Citations

PURPOSEThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.PATIENTS AND METHODSI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.RESULTSMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).CONCLUSIONThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

PURPOSE Despite reported widespread use of dietary supplements during cancer treatment, few empirical data with regard to their safety or efficacy exist. Because of concerns that some supplements, particularly antioxidants, could reduce the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy, we conducted a prospective study ancillary to a therapeutic trial to evaluate associations between supplement use and breast cancer outcomes. METHODS Patients with breast cancer randomly assigned to an intergroup metronomic trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and paclitaxel were queried on their use of supplements at registration and during treatment (n =1,134). Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for clinical and lifestyle variables was used. Recurrence and survival were indexed at 6 months after enrollment using a landmark approach. RESULTS There were indications that use of any antioxidant supplement (vitamins A, C, and E; carotenoids; coenzyme Q10) both before and during treatment was associated with an increased hazard of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR], 1.41; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.04; P = .06) and, to a lesser extent, death (adjHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 2.18; P = .14). Relationships with individual antioxidants were weaker perhaps because of small numbers. For nonantioxidants, vitamin B12 use both before and during chemotherapy was significantly associated with poorer disease-free survival (adjHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.92; P < .01) and overall survival (adjHR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.22 to 3.40; P < .01). Use of iron during chemotherapy was significantly associated with recurrence (adjHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.67; P < .01) as was use both before and during treatment (adjHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.98 to 3.70; P = .06). Results were similar for overall survival. Multivitamin use was not associated with survival outcomes. CONCLUSION Associations between survival outcomes and use of antioxidant and other dietary supplements both before and during chemotherapy are consistent with recommendations for caution among patients when considering the use of supplements, other than a multivitamin, during chemotherapy.

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 (&lt; 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and &lt; 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 &gt;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 Background: In women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual cancer burden (RCB) predicts distant recurrence and survival. In those with high risk tumors, locoregional recurrence (LRR) remains a concern, and has been associated with type of local therapy received. We evaluated the impact of local therapy on LRR in the ISPY-2 TRIAL. Methods: Data were analyzed in Stata 14.2, using Chi2 test, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model. RCB was considered a categorical variable (0/1 versus 2/3), as described in prior publications. Breast surgery categories were lumpectomy +/- radiotherapy, or mastectomy +/- radiotherapy. Axillary surgery was defined as sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery (≤6 nodes removed) or axillary dissection (&gt;6 nodes). Results: Follow up data from the I-SPY2 TRIAL were available for 630 patients (median follow up 2.76 yrs, range 0.4-7.2). Type of local therapy was significantly associated with clinical stage at presentation, with stage III patients most frequently undergoing mastectomy + radiation (p&lt;0.001). Women with higher RCB were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those with lower RCB (61.3% vs 48.8% mastectomy rate, p=0.002), and more likely to receive adjuvant radiotherapy (62.0% vs 53.9%, p=0.048). There was no association between clinical stage, type of surgery, or radiotherapy and LRR (Table). Higher RCB was significantly associated with LRR, with 3 year locoregional recurrence free rate of 95.1% in RCB 0/1 versus 89.9% in RCB 2/3 (p=0.003). In a Cox model adjusting for clinical stage, tumor subtype, surgical therapy, RCB status, nodal radiation, and age, significant predictors for LRR were tumor subtype and RCB status. Hazard ratio (HR) for LRR in those with RCB 0/1 was 0.39 compared to those with RCB 2/3 (95% CI 0.17-0.87, p=0.021). There was no difference in LRR between breast conservation and mastectomy; within the breast conservation group, those who had lumpectomy alone had higher hazard of LRR compared to those having lumpectomy + radiation (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-9.2, p=0.043). Conclusions: Extent of surgical therapy was not associated with local tumor control, regardless of advanced tumor stage at presentation. Rather, tumor biology and response to therapy were the best predictors of LRR. These data highlight the opportunity to minimize the morbidity of extensive surgical therapy for patients with excellent response to systemic therapy. LRR rates by clinical features and treatment status FrequencyLRR RateP valueClinical Stage 0.5I240 (47.5%)5.8% II185 (36.6%)8.7% III80 (15.8%)6.3% Tumor Subtype 0.014ER+PR+Her2-161 (26.4%)3.1% ER+PR-Her2-56 (9.2%)3.6% Her2+176 (28.9%)6.3% Triple negative216 (35.5%)11.1% Local therapy 0.169Lumpectomy85 (13.5%)11.8% Lumpectomy with radiation198 (31.4%)5.6% Mastectomy173 (27.5%)5.2% Mastectomy with radiation174 (27.6%)8.6% Axillary surgery 0.23None5 (0.8%)20% SLN329 (52.2%)5.8% ALND296 (47%)8.5% Axillary radiation 0.535Yes42 (6.7%)9.5% No588 (93.3%)7.0% Axillary management 0.2No surgery or radiation5 (0.8%)20.0% SLN312 (50%)5.3% SLN+Axillary radiation17 (2.7%)8.3% ALND271 (43%)10.3% ALND+Axillary radiation25 (4%)5.4% RCB 0.0020/1293 (50.1%)3.8% 2/3292 (49.9%)10.3% Citation Format: Silverstein J, Suleiman L, Yau C, Price ER, Singhrao R, Yee D, DeMichele A, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chien AJ, Forero-Torres A, Wallace AM, Pusztai L, 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, Leyland-Jones B, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Berry DA, Asare SM, Esserman LJ, Boughey JC, Mukhtar RA. The impact of local therapy on locoregional recurrence in women with high risk breast cancer in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 TRIAL [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 P2-14-01.

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&lt;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 &lt;0.00001). The RCB index is also significantly associated with DRFS adjusting for subtype (Wald p&lt;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.

Abstract White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. Usually interpreted clinically as a surrogate for cerebral small vessel disease, WMHs are associated with increased likelihood of cognitive impairment and dementia (including Alzheimer's disease [AD]). WMHs are also seen in cognitively healthy people. In this collaboration of academic, clinical, and pharmaceutical industry perspectives, we identify outstanding questions about WMHs and their relation to cognition, dementia, and AD. What molecular and cellular changes underlie WMHs? What are the neuropathological correlates of WMHs? To what extent are demyelination and inflammation present? Is it helpful to subdivide into periventricular and subcortical WMHs? What do WMHs signify in people diagnosed with AD? What are the risk factors for developing WMHs? What preventive and therapeutic strategies target WMHs? Answering these questions will improve prevention and treatment of WMHs and dementia.