Citations

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter phase 2 trial in high risk stage II/III breast cancer (BC) using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The first regimen to graduate based on the predicted probability of a higher pCR rate within predefined subsets was veliparib/carboplatin + paclitaxel (VC+T→AC vs T→AC) in triple negative BC (TNBC). In TNBC the residual cancer burden (RCB) is prognostic, whether as a continuous index or grouped into classes, with pCR (RCB-0) and RCB-I classes having identical survival. Therefore, we evaluated the use of RCB to further discriminate between investigational and control arms. Methods: Site pathologists reported RCB for 99% of subjects in the primary efficacy analysis based on pCR (n=114/115). We compared the distribution of RCB reported as a continuous index in each treatment-subset combination to matched concurrently randomized controls using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for RCB index, and Fisher's Exact test for RCB classes (RCB-0/I vs RCB-II/III). The statistics are descriptive rather than inferential, and given the small sample size have no claim on generalizability. We modified the Bayesian model used to compute the estimated probability of success in a future, randomized, phase 3 trial of 300 subjects, if response were defined by either pCR or RCB-I (RCB0/I), or separately if it were defined by pCR alone. Results: VC+T→AC led to a significantly lower RCB index than T→AC in TNBC (p=0.0021), with a near-significant trend when those with pCR were excluded (p=0.06). There was no significant difference in RCB distributions in the other breast cancer subtypes treated. In TNBC, the odds ratio (OR) for achieving RCB-0/I in the VC+T→AC arm vs control was 8.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1–35), whereas the OR for achieving pCR was 4.56 (95% CI: 1.25–19.53). The simulations using response information from I-SPY2 to predict the probability of success for VC+T→AC for TNBC in a future phase 3 trial estimated this probability to be 0.99 if modeled using RCB-0/I as the response endpoint, and 0.90 if modeled using pCR as the response endpoint. Conclusions: Use of RCB index and classes provided additional insight into the effect of adding VC to T, appearing to magnify the improved treatment response that had been observed with pCR rates in TNBC. It will be important to test in randomized trials whether a decrease in the RCB index relative to controls, and/or increased rates of RCB-0/I class, are predictive of survival benefit in TNBC. Citation Format: Liu MC, Symmans WF, Yau C, Chen Y-Y, Rugo HS, Olopade OF, Datnow B, Chen B, Feldman M, Kallakury B, Hasteh F, Tickman R, Ritter J, Troxel M, Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Duan X, Berry D, Esserman L, DeMichele A. Residual cancer burden (RCB) with veliparib/carboplatin in the I-SPY2 trial. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-07-49.

Pseudomyogenic hemangioendothelioma (PMH) is a well-recognized neoplasm that usually arises in the soft tissue; concurrent bone involvement occurs in 24% of cases. PMH of bone without soft tissue involvement is rare. We describe the clinicopathologic findings of 10 such cases, the largest series reported to date. The study included 9 male and 1 female patient; their ages ranged from 12 to 74 years (mean 36.7 y). All patients had multiple tumors with a distinct regional distribution: 45% restricted to the lower extremity; 25% to the spine and pelvis; and 15% to the upper extremity. On imaging studies the tumors were well circumscribed and lytic. The neoplasms were composed of spindled cells arranged in intersecting fascicles with scattered epithelioid cells; epithelioid cells predominated in 3 cases. The neoplastic cells contained abundant densely eosinophilic cytoplasm and vesicular nuclei. There was limited cytologic atypia and necrosis, few mitoses (0 to 2/10 high-power fields), and inconspicuous stroma. Unique findings included abundant intratumoral reactive woven bone and hemorrhage with numerous osteoclast-like giant cells. Immunohistochemically, most tumors were positive for keratin, ERG, and CD31; CD34 was negative. The balanced t(7:19)(q22;13) translocation was documented in 3 cases. Follow-up is limited, but no patient developed documented visceral dissemination, and all have stable or progressive osseous disease. PMH exclusively involving bone is rare. It is multicentric, often involves the lower extremity, and has unusual morphology. The differential diagnosis includes epithelioid vascular neoplasms, giant cell tumor, bone forming neoplasms, and metastatic carcinoma. Because of its rarity, unusual presentation, and morphology, accurate diagnosis can be challenging.

