Tan, Antoinette R.

Importance Use of modern neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens has markedly increased rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast cancer, raising the question of whether surgical removal of the primary tumor is required for patients with pCR. For surgery to be omitted, one must be able to accurately predict pCR before surgery. Objective To investigate if adding post-NAC core needle biopsy of the tumor bed to trimodality imaging in patients who have clinical complete response (cCR) will predict pCR (resolution of both invasive disease and ductal carcinoma in situ) in 90% or more cases. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a phase 2, prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial. Patients were enrolled from August 2017 to June 2019. This is the final analysis, which was completed in December 2023. The setting included academic and community hospital center members of NRG (ie, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and the Gynecologic Oncology Group) in the US and Canada. Patients with operable (T1-T3, stage I-III) invasive ductal carcinoma who completed NAC and achieved cCR and radiological complete response (rCR) or near rCR by mammography (mass ≤1 cm and no malignant microcalcifications), ultrasound (mass ≤2 cm), and magnetic resonance imaging (no mass with rapid rise or washout kinetics). Interventions Patients underwent marker-directed stereotactic multiple-core needle biopsy of the tumor bed with marker placement before breast-conservation surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures End points were negative predictive value (NPV) and sensitivity of the biopsy. Results A total of 105 patients were enrolled with 101 evaluable (mean [SD] age, 52.8 [10.5] years); 77 patients (76.2%) were younger than 60 years, and all breast cancer subtypes were represented with 32 (31.7%) triple-negative breast cancer, 21 (20.8%) hormone receptor–positive/epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ( ERBB2 ; formerly HER2 )–negative ( ERBB2 −) breast cancer, and 46 (45.5%) ERBB2 -positive ( ERBB2 +) breast cancer. In 101 evaluable patients, 36 had residual disease at surgery (pCR = 64%). With imaging criteria, NPV of the biopsy was 78.3% (95% CI, 67.9%-86.6%), and the sensitivity of the biopsy was 50% (95% CI, 32.9%-67.1%). In an exploratory subset analysis, the NPV in patients with ERBB2 + breast cancer was 90% (95% CI, 76.3%-97.2%). On retrospective central review, 62 of 101 enrolled patients met imaging eligibility criteria. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, NPV in these patients was 86.8% (95% CI, 74.7%-94.5%). Conclusions and Relevance These findings do not support breast conservation treatment without surgery based on the study criteria for cCR and rCR/near rCR by trimodality imaging and negative tumor-bed biopsy. Strict adherence to imaging criteria may be required to achieve acceptable predictive values. TRIAL Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03188393

e12641 Background: Many promising agents or combinations regimens relevant to breast cancer lack sufficient clinical information for use in the neoadjuvant setting. To enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost of clinical trial planning and conduct, the Phase I initiative PRE-ISPY Program was created. Methods: The PRE-ISPY Program is built within the I-SPY network, with the overall aim to streamline the regulatory pathway and the processes of trial design, contracting, activation, enrollment, execution, data gathering and analysis, as well as reporting of new therapeutic agents or combinations of relevance to breast cancer. Results: The PRE-ISPY trial is an open-label platform phase IB study designed to evaluate compelling single agent or combination regimens with the overall goal of moving promising drug regimens into I-SPY2 Trial and/or into other oncology-based trials in a timely manner. Graduation of a PRE-ISPY regimen to I-SPY2 is not mandatory. The primary objectives in each study Arm are to determine safety and to obtain preliminary efficacy data of the new regimen in patients with metastatic cancer, including a cohort of breast cancer patients. Each Arm may contain a Part 1 (dose finding) and a Part 2 (dose expansion). The new treatment can be tested also in patients with other solid malignancies than breast cancer, in which the treatment may be applicable, as specified in the design of the Arm. A breast cancer specific cohort is required in Part 2. Candidate treatment regimens are selected with advice from the I-SPY2 Agent Selection Working Group. The PRE-ISPY/Phase IB trial has multiple ongoing drug regimen Arms subsequently added as new protocol appendices through amendments to a Master protocol. There is no randomization; participants are enrolled, and treatment selected according to the relevance of therapy to their disease. Prospective companion biomarkers are evaluated. The current arms under study are PRE1: ALX-148 combined with trastuzumab deruxtecan; PRE2: tucatinib combined with zanidatamab; and PRE3: vidutolimod combined with cemiplimab. Selected agents or therapeutic combinations are tested through this protocol in the I-SPY Network Centers that participate in the PRE-ISPY Program. Toxicities are graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Clinical responses are evaluated based on RECIST v1.1 criteria. Conclusions: Once safety is established, promising regimens can be rapidly transitioned to I-SPY 2.2 or other phase 2/3 trials. The first patient was enrolled on 2/1/2023. Clinical trial information: NCT05868226 .

