Citations

LBA1 Background: In hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer, the 21-gene expression assay (Oncotype DX Recurrence Score [RS]) is prognostic for distant recurrence, prognostic for low recurrence with endocrine therapy alone if low (0-10), and predictive of chemotherapy benefit if high (26 or higher). We performed a prospective, randomized trial of endocrine therapy (ET) versus chemoendocrine therapy (CET) in women with a mid-range RS of 11-25. Methods: Eligibility criteria included women 18-75 years of age with HR-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node (AN)-negative breast cancer and tumors 1.1-5.0 cm in size (or 0.6-1.0 cm and int/high grade) and agreed to have chemotherapy assigned or randomized based on the RS. Women with a mid-range RS (11-25) were randomized to receive ET or CET. The primary endpoint was invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), and the trial was designed to show non-inferiority for ET alone by not rejecting equality (hazard ratio [HR] margin up to 1.322 for omission of chemotherapy, 1-sided type I error rate 10%, type II error rate 5%). The target sample size was adjusted to compensate for non-adherence to randomized treatment, and the protocol-specified final analysis was triggered after 835 iDFS events. Results: Of the 10,253 eligible women enrolled between 4/7/06-10/6/10, 6711 (65.5%) had a RS of 11-25 and adequate information. There were 836 iDFS events at final analysis with a median followup of 90 months. ET was non-inferior to CET for iDFS (HR 1.08, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.94, 1.24, p=0.26) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. ET was also non-inferior for distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI; HR 1.03, p=0.80), recurrence-free interval (RFI; HR 1.12, p=0.28), and overall survival (OS; HR 0.97, p=0.80). Nine year rates were similar for iDFS (83.3% vs. 84.3%), DRFI (94.5% vs. 95.0%), RFI (92.2% vs. 92.9%), and OS (93.9% vs. 93.8%). Recurrence accounted for 338 (41.6%) the first iDFS event, of which 199 (23.8%) were distant recurrences. Treatment interaction tests were significant for age (iDFS p=0.03; RFI p= 0.02), but not menopause, tumor size, grade, or RS (continuous or RS 11-15, 16-20, 21-25). Conclusions: In women with HR-positive, HER2-negative, AN-negative breast cancer and a RS of 11-25, adjuvant ET was not inferior to CET in the ITT analysis. (Funded by NCI, BCRF, and Komen Foundation.) Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

There are no evidence-based guidelines for antithrombotic therapy in left ventricular assist device patients. We evaluated the efficacy of a multi-agent, test-guided protocol, which remained consistent throughout our use of the Heartware HVAD. Thrombelastography and platelet function analyzer (PFA)-100 guide antiplatelet titration. Goals are normal kaolin thrombelastography maximum amplitude and prolonged PFA-100. We analyzed incidence and rates of nonprocedural bleeding, stroke, and pump thrombosis for all 81 primary Heartware left ventricular assist devices implanted since 2011. For each event, we examined whether each test was within goal range. We also compared medication burden and dosage between patients with and without events. Pump thrombosis and hemorrhagic stroke each occurred in two patients (2.5%; 0.03 events/patient-year [EPPY]), and ischemic stroke in six (7.4%; 0.10 EPPY). Nonprocedural bleeding occurred 75 times in 34 patients (42%; 1.24 EPPY), primarily gastrointestinal (28%; 0.66 EPPY). Subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) was the most common at thrombotic events; supratherapeutic partial thromboplastin time, international normalized ratio (INR), and PFA-adenosine diphosphate (ADP) were common at bleeding events. Medication burden and dosage were lower in patients with events than in stable patients. Protocol-guided antithrombotic therapy resulted in low rates of pump thrombosis and hemorrhagic stroke. Ischemic stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding rates were higher than in a comparable HVAD population. Optimization of our protocol to decrease its complexity and to reduce bleeding is underway.

