Citations

Abstract FoxM1, a member of the Forkhead transfection factors, has been found to be overexpressed in many human cancers including ovarian cancer. Although FoxM1 is known to be downregulated by p53, the molecular mechanisms are not well characterized. In this study, we used the MDM2 inhibitor Nutlin-3 as a tool to modulate p53 expression and investigated the mechanism by which p53 regulates FoxM1 expression in ovarian cancer cells. We observed that Nutlin-3 upregulated p53 protein and downregulated FoxM1 mRNA and protein levels in ovarian cancer cell lines with wild type TP53, but not in cell lines with mutant TP53. This effect was at least partially blocked by cycloheximide or actinomycin D, indicating a transcription- and translation-dependent mechanism. Pulse-chase studies revealed that downregulation of FoxM1 by Nutlin-3 is due to enhanced FoxM1 mRNA decay. Knockdown of p53 using shRNAs abrogated the suppression of FoxM1 expression by Nutlin-3, indicating a p53-dependent mechanism. Furthermore, silencing of FoxM1 by shRNAs in ovarian cancer cells with or without wild-type TP53 led to a significant decrease in cell proliferation. The FoxM1 inhibitor, thiostrepton, induces cytotoxicity in ovarian cancer cell lines and enhances sensitivity to cisplatin in these cells. Thiostrepton downregulates FoxM1 expression in several ovarian cancer cell lines and enhances sensitivity to carboplatin in vivo. Finally, FoxM1 expression is elevated in nearly all (47/48) ovarian tumors. In summary, the present study provides novel evidence that p53 downregulates FoxM1 in ovarian cancer cells at least in part by destabilizing FoxM1 mRNA and that FoxM1 may be targeted for therapeutic benefits in ovarian cancer. Citation Format: Xuan Zhang, Lihua Cheng, Kay Minn, Magdalena Waggoner, Nikhil K. Parelkar, Iman Jokar, George A. Vielhauer, Rashna Madan, Andrew K. Godwin, Viji Shridhar,, Jeremy Chien. Targeting p53-FoxM1 axis in ovarian cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Ovarian Cancer Research Symposium; Sep 8-9, 2014; Seattle, WA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2015;21(16 Suppl):Abstract nr POSTER-THER-1409.

Abstract Both genetic and epigenetic factors influence the development and progression of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). However, there is an incomplete understanding of the interrelationship between these factors and whether they interact to impact disease risk. Given that the development of ovarian cancer is complex, we aimed to identify DNA methylation marks that are candidates for mediating ovarian cancer genetic risk. We used 214 cases and 214 age-matched controls from the Mayo Clinic Ovarian Cancer Study. Pretreatment, blood-derived DNA was profiled for genome-wide methylation (Illumina Infinium HumanMethylation27 BeadArray) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, Illumina Infinium HD Human610-Quad BeadArray). We employed a three-step filtering procedure, followed by the Causal Inference Test (CIT), to distinguish CpG sites that mediate genetic risk, from those that are consequential or independently acted on by genotype. Controlling for the estimated distribution of immune cells and other key covariates, we identified 1,993 out of 25,926 (7.7%) CpGs that were significantly differentially methylated between cases and controls (FDR, q < 0.05). The relationship between methylation and case-control status among these 1,993 CpGs was found to be highly consistent with the results of an independent study. Implementation of the CIT test revealed 13 CpG/SNP pairs, comprising 13 unique CpGs and 17 unique SNPs, which represent potential methylation-mediated relationships between genotype and EOC risk. These findings provide additional insight into EOC etiology and may serve as novel biomarkers for EOC susceptibility. Citation Format: Devin C. Koestler, Prabhakar Chalise, Mine S. Cicek, Julie M. Cunningham, Sebastian Armasu, Melissa C. Larson, Jeremy Chien, Matthew Block, Kimberly R. Kalli, Thomas A. Sellers, Ellen L. Goode, Brooke L. Fridley. Integrative genomic analysis identifies epigenetic marks that mediate genetic risk for epithelial ovarian cancer. [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 260. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-260