Purpose To provide recommendations on the appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Methods A literature search and prospectively defined study selection identified systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective–retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through September 2014. Results The literature search revealed 17 articles that met criteria for further review: 11 studies reporting discordances between primary tumors and metastases in expression of hormone receptors or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), one RCT that addressed the use of a biomarker to decide whether to change or continue a treatment regimen, and five prospective–retrospective studies that evaluated the clinical utility of biomarkers. Recommendations In patients with accessible metastases, biopsy for confirmation of disease process and retesting of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status should be offered, but evidence is lacking to determine whether changing anticancer treatment on the basis of change in receptor status affects clinical outcomes. With discordance of results between primary and metastatic tissues, the Panel consensus is to use preferentially the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status of the metastasis to direct therapy if supported by the clinical scenario and patient's goals for care. Carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 15-3, and cancer antigen 27-29 may be used as adjunctive assessments, but not alone, to contribute to decisions regarding therapy. Recommendations for tumor rebiopsy and use of circulating tumor markers are based on clinical experience and Panel informal consensus in the absence of studies designed to evaluate the clinical utility of the markers. As such, it is also reasonable for clinicians to not use these markers as adjunctive assessments.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T->AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- >AC vs. T->AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T->AC vs. H+T->AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response. Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1 MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated. Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness. Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.

Abstract Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and Her2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. HER2- patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy or the oral PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V/C) and chemotherapy. V/C graduated in the triple-negative (TN) signature, where MP2 was not an eligible signature for graduation. Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of response to V/C. Methods:115 HER2- patients (V/C: 71 and concurrent controls: 44) were considered in this analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the V/C and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate. To assess MP1/MP2 in the context of the graduating signature, we added the MP2 patients to the graduating TN subset and evaluated the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study. Results: In the V/C arm vs. concurrent controls, there were 66 MP1 (V/C: 32, Control: 34) and 49 MP2 patients (V/C: 39, Control: 10), 78% of which are TN. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1. V/C (n=71)Control (n=44)MP1 (n=32)MP2 (n=39)MP1 (n=34)MP2 (n=10)TN (n=59)3 / 819 / 303 / 132 / 8HR+HER2- (n=56)1 / 244 / 94 / 210 / 2 The OR between MP1/MP2 risk groups for predicting pCR is 9.71 in the V/C arm (p=6.63E-05), in comparison to an OR of 0.97 in the control arm (p=1). There is a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p=0.023), which remains upon adjusting for HR status (p= 0.028). Based on the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model, a Phase III trial with 300 MP2 patients has a 95% predictive probability of success. When the MP2 patients are added to the graduating TN subset, the OR associated with V/C is 4.36, which is comparable to that of the TN signature (OR: 4.29), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼10%. Conclusion: In our exploratory analysis, MP2 suggests higher sensitivity to V/C combination therapy relative to controls. This observation has prompted an investigation into the biological mechanisms distinguishing the MP1/MP2 subtype that may account for this specificity. Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Angela DeMichele, Hank Kaplan, Doug Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Rebecca Viscuzi, Judy Boughey, Stacey Moulder, Steven Chui, Qamar Khan, Toncred Styblo, Kirsten Edmiston, Donald Northfelt, Anthony Elias, Barbara Haley, Debu Tripathy, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to veliparib/carboplatin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-25.