36 Background: Black race is associated with worse outcomes in localized breast cancer. We evaluated the characteristics of patients enrolled in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) by race and ethnicity. Methods: The analysis included 10,071 evaluable patients with Recurrence Score (RS) data. Eligibility criteria included: (1) T1-2, N0 disease, (2) estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive disease that was also HER2/neu negative, (3) age 75 years or younger and medically appropriate for adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Results: The study population included 8,501 whites (84%), 722 blacks (7%), 423 Asians (4%), and the remainder other/unknown race. With regard to ethnicity, 7,916 were nonHispanic (79%), 919 were Hispanic (9%), and 1,236 were of unreported ethnicity (12%). There was no significant difference in RS distribution (p = 0.14), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (19.6 vs. 18.4) in blacks compared with nonblacks. There was likewise no difference in Hispanic vs. nonHispanic ethnicity for RS distribution (p = 0.53), median RS (17 vs. 17), and mean RS (18.6 vs. 18.4). Blacks were significantly more likely to be younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), have larger tumors (37% vs. 31% > 2 cm), poor histologic grade (25% vs. 17%), and PR-negative disease (14% vs. 10%) (Chi square test p < 0.05). Hispanic women were also significantly younger (39% vs. 30% < 50 years), and demonstrated marginal but statistically significant differences in tumor size (65% vs. 69% > 2 cm), histologic grade (20% vs. 18% poor), and PR expression (12% vs. 10% negative) (Chi square test < 0.05). In 974 patients with information on body mass index (BMI), there was no correlation between BMI and RS (r = -0.04). BMI was higher for blacks than whites (medians 31.6 vs. 28.9, p = 0.02, Wilcoxon test), but not in Hispanics. Conclusions: In patients selected for participation in TAILORx there were no significant differences in RS by race, ethnicity, and BMI. Black and Hispanic patients were significantly younger, and blacks had tumors that were larger and more likely to be associated with poor grade. Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.

Abstract Background: Abemaciclib, a small molecule inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, induces G1 cell cycle arrest in Rb-proficient human cancers.1 The clinical safety profile of abemaciclib enables continuous oral dosing to achieve sustained target inhibition, resulting in single-agent antitumor activity against multiple human cancers. The drug also reaches relevant concentrations in the central nervous system and, in patients taking the drug orally, can be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid.2 For women with previously treated hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), abemaciclib as a single agent achieved a six-month clinical benefit rate of 61.1% and an objective response rate of 33.3%.3 Clinical trials investigating abemaciclib combined with fulvestrant4 or aromatase inhibitors5 have led to randomized Phase 3 studies for women with HR+ breast cancer.6,7 Methods: This Phase 1b study (NCT02057133) with multiple cohorts evaluates safety and tolerability of abemaciclib combined with endocrine or HER2-targeted therapies for MBC. Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetics (PK) and antitumor activity of abemaciclib when given in combination with other therapies. Cohorts were opened to enrollment sequentially. Patients with HR+ HER2 negative MBC received abemaciclib orally every 12 hours (Q12H) in combination with the following standard therapies daily until progression: letrozole (Part A), anastrozole (Part B), tamoxifen (Part C), exemestane (Part D), or exemestane plus everolimus (Part E). Patients with HER2 positive MBC received abemaciclib orally Q12H in combination with trastuzumab every 21 days until progression (Part F). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI CTCAE v4.0 and tumor response was assessed radiographically using RECIST v1.1. Results: Abemaciclib has been combined with multiple targeted therapies for the treatment of women with MBC. We previously reported safety and early efficacy results for the combinations of abemaciclib with letrozole, anastrozole, tamoxifen, exemestane, and exemestane plus everolimus.5 Due to limited follow-up at that time, the efficacy results were not mature. Safety, PK, and efficacy results with approximately 6 months of additional follow-up will be reported across all parts of the study. The most common treatment-emergent AEs include effects on the gastrointestinal and hematopoietic systems. Consistent with previously reported results for both single-agent abemaciclib and the combination of abemaciclib with fulvestrant, tumor responses have been observed among women receiving abemaciclib in combination with targeted therapies for MBC. Conclusions: This study for women with MBC demonstrates the potential for abemaciclib to be combined with therapies targeting specific signaling pathways. References: 1Gelbert et al. Invest New Drugs. 2014;32(5):825-37. 2Shapiro et al. J Clin Oncol 31, 2013 (suppl; abstr 2500). 3Tolaney et al. SABCS 2014: Abstract 763. 4Patnaik et al. J Clin Oncol 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr 534). 5Tolaney et al. J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr 522). 6Llombart et al. SABCS 2014: OT1-1-07 (MONARCH 2, NCT02107703). 7Goetz et al. J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr TPS624) (MONARCH 3, NCT02246621). Citation Format: Goetz MP, Beeram M, Beck T, Conlin AK, Dees EC, Dickler MN, Helsten TL, Conkling PR, Edenfield WJ, Richards DA, Turner PK, Cai N, Chan EM, Pant S, Becerra CH, Kalinsky K, Puhalla SL, Rexer BN, Burris HA, Tolaney SM. Abemaciclib, an inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, combined with endocrine and HER2-targeted therapies for women with metastatic breast cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-13-25.

