Silverman, Paula

PURPOSE Distant metastases are present in 6% or more of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. In this context, locoregional therapy for the intact primary tumor has been hypothesized to improve overall survival (OS), but clinical trials have reported conflicting results. METHODS Women presenting with metastatic breast cancer and an intact primary tumor received systemic therapy for 4-8 months; if no disease progression occurred, they were randomly assigned to locoregional therapy for the primary site (surgery and radiotherapy per standards for nonmetastatic disease) or continuing sysmetic therapy. The primary end point was OS; locoregional control and quality of life were secondary end points. The trial design provided 85% power to detect a 19.3% absolute difference in the 3-year OS rate in randomly assigned patients. The stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model were used to compare OS between arms. Cumulative incidence of locoregional progression was compared using Gray's test. Quality-of-life assessment used standard instruments. RESULTS Of 390 participants enrolled, 256 were randomly assigned: 131 to continued systemic therapy and 125 to early locoregional therapy. The 3-year OS was 67.9% without and 68.4% with early locoregional therapy (hazard ratio = 1.11; 90% CI, 0.82 to 1.52; P = .57). The median OS was 53.1 months (95% CI, 47.9 to not estimable) in the systemic therapy arm and 54.9 months (95% CI, 46.7 to not estimable) in the locoregional therapy arm. Locoregional progression was less frequent in those randomly assigned to locoregional therapy (3-year rate: 16.3% v 39.8%; P < .001). Quality-of-life measures were largely similar between arms. CONCLUSION Early locoregional therapy for the primary site did not improve survival in patients presenting with metastatic breast cancer. Although it was associated with improved locoregional control, this had no overall impact on quality of life.

Abstract Purpose: This open-label, multicenter, phase IB/II study evaluated sapanisertib, a dual inhibitor of mTOR kinase complexes 1/2, plus exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2−) advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had previously progressed on everolimus with exemestane/fulvestrant and received ≤3 (phase IB) or ≤1 (phase II) prior chemotherapy regimens. Patients received sapanisertib 3 to 5 mg every day (phase IB), or 4 mg every day (phase II) with exemestane 25 mg every day or fulvestrant 500 mg monthly in 28-day cycles. Phase II enrolled parallel cohorts based on prior response to everolimus. The primary objective of phase II was to evaluate antitumor activity by clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks (CBR-16). Results: Overall, 118 patients enrolled in phase IB (n = 24) and II (n = 94). Five patients in phase IB experienced dose-limiting toxicities, at sapanisertib doses of 5 mg every day (n = 4) and 4 mg every day (n = 1); sapanisertib 4 mg every day was the MTD in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant. In phase II, in everolimus-sensitive versus everolimus-resistant cohorts, CBR-16 was 45% versus 23%, and overall response rate was 8% versus 2%, respectively. The most common adverse events were nausea (52%), fatigue (47%), diarrhea (37%), and hyperglycemia (33%); rash occurred in 17% of patients. Molecular analysis suggested positive association between AKT1 mutation status and best treatment response (complete + partial response; P = 0.0262). Conclusions: Sapanisertib plus exemestane or fulvestrant was well tolerated and exhibited clinical benefit in postmenopausal women with pretreated everolimus-sensitive or everolimus-resistant breast cancer.

LBA2 Background: About 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with Stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor (IPT). Locoregional treatment (LRT) for the IPT is hypothesized to improve survival based on retrospective analyses, but randomized trials have provided conflicting data. We now report the results of E2108, a Phase 3 trial that examined the worth of LRT for the IPT following initial systemic therapy. Methods: Stage IV patients with IPT were registered, treated with optimal systemic therapy (OST) based on patient and tumor characteristics; those who did not progress during 4-8 months of OST were randomized to LRT for the IPT, or no LRT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with locoregional disease control as a secondary endpoint. Stratified log rank test and Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare OS between treatment groups. Cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence/progression was estimated and Gray test was used for treatment group comparisons. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in 3 year OS rate from 30% with OST alone to 49.3% for OST+LRT (power 95%, 1-sided alpha 0.05) with full information expected after 152 deaths; the data monitoring committee recommended data release after 80% of full information. Results: 390 patients were enrolled between 2/8/11 and 7/23/15, and received OST. Of these, 256 eligible patients were randomized to either continued OST alone (N = 131) or OST+LRT (N = 125).There were 121 deaths and 43 locoregional progression events after a median follow up 59 months (range: 0-91). There was no significant difference in OS (3-year OS rate 68.4% in OST+LRT vs. 67.9% OST alone arm, stratified log-rank p = 0.63, HR = 1.09, 90% CI: 0.80, 1.49) or in progression-free survival (p = 0.40). The locoregional recurrence/progression was significantly higher in the OST alone arm (3-year rate 25.6% vs 10.2%, Gray test p = 0.003). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by FACT-B Trial Outcome Index was significantly worse in the OST+LRT arm than OST alone arm at 18 months post randomization (60% completion, Wilcoxon rank sum test p = 0.01), but no difference was observed at time points 6 months (74% completion) or 30 months (56% completion). Conclusions: Early local therapy does not improve survival in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer and an IPT. Although there was a 2.5-fold higher risk of local disease progression without LRT, LRT of the IPT did not lead to improved HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT01242800 .

