Goetz, Matthew P.

TPS1101 Background: More than two thirds of patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) have estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) tumors. Current standard-of-care first-line treatments include an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant, a selective ER degrader (SERD), combined with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Concurrent use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists is recommended for men and premenopausal women with ABC. Nevertheless, almost all ABCs eventually become resistant to endocrine therapy (ET) and the disease is incurable. New therapies are needed to combat ET resistance, maintain patient quality of life (QoL), and delay the need for chemotherapy. AZD9833 (camizestrant) is an orally bioavailable, highly potent, next-generation SERD that demonstrated anti-cancer properties across a range of preclinical models, including those with ER-activating mutations (Scott et al, 2020). A phase I study (SERENA-1) has demonstrated that AZD9833 is well tolerated and has a promising antitumor profile when administered alone or in combination with palbociclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor (Baird et al, SABCS 2020). SERENA-4 (NCT04711252) is a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AZD9833 in combination with palbociclib for patients with ER+ HER2− ABC who have not received any systemic treatment in the advanced disease setting. Methods: SERENA-4 will enroll 1,342 patients with de novo or recurrent ER+ HER2– ABC who have not previously received systemic treatment for their locoregionally recurrent or metastatic disease. Patients with recurrent disease must have received adjuvant AI or tamoxifen therapy for at least 24 months without relapse. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive orally either (a) AZD9833 (75 mg, once daily), palbociclib (125 mg, once daily for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment) and anastrozole-matching placebo (once daily) or (b) anastrozole (1 mg, once daily), palbociclib (same as active arm), and AZD9833-matching placebo (once daily). Premenopausal women and men will also receive LHRH agonists. The primary endpoint will be progression-free survival (PFS; up to 5 years). Secondary endpoints will include overall survival (up to 8 years), length of second PFS period, objective response, time to chemotherapy, and changes in QoL measures. Enrollment began in January 2021. Acknowledgments: We thank Rose Goodchild, PhD, of Oxford PharmaGenesis, UK, for providing medical writing assistance. Funding: The SERENA-4 trial is funded and overseen by AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT04711252 .

TPS595 Background: Patients (pts) with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than pts with a pathologic complete response (pCR). Post neoadjuvant T-DM1 has improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but pts with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes and recurrences in the central nervous system are a problem. More effective treatment strategies are needed. The CompassHER2 trials, EA1181 and A011801, leverage pCR to tailor post neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ EBC. EA1181 is a NAT de-escalation trial of a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) in clinical stage II-III HER2+ EBC; pts with a pCR complete HP +/- adjuvant radiation (RT) +/- endocrine therapy (ET). A011801 is an escalation trial for pts with high risk HER2+ RD after NAT, examining addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to adjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Pts. with high-risk HER2+ RD (e.g. ER-,node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1+ placebo (pb), vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of T and H +/- P. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (̃15-30% enrollees); these pts must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801. Pts who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is higher with addition of T-DM1 to tucatinib in pts with HER2+ EBC with RD after NAT; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in pts with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints will also be evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-),and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 pts; activation and completion dates are 01/6/21 and ̃ 01/2028. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Clinical trial information: NCT04457596.

