Citations

10509 Background: PST allows for improved surgical outcomes and response assessment without compromising long term outcomes. PST is an attractive model for assessing surrogate markers of response to therapy. We hypothesized that changes in tumor standardized uptake values corrected for lean body mass (SUL) max on FDG- PET by cycle 1 day 15 (C1D15) of therapy would predict pathological complete response (pCR) to PST in women with stage 2-3, grade 2-3, HER2-negative breast cancer. Methods: TBCRC008 is a multicenter placebo-controlled trial that investigates pCR following 12 weeks of preoperative carboplatin and albumin-bound paclitaxel with or without vorinostat. FDG-PET followed by tumor biopsies were performed at baseline and C1D15. We correlated % reduction in SULmax on FDG-PET (PERCIST 1.0; Wahl RL, J Nuc Med 2009) with pCR (no invasive cancer in breast/axilla). We compared % reduction in SULmax between responders (pCR) and non responders (no pCR) using nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test. We explored association of % reduction in SULmax at pre-specified cutoff with response using Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression. We correlated baseline, C1D15, and % change in Ki67 at C1D15 with pCR. Results: Accrual is complete. Of 62 women enrolled (10/2009-11/2011), 40 have completed study PST and surgery (median age 47.5 [range 30-68], ER-positive 67%). Overall pCR was 26%. In an intent to treat analysis (n=39), we observed a significant difference in median % reduction in SULmax between responders vs not (66.6% vs 32.4%, p <0.001). We observed a higher proportion of reduction in SULmax ≥ 60% in responders vs not (80% vs 3.5%, p <0.001). The differences in baseline, C1D15 and % change in Ki67 were not significant between responders and non-responders. Conclusions: Change in SULmax on FDG-PET 15 days after initiating PST was significantly greater in patients with pCR versus no pCR. Future studies will determine whether altering therapy based on early changes in SULmax will improve pCR. Unblinded data from all participants will be presented at the meeting.

3001 Background: p38 MAPK regulates production of cytokines by the tumor microenvironment and its activation enables cancer cells to survive in the presence of oncogenic stress, radiation, chemotherapy, and targeted therapies. LY2228820 is a selective small-molecule inhibitor of p38 MAPK and preclinical studies demonstrate antitumor activity as a single agent and in combination with standard agents. We performed a phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of LY2228820 and to characterize its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Methods: Dose escalation was performed in a 3+3 design. LY2228820 was taken orally every 12 hours on days 1-14 of a 28-day cycle. Results: 54 patients received either capsules at 8 dose levels (10, 20, 40, 65, 90, 120, 160, and 200mg) or tablets at 5 dose levels (160, 200, 300, 420, and 560mg). For both formulations, Cmax and AUC increased in a dose-dependent manner. LY2228820 inhibited p38 MAPK induced phosphorylation of MAPKAP-K2 in peripheral blood with dose-dependent maximum inhibition from 10 to 70% across the dose range 10-200mg. The most common drug-related adverse events included fatigue, nausea, rash, constipation, vomiting, and pruritus. 1 patient (200mg) had DLT of erythema multiforme (Gr3) and 2 patients (560mg) had DLT of ataxia (Gr3) and dizziness (Gr2), respectively. Although the MTD was 420mg, the frequency of Gr1/2 adverse events (mainly rash, dizziness, and tremor) and observation of clinical activity at lower dose levels led to a recommended dose of 300mg (mean AUC0-24 = 11.7ug-hr/ml at steady state). Early clinical activity has been observed in ovary, breast, and kidney cancers. One patient with metastatic clear cell carcinoma of the kidney refractory to sorafenib, sunitinib, and temsirolimus had confirmed near partial response (29% decrease) after 8 cycles and remains on therapy. 15 patients (28%) achieved best overall response of stable disease, which in 12 patients (22%) was prolonged (≥4 cycles). Conclusions: LY2228820 demonstrates acceptable pharmacokinetics, safety, and early clinical activity as a single agent in advanced cancer. A phase II study for patients with ovary cancer is planned.