Abstract Background: TAK-228 is an investigational, oral and highly selective ATP-competitive inhibitor of TORC1/2. Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway with the dual TORC1/2 inhibitor TAK-228 may restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies in patients (pts) with breast cancer who have progressed on the combination of an endocrine agent plus a TORC1 inhibitor. Here we report data from the phase 2 portion of a phase 1b/2 study of TAK-228 plus exemestane (E) or fulvestrant (F). Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER+ and HER2-, inoperable or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) following everolimus (EVE) plus E or F after progression, received oral TAK-228 (4 mg QD) plus E (25 mg QD) or F (500 mg monthly) for 28-day cycles until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity (NCT02049957). Pts were enrolled into parallel cohorts based on prior response to EVE plus E or F and were given the same prior therapy (E or F) at their established dose: EVE-sensitive, defined as disease progression after complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or ≥6 mos stable disease (SD); or EVE-resistant, defined as disease progression without a CR or PR, or after &lt;6 mos SD. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate at 16 wks (CR, PR, or SD at 16 wks; CBR-16). Secondary endpoints included CBR at 24 wks (CBR-24), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: From Oct 2015 to Dec 2017, 94 pts were enrolled. Median age was 58 y (range 32–83). At baseline, most pts (67%) had stage IV disease and others were stage IA–IIIC (24%), other (3%) or unknown (5%); 94% of EVE-sensitive (93% E vs 100% F) and 88% of EVE-resistant pts (91% E vs 75% F) had received ≥4 prior lines of therapy. Pts received a median of 3 cycles (1–15) of TAK-228. At data cutoff (24 Apr 2018), 98% of pts had discontinued treatment, mainly due to PD (76%) or adverse events (AEs; 14%). CBR-16 was 41% (n=21) in EVE-sensitive and 26% (n=11) in EVE-resistant pts (table). CBR-24 was 24% in EVE-sensitive (19% E vs 50% F) and 23% in EVE-resistant (23% E vs 25% F) pts. Eleven of 21 pts who achieved CBR-16 also achieved CBR-24 (6 SD, 5 PR) in the EVE-sensitive cohort and 8 of 11 pts in the EVE-resistant cohort (6 SD, 2 PR). The ORR was 12% in EVE-sensitive pts and 9% in EVE-resistant pts (table). Median PFS (95% CI) was 4.1 mos (2.2–5.5) and 3.4 mos (1.9–5.4), and median OS (95% CI) was 15.9 mos (14.1–19.5) and 14.0 mos (13.0–16.0) in the EVE-sensitive and -resistant cohorts, respectively. Drug-related any grade and grade ≥3 AEs were seen in 90% and 29% of pts, respectively. Most common drug-related any grade AEs were nausea (50%), fatigue (38%), hyperglycemia and diarrhea (each 29%); 22% of pts reported a serious AE. No deaths were reported. Treatment is ongoing in two pts. Conclusion: TAK-228 plus E or F showed modest clinical benefit in pts with previously treated, EVE-sensitive or -resistant MBC, with an acceptable safety profile. EVE-sensitive (N=51)EVE-resistant (N=43) TAK-228+TAK-228+Best response, n (%)E (n=43)F (n=8)E (n=35)F (n=8)ORR=CR+PR4 (9)2 (25)3 (9)1 (13)CR001 (3)0PR4 (9)2 (25)2 (6)1 (13)CBR-1617 (40)4 (50)9 (26)2 (25) Citation Format: Diamond JR, Potter D, Salkeni M, Silverman P, Haddad T, Forget F, Awada A, Canon J-L, Danso M, Lortholary A, Bourgeois H, Tan-Chiu E, Patel C, Neuwirth R, Leonard EJ, Lim B. Phase 2 safety and efficacy results of TAK-228 in combination with exemestane or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with everolimus [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-09.

Purpose To determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in estrogen receptor (ER) –positive primary breast cancer triaged to chemotherapy when the protein encoded by the MKI67 gene (Ki67) level was > 10% after 2 to 4 weeks of neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. A second objective was to examine risk of relapse using the Ki67-based Preoperative Endocrine Prognostic Index (PEPI). Methods The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1031A trial enrolled postmenopausal women with stage II or III ER-positive (Allred score, 6 to 8) breast cancer whose treatment was randomly assigned to neoadjuvant AI therapy with anastrozole, exemestane, or letrozole. For the trial ACOSOG Z1031B, the protocol was amended to include a tumor Ki67 determination after 2 to 4 weeks of AI. If the Ki67 was > 10%, patients were switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A pCR rate of > 20% was the predefined efficacy threshold. In patients who completed neoadjuvant AI, stratified Cox modeling was used to assess whether time to recurrence differed by PEPI = 0 score (T1 or T2, N0, Ki67 < 2.7%, ER Allred > 2) versus PEPI > 0 disease. Results Only two of the 35 patients in ACOSOG Z1031B who were switched to neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced a pCR (5.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 19.1%). After 5.5 years of median follow-up, four (3.7%) of the 109 patients with a PEPI = 0 score relapsed versus 49 (14.4%) of 341 of patients with PEPI > 0 (recurrence hazard ratio [PEPI = 0 v PEPI > 0], 0.27; P = .014; 95% CI, 0.092 to 0.764). Conclusion Chemotherapy efficacy was lower than expected in ER-positive tumors exhibiting AI-resistant proliferation. The optimal therapy for these patients should be further investigated. For patients with PEPI = 0 disease, the relapse risk over 5 years was only 3.6% without chemotherapy, supporting the study of adjuvant endocrine monotherapy in this group. These Ki67 and PEPI triage approaches are being definitively studied in the ALTERNATE trial (Alternate Approaches for Clinical Stage II or III Estrogen Receptor Positive Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Treatment in Postmenopausal Women: A Phase III Study; clinical trial information: NCT01953588).