Citations

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.

Abstract The discovery of immune checkpoint blockades have resulted in significant clinical benefits for patients with metastatic cancers including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, a large proportion of patients do not respond to such therapy. Strategies to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of cancer immunotherapy among a larger group of patients are urgently needed. Increasing the recognition of cancer cells by immune system may enhance response to immunotherapies. Tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) is the most abundant immune cell in most solid tumors, and is critical in bridging innate and adaptive immune system functions. Cancer cells overexpress multiple immune suppressive molecules including phosphatidylserine (PS) to inhibit immunological functions of TAMs. PS expression can be enhanced by cancer therapeutics such as radiation to induce immune suppression. Our results show that radiation increased expression of PS on lung cancer cells. The combination of PS blocking antibody with radiation decreased immune-suppressive phagocytosis and enhanced antigen presentation of macrophages. In murine lung cancer models, combination treatment of PS blockade and chemoradiation more effectively controlled tumor growth and prolonged survival than each treatment used alone. In a bilateral lung cancer tumor model, addition of PS blockade to chemoradiation promoted cytotoxic T cell infiltration and induced tumor growth inhibition of the non-irradiated tumors. Together, our results demonstrate that PS-targeting antibodies may be combined with chemoradiation to enhance intrinsic tumor immunogenicity and activate systemic anti-tumor immune responses. This approach may provide new routes for improving the efficacy of modern immunotherapeutics. Citation Format: Yifan Wang, Zhigang Liu, Weiye Deng, Betty Y. Kim, Steven H. Lin, Wen Jiang. Phosphatidylserine-targeting antibody combined with chemoradiation enhances systemtic anti-tumor immunity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 530.

AbstractAccurate pathologic diagnoses and molecularly informed treatment decisions for a wide variety of cancers depend on robust clinical molecular testing that uses genomic, epigenomic, and transcriptomic-based tools. Nowhere is this more essential than in the workup of brain tumors, as emphasized by the incorporation of molecular criteria into the 2016 World Health Organization classification of central nervous system tumors and the updated official guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Despite the medical necessity of molecular testing in brain tumors, access to and utilization of molecular diagnostics is still highly variable across institutions, and a lack of reimbursement for such testing remains a significant obstacle. The objectives of this review are (i) to identify barriers to adoption of molecular testing in brain tumors, (ii) to describe the current molecular tools recommended for the clinical evaluation of brain tumors, and (iii) to summarize how molecular data are interpreted to guide clinical care, so as to improve understanding and justification for their coverage in the routine workup of adult and pediatric brain tumor cases.

Abstract Understanding the biological functions of tau variants can illuminate differential etiologies of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and primary tauopathies. Though the end-stage neuropathological attributes of AD and primary tauopathies are similar, the etiology and behavioral outcomes of these diseases follow unique and divergent trajectories. To study the divergent physiological properties of tau variants on a uniform immunogenetic background, we created somatic transgenesis CNS models of tauopathy utilizing neonatal delivery of adeno-associated viruses expressing wild-type (WT) or mutant tau in non-transgenic mice. We selected four different tau variants—WT tau associated with AD, P301L mutant tau associated with frontotemporal dementia (FTD), S320F mutant tau associated with Pick’s disease and a combinatorial approach using P301L/S320F mutant tau. CNS-targeted expression of WT and P301L mutant tau results in robust tau hyperphosphorylation without tangle pathology, gradually developing age-progressive memory deficits. In contrast, the S320F variant, especially in combination with P301L, produces an AD-type tangle pathology, focal neuroinflammation and memory impairment on an accelerated time scale. Using the doubly mutated P301L/S320F tau variant, we demonstrate that combining different mutations can have an additive effect on neuropathologies and associated co-morbidities, possibly hinting at involvement of unique functional pathways. Importantly, we also show that overexpression of wild-type tau as well as an FTD-associated tau variant can lead to cognitive deficits even in the absence of tangles. Together, our data highlights the synergistic neuropathologies and associated cognitive and synaptic alterations of the combinatorial tau variant leading to a robust model of tauopathy.