Abstract Background: Data supporting high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) as a lone biomarker for an immune responsive tumor microenvironment (TME) or of response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is weak; yet the tumor agnostic approval in TMB-H advanced tumors makes ICI an option in the clinic. PDL-1 positivity (PDL-1+) is the only consistent biomarker for ICI benefit in metastatic triple-negative BC (mTNBC). We sought to further evaluate concurrent predictors of an immune responsive or non-responsive TME within TMB-H MBC. Methods: Tumor samples (N=5621) obtained from patients with MBC were analyzed by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of DNA (592-gene panel or whole exome sequencing) and RNA (whole transcriptome sequencing) at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project (Merino et al., 2020) recommendations, with the TMB-H threshold set to ≥ 10 muts/Mb, were used. PDL-1+ (≥1% immune cells stained) assessed by IHC (Ventana SP142). Deficient-mismatch repair (dMMR) and high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) were determined by IHC and NGS, respectively. Gene expression profiling assessed 21 immune-related signatures and TMEs using MCP-counter (Betch et al., 2016) and quanTIseq (Finotello et al., 2019). Immune cell types were classified as immune-responsive (CD8+ and CD4+ T cells, B cells, myeloid dendritic cells, M1 macrophages, NK cells, and neutrophils) or non-responsive (Tregs, M2 macrophages, and monocytes). P-values adjusted by the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Exploratory p-values reported for sub-analyses of TMB-H responsive vs nonresponsive TME and PDL1+ vs PDL1- subgroups. Results: TMB-H was identified in 461/5621 (8.2%) MBC samples. TMB-H tumors exhibit significant enrichment of dMMR/MSI-H (7 vs 0%, p<0.0001) and IHC-PDL1+ (36 vs 28%, p<0.05) compared to TMB-L. TMB-H was not associated with increased abundance or proportion of immune responsive cell types or immune response gene signatures (e.g. antigen presentation), yet positive trends were observed. To identify predictive biomarkers of immune responsive (hot) or non-responsive (cold) TME profiles within TMB-H MBC, we generated a composite TME score representing the overall proportion of hot vs cold immune cell types. APOBEC mutagenesis was common in TMB-H tumors (72%) and was more frequently associated with an immune cold TME (77 vs 66% in hot TME subgroup, p=0.068). Within TMB-H tumors, cold TMEs were enriched with mutations (muts) in PIK3CA (61 vs 47%), CHEK2 (5 vs 0%), CBFB (4 vs 0%), amplifications (amp) of CCND1 (13 vs 4%), FGF19 (16 vs 5%), FGF4 (11 vs 4%), and MMLT6 (6 vs 0%), and expression of IHC-AR (75 vs 58%) compared to hot TMEs (all p<0.05). Hot TMEs had increased frequency of MSI-H (12 vs 5%) and KMT2D muts (12 vs 3%) compared to cold TMEs (all p<0.05). Amongst TMB-H and TMB-L tumors, PDL1+ was significantly associated with increased proportion of immune responsive cell types (ie CD8+) compared to PDL1- tumors (0.14 vs -0.08 TME score, p<0.0001). Comparison of TMB-H tumors by PDL1 status revealed enrichment of TP53 (67 vs 53%) and B2M (8 vs 0%) muts in PDL1+ tumors, while IHC-ER positivity (68 vs 54%) and CDH1 muts (32 vs 16%) were increased in PDL1- tumors (all p<0.05). Conclusions: High TMB alone does not strongly correlate with immune infiltrate or immune response gene signatures in MBC. Within TMB-H MBC, concurrent mutations in MSI-H and KMT2D are associated with an immune responsive TME while mutations in PIK3CA, CHEK2, CBFB, amplifications of CCND1, FGF19, FGF4, and MMLT6, and expression of IHC-AR are associated with an immune non-responsive TME. Co-occurring biomarkers within TMB-H breast cancer warrant evaluation in prospective cohorts for response or resistance to ICI to help develop composite biomarkers in breast cancer. Citation Format: Sarah Sammons, Andrew Elliott, Jeremy Force, Saranya Chumsri, Carey Anders, Antoinette R Tan, Daniel Magee, Jia Zeng, W. Michael Korn, Mustafa Kahsraw, Evanthia T Roussos Torres. Concurrent predictors of an immune responsive tumor microenvironment within tumor mutational burden-high breast cancer [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 P2-08-08.

