Citations

PURPOSE EA1181 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04266249 ) is a single-arm trial evaluating neoadjuvant taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP) in patients with clinical stage II/IIIa human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer. This report focuses on the secondary end points of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and associated factors. The primary end point—3-year recurrence-free survival among patients achieving a pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0)—will be reported when data mature. METHODS Patients received four cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) with either once per week paclitaxel (12 weeks) or docetaxel (every 3 weeks for four cycles), followed by surgery. Clinicopathologic characteristics were assessed in all patients. The HER2DX pCR score was determined using diagnostic biopsy samples in a representative subset. Logistic regression models identified factors associated with pCR. RESULTS A total of 2,175 patients were enrolled (781 HER2+/estrogen receptor‑negative [ER–]; 1,394 HER2+/ER+). Of 2,141 patients who initiated THP, the overall pCR rate was 43.8%: 63.7% in HER2+/ER– and 32.4% in HER2+/ER+ tumors. Higher pCR rates were observed in tumors that were ER-negative or low ER expressing, progesterone receptor-negative or low expressing, HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+, and in patients treated with once per week paclitaxel. T3 disease was associated with a lower pCR rate in HER2+/ER– tumors; otherwise, tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage did not significantly affect pCR. Among 569 patients assessed for HER2DX pCR scores, a high score was independently associated with higher pCR rates, after adjustment for clinicopathologic variables. CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant THP achieved pCR in nearly two-thirds of patients with HER2+/ER– and one third with HER2+/ER+ breast cancer. Low hormone receptor expression, HER2 IHC 3+ status, once per week paclitaxel use, and a high HER2DX pCR score were independent predictors of pCR. These findings should help optimize risk stratification and treatment personalization for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

LBA514 Background: Preclinical and clinical data show that antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) such as T-DXd may synergize with immunotherapy. Rilvegostomig (R) is a monovalent, Fc-reduced, dual checkpoint bispecific IgG1 monoclonal antibody against PD-1 and TIGIT receptors. R + T-DXd was evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy for up to 4 cycles. Methods: I-SPY2.2 is a phase II neoadjuvant trial with three neoadjuvant sequences (Blocks A/B/C). All HER2-negative subtypes were eligible for R + T-DXd in Block A. Predicted responders at the end of Block A or B could undergo surgery; otherwise, they continued to Block B +/- C. Block B pts received paclitaxel +/- carboplatin +/- pembrolizumab and Block C pts doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (AC) +/- pembrolizumab, HR+ immune+ received IO in Blocks B/C. Results are analyzed by receptor and response predictive subtypes (RPS), that include expression-based immune, and luminal signatures with hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. Some pts were randomized to a control regimen (skipping R + T-DXd in block A and starting in block B). To minimize risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD) that could lead to treatment discontinuation, pts underwent pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CTs every 6 weeks. Abnormalities were reviewed in real time. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR), within each RPS and HR/HER2 signature, with estimated pCR (EpCR) rates compared to subtype-specific block A goal rates and control pts in those groups. Other endpoints included safety and treatment discontinuation. Results: 105 pts were treated with R + T-DXd in block A, while 31 pts were randomized to the control regimen. Block A EpCR rate was 57% in the 12 HR+Immune+ pts vs a pre-specified goal of 15% (posterior probability, PP > .99). In 35 HR-Immune+ pts EpCR was 52% vs a pre-specified goal of 40% (PP = .87). No other groups (Immune-) had a PP > .85 for their respective pCR goal rate. HER2-IHC was 0 (27.6%), 1+ (49.5%) and 2+ (22.9%) in the treatment arm vs. 37.7%, 37.7%, and 24.7% in the control arm, with no difference in distribution between arms in immune subtypes. The most common adverse events in Block A were fatigue (84.8%), nausea (81.0%) and alopecia (58.1%). ILD was the most common adverse event of special interest in Block A and overall, occurring in 12 pts (11.4%; 7G1, 4G2, 1G3) during Block A and in 3 pts (G1, 2.9%) in other Blocks. 8 pts discontinued T-DXd + R due to ILD and proceeded to the next Block. Conclusions: When considering the full treatment strategy including block B and C regimens, experimental strategies had similar EpCR rates vs. controls in immune+ subtypes but block A rates exceeded pre-defined goal thresholds. This infers that treatment beginning with R + T-DXd has equivalent efficacy to standard of care for immune+ pts, but 64% pts with pCR skip chemotherapy (Block B) and 97% avoid AC (Block C). R + T-DXd participants avoided persistent ILD. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