534 Background: mTOR plays a critical role in promoting tumor cell growth. In preclinical studies, the anti-tumor activity of mTOR inhibitors is attenuated by feedback up-regulation of AKT mediated by IGF-1R. We designed a phase I trial to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and pharmacodynamic effects of the IGF-1R antibody IMC-A12 in combination with temsirolimus (tem) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) where mTOR is frequently activated. Methods: A 3+3 phase I design was chosen. Tem and IMC-A12 were administered IV days (d) 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 4-week cycle in pts with MBC refractory to standard therapies. Tumor response was evaluated by RECIST. Adverse events (AE) were reported using CTC v3.0. Serum IGF 1 and C-peptide levels on d2 (24h post infusion) and d8 prior to drug infusion were compared to baseline (BL) using paired t-test. Results: Of 26 pts enrolled, 4 did not complete cycle 1 due to progression (3) or co-morbid condition (1). MTD was determined from remaining 22 pts aged 34-72 (median 48) years with ECOG PS 0 (55%) or 1 (45%). 86% had ER+ cancer. Median number of regimens for MBC was 4. Two DLTs at the starting DL (DL 1) necessitated dose de-escalation of tem to 20mg (DL-1), then to 15 mg (DL-2) which was tolerable (Table). Subsequent dose escalation of IMC-A12 led to DLTs in 0 of 6 in DL-2A and 2 of 3 pts in DL-2B. The MTD was defined as DL-2A. Other AEs included gr 1/2 fatigue, neutropenia, anemia, and hyperglycemia. No CR or PR, but 4 SD lasting ≥ 4 months were observed. At DL-2, -2A and -2B, serum IGF 1 levels were significantly elevated on d2 (p <0.002) and d8 compared to BL (p <0.001), but C-peptide levels were not found to differ from BL. Conclusions: The MTD for the combination of IMC-A12 and tem in pts with MBC is lower than that observed for single agents alone. A phase II study is ongoing in MBC. The study is supported in part by ASCO CDA, Komen Craft to CXM, N01-CM62205 and N01-CM-2011-00071. [Table: see text]

504 Background: CYP2D6 genetic variants and concurrent administration of potent inhibitors (Inh) of the enzyme markedly reduce the plasma concentrations of endoxifen (Jin. JNCI 2005;97:30–9). We have shown that genetic variation in CYP2D6 is associated with a higher risk of relapse in Tam treated patients (pts) (Goetz. JCO 2005;23:9312–18), but the impact of CYP2D6 inhibition on Tam clinical outcome is unknown. Methods: Using the North Central Cancer Treatment Group 89–30–52 adjuvant Tam trial (1989–1994), we evaluated the effect of co-administration of CYP2D6 Inh and CYP2D6*4 genotype on relapse in pts receiving tam alone. Patient charts were reviewed at each randomizing site to record the following known CYP2D6 Inh: fluoxetine (F), paroxetine (P), sertraline (S), cimetidine (C), amiodarone (A), doxepin (D), ticlopidine (T) and haloperidol (H). Poor metabolizers (PM) were defined as pts who were CYP2D6 *4/*4 and/or known to receive a CYP2D6 Inh. Intermediate metabolizers (IM) were defined as WT/*4 without CYP2D6 Inh, and extensive metabolizers (EM) as WT/WT without CYP2D6 Inh. The association between CYP2D6 status and Tam clinical outcome was determined using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox modeling was performed using traditional prognostic factors. Results: CYP2D6*4 genotype was obtained in 190 of 256 eligible pts, with a CYP2D6*4/*4 genotype frequency of 6.8% as described previously (Goetz JCO 2005). Medication history was available in 171/256 eligible pts and in 143/190 pts with CYP2D6 genotype. Eleven of 173 patients were concomitantly administered these CYP2D6 Inh: F(2), P(2), S(2), H(1), C(4), and D(1). The median duration of use was 2.5 yrs. Twenty-four pts met criteria for PM [13 by *4/*4 genotype and 11 by CYP2D6 Inh (7 WT/WT, 1 WT/*4, and 3 unknown genotype)], 21 for IM, and 102 for EM. Compared with either IM or EM, PMs had significantly worse time to recurrence and disease free survival in both the univariate (HR 2.5, p=0.02; and 2.2, p=0.01) and multivariate (HR 2.7, p=0.01; and HR 2.2 p=.02) analyses utilizing tumor size, nodal status, and tumor grade. Conclusion: Our data indicate that CYP2D6 status can be used to identify pts who should receive tam therapy and tam treated pts should not be co-administered potent CYP2D6 inhibitors. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

