Citations

2631 Background: Response to immune checkpoint inhibitors has been associated with immune activation and mutational load within a tumor. Previous results in other tumors have implicated MHC II protein tumor cell expression as a response predictor to immune checkpoint inhibitors. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, the anti-PD1 therapeutic antibody pembrolizumab (P) was available to HER2-negative subtypes and graduated in both the HR+/HER2- and TNBC signatures. Pre-specified biomarker analysis was performed to test tumor MHC II expression as a predictor of response to P in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL based on its central role in tumor antigen presentation. Methods: 156 patients (P: 67, controls: 89) had RPPA and pCR data. RPPA-based quantitative data for pan-MHC II protein isotypes HLA-DR/DP/DQ/DX and HLA-DR protein isotype was obtained from LCM-enriched tumor epithelium, and protein levels were assessed for association with pCR in the P and control arms separately using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test (p < 0.05). Analysis was also performed in the HR+ and HR- subgroups. Markers were analyzed individually; p-values are descriptive and were not corrected for multiple comparisons. Results: Across all P- treated patients, the HLA class II molecules –DR and -DR/DP/DQ/DX had a positive association with response to P (p = 0.014 and p = 0.001). Expression of HLA-DR/DP/DQ/DX also had a positive association with response to P in HR+ tumors. Neither of these associations were seen in the control arm samples. Conclusions: The observation of elevation of MHC II protein expression in HER2- responding patients treated with P suggests that activation of antigen peptide exchange facilitated by these molecules in T and B cells may enhance response to P treatment.

BackgroundEsophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small‐spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects.Methods35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small‐spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase‐averaged 4D‐CT's. The dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose.ResultsIn the nominal scenario, small‐spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE], liver V30Gy[RBE], stomach V45Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, V5Gy[RBE], and V20Gy[RBE], cord Dmax and , liver Dmean, heart V20Gy[RBE], and V30Gy[RBE], but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95%, , and D5%‐D95%, CTVlow D95%, heart Dmean, and V40Gy[RBE], requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small‐spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small‐spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Abstract Background: In the MONARCH 3 trial, abemaciclib plus an aromatase inhibitor (AI) significantly improved progression free survival and overall response rate with a generally tolerable safety profile compared to placebo plus AI. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PRO) including health-related quality of life (Qol), functioning, and symptoms. Methods: MONARCH 3 was a double-blind, randomized phase III study of abemaciclib or placebo plus an AI in 493 post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer with no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting. Two European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires were included: Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-Core 30 (C30) and the EORTC QLQ-Breast 23 (BR23) that were assessed at baseline, every 2 cycles through cycle 19, then every 3 cycles until treatment discontinuation, and at short-term follow up. Higher scores on functional and health status/QoL outcomes indicate higher/better levels of functioning or health; conversely higher scores on symptom outcomes indicate higher/worse levels of symptom burden. Between-arm comparisons of change from baseline were conducted using mixed model methods. Statistical significance was set at 0.05 and clinical meaningfulness was set at ≥10 points on a 0-100 scale1. Results: PRO completion rates were &gt;91% through cycle 19; duration of treatment was longer for abemaciclib plus AI patients (median number of cycles 19 vs.15). Compared to the placebo arm, diarrhea PRO scores in the abemaciclib arm showed a clinically (18.68 points) and statistically significant (p&lt;0.001) increase/worsening. By-cycle analysis showed group mean diarrhea scores returned to near-baseline levels post-therapy. Other symptom PROs showed statistically significant (&lt;0.05) but not clinically meaningful differences; fatigue (4.96; p=0.004), systemic therapy side effects (4.48, p&lt;0.001), appetite loss (4.03; p=0.034), and nausea/vomiting (2.77; p=0.013). These results were consistent with the investigator-reported treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Several non-symptom results were also statistically significant but not clinically meaningful including global health/health status (-4.36; p=0.003), role function (-4.25; p=0.025), social function (-3.41, p=0.047), and body image (-5.11, p=0.009). No statistically significant between-treatment differences were observed for physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning or for symptoms of pain, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, or financial difficulties. Conclusions: The addition of abemaciclib to an AI resulted in clinically and statistically significant changes in diarrhea without clinically meaningful differences in other symptom scores. Increased GI-related symptoms were consistent with the manageable, reversible AE profile; the highest symptom burden was reported during early visits. No clinically meaningful differences in global health status or functional scores were observed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02246621 Reference: 1. Osoba D et al. J Clin Oncol 2002;20(14):3106-13. Citation Format: Goetz MP, Johnston S, Martin M, Tokunaga E, Park IH, Huober J, Toi M, Price GL, Boye M, Li L, Forrester T, Gainford C, Gable J, Carter GC, Sood A, DiLeo A. Health-related quality of life in MONARCH 3: Abemaciclib plus an aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy in women with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer [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 P6-16-01.