603 Background: Accurate prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) after preoperative therapy for HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer can help triage patients to immediate surgery vs additional preoperative therapy. Pre-surgery (i.e., after neoadjuvant therapy) imaging studies may help estimate the likelihood of pCR. In EA1181, patients (pts) with stage II-IIIA HER2+ breast cancer received four cycles of preoperative taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP×4). Pre-surgery imaging was required, though the specific imaging modality was not mandated. Here, we report the accuracy of pre-surgery breast MRI to predict pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0). Methods: Among 2,141 pts treated with THPx4, 1,378 had pre-surgery breast MRI and were representative of the overall cohort, although T3 tumors were more common (16% vs 9%). MRI reports were available for 1,351 pts; all reports were centrally reviewed and classified as radiologic complete response (rCR; no residual tumor enhancement and normalization of lymph nodes, if applicable) or radiologic residual disease (rRD). Reports with indeterminate radiologic response were independently reviewed by two study radiologists blinded to pathology outcomes. Among pts with rCR who had pathologic residual disease (pRD), we also assessed the extent of residual disease by residual cancer burden (RCB) score. Among pts with rRD who had a pCR, we determined the proportion who only had residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Results: See Table. Conclusions: After neoadjuvant therapy, preoperative MRI accurately predicted pCR in 86% of patients with HER2+/ER− disease and may help identify patients who can proceed directly to surgery. MRI is insufficient to predict pCR for pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, as only 55% with complete response on MRI had a pCR at surgery. A pre-surgery MRI that indicated residual disease was accurate in 80% of pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, but in only 45% of pts with HER2+/ER- cancer. Accurately predicting residual disease after THPx4 allows for consideration of additional therapy that may increase the chance of pCR. Combining imaging like MRI with other biomarkers, such as tissue-based markers or circulating tumor DNA, may improve prediction of pCR and facilitate personalization of treatment decisions in HER2+ breast cancer. All pts with pre-surgery MRI (n=1351)pCR rate overall in this cohort = 47% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 70.6% (341/483) 29.4%(142/483) 78% had RCB1 rRD 34%(295/868) 21% of 295 had DCIS only 66.01% (573/868) ER- (n=589)*Overall pCR rate in ER- subset = 68% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 86.1% (205/238) 13.9% (33/238) 85% had RCB1 rRD 55.3% (194/351) 19% of 194 had only DCIS 44.7% (157/351) ER+ (n= 762)*Overall pCR rate in ER+ subset = 31% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 55.5% (136/245) 44.5% (109/245) 76% had RCB1 rRD 19.5% (101/517) 26% of 101 had only DCIS 80.5% (416/517)