576 Background: In node-negative, ER + breast cancer, gene expression profiling can identify level of risk and, in the case of ODX, may also identify pts with a higher chance of benefiting from adjuvant chemotherapy. Because the gene profile in ODX includes an assessment of ER, HER2, and proliferation, we hypothesized that clinicians using standardized criteria could discriminate risk (high versus low/intermediate) as specified by ODX. Methods: We identified Mayo Clinic patients with node-negative, ER + breast cancer, for whom ODX scores were available. Tumor slides were reviewed by an expert breast pathologist to confirm tumor size, histology, and tumor grade. Both ER and PR were quantitated; HER-2 was determined by IHC (FISH, if 2+). These clinical cases were presented to six academic oncologists, blinded to the ODX score, to predict ODX risk (low, intermediate, or high) and give their recommendation for chemotherapy (CTX) (yes/no). Afterwards, they were presented with the same cases with the actual ODX score, to give recommendations regarding CTX. Results: ODX scores in tumors from 31 patients were low in 18 pts, intermediate in 10 pts, and high in 3 pts. Concordance between predicted and actual ODX scores being low/intermediate vs high exceeded 87% for each oncologist. The most frequent discrepancies were actual low scores predicted as intermediate (31/80 discordant) and actual intermediate scores predicted as low (29/80 discordant). Overall agreement of predicted scores (high vs low/intermediate) among the oncologists was substantial (kappa=0.75, p<0.0001). CTX recommendations following provision of the ODX scores changed on average 18.2% (range 12.9%-25.8%) of the time, with slightly fewer changing for, versus against, a CTX recommendation. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the proper evaluation and interpretation of traditional prognostic criteria will identify most node negative, ER + patients at high risk of recurrence (as predicted by ODX) but poorly discriminate low versus intermediate risk. The provision of ODX data changed the recommendation for CTX in approximately 20% of cases. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapies targeting PD‐1/PD‐L1 are now the standard of care in oncology across several hematologic and solid tumor types, including triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Patients with metastatic or locally advanced TNBC with PD‐L1 expression on immune cells occupying ≥1% of tumor area demonstrated survival benefit with the addition of atezolizumab to nab‐paclitaxel. However, concerns regarding variability between immunohistochemical PD‐L1 assay performance and inter‐reader reproducibility have been raised. High tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have also been associated with response to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with breast cancer (BC). TILs can be easily assessed on hematoxylin and eosin–stained slides and have shown reliable inter‐reader reproducibility. As an established prognostic factor in early stage TNBC, TILs are soon anticipated to be reported in daily practice in many pathology laboratories worldwide. Because TILs and PD‐L1 are parts of an immunological spectrum in BC, we propose the systematic implementation of combined PD‐L1 and TIL analyses as a more comprehensive immuno‐oncological biomarker for patient selection for PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibition‐based therapy in patients with BC. Although practical and regulatory considerations differ by jurisdiction, the pathology community has the responsibility to patients to implement assays that lead to optimal patient selection. We propose herewith a risk‐management framework that may help mitigate the risks of suboptimal patient selection for immuno‐therapeutic approaches in clinical trials and daily practice based on combined TILs/PD‐L1 assessment in BC. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PURPOSE To determine the sensitivity and specificity of genetic testing criteria for the detection of germline pathogenic variants in women with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS Women with breast cancer enrolled in a breast cancer registry at a tertiary cancer center between 2000 and 2016 were evaluated for germline pathogenic variants in 9 breast cancer predisposition genes ( ATM , BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, NF1, PALB2, PTEN, and TP53). The performance of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) hereditary cancer testing criteria was evaluated relative to testing of all women as recommended by the American Society of Breast Surgeons. RESULTS Of 3,907 women, 1,872 (47.9%) meeting NCCN criteria were more likely to carry a pathogenic variant in 9 predisposition genes compared with women not meeting criteria (9.0% v 3.5%; P < .001). Of those not meeting criteria (n = 2,035), 14 (0.7%) had pathogenic variants in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The sensitivity of NCCN criteria was 70% for 9 predisposition genes and 87% for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a specificity of 53%. Expansion of the NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed with breast cancer at ≤ 65 years of age achieved > 90% sensitivity for the 9 predisposition genes and > 98% sensitivity for BRCA1 and BRCA2. CONCLUSION A substantial proportion of women with breast cancer carrying germline pathogenic variants in predisposition genes do not qualify for testing by NCCN criteria. Expansion of NCCN criteria to include all women diagnosed at ≤ 65 years of age improves the sensitivity of the selection criteria without requiring testing of all women with breast cancer.

Abstract Purpose: To determine if the degree of estrogen suppression with aromatase inhibitors (AI: anastrozole, exemestane, letrozole) is associated with efficacy in early-stage breast cancer, and to examine for differences in the mechanism of action between the three AIs. Experimental Design: Matched case–control studies [247 matched sets from MA.27 (anastrozole vs. exemestane) and PreFace (letrozole) trials] were undertaken to assess whether estrone (E1) or estradiol (E2) concentrations after 6 months of adjuvant therapy were associated with risk of an early breast cancer event (EBCE). Preclinical laboratory studies included luciferase activity, cell proliferation, radio-labeled ligand estrogen receptor binding, surface plasmon resonance ligand receptor binding, and nuclear magnetic resonance assays. Results: Women with E1 ≥1.3 pg/mL and E2 ≥0.5 pg/mL after 6 months of AI treatment had a 2.2-fold increase in risk (P = 0.0005) of an EBCE, and in the anastrozole subgroup, the increase in risk of an EBCE was 3.0-fold (P = 0.001). Preclinical laboratory studies examined mechanisms of action in addition to aromatase inhibition and showed that only anastrozole could directly bind to estrogen receptor α (ERα), activate estrogen response element-dependent transcription, and stimulate growth of an aromatase-deficient CYP19A1−/− T47D breast cancer cell line. Conclusions: This matched case–control clinical study revealed that levels of estrone and estradiol above identified thresholds after 6 months of adjuvant anastrozole treatment were associated with increased risk of an EBCE. Preclinical laboratory studies revealed that anastrozole, but not exemestane or letrozole, is a ligand for ERα. These findings represent potential steps towards individualized anastrozole therapy.