Abstract Background: The Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment (TAILORx) is a prospective trial evaluating the role of endocrine therapy or chemoendocrine therapy in patients 18-75 years of age with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, a primary tumor between 0.6-5.0 cm, and negative axillary nodes, a population for whom chemotherapy is typically recommended or least considered based on National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN) guidelines. Methods: The trial was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of endocrine therapy compared with chemoendocrine therapy in the randomized group with an Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS) of 11-25. Patients with a low RS &lt; 11 were assigned to endocrine therapy alone and with a high RS &gt; 25 assigned to chemoendocrine therapy, and both groups were followed in a prospective registry. The definition of an intermediate RS differed in this trial (RS 11-25) from the original reports (RS 18-30) in order to reduce the risk of chemotherapy undertreatment in patients with a mid-range or low RS (Sparano & Paik. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:721-728). Results: The trial enrolled 10,273 patients between April 2006 and October 2010, of whom 6907 patients (67.2%) had a mid-range RS of 11-25, 1737 (16.9%) had a high RS &gt; 25, and 1639 (15.9%) had a low RS of &lt; 11. At the fourth planned interim analysis, the ECOG-ACRIN data monitoring committee recommended that the study continue as planned for the randomized group with a RS 11-25, and that the results be released to the investigators for the low risk group with a RS &lt;11. The characteristics of the low risk registry population are as follows: age 50 or less (27%), 51-60 (35%), &gt; 60 (39%); tumor size &lt; 1 cm (8%), 1-2 cm (61%), &gt; 2 cm (31%); histologic grade low (34%), intermediate (59%), high (7%); breast conservation (68%) or mastectomy (32%). Initial endocrine therapy included tamoxifen in 35%, aromatase inhibitors in 59%, ovarian function suppression in 3%, and unspecified therapy in 3%; 5 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (1 of whom relapsed). Five-year rates (and 95% confidence intervals [CI]) for low RS group were 99.2% (98.5, 99.6%) for distant relapse free interval, 98.5% (97.7, 99.1%) for relapse-free interval, 93.7% (92.2, 94.9%) for invasive disease free survival, and 98.2% (97.3, 98.7%) for overall survival. Information regarding ER, PR, and HER2 RNA expression will be presented. Conclusions: Despite meeting guidelines for recommending or at least considering adjuvant chemotherapy based on classical clinicopathologic features, the risk of recurrence was very low at 5 years in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer and a low RS of &lt; 11 treated with endocrine therapy alone without chemotherapy. Citation Format: Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, Geyer Jr CE, Dees EC, Perez EA, Olson Jr JA, Zujweski J, Keane MM, Gomez Moreno HL, Reddi RP, Goggins TF, Mayer IA, Brufsky AM, Toppmeyer DL, Kaklamani VG, Atkins JN, Berenberg JL, Sledge Jr GW. Prospective trial of endocrine therapy alone in patients with estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer: Results of the TAILORx low risk registry. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-01.

Abstract Background: Although the spectrum of genomic alterations in primary, treatment-naïve breast tumors has been described, the genomic landscape of HER2+ MBC remains underexplored. Furthermore, tumor genomic alterations that arise after progression on anti-HER2 therapy are largely unknown. Methods: We prospectively collected metastatic tumor biopsies from patients (pts) enrolled on TBCRC003 (NCT00470704), a phase II study evaluating the combination of lapatinib (L) and T in pts with HER2+ MBC who had varying degrees of prior T exposure. We performed WES on baseline metastatic biopsies and normal DNA from 57 pts. In 36 pts, we also performed WES on pre-treatment primary tumors. Tumors were analyzed for point mutations, insertions/deletions, and copy number alterations. Results: Total accrual was 116 pts. 87 pts were registered in one of two efficacy cohorts: Cohort 1 included pts w no prior T for MBC. Pts with prior adjuvant T were included if the interval from last T to 1st recurrence &gt; 12 months. Cohort 2 included pts with 1-2 prior lines of T for MBC or recurrence within 12 months of adjuvant T. An additional 29 pts were enrolled in a biomarker cohort (Cohort 3). Per-protocol efficacy analyses for 85 pts deemed evaluable are shown below: Objective Response RateClinical Benefit RateMedian Time to ProgressionCohort 150% (90% CI 33.8-66.2%)57.5% (95% CI 40.9-73.0)7.4 monthsCohort 222.2% (90% CI 11.2-37.1%)42.2% (95% CI 27.7-57.8)5.3 months As we previously reported (Wagle et al, ASCO 2014), across 57 metastatic tumors, significant recurrently mutated genes were TP53 (n=30; 53%) and PIK3CA (n=19; 33%). The frequency of mutant TP53 and PIK3CA was not significantly different from 119 primary, treatment-naïve HER2+ tumors sequenced in the TCGA study (50%, p=0.8 and 27%, p=0.5, respectively). Recurrent copy number alterations were also similar to TCGA data. Comparing the 38 pts who received any prior T with the 19 pts who did not, there was no significant difference in the incidence of mutant TP53 (53% vs 53%, p=1.0) and PIK3CA (37% vs 26%, p=0.6). We identified mutations in the HER2 kinase domain in 4/38 pts who received prior T (11%), as compared to 0/19 T-naïve pts. HER2 kinase domain mutations have been identified in ∼2% of HER2-negative cancers but &lt;1% of primary HER2+ cancers. 3 of the mutations were L755S, which has been shown to be resistant to L and sensitive to irreversible HER2 inhibitors. The 4th mutation was D742N, a novel kinase domain mutation. None of the 4 pts with HER2 kinase domain mutations had an objective response, though 1 pt had stable disease for 29 weeks. An analysis comparing paired archival primary tumors and baseline metastatic biopsies from 36 pts to identify genomic alterations acquired or enriched in the metastatic tumors will be presented. Conclusions: We present an analysis of the genomic landscape of HER2+ MBC, including comparisons between matched primary tumors and metastatic biopsies. Somatic HER2 kinase mutations in pts with HER2+ MBC treated with prior T suggests that these mutations may be involved in resistance to T, and may predict poor response to additional anti-HER2 therapy with combined L and T. Novel therapeutic approaches may be required for these pts. Citation Format: Nikhil Wagle, Nancy U Lin, Andrea L Richardson, Ignaty Leshchiner, Ingrid A Mayer, Andres Forero-Torres, Timothy J Hobday, Elizabeth C Dees, Rita Nanda, Mothaffar F Rimawi, Hao Guo, William T Barry, Ron Bose, Wei Shen, Antonio C Wolff, Stacey B Gabriel, Levi A Garraway, Eric P Winer, Ian E Krop. Whole exome sequencing (WES) of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) from patients with or without prior trastuzumab (T): A correlative analysis of TBCRC003 [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 PD3-5.