548 Background: sTILs are a well-established prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with operable TNBC receiving pre or postoperative systemic therapy. We1 and others2,3 have also shown that sTILs are prognostic in patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Here, we detail the outcomes of systemically untreated patients with N0 TNBC according to sTIL score. We focused on the N0 subset as a group of patients who may be candidates for future prospective therapy de-escalation trials. Methods: From a clinically annotated cohort of 605 patients with centrally confirmed TNBC (ER/PR < 1% and HER2 negative) with long-term outcomes data, we identified 182 patients treated with locoregional therapy only (breast surgery +/- radiation therapy and no chemotherapy). The clinicopathological characteristics of this cohort have previously been published1. In this analysis, we report the 5- and 10-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) rates of patients with N0 TNBC according to sTIL levels. IDFS and OS were defined as per the STEEP classification and estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Comparisons of the survival distributions between groups were assessed by the log-rank test. sTILs were assessed as a continuous parameter according to the International TIL Working Group guidelines. For comparisons of outcomes between groups, tumors were classified as lymphocyte-predominant TNBC (defined as containing ≥50% sTILs) vs non-lymphocyte-predominant ( < 50% sTILs). Results: Of 182 systemically untreated patients, 149 (82%) were N0 and most (78%) were post-menopausal. T stage distribution was T1: 68%, T2: 28%, T3/4: 4%. Among N0 patients, 31 (21%) had lymphocyte-predominant TNBC, and in this group the 5-year iDFS and OS were 89% (95% CI 76-100) and 96% (95% CI 89-100), while the 10-year iDFS and OS were 89% (95% CI 76-100) and 87% (95% CI 73-100), respectively. In contrast, outcomes for patients with non-lymphocyte predominant TNBC were significantly worse. For this group, 5-year iDFS and OS were 62% (95% CI 53-73) and 78% (95% CI 71-86) while the 10-year iDFS and OS were 45% (95% CI 36-58) and 66% (95% CI 68-76), respectively ( log-rank p = 0.02 for iDFS and log-rank p = 0.03 for OS). Conclusions: sTIL quantification identifies a subset of patients with early-stage N0 TNBC with an exceedingly good prognosis, even in the absence of adjuvant chemotherapy. These data provide support for the evaluation of sTILs as part of prospective investigation of systemic therapy de-escalation strategies in N0 TNBC. References:1Leon-Ferre et al, Breast Cancer Res Treat (2018) 167:89-99 2Park et al, Ann Oncol (2019) 12:1941-1949 3De Jong et al, ESMO 2020

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the treatment of choice for hormone receptor–positive early breast cancer in postmenopausal women. None of the third‐generation AIs are superior to the others in terms of efficacy. We attempted to identify genetic factors that could differentiate between the effectiveness of adjuvant anastrozole and exemestane by examining single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)‐treatment interaction in 4,465 patients. A group of SNPs were found to be differentially associated between anastrozole and exemestane regarding outcomes. However, they showed no association with outcome in the combined analysis. We followed up common SNPs near LY75 and GPR160 that could differentiate anastrozole from exemestane efficacy. LY75 and GPR160 participate in epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition and growth pathways, in both cases with SNP‐dependent variation in regulation. Collectively, these studies identified SNPs that differentiate the efficacy of anastrozole and exemestane and they suggest additional genetic biomarkers for possible use in selecting an AI for a given patient.

Abstract Human tissue samples commonly preserved as formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues after diagnostic or surgical procedures in the clinic represent an invaluable source of clinical specimens for in-depth characterization of signaling networks to assess therapeutic options. Tyrosine phosphorylation (pTyr) plays a fundamental role in cellular processes and is commonly dysregulated in cancer but has not been studied to date in FFPE samples. In addition, pTyr analysis that may otherwise inform therapeutic interventions for patients has been limited by the requirement for large amounts of frozen tissue. Here we describe a method for highly sensitive, quantitative analysis of pTyr signaling networks, with hundreds of sites quantified from one to two 10-μm sections of FFPE tissue specimens. A combination of optimized magnetic bead–based sample processing, optimized pTyr enrichment strategies, and tandem mass tag multiplexing enabled in-depth coverage of pTyr signaling networks from small amounts of input material. Phosphotyrosine profiles of flash-frozen and FFPE tissues derived from the same tumors suggested that FFPE tissues preserve pTyr signaling characteristics in patient-derived xenografts and archived clinical specimens. pTyr analysis of FFPE tissue sections from breast cancer tumors as well as lung cancer tumors highlighted patient-specific oncogenic driving kinases, indicating potential targeted therapies for each patient. These data suggest the capability for direct translational insight from pTyr analysis of small amounts of FFPE tumor tissue specimens. Significance: This study reports a highly sensitive method utilizing FFPE tissues to identify dysregulated signaling networks in patient tumors, opening the door for direct translational insights from FFPE tumor tissue banks in hospitals.

This letter to the editor responds to Badoui et al. regarding data on abemaciclib dosages and adverse events.