1056 Background: Resistance to HER2-directed therapies remains a major challenge in HER2-positiveMBC. In preclinical models, HER2+ tumors overexpress poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), and PARP inhibition induces apoptosis through NF-κB suppression even in the absence of pathogenic mutations in BRCA 1/2 . We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and translational correlates of niraparib combined with trastuzumab in patients (pts) with refractory HER2+ MBC. Methods: This open-label Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT03368729) enrolled pts with HER2+ MBC (IHC 3+ and/or FISH amplified), measurable disease, LVEF ≥50%, and progression on ≥1 prior HER2-targeted therapy; stable CNS disease was allowed. Pts with germline BRCA1/2 mutations or prior PARP inhibitor exposure were excluded. Niraparib 300 mg orally was administered on Days 1–21 of a 21-day cycle with trastuzumab 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (loading dose 8 mg/kg on cycle 1). The Phase 2 portion used a Gehan/Simon two-stage design with early stopping for futility (P0=24%); ≥1 response among the first 20 patients triggered expansion to 40 patients. ORR was assessed by RECIST v1.1, meeting the primary endpoint and allowing response rate estimation with <7% standard error and a two-sided 95% exact CI width of 0.28. Gene expression profiling of paired tumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was performed using the NanoString nCounter Tumor Signaling 360 panel at pretreatment compared to cycle 2. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (9/2019–2/2025); 41 were evaluable for response. Pts were heavily pretreated (median 3 prior regimens), including trastuzumab deruxtecan in 22 pts; 33% had brain metastases. Treatment-related adverse events were predominantly grade 1–2 and manageable. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 44% (18/41) including 1 complete response, 2 partial responses, and 15 stable disease. Eleven patients achieved disease control ≥ 6 months; 1 patient remained on treatment at data cutoff. Tumor profiling revealed enrichment of a B-cell–driven tertiary lymphoid structure signature with reduced hypoxia signaling in responders. Matched PBMC analyses demonstrated coordinated downregulation of interferon signaling, DNA damage response, metabolic activation, angiogenesis, and resistance pathways in clinical responders, whereas non-responders retained signatures of chronic stress and immune exhaustion. Conclusions: Niraparib plus trastuzumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile and durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated HER2+ MBC. Integrated tumor and blood-based analyses identify immune-organized tumor microenvironments and systemic immune normalization as key correlates of prolonged response, supporting further investigation of PARP inhibition strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT03368729 .

1005 Background: In the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582), TUC + maintenance HP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs control treatment (Tx) (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients (pts) with HER2+ locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Here we report additional efficacy and safety outcomes by stratified subgroups. Methods: Pts with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction Tx (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or PBO BID + HP. Randomization was stratified by diagnosis ( de novo /recurrent), hormone receptor (HR) status (positive/negative), and presence or history of brain metastases (BM; yes/no). Endocrine therapy (ET) is permitted for pts with HR+ disease. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Confirmed objective response rate (cORR), duration of response (DOR), and safety were evaluated in stratified subgroups. Results: Among pts assigned to TUC + HP (n = 326) or PBO + HP (n = 328), ∼69% had de novo MBC, ∼53% had HR+ status with ∼45% having received concurrent ET, and ∼12% had baseline BM. At data cutoff (Sep 5, 2025), median PFS was longer with TUC than PBO + HP in all stratified subgroups; TUC + HP consistently improved cORR vs PBO + HP (Table). Safety outcomes in subgroups aligned with the overall population. Conclusions: TUC + HP demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy vs PBO + HP in pts with de novo or recurrent disease, HR+ or HR− disease, and baseline BM or not, with no new safety signals identified. Results were consistent with the overall population and support TUC + HP as a potential new maintenance therapy across pts with HER2+ MBC. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . Efficacy outcomes. Overall De novo Recurrent HR+ (± ET) † HR− BM (yes) BM (no) TUC+HP(n=326) PBO+HP(n=328) TUC+HP(n=227) PBO+HP(n=226) TUC+HP(n=99) PBO+HP(n=102) TUC+HP(n=168) PBO+HP(n=176) TUC+HP(n=158) PBO+HP(n=152) TUC+HP(n=41) PBO+HP(n=40) TUC+HP(n=285) PBO+HP(n=288) Median PFS, mos (95% CI) 24.9(21.3−NE) 16.3(12.6−18.7) 28.9(22.7−NE) 16.8(12.9−19.2) 21.3(15.6−27.2) 12.7(8.3−18.1) 25.0(16.5−NE) 18.1(13.0−20.8) 24.9(19.4−NE) 12.6(9.4−16.8) 8.5(4.2−16.5) 4.2(2.2−8.1) 27.2(24.3−NE) 18.1(14.8−20.7) cORR*, % (95% CI) 22.6(18.0−27.8) 15.2(11.3−19.7) 26.1(20.2−32.7) 18.5(13.5−24.4) 15.1(8.5−24.0) 7.0(2.6−14.6) 20.1(14.0−27.5) 12.9(8.2−19.0) 25.2(18.4−33.0) 17.9(11.8−25.5) 15.0(5.7−29.8) 8.3(1.8−22.5) 23.8(18.7−29.5) 16.1(11.9−12.1) Median DOR*, mos (95% CI) 20.9(16.4−NE) 16.9(12.3−NE) NR(16.4−NE) 16.3(10.4−NE) 17.9(8.3−NE) NR(7.2−NE) 20.9(12.6−NE) 18.7(7.8−NE) NR(8.6−NE) 14.5(10.4−NE) 12.6(8.1−NE) 16.3(12.5−NE) 20.9(16.4−NE) 18.7(10.4−NE) *ORR and DOR were assessed in patients with target or non-target lesions at baseline. † Data on HR+ w/ ET will be presented.

