Trapani, Dario

Abstract Objective The validity of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in the antibody-drug conjugate (ADCs) era remains uncertain. We evaluated the association between treatment effects on PFS and OS in randomized trials of ADCs for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and explored the surrogate threshold effect (STE). Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for published randomized controlled phase II–IV trials evaluating ADCs in mBC and reporting hazard ratios (HRs) for both PFS and OS. A meta-epidemiological approach was used. The primary metric was the ratio of hazard ratios (rHR = HR_PFS/ HR_OS), with rHR < 1 indicating a larger effect on PFS. Trial-level associations were assessed using weighted linear regression (R²) and Spearman’s correlation. Results Twenty-one trials (n = 21; 18 phase III) evaluating nine ADCs were included. The pooled rHR was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73–0.86), indicating a larger relative effect on PFS than OS. Numerically, the largest discrepancies were observed in triple-negative disease (rHR 0.72) and trials allowing crossover (rHR 0.71). Concordant statistical significance between endpoints occurred in 76% of the trials, whereas 24% showed a significant PFS benefit without OS improvement. The trial-level association between PFS and OS was moderate (R² = 0.62; ρ = 0.67). Conclusion Treatment effects on PFS consistently exceeded those on OS, although effect directions were highly concordant between endpoints. These findings provide an exploratory framework to contextualize the relationship between PFS and OS in ADC trials, requiring further validation in diverse clinical settings.

e13076 Background: Progression-free survival (PFS) is frequently used as a primary endpoint in contemporary oncology trials, including antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) studies in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) settings, despite uncertainty regarding its validity as a surrogate for overall survival (OS). A meta-epidemiological analysis was performed to quantify the systematic differences between the treatment effects on PFS and OS in ADC randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: Phase II–III ADC RCTs with MBC patients reporting hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were included. Differences in treatment effects within each trial were quantified using the ratio of hazard ratios (rHR = HR_PFS/HR_OS). Random-effects models were used to pool the rHRs across the trials. Prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analyses were used to evaluate the trial characteristics, clinical context, and regulatory status. Sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness across varying assumptions of the within-trial correlation between the endpoints. Results: Twenty-one RCTs evaluating nine ADCs in patients with MBC were included, comprising three phase II (14%) and 18 phase III (86%) studies. The pooled rHR demonstrated significantly larger treatment effects for PFS than for OS (rHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73–0.86), with no between-trial heterogeneity (I² = 0%, τ² = 0). Sensitivity analyses assuming within-trial correlations between PFS and OS ranging from 0 to 0.95 yielded consistent results. Greater divergence between endpoints was observed in trials enrolling patients with triple-negative breast cancer (rHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.85) and HER2-low disease (rHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.96). Phase III trials showed larger differences than phase II trials (rHR, 0.79 vs. 0.89). When OS was a secondary endpoint, divergence was greater than when OS was primary (rHR, 0.77 vs. 0.87). Across trials, 16 of 21 studies (76%) demonstrated concordant effect directions between PFS and OS: 11 (52%) with a statistically significant benefit for both endpoints and 5 (24%) with neither endpoint significant. Discordance occurred in five trials (24%), all characterized by a statistically significant PFS benefit without a corresponding OS improvement. No trial demonstrated an OS benefit in the absence of a PFS benefit. Conclusions: Across ADC trials, PFS systematically overestimated OS treatment effects, underscoring the limitations of PFS as a standalone surrogate endpoint. These findings support the cautious interpretation of PFS-driven efficacy and reinforce the need for endpoint validation frameworks tailored to the mechanism, disease context, and trial design.

564 Background: HER2+ ILC is rare (~5% of ILC), with limited data on long-term adjuvant trastuzumab outcomes. We investigated late recurrence and immune landscapes of HER2+ ILC vs invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in the phase III NCCTG N9831 trial (NCT00005970) and a real-world cohort. Methods: We evaluated 3304 early-stage HER2+ breast cancer patients (pts) enrolled in N9831 (122 ILC, 3182 IDC). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated (Kaplan-Meier) and compared using multivariable Cox regression adjusting for age, tumor size, grade, hormone receptor (HR), and nodal status. Findings were validated in a real-world cohort of HER2+ pts (Caris Life Sciences CODEai platform). Immune microenvironments were profiled by WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Real-world overall survival was calculated from trastuzumab start to last contact. Results: In N9831, ILC pts were older (median 54 vs 49 y), more ER+ (74.6% vs 51.4%), and had more N3 disease (25.4% vs 12.7%) compared to IDC. ILC pts derived a comparable magnitude of benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab compared to the overall population (HR 0.58 vs 0.67). However, long-term outcomes diverged: while the 5-year RFS was similar (77.1% vs 82.7%), ILC pts experienced a steep decline between years 5-15 (77.1% to 57.7%; ~20% decline) vs IDC (82.7% to 72.7%; ~10% decline) after multivariable Cox analysis (Table). In the real-world early/advanced cohort (n=1328; 26 ILC vs 1302 non-ILC [subset IDC n=595]) treated with trastuzumab-based therapy, ILC pts had worse mOS (33.7 vs 68.6 m, HR 2.01, 95%CI 1.00-4.07, p=0.04) compared to non-ILC. However, there was no statistically significant difference when compared specifically to IDC (HR 1.77, 95% CI 0.87-3.61, p=0.11). ILC had: i) numerically lower tumor mutation burden (TMB)-high (4.2% vs 9.5%, p=0.38); ii) higher infiltration of B cells, Tregs, and M2 macrophages (p<0.05); iii) upregulated MHC class II expression (HLA-DOA, p<0.05); and iv) downregulated proliferative and DNA repair pathways (E2F, G2M, MYC; FDR <0.25) compared to non-ILC. Conclusions: HER2+ ILC carries late recurrence risk despite initial trastuzumab benefit. The unique immune landscape (Treg/M2 macrophage enrichment and lower proliferative signatures) distinguishes HER2+ ILC from IDC, highlighting the need for tailored strategies. Long-term RFS and OS in HER2-positive ILC vs IDC (N9831 trial). Population N 5-year% (95% CI) 10-year% (95% CI) 15-year% (95% CI) ILC 122 RFS 77.13% (69.9, 85.1) OS 84.04% (77.7, 90.9) RFS 70.57% (62.7, 79.4) OS 76.0% (68.7, 84.2) RFS 57.67% (44.2, 75.1) OS 65.22% (56.6, 75.2) IDC 3182 RFS 82.71% (81.4, 84.1) OS 90.18% (89.1, 91.2) RFS 77.45% (75.9, 78.9) OS 81.81% (80.4, 83.2) RFS 72.68% (70.77, 74.6) OS 76.68% (75, 78.4)