Background:Mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) occur in ∼4% of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and have been linked with increased transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (IVO; AG‐120) is an oral, potent, targeted inhibitor of the mutant IDH1 protein (mIDH1) that is approved for the treatment of adults with mIDH1 relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML. Through inhibition of mIDH1, IVO suppresses production of the oncometabolite 2‐hydroxyglutarate, leading to clinical responses via differentiation of malignant cells.Aims:To report safety and efficacy data from patients with R/R MDS enrolled in the first‐in‐human, phase 1, dose escalation and expansion study of IVO in patients with mIDH1 advanced hematologic malignancies (NCT02074839).Methods:This ongoing study is evaluating the safety, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of IVO. Enrollment was completed on May 8, 2017. In dose escalation, patients received single‐agent IVO orally (dose range, 200–1200 mg daily) in 28‐day cycles. The MTD was not reached and 500 mg QD was selected as the dose for expansion. The overall response rate (ORR) for MDS was defined as complete remission (CR) + partial remission + marrow CR (mCR) according to International Working Group 2006 criteria for MDS. Exploratory biomarker assessments included baseline co‐occurring mutations (next‐generation sequencing panel for hematologic malignancies) and mIDH1 variant allele frequency (VAF) in bone marrow mononuclear cells (BEAMing Digital PCR; lower limit of detection for mIDH1, 0.02–0.04%).Results:Baseline characteristics of the 12 patients with R/R MDS who received 500 mg IVO once daily were: 9 men/3 women; median age 72.5 years (range 52–78), and 42% were ≥75 years of age; median number of prior therapies 1 (range 1–3). As of Nov 2, 2018, 3 of 12 (25.0%) patients remained on treatment; 9 (75.0%) had discontinued (one for allogeneic stem cell transplantation). Median duration of exposure to IVO was 11.4 months (range 3.3–42.5). Adverse events (AEs) of any grade, irrespective of causality, occurring in ≥20% of the 12 patients were diarrhea, fatigue, back pain, rash (n = 4 each, 33.3%), anemia, urinary tract infection, decreased appetite, hypokalemia, arthralgia, dyspnea, pruritus, and hypotension (n = 3 each, 25.0%). No AEs led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. IDH differentiation syndrome was observed in 1 of 12 (8.3%) patients (grade 2). Electrocardiogram QT prolonged was reported in 2 of 12 patients (17%; grade 1 in 1 patient and grade 2 in 1 patient). Five of 12 patients achieved CR (41.7%; 95% CI 15.2%, 72.3%), 1 achieved PR (8.3%), and 5 achieved mCR (41.7%), resulting in an ORR of 91.7% (95% CI 61.5%, 99.8%). The median duration of CR was not estimable (NE) at the time of datacutoff and the median duration of response was 21.4 months (95% CI 2.3, NE). At 12 months, 60.0% of patients remained in CR. Among 5 patients who were transfusion dependent at baseline, 4 became transfusion independent for ≥56 consecutive days on treatment. Baseline co‐occurring mutations and changes in mIDH1 VAF levels will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:In patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS, IVO monotherapy was well tolerated and induced durable remissions and transfusion independence. These findings support the role of IVO as an effective, oral, targeted treatment for patients with mIDH1 R/R MDS.

Background:Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL‐2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in malignant cells dependent on BCL‐2 for survival. Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and dexamethasone (d) were shown to increase BCL‐2 dependence in multiple myeloma (MM) cells, and preclinical studies showed enhanced inhibition of MM tumor growth with Ven+PI compared to either alone. Moreover, d has been shown to indirectly promote BCL‐2 dependency in MM cells. Clinical trials have since demonstrated efficacy of Ven in combination with the PI bortezomib in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM).Aims:We report interim data for Ven combined with second‐generation PI carfilzomib (K) and d in pts with RRMM.Methods:In this ongoing Phase 2 study (NCT02899052), pts with RRMM (1–3 prior lines of therapy) and no prior K exposure received VenKd on 28‐day cycles in 4 dose‐finding and 1 expansion cohort: Ven 400 mg/day + K 27 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + d 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 1); same regimen but with Ven 800 mg/day (Cohort 2); Ven 800 mg/day + K 70 mg/m2 Day 1, 8, 15 + d 40 mg Day 1, 8, 15, 22 (Cohort 3/expansion cohort); or Ven 800 mg + K 56 mg/m2 Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 + d 40 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23 (Cohort 4). Treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.Results:As of the clinical data cut‐off of 1 Feb 2019, 43 pts were enrolled. Median age was 67 (range, 37–79), 26 (62%) pts had ISS II/III disease, and 8 (19%) were t (11;14)+. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (range, 1–3). Forty (93%) pts received prior PI (49% refractory), 33 (77%) received prior immunomodulatory drug (IMiD, 61% refractory), and 33 (77%) received prior PI+IMiD (33% double refractory).All pts had at least 1 adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade were diarrhea (65%), nausea (49%), fatigue (47%), cough (35%), insomnia, dyspnea, vomiting, upper respiratory infection (33% each), lymphopenia (28%), thrombocytopenia, and dyspepsia (26% each). Thirty‐six (84%) pts had a Grade 3/4 AE, the most common being lymphopenia (23%), pneumonia, hypertension (16% each), and hypophosphatemia (12%).The overall response rate (ORR) was 79%, complete response or better (≥CR) rate was 40%, and very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) rate was 64% for all pts (Table). Median follow‐up for 42 pts was 10.4 months (95% CI = 8.0–13.8); 15 pts had progression‐free survival (PFS) events, with median PFS yet to be achieved. Baseline bone marrow core biopsy samples from 25 pts were evaluated for BCL‐2 expression by immunohistochemistry, with high expression (≥50% of tumor cells with moderate or higher cytoplasmic staining) seen in 23 (92%) samples. Pts with high BCL‐2 expression had response rates similar to the overall study population. Other correlative biomarker analyses are ongoing.Summary/Conclusion:The combination of VenKd was found to be tolerable with no new safety signals. VenKd demonstrates promising efficacy in pts with RRMM. The study remains ongoing with an additional 60 pts with RRMM enrolling to assess efficacy and safety in a larger group of pts with similar eligibility (Cohort 6) and t (11;14)+ pts (Cohort 7).image

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.