1042 Background: The primary analysis of the phase 3 HER2CLIMB-05 study (NCT05132582) showed the addition of TUC to 1L maintenance HP yielded a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (per investigator) versus control treatment (hazard ratio: 0.641, P < 0.0001) in patients with HER2+ MBC. Here we report our findings from an in-depth safety analysis of HER2CLIMB-05. Methods: Patients with centrally confirmed HER2+ MBC without evidence of progression following chemotherapy-based induction treatment (taxane + HP) were randomly assigned 1:1 to TUC (300 mg) or placebo (PBO) BID, both in combination with HP. The safety analysis set included all randomly assigned patients who received ≥1 dose of any study treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), laboratory values, and TUC/PBO dose modifications and discontinuations were examined. Results: Among patients in the safety analysis set (TUC arm = 326; PBO arm = 324), median treatment durations of TUC and PBO were 17.1 months (range: 0.4–36.5) and 15.5 months (range: 0.5–41.3), respectively. Grade (G) ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 42.3% of patients in the TUC arm and 24.4% in the PBO arm; the most frequent G ≥3 TEAEs in the TUC arm were elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 13.5%) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST; 7.1%). TUC was discontinued in 13.5% of patients due to a TEAE. Cardiac TEAEs were similar between TUC and PBO arms (4.3% vs 6.2%). TEAEs of hepatic events (43.6% vs 15.7%) and diarrhea (72.7% vs 51.2%) occurred at higher incidence in the TUC arm versus the PBO arm (Table). In the TUC arm, increased ALT (28.2%) and AST (25.8%) accounted for the majority of hepatic TEAEs. Most hepatic and diarrhea TEAEs were managed with TUC dose modifications and/or discontinuation; 7.7% of patients discontinued TUC due to hepatic TEAEs and 1.5% discontinued due to diarrhea (Table). Among the patients with a TEAE of diarrhea, 57.7% and 29.9%, respectively, in the TUC and PBO arms used antidiarrheals; the most used medication was loperamide. Further details of the in-depth safety analysis will be presented. Conclusions: TUC addition to 1L HP maintenance therapy may be an effective option for HER2+ MBC with a clinically manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT05132582 . TEAEs* Any Any hepatic Increased ALT/AST Diarrhea Arm TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO TUC PBO Any G, % 99.1 96.6 43.6 15.7 28.2/25.8 7.1/9.0 72.7 51.2 G ≥3 42.3 24.4 18.1 1.2 13.5/7.1 0.6/0.6 6.1 4.0 Any G: Median time to onset (days) 34.5 85.0 11.0 32.0 Median time to resolution (days) 25.0 22.0 2.0 5.0 Any G: TUC/PBO dose hold, % 49.4 25.3 19.3 2.5 12.6/4.0 0.6/0.6 8.6 3.4 TUC/PBO dose reduction, % 29.1 11.1 16.3 0.9 11.7/2.8 0.3/0.6 6.4 3.1 TUC/PBO discontinuation, % 13.5 2.2 7.7 0 4.0/0.3 0/0 1.5 0.9 *As of data cutoff, Sep 5, 2025.

Abstract Purpose: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 &lt;1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 &lt;0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α–positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort). Results: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%–89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. Conclusions: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.