Abstract Background: The explosion in new treatment options targeting immune checkpoints, HER signaling, DNA repair deficiency, AKT, and other pathways calls for updated breast cancer subtypes beyond HR and HER2 status to predict which patients will respond to which treatments. Here we leverage the I-SPY 2 TRIAL biomarker program over the past 8 years across 10 treatment arms to elucidate a minimal set of biomarkers that may improve response prediction in a modern treatment context, and to investigate which new patient phenotypes are identified by these response-predictive biomarkers. Methods: 986 patients were considered in this analysis. Treatments included paclitaxel alone (or with trastuzumab (H) in HER2+) or combined with investigational agents: veliparib/carboplatin (VC); neratinib; MK2206; ganitumab; ganetespib; AMG386; TDM1/pertuzumab (P); H/P; and pembrolizumab (Pembro). 24 prospectively defined, mechanism-of-action and pathway-based expression and phospho-protein signatures/biomarkers assayed from pre-treatment biopsies were previously found to be predictive in a particular agent/arm in pre-specified analysis. Here we evaluate these biomarkers in all patients. We assessed association between each biomarker and response in the population as a whole and within each arm and HR/HER2 subtype using a logistic model. To identify optimal dichotomizing thresholds for select biomarkers, 2-fold cross-validation was repeated 500 times. Our analysis is exploratory and does not adjust for multiplicities. Results: Our initial set of 24 predictive biomarkers reflects DNA repair deficiency (n=2), immune activation (n=7), ER signaling (n=2), HER2 signaling (n=4), proliferation (n=2), phospho-activation of AKT/mTOR (n=2), and ANG/TIE2 (n=1) pathways, among others. Biomarkers reflecting similar biology are correlated and cluster together. We make use of this correlation structure to reduce the dimensionality of the biomarker set to five predictive signals: proliferation, DNA repair deficiency (DRD), immune-engaged (Immune+), luminal/ER (lum), and HER2-activated. These biomarkers, when dichotomized, identify patient groups with differential predicted sensitivities to I-SPY 2 agents and are present at different proportions within receptor subtypes. For instance, in the HER2- subset, Immune+/DRD+ patients are predicted sensitive to both VC and Pembro, and account for 39% of TN, but only 12% of HR+HER2-. On the other end of the spectrum, only 17% of TN are Immune-/DRD-, compared to the majority (56%) of HR+HER2-. There are also subsets of patients positive for only one marker. For the HER2+ subset, 67% are HER2-activated+, and 25% lum+; of these HER2-activated+ patients are more likely to be Immune+ (44%), vs 23% in lum+. HER2-activated+/Immune+ patients have higher predicted sensitivity to HER2-targeted agents than lum+ or Immune- patients. In all, these molecular phenotypes predict sensitivity to one or more I-SPY 2 investigational agents for 75% of the ˜ 1000 patients. Conclusion: Molecular phenotypes reflecting proliferation, immune engagement, HER2-activation, luminal/ER-signaling, and DNA repair deficiency may provide a roadmap to guide treatment prioritization for emerging therapeutics. Citation Format: Wolf DM, Yau C, Wulfkuhle J, Petricoin E, Campbell M, Brown-Swigart L, Hirst G, Asare S, Zhu Z, Lee EP, Delson A, Pohlmann P, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Hylton N, Liu MC, Symmans F, DeMichele A, Yee D, Berry D, Esserman L, van 't Veer L. Identifying breast cancer molecular phenotypes to predict response in a modern treatment landscape: Lessons from ˜1000 patients across 10 arms of the I-SPY 2 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 P3-10-02.

Objective: Coprevalence of chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) negatively impacts the course of both disorders. Patients diagnosed with both conditions report greater pain, affective distress, and disability when compared with those with either chronic pain or PTSD alone. While the prevalence and complexity of the comorbidity is widely acknowledged, there is a dearth of research examining potential mechanism variables that might account for the relationship between chronic pain and PTSD. The current study utilizes a series of mediation analyses to examine if pain catastrophizing mediates the relationship between PTSD symptomatology and chronic pain outcome. Materials and Methods: A total of 203 treatment-seeking participants admitted to a 3-week interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation program completed a battery of psychometrically validated measures of pain severity, pain interference, pain catastrophizing, depressive symptoms, and PTSD symptoms at program admission. Results: A series of multiple parallel mediation analyses revealed that pain catastrophizing fully mediated the relationships between PTSD symptoms and pain outcome (ie, pain severity and pain interference) above and beyond the influence of depressive symptoms. Discussion: Results suggest that pain catastrophizing may represent an important cognitive mechanism through which PTSD symptoms influence the experience of chronic pain. Psychosocial treatment approaches that directly target tendency to catastrophize in response to pain may hold the potential to have salutary effects on both chronic pain and PTSD.