Abstract Background: Male breast cancer (MaBC) is a rare malignancy, accounting for approximately 1% of all breast cancer cases. Our previous studies suggest that MaBC is biologically distinct from female breast cancer (FeBC), exhibiting a unique mutational profile and immune-genomic microenvironment. While the impact of these molecular alterations on site-specific metastases has been explored in FeBC, it remains poorly understood in MaBC. This gap limits accurate risk stratification and prediction of disease trajectory in male patients. In this study, we investigated site-specific genomic and immune alterations across metastatic sites in MaBC. Methods: 238 MaBC samples were tested by NGS (592, NextSeq; WES, NovaSeq) and WTS (NovaSeq; Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). We performed analysis in hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) subtypes which are most common in male. HR+HER2- was defined as estrogen receptor (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) positive and HER2 IHC 1+ or 2+ with negative chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) assay. Immune cells were estimated using WTS deconvolution (Quantiseq). Gene expression profiles were analyzed for T-cell inflamed score, interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) score and MAPK Activation Score. We classified patients by site of biopsy/specimen site. Statistical significance was assessed with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, p&lt;0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: Our cohort included 86 HR+HER2- MaBC samples biopsied from primary breast cancer (pBC) (n=39), bone (n=15), liver (n=8), lung (n=8), lymph nodes (n=7), and skin (n=9) mets. We report here only the data on statistically significant differences, but the overall landscape has been depicted across all defined-sites investigated. pBC showed a significantly lower prevalence of PIK3CA mutations (23.6% vs. 53.3%, p&lt;0.05) compared to bone mets. ESR1 mutations were absent in pBC but present in 25% of liver and 25% of lung mets (all comparisons p&lt;0.05). Immune profiling revealed reduced infiltration of M2 macrophages (4.3% vs. 6%, p&lt;0.05) and neutrophil (2.2% vs. 6.9%, p&lt;0.05) in pBC relative to bone Mets. Further, CD4+ T cells were lower in pBC compared to lymph nodes (0% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). pBC had lower expression of immune checkpoint genes (PDCD1LG2, HAVCR2 and CD47) compared to other mets. pBC exhibited lower MAPK pathway activation score (-1.6 vs. 0.17, p=0.03) and a trend toward lower T cell-inflamed gene expression scores (-65 vs. 8, p=0.06) compared to bone mets. Bone mets had higher infiltration of M2 macrophage compared to lung (6% vs. 4.4%, p&lt;0.05) and lymph node (6% vs. 4.5%, p&lt;0.05). Neutrophil infiltration was elevated in bone versus liver (6.9% vs. 2%, p&lt;0.05) but T regulatory cells were lower in bone compared to lymph nodes (1% vs. 2.4%, p&lt;0.05). Bone showed reduced expression of CD47 (median TPM 50.6 vs. 109.9, p&lt;0.05) compared to skin. Further bone had lower IFN-gamma scores (-0.41 vs. -0.17, p&lt;0.05) compared to lymph node. Data on prior number and types of cancer treatment to give a context to the findings will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Our study highlights that each MaBC metastatic site harbors a unique genomic and immune landscape that can influence tumor behavior and potentially impact patient prognosis. Better understanding of metastatic site-specific molecular features in larger cohorts can help in the future research efforts and guiding treatment decisions. Citation Format: D. Trapani, S. Deshmukh, S. Wu, J. Xiu, N. Lin, G. Curigliano, P. Spanheimer, P. Advani, P. Barreto Coelho, M. Lustberg, G. Sledge Jr, S. Tolaney, J. Leone. Site specific Genomic and Immune Landscapes Underpinning in metastatic Male Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-08-04.