AbstractThis post hoc analysis of MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 assesses the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of abemaciclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in East Asian patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‐negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer. MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 are global, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3 studies of abemaciclib/placebo + fulvestrant and abemaciclib/placebo + nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI, anastrozole or letrozole), respectively. The East Asian population comprised 212 (31.7%) of the 669 intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population in the MONARCH 2 trial and 144 (29.2%) of the 493 ITT patients in the MONARCH 3 trial. In the East Asian population, median progression‐free survival (PFS) was significantly prolonged in the abemaciclib arm compared with placebo in both MONARCH 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.520; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.362 to 0.747; P < .001; median: 21.2 vs 11.6 months) and MONARCH 3 (HR, 0.326; 95% CI, 0.200 to 0.531, P < .001; median: not reached vs 12.82 months). Diarrhea (MONARCH 2: 90%; MONARCH 3: 88%) and neutropenia (MONARCH 2: 68%; MONARCH 3: 58%) were the most frequent adverse events observed in the East Asian populations. Abemaciclib exposures and PK were similar in East Asians and the non‐East Asian populations of both trials. Abemaciclib in combination with ET in the East Asian populations of MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 provided consistent results with the ITT populations, demonstrating improvements in efficacy with generally tolerable safety profiles for patients with HR+, HER2− advanced breast cancer.

Abstract Despite the availability of drugs that target ERα-positive breast cancer, resistance commonly occurs, resulting in relapse, metastasis, and death. Tamoxifen remains the most commonly-prescribed endocrine therapy worldwide, and “tamoxifen resistance” has been extensively studied. However, little consideration has been given to the role of endoxifen, the most abundant active tamoxifen metabolite detected in patients, in driving resistance mechanisms. Endoxifen functions differently from the parent drug and other primary metabolites, including 4-hydroxy-tamoxifen (4HT). Many studies have shown that patients who extensively metabolize tamoxifen into endoxifen have superior outcomes relative to patients who do not, supporting a primary role for endoxifen in driving tamoxifen responses. Therefore, “tamoxifen resistance” may be better modeled by “endoxifen resistance” for some patients. Here, we report the development of novel endoxifen-resistant breast cancer cell lines and have extensively compared these models to 4HT and fulvestrant (ICI)-resistant models. Endoxifen-resistant cells were phenotypically and molecularly distinct from 4HT-resistant cells and more closely resembled ICI-resistant cells overall. Specifically, endoxifen resistance was associated with ERα and PR loss, estrogen insensitivity, unique gene signatures, and striking resistance to most FDA-approved second- and third-line therapies. Given these findings, and the importance of endoxifen in the efficacy of tamoxifen therapy, our data indicate that endoxifen-resistant models may be more clinically relevant than existing models and suggest that a better understanding of endoxifen resistance could substantially improve patient care. Implications: Here we report on the development and characterization of the first endoxifen-resistant models and demonstrate that endoxifen resistance may better model tamoxifen resistance in a subset of patients.

Abstract Proton Bragg peak irradiation has a higher ionizing density than conventional photon irradiation or the entrance of the proton beam profile. Whether targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) could enhance vulnerability to the distinct pattern of damage induced by proton Bragg peak irradiation is currently unknown. Here, we performed genetic or pharmacologic manipulation of key DDR elements and evaluated DNA damage signaling, DNA repair, and tumor control in cell lines and xenografts treated with the same physical dose across a radiotherapy linear energy transfer spectrum. Radiotherapy consisted of 6 MV photons and the entrance beam or Bragg peak of a 76.8 MeV spot scanning proton beam. More complex DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) induced by Bragg peak proton irradiation preferentially underwent resection and engaged homologous recombination (HR) machinery. Unexpectedly, the ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) inhibitor, AZD0156, but not an inhibitor of ATM and Rad3-related, rendered cells hypersensitive to more densely ionizing proton Bragg peak irradiation. ATM inhibition blocked resection and shunted more DSBs to processing by toxic ligation through nonhomologous end-joining, whereas loss of DNA ligation via XRCC4 or Lig4 knockdown rescued resection and abolished the enhanced Bragg peak cell killing. Proton Bragg peak monotherapy selectively sensitized cell lines and tumor xenografts with inherent HR defects, and the repair defect induced by ATM inhibitor coadministration showed enhanced efficacy in HR-proficient models. In summary, inherent defects in HR or administration of an ATM inhibitor in HR-proficient tumors selectively enhances the relative biological effectiveness of proton Bragg peak irradiation. Significance: Coadministration of an ATM inhibitor rewires DNA repair machinery to render cancer cells uniquely hypersensitive to DNA damage induced by the proton Bragg peak, which is characterized by higher density ionization. See related commentary by Nickoloff, p. 3156