Abstract Background: We hypothesize that response to the pan-ERBB inhibitor, neratinib (N), may be predicted by pre-treatment HER2-EGFR signaling. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, N graduated in the HR-/HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy. For HER2+ patients, N was administered in place of trastuzumab. We evaluated 18 HER family signaling proteins as biomarkers of N response using reverse phase protein microarray (RPMA) data from pre-treatment LCM purified tumor epithelium. Methods: 168 patients (N: 106, concurrent controls: 62) had RPMA and pCR data. 18 biomarkers relating to HER family signaling were evaluated: AKT S473, AKT T308, EGFR, EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1148, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 total, ERBB3 Y1289, ERK1/2 T202/Y204, Heregulin, mTOR, mTOR S2448, PI3K p85 Y458/p55 Y199, PTEN S380, and SHC Y317. We assessed association between biomarker and response in the N and control arms alone (likelihood ratio test), and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction) using a logistic model. Analysis was also performed adjusting for HR/HER2 status. In an exploratory analysis, we selected the marker with the greatest interaction (phosphorylated EGFR (Y1173)) to dichotomize patients optimally based on the data and assessed it in the context of the graduating signature by adding the EGFR Y1173-High patients to the HR-/HER2+ subtype and evaluating the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data and does not account for multiplicities. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Results: 7 HER pathway markers (EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2 total, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 Y1289, SHC Y317) are associated with response in the N but not the control arm. However, the difference in performance between arms did not reach significance by permutation testing. Adjusting for HR/HER2 status, EGFR Y1173 shows a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p = 0.049). In an exploratory analysis, we dichotomized patients by their EGFR Y1173 levels and evaluated the distribution of pCR rates (Table 1). Neratinib (n=106)Control (n=62)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=31)EGFR Y1173 High (n=75)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=29)EGFR Y1173 High (n=33)HR-/HER2+ (n=28)0 / 412 / 181 / 11 / 5Not HR-/HER2+ (n=140)3 / 2724 / 575 / 285 / 28Table 1 OR between EGFR Y1173 groups in the N relative to control arm is 10.1. When EGFR Y1173 High patients are added to the graduating HR-/HER2+ subset, the OR associated with treatment is 3.2 and is comparable to that in the HR-/HER2+ signature (OR: 2.1), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼50%. Evaluation of EGFR Y1173 under the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model is pending. Conclusion: Our sample size is too small to draw definitive conclusions. Our exploratory analysis reveals that HER family phosphoproteins associate with response to N, but only phosphorylated EGFR Y1173 appears to add value to the graduating signature. Given that this biomarker would expand the patient population that may benefit, it merits evaluation in other ongoing trials of neratinib. Citation Format: Julia D Wulfkuhle, Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Rosa I Gallagher, Ashish Sanil, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Meredith Buxton, Angela DeMichele, Nola Hylton, William F Symmans, Laura van't Veer, Douglas Yee, Melissa Paoloni, Laura Esserman, Donald Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Emanuel F Petricoin III. Evaluation of HER family protein signaling network as a predictive biomarker for pCR for breast cancer patients treated with neratinib in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-15.