Abstract Background We evaluated the safety and efficacy of L+T in pts with 0–2 prior lines of chemotherapy (CT) for HER2+ MBC. In the context of this phase II trial, we evaluated metabolic response by FDG-PET and explored the relationship between metabolic response and clinical outcomes. Methods: Pts with measurable, HER2+ MBC were eligible. Cohort 1: No prior T, L, or CT +T for MBC, and &gt;1 yr from adjuvant T, if received. Cohort 2: 1–2 prior lines of CT for MBC, including T, or relapse within 1 yr of adjuvant T. Pts received L 1,000 mg QD + T (2 mg/kg weekly or 6 mg/kg Q3W). Staging studies were done with CT or MRI at baseline (BL) and every 2 cycles (1 cycle=4 weeks [wks]). Objective response was assessed by local investigator according to RECIST 1.0. FDG-PET/CT was performed at BL, Wk 1, and Wk 8 per NCI guidelines. Central quality assurance, review, and analysis were performed on FDG-PET studies. Up to 5 target lesions were identified on BL FDG-PET images based on hypermetabolic uptake. Percent change in the summed maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of target lesions was calculated at Wk 1 or Wk 8, compared to BL. Metabolic response was assessed according to EORTC criteria for % change in SUVmax (progressive disease [PD]: ≥25% increase; partial response [PR]: ≥25% decrease; stable disease [SD]: &lt;25% change). Metabolic response at Wk 1 was compared to Wk 8 as well as to clinical outcome, including objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 87 pts were registered to the study. Of these, one pt did not begin protocol therapy and one pt did not have MBC on further testing, and are not included. 81/85 pts had FDG-PET data at Wk 1; 75/85 had data at Wk 8. Metabolic PR at Wk 1 was observed in 28/39 (72%) pts in Cohort 1 and 20/42 (48%) pts in Cohort 2. Metabolic PR at Wk 8 was observed in 27/34 (79%) pts in Cohort 1 and 18/41 (44%) pts in Cohort 2. Wk 1 and Wk 8 metabolic responses were similar. In cohort 1, 18/28 (64%) pts who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR had clinical benefit by RECIST. Of pts with Wk 1 metabolic SD, 2/9 (22%) had clinical benefit. In cohort 2, 9/20 (45%) pts who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR had clinical benefit; 5/22 (23%) who achieved Week 1 metabolic SD had clinical benefit. Exploratory analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) showed that pts in Cohort 1 who achieved Wk 1 metabolic PR experienced a median PFS of 9.3 months ([mos]; 95% CI 5.6−22.3); for pts with metabolic SD, median PFS was 1.9 mos (95% CI 0.8−5.5). For pts in Cohort 2, Wk 1 metabolic PR was associated with median PFS of 5.6 mos (95% CI 3.7−7.8), whereas for pts with metabolic SD, median PFS was 3.7 mos (95% CI 1.8−5.5). Conclusions: L+T is associated with a high rate of early and sustained metabolic response by FDG-PET. Exploratory analyses suggest that metabolic PR may be associated with clinical benefit and longer PFS. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-07.