Citations

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 <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.

Abstract Background: Patients achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy have significantly improved event-free survival relative to those who do not; and pCR is an FDA-accepted endpoint to support accelerated approval of novel agents/combinations in the neoadjuvant treatment of high risk early stage breast cancer. Previous studies have shown that recurrence risk increased with increasing burden of residual disease (as assessed by the RCB index). As well, these studies suggest that patients with minimum residual disease (RCB-I class) also have favorable outcomes (comparable to those achieving a pCR) within high risk tumor subtypes. In this study, we assess whether integrating RCB with MRI functional tumor volume (FTV), which in itself is prognostic, can improve prediction of distant recurrence free survival (DRFS); and identify a subset of patients with minimal residual disease with comparable DRFS as those who achieved a pCR. Imaging tools can then be used to identify the subset that will do well early and guide the timing of surgical therapy. Method: We performed a pooled analysis of 596 patients from the I-SPY2 TRIAL with RCB, pre-surgical MRI FTV data and known follow-up (median 2.5 years). We first assessed whether FTV predicts residual disease (pCR or pCR/RCB-I) using ROC analysis. We applied a power transformation to normalize the pre-surgical FTV distribution; and assessed its association with DRFS using a bi-variate Cox proportional hazard model adjusting for HR/HER2 subtype. We also fitted a bivariate Cox model of RCB index adjusting for subtype; and assessed whether adding pre-surgical FTV to this model further improves association with DRFS using a likelihood ratio (LR) test. For the Cox modeling, penalized splines approximation of the transformed FTV and RCB index with 2 degrees of freedom was used to allow for non-linear effects of FTV and RCB on DRFS. Result: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is significantly associated with DRFS (Wald p<0.00001), and more effective at predicting pCR/RCB-I than predicting pCR alone (AUC: 0.72 vs. 0.65). Larger pre-surgical FTV remains associated with worse DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p <0.00001). The RCB index is also significantly associated with DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p<0.00001). Adding FTV to a model containing RCB and subtype further improves association with DRFS (LR p=0.0007). RCB-I patients have excellent DRFS (94% at 3 years compared to 95% in the pCR group). Efforts are underway to identify an optimal threshold for dichotomizing pre-surgical FTV and FTV change measures for use in combination with pCR/RCB-I class to generate integrated RCB (iRCB) groups as a composite predictor of DRFS. Conclusion: Pre-surgical MRI FTV is effective at predicting minimal residual disease (RCB0/I) in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Despite the association between FTV and RCB, FTV appears to provide independent added prognostic value (to RCB and subtype), suggesting that integrating MRI volume measures and RCB into a composite predictor may improve DRFS prediction. Citation Format: Hylton NM, Symmans WF, Yau C, Li W, Hatzis C, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chen Y-Y, Krings G, Wei S, Harada S, Datnow B, Fadare O, Klein M, Pambuccian S, Chen B, Adamson K, Sams S, Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Magliocco A, Feldman M, Rendi M, Sattar H, Zeck J, Ocal I, Tawfik O, Grasso LeBeau L, Sahoo S, Vinh T, Yang S, Adams A, Chien AJ, Ferero-Torres A, Stringer-Reasor E, Wallace A, Boughey JC, Ellis ED, Elias AD, Lang JE, Lu J, Han HS, Clark AS, Korde L, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Khan QJ, Viscusi RK, Euhus DM, Edmiston KK, Chui SY, Kemmer K, Wood WC, Park JW, Liu MC, Olopade O, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, Haugen PK, van't Veer LJ, Perlmutter J, Melisko ME, Wilson A, Peterson G, Asare AL, Buxton MB, Paoloni M, Clennell JL, Hirst GL, Singhrao R, Steeg K, Matthews JB, Sanil A, Berry SM, Abe H, Wolverton D, Crane EP, Ward KA, Nelson M, Niell BL, Oh K, Brandt KR, Bang DH, Ojeda-Fournier H, Eghtedari M, Sheth PA, Bernreuter WK, Umphrey H, Rosen MA, Dogan B, Yang W, Joe B, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Yee D, Pusztai L, DeMichele A, Asare SM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Refining neoadjuvant predictors of three year distant metastasis free survival: Integrating volume change as measured by MRI with residual cancer burden [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 P2-07-03.

PURPOSE Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common ( P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

AbstractBackgroundCompletion lymph node dissection (CLND) for sentinel lymph node (SLN) disease in melanoma patients is debated. We evaluated the impact of CLND on survival and assessed for predictors of nonsentinel node metastasis (positive CLND).MethodsPositive SLN melanoma patients were retrospectively identified in the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database. Clinicopathological factors were correlated with CLND status, overall survival (OS), and melanoma‐specific survival (MSS).ResultsThere were 953 positive SLN patients of whom 831 (87%) had CLND. Positive CLND was seen in 141 (17%) cases and was associated with worse OS and MSS (both P < 0.001). CLND was not performed (No‐CLND) in 122 of 953 positive SLN cases (13%), of whom 100 had follow‐up and 18 (18%) developed a nodal recurrence (NR). No significant differences in OS and MSS were seen comparing CLND with No‐CLND (P = 0.084, P = 0.161, respectively) and comparing positive CLND with No‐CLND NR patients (P = 0.565, P = 0.998, respectively). Gender, primary site, ulceration, and number of positive SLNs were correlated with nonsentinel node metastasis.ConclusionsPerformance of CLND provides prognostic information but is not associated with a survival benefit. Clinical variables can predict a positive CLND in patients who may be at high risk of recurrence.

Cells establish and sustain structural and functional integrity of the genome to support cellular identity and prevent malignant transformation. In this review, we present a strategic overview of epigenetic regulatory mechanisms including histone modifications and higher order chromatin organization (HCO) that are perturbed in breast cancer onset and progression. Implications for dysfunctions that occur in hormone regulation, cell cycle control, and mitotic bookmarking in breast cancer are considered, with an emphasis on epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cell activities. The architectural organization of regulatory machinery is addressed within the contexts of translating cancer‐compromised genomic organization to advances in breast cancer risk assessment, diagnosis, prognosis, and identification of novel therapeutic targets with high specificity and minimal off target effects.