–BRCA1-methylated) OC. Studies used different methods to define BRCA1 methylation. Where BRCA1 methylation was determined using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and gel electrophoresis (n = 834), it was associated with improved survival (PFS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02; OS: HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.00; P = .05) on mixed-effects modeling.ConclusionBRCA1-methylated OC displays similar clinicopathological features to BRCA1-mutated OC but is not associated with survival. Heterogeneity within BRCA1 methylation assays influences associations. Refining these assays may better identify cases with silenced BRCA1 function and improved patient outcomes.

Abstract Background: Biomarkers to predict response to platinum-based therapy in early breast cancer are needed. HRD is a promising predictor of response to DNA damaging agents, such as platinums. We hypothesized that HRD (high HRD score ≥ 42 and/or tumor BRCA [tBRCA] mutation) would predict pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer treated with PST comprising a platinum, regardless of estrogen receptor (ER) status. Methods: TBCRC008 was a multicenter placebo-controlled trial that investigated pCR (no invasive cancer in breast/axilla) following 12 weeks of preoperative carboplatin and albumin-bound paclitaxel with or without vorinostat in patients with ER-positive or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (Connolly RM. JNM 2015). The pCR rate was similar in both arms (vorinostat 25.8%, placebo 29%). We performed an exploratory biomarker study correlating baseline tumor biopsy HRD status with pCR. The analysis population included all patients with available HRD and pCR data. We compared the proportion of patients with pCR by HRD status using Fisher's exact test. A subset analysis compared pCR proportions by high (≥42) vs. low (<42) HRD score in those patients who did not have tBRCA mutation. A logistic regression model included HRD status, ER status, treatment arm, tumor grade and use of additional anthracycline-based non-study chemotherapy prior to definitive surgery. Results: HRD status and pCR data were available for 48/62 patients (30 ER-positive, 18 TNBC). Of these, 46% of tumors were HR deficient (n=22/48, 33% ER-positive [10/30], 67% TNBC [12/18]). We observed a significantly higher pCR rate in patients with HR deficiency vs not (50% vs 7.7%, p=0.002) in the overall population. A similar trend was observed in ER-positive (30% vs 5%, p=0.095) and TNBC (66.7% vs 16.7%, p=0.13) patients. There was no significant difference when analyzed by treatment arm (vorinostat vs placebo). In a subgroup analysis (n=40) of patients without tBRCA (25 ER-positive, 15 TNBC), a significantly higher pCR rate was observed in those with high vs low HRD score (64.3% vs 7.7%, p <0.001). After adjusting for ER status, randomized treatment, use of AC treatment, and tumor grade, patients whose tumors exhibited HR deficiency had a greater than 6 fold increase in pCR compared to those without HR deficiency (adjusted odds ratio = 6.76, 95% CI = 0.85-53.99, p=.072). Conclusion: This is the first study to evaluate the predictive role of HRD status in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with platinum-based therapy. Our results also support prior observations that HRD status is a promising predictive biomarker of response to platinum agents in TNBC. Further evaluation of this question is warranted in both TNBC and ER-positive breast cancer. Citation Format: Connolly R, Elkin E, Timms K, Goetz M, Boughey J, Zhang Z, Walsh B, Carpenter J, Storniolo A, Watkins S, Gabrielson E, Hartman A-R, Stearns V. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) as a predictive biomarker of response to preoperative systemic therapy (PST) in TBCRC008 comprising a platinum in HER2-negative primary operable breast cancer. [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 P3-07-13.