Abstract Background: The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1071 trial (Alliance) reported a false negative rate (FNR) of 12.6% with sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women presenting with node-positive breast cancer. Proposed methods to decrease the FNR include clip placement in the positive node at initial diagnosis with confirmation of resection of the clipped node at surgery and inclusion of residual metastatic cells identified by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for cytokeratins and disease measuring <0.2mm on H&E in the definition of node positivity after chemotherapy. Herein we evaluate the impact of these methods on FNR. Methods: Z1071 was a prospective multi-institutional trial in which women with clinical T0-4,N1-2,M0 breast cancer underwent both SLN surgery and axillary dissection (ALND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint defined nodal metastasis as disease >0.2mm on H&E. Slides were submitted for central IHC staining when H&E-negative, unless performed locally. For this analysis, we expanded the definition of node positivity to include metastases less than 0.2mm on H&E and metastatic deposits identified by IHC. In 171 cases, a clip was placed in the node at initial biopsy and in these cases the SLNs and ALND were evaluated by x-ray or pathology to document clip location. FNR in the clip cohort is reported using the primary endpoint definition of node positive disease (>0.2mm on H&E). Results: In the 113 cases where the clip was found in the SLN the FNR was 6.4% (1.8-15.5%). In the 29 cases where the clip was found in the ALND specimen, the FNR was 22.2% (6.4-47.6%). IHC was available on 470 of 525 patients with cN1 disease and 2 SLNs resected. Using the definition of H&E metastasis >0.2mm, the FNR in these patients was 11.3% (34/301, 8.0-15.4%) which decreased to 8.7% (27/311, 5.6-11.8%) when including any disease <0.2mm. SLNs from 16 patients had disease <0.2mm in size. Seven patients previously classified as false negative SLN changed to true positive with identification of disease in the SLN. Nine patients changed from node-negative to node-positive with the only disease being <0.2mm disease found in the SLN. Nodal pathologic complete response rate changed from 36.0% to 33.8% with the inclusion of metastases <0.2mm. NResidual disease identified in SLNs or ALNDFNR (%)95% CINode positive definitionSLN metastases >0.2mm by H&E470301 (64.0%)11.38.0-15.4SLN metastasis any size on IHC or H&E470311 (66.2%)8.75.6-11.8Clip locationClip in SLN11462 (54.4%)6.41.8-15.5Clip in ALND2918 (62.1%)22.26.4-47.6Clip location unknown2920 (69.0%)14.33.0-36.3Clip not placed354207 (58.5%)13.59.1-18.9 Conclusion: Placement of a clip at initial diagnosis of node positive disease with identification of the clip during the SLN surgery reduces the FNR. Use of IHC with inclusion of metastases <0.2mm in the definition of residual nodal disease in women with node positive breast cancer after chemotherapy also improves the accuracy of SLN surgery. Use of one or both of these methods should be considered when performing SLN in this setting. Citation Format: Judy C Boughey, Karla V Ballman, William F Symmans, Linda M McCall, Elizabeth A Mittendorf, Gretchen M Ahrendt, Lee G Wilke, Bret Taback, Kelly K Hunt. Methods impacting the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node positive breast cancer (T0-T4,N1-2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy – Results from a prospective trial – ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-01-02.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II neoadjuvant trial in women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer using adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents added to standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). Goal is to identify regimens that meet a high Bayesian predictive probability of statistical significance in a neoadjuvant 300-patient phase III trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Experimental regimens may “graduate” in 1 of 10 signatures, with a maximum of 120 patients. We report efficacy results for neratinib (N). Methods: Tumors ≥2.5cm by clinical exam & ≥2cm by imaging are eligible for screening. MP low risk/HR+/HER2- tumors are ineligible for randomization. Patients receive chemotherapy (paclitaxel qwk x 12, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide q2-3 wk x 4, T->AC). HER2- pts were randomized to N+T->AC vs. T->AC and HER2+ pts to N+T->AC vs. trastuzumab+T->AC. Analysis is intent-to-treat with pts who switch to non-protocol therapy regarded as non-pCRs. We provide estimated pCR rates (95% Bayesian probability intervals), probabilities of superiority of neratinib over control, and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in an equally randomized phase III trial. Results: Neratinib met the predictive probability criterion in HR-/HER2+, “graduated”, and accrual ceased [115 N patients (65 HER2+), 78 concurrently randomized controls (22 HER2+)]. The table shows results for all 10 signatures. Two patients (1 N and 1 control) withdrew consent and are not included. Conclusion: I-SPY 2's standing trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined patient subsets. In a modest number of patients, adaptive randomization successfully identified a biomarker signature (HR-/HER2+) for neratinib's further development. All HER2+ and MP+ tumors may also benefit from this regimen, consistent with preclinical data. Evaluation in I-SPY 3, a phase III registration trial, is planned. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability NeratinibIs Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIINeratinibControlALL32% (28-36%)23% (19%-28%)92%44%HR+23% (18%-28%)17% (11%-22%)81%40%HR-43% (37%-49%)31% (24%-38%)89%53%HER2+39% (33%-45%)23% (15%-30%)95%73%HER2-26% (21%-32%)24% (18%-29%)63%20%MP+*45% (38%-53%)29% (20%-39%)91%66%HR-/HER2-36% (29%-43%)30% (23%-38%)72%34%HR-/HER2+55% (46%-64%)32% (22%-43%)94%78%HR+/HER2+31% (24%-37%)17% (10%-24%)91%65%HR+/HER2-14% (8%-19%)16% (10%-21%)39%12%* MammaPrint 44K Array Low/High score was adjusted to MammaPrint High1 (MP-) or High2 (MP+), using a pre-defined median cut-point of I-SPY 1 participants, who fit the eligibility criteria of I-SPY 2. Citation Format: John W. Park, Minetta C. Liu, Douglas Yee, Angela DeMichele, Laura van 't Veer, Nola Hylton, Fraser Symmans, Meredith B. Buxton, A. Jo Chien, Amy Wallace, Michelle Melisko, Richard Schwab, Judy Boughey, Debashish Tripathy, Hank Kaplan, Rita Nanda, Stephen Chui, Kathy S. Albain, Stacy Moulder, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Kirsten Edminston, Donald Northfelt, David Euhus, Qamar Khan, Julia Lyandres, Sarah E. Davis, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Laura J. Esserman, Donald A. Berry. Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT227. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT227

AbstractThe many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach. Clin Cancer Res; 21(13); 2911–5. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Background: The utility of sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer has not been determined. The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0171 trial was designed to evaluate SLN surgery after NAC in women presenting with node positive disease. Methods: ACOSOG Z1071 enrolled women with clinical T0-4, N1-2, M0 breast cancer receiving NAC. At the time of surgery, all patients were to undergo SLN surgery followed by axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The primary endpoint was false negative rate (FNR) in women with cN1 disease with 2 or more SLNs reviewed. Positive SLNs were defined as metastases >0.2mm on H&E. The protocol encouraged dual tracer technique. A Bayesian study design with a non-informative prior was chosen to assess whether the probability that the SLN surgery FNR is greater than 10%. Results: From July 2009 to July 2011, 756 patients were enrolled from 136 institutions. Fifteen women were ineligible and 33 withdrew. Of 708 evaluable pts (668 cN1, 40 cN2), 643 had a SLN identified and an ALND (607 cN1, with indeterminate SLN results in 2); 52 pts (48 cN1) had no SLN identified and had ALND; 11 underwent ALND only (all cN1), and 2 pts had SLN only (both cN1). In patients with SLN and ALND, the SLN identification rate was 92.5% (92.7% in cN1, 90% in cN2). SLN correctly identified nodal status in 84% of the 695 pts [258 of pathologically node negative and 327 of pathologically node positive; cN1: 83.8% (549/655), cN2: 90.0% (36/40)]. Of the 643 pts with a SLN identified there was a complete pathologic response in 40.3% (40.3 % for cN1 and 50% for cN2). Of the pts with a positive SLN, the SLN was the only site of disease in 40%. For pts with cN1 disease with 2+ SLNs identified with residual nodal disease, the SLN FNR was 12.8%. In pts with dual tracer technique the FNR was 11.1%. There were no FN results among pts with cN2 disease with 2+ SLNs reviewed. Of the 40 pts with a false negative SLN of the 528 cN1 patients with 2+ SLNs examined, the number of positive nodes at ALND was 1 (50.0%); 2 (25%); 3 (10.0%) and 4–9 (15.0%). Conclusions: NAC resulted in eradication of lymph node disease in 40% of node positive breast cancer patients. SLN surgery after NAC in node positive breast cancer pts correctly identified nodal status in 84% of all patients and was associated with a FNR of 12.8%. The FNR of SLN is higher than the prespecified study endpoint of 10%. Further analysis of factors associated with FNR such as clinical response, histological findings and axillary ultrasound findings is warranted prior to widespread use of SLN in these patients. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S2-1.