Abstract Background: Patients with previously untreated mTNBC typically receive cytotoxic chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic disease. However, efficacy and safety are suboptimal. KEYNOTE-086 (NCT02447003) is a multicohort, single-arm, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab monotherapy for mTNBC. In cohort B, we assessed the safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC. Methods: Key eligibility criteria for cohort B were age ≥18 y, centrally confirmed TNBC, no prior systemic anticancer therapy for metastatic disease, ECOG performance status 0-1, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1 by central review, no radiographic evidence of brain metastases, and a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1. Pembrolizumab 200 mg was given once every 3 wk for 24 mo or until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or investigator or patient decision. Tumor imaging was performed every 9 wk for 12 mo and every 12 wk thereafter. Clinically stable patients with radiologic progression could remain on pembrolizumab until progression was confirmed on subsequent assessment. Primary end point was safety. Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response, and PFS (all RECIST v1.1 by central review) and OS. Results: Of the 206 patients with tumors evaluable for PD-L1 expression, 128 (62%) had PD-L1 CPS ≥1. Of these, 84 met all eligibility criteria and enrolled. All patients were women, median age was 52.5 y, 29 (35%) had ECOG PS 1, 40 (48%) had elevated LDH, 55 (65%) had visceral ± nonvisceral metastases, and 73 (87%) received prior (neo)adjuvant therapy. All patients received ≥1 pembrolizumab dose, and after median follow-up of 10.6 mo, 18 (21%) remained on pembrolizumab. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 53 (63%) patients and were of grade 3-4 severity in 7 (8%); no patients died or discontinued pembrolizumab because of treatment-related AEs. The most common treatment-related AEs were fatigue (26%), nausea (13%), and diarrhea (12%). No grade 3-4 treatment-related AE occurred in >1 patient. The most common immune-mediated AE was hypothyroidism (10%). Three patients had complete response and 16 had partial response for an ORR of 23% (95% CI 15-33). Of the 11 patients with a best response of stable disease, 1 had stable disease for ≥24 wk, leading to a disease control rate of 24% (95% CI 16-34). 12 of 19 (63%) responses were ongoing at data cutoff, and median duration of response was 8.4 mo (range 2.1+ to 13.9+). Median PFS was 2.1 mo (95% CI 2.0-2.2), with an estimated 6-mo PFS rate of 26%. Median OS was 16.1 mo (95% CI 11.3-NR), with an estimated 6-mo OS rate of 83%. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab monotherapy continues to demonstrate a favorable safety profile and robust, durable antitumor activity in patients with PD-L1-positive, previously untreated mTNBC. Citation Format: Adams S, Loi S, Toppmeyer DL, Cescon DW, De Laurentiis M, Nanda R, Winer EP, Mukai H, Tamura K, Armstrong AC, Liu MC, Iwata H, Ryvo L, Wimberger P, Rugo HS, Tan A, D'Aquanno C, Ding Y, Karantza V, Schmid P. KEYNOTE-086 cohort B: Pembrolizumab monotherapy for PD-L1–positive, previously untreated, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) [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 PD6-10.