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: 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 To reveal biologic mechanisms underlying clinical outcome of high-grade serous (HGS) epithelial ovarian carcinomas (EOC), we evaluated the association between tumor epigenetic changes and time to recurrence (TTR). We assessed methylation at approximately 450,000 genome-wide CpGs in tumors of 337 Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) patients. Semi-supervised clustering of discovery (n = 168) and validation (n = 169) sets was used to determine clinically relevant methylation classes. Clustering identified two methylation classes based on 60 informative CpGs, which differed in TTR in the validation set [R vs. L class, P = 2.9 × 10−3, HR = 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34–0.80]. Follow-up analyses considered genome-wide tumor mRNA expression (n = 104) and CD8 T-cell infiltration (n = 89) in patient subsets. Hypomethylation of CpGs located in 6p21.3 in the R class associated with cis upregulation of genes enriched in immune response processes (TAP1, PSMB8, PSMB9, HLA-DQB1, HLA-DQB2, HLA-DMA, and HLA-DOA), increased CD8 T-cell tumor infiltration (P = 7.6 × 10−5), and trans-regulation of genes in immune-related pathways (P = 1.6 × 10−32). This is the most comprehensive assessment of clinical outcomes with regard to epithelial ovarian carcinoma tumor methylation to date. Collectively, these results suggest that an epigenetically mediated immune response is a predictor of recurrence and, possibly, treatment response for HGS EOC. Cancer Res; 74(11); 3084–91. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract Ovarian cancer is a clinically and molecularly heterogeneous disease. The driving forces behind this variability are unknown. Here, we report wide variation in the expression of the DNA cytosine deaminase APOBEC3B, with elevated expression in the majority of ovarian cancer cell lines (three SDs above the mean of normal ovarian surface epithelial cells) and high-grade primary ovarian cancers. APOBEC3B is active in the nucleus of several ovarian cancer cell lines and elicits a biochemical preference for deamination of cytosines in 5′-TC dinucleotides. Importantly, examination of whole-genome sequence from 16 ovarian cancers reveals that APOBEC3B expression correlates with total mutation load as well as elevated levels of transversion mutations. In particular, high APOBEC3B expression correlates with C-to-A and C-to-G transversion mutations within 5′-TC dinucleotide motifs in early-stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer genomes, suggesting that APOBEC3B-catalyzed genomic uracil lesions are further processed by downstream DNA "repair" enzymes including error-prone translesion polymerases. These data identify a potential role for APOBEC3B in serous ovarian cancer genomic instability. Cancer Res; 73(24); 7222–31. ©2013 AACR.

AbstractObjectivesPatient satisfaction is tied to outcome, but there is scant literature on the relationship of patient perceived outcome and attributes of the pain clinic visit, including the patient interaction with the pain management specialist. The primary purpose of this study is to identify attributes of the patient–provider interaction most strongly associated with patient perceived outcome of their clinic visit. The secondary aim is to correlate patient perceived outcome with patient self‐rated overall health.MethodsA patient satisfaction survey conducted via phone approximately 3 weeks after the patient's pain clinic visit.ResultsThe response rate was 60.2%; 987 patient surveys collected between 2006 and 2010 were used in the analysis. Four factors were significantly associated with the outcome: (1) Explanations by the physician of the patient's condition and treatment, (2) clear instructions regarding post‐appointment activities, (3) knowing the patient as a person, and (4) the patient's self‐rated health. In terms of the secondary objective, those who answered very good/excellent regarding their self‐rated health had an 87% increased odds of better (very good/excellent) outcome of their pain clinic visit (or 1.87 times the odds of better outcome) compared with those who answered poor/fair/good.ConclusionsOur results suggest that pain physicians may positively impact patient perceived outcomes of clinic visits by explaining the patient's condition and treatment, providing instructions, and taking the time to understand the patient and their values.

Abstract New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety. Clin Cancer Res; 19(11); 2817–23. ©2013 AACR.