Citations

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, Phase II trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk at least T2N0 breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify regimens that have ≥ 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) and HER2 status, and MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (with probability of success ≥ 10% and < 85%), or as recommended by the independent DSMB. For HER2- subjects the control arm is weekly paclitaxel x12 then doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide (AC) q2-3 weeks x4. For this arm, paclitaxel was omitted and replaced with maximum tolerated dose PARPi talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan (25mg/m2). Paclitaxel could be given adjuvantly for these subjects and non-responding subjects could be taken off of experimental therapy. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, prior to AC, and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to predict pCR for individual patients. Talazoparib was given at 1mg daily with 25mg/m2 irinotecan q2wks. Analysis was intention to treat. Subjects who switched to non-protocol therapy count as non-pCR. Subjects on experimental therapy at time of arm closure are non-evaluable. Talazoparib/irinotecan (TI) was open only to HER2- tumors and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results: TI did not meet criteria for graduation and was stopped at the recommendation of the DSMB based on expectations of limited activity beyond that seen with standard treatment. Maximum sample size had been reached at the time of this recommendation and subjects currently receiving TI were allowed to continue or change to standard therapy. Exploratory “as treated” analysis for response in gBRCA mutation carriers showed 6/10 gBRCA carriers attained a pCR in the TI arm. Except for 1 patient these gBRCA pCR subjects had >90% tumor reduction by MRI after TI and prior to AC (range: 68-96%). In the TI arm pCR rates were also higher in subjects with a PARPi7-High/MP2 gene expression signature (0.344 vs 0.146). Expected differences in toxicity were seen between arms including g3/4 peripheral neuropathy on control therapy which included paclitaxel (2.6% vs none) and g3/4 neutropenia with TI (30.2% vs 8.2%). Notably gBRCA mutation carriers receiving TI had higher rates of g3/4 neutropenia (60% vs 25.9%). Conclusion: The I-SPY2 study finds the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a Phase III neoadjuvant trial; TI did not reach the efficacy threshold of 85% probability of success in Phase III in any of the 3 signatures. However by adding talazoparib with synergy dosed irinotecan we were able to omit paclitaxel and observe similar estimated pCR rates. This informs current work to evolve the I-SPY2 trial design to reduce toxicity without compromising outcomes and develop successful combinations targeted to biology, including DNA repair deficiency. Citation Format: Richard Schwab, Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Nola Hylton, Wen Li, Denise Wolfe, A Jo Chien, Anne M. Wallace, Andres Forero-Torres, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rita Nanda, Nora Jaskowiak, Judy Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Heather S. Han, Catherine Lee, Kathy Albain, Claudine Isaacs, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, Payal Shah, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Debasish Tripathy, Kathleen Kemmer, Douglas Yee, Barbara Haley, Melanie Majure, Erin Roesch, Christos Vaklavas, Cheryl Ewing, Teresa Helsten, W Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Michelle Melisko, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Laura van 't Veer, Angela DeMichele, Smita Asare, Don Berry, Laura J. Esserman. Evaluation of talazoparib in combination with irinotecan in early stage, high-risk HER2 negative breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.

Abstract Background: In women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual cancer burden (RCB) predicts distant recurrence and survival. In those with high risk tumors, locoregional recurrence (LRR) remains a concern, and has been associated with type of local therapy received. We evaluated the impact of local therapy on LRR in the ISPY-2 TRIAL. Methods: Data were analyzed in Stata 14.2, using Chi2 test, log rank test, and a Cox proportional hazards model. RCB was considered a categorical variable (0/1 versus 2/3), as described in prior publications. Breast surgery categories were lumpectomy +/- radiotherapy, or mastectomy +/- radiotherapy. Axillary surgery was defined as sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery (≤6 nodes removed) or axillary dissection (>6 nodes). Results: Follow up data from the I-SPY2 TRIAL were available for 630 patients (median follow up 2.76 yrs, range 0.4-7.2). Type of local therapy was significantly associated with clinical stage at presentation, with stage III patients most frequently undergoing mastectomy + radiation (p<0.001). Women with higher RCB were more likely to undergo mastectomy than those with lower RCB (61.3% vs 48.8% mastectomy rate, p=0.002), and more likely to receive adjuvant radiotherapy (62.0% vs 53.9%, p=0.048). There was no association between clinical stage, type of surgery, or radiotherapy and LRR (Table). Higher RCB was significantly associated with LRR, with 3 year locoregional recurrence free rate of 95.1% in RCB 0/1 versus 89.9% in RCB 2/3 (p=0.003). In a Cox model adjusting for clinical stage, tumor subtype, surgical therapy, RCB status, nodal radiation, and age, significant predictors for LRR were tumor subtype and RCB status. Hazard ratio (HR) for LRR in those with RCB 0/1 was 0.39 compared to those with RCB 2/3 (95% CI 0.17-0.87, p=0.021). There was no difference in LRR between breast conservation and mastectomy; within the breast conservation group, those who had lumpectomy alone had higher hazard of LRR compared to those having lumpectomy + radiation (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-9.2, p=0.043). Conclusions: Extent of surgical therapy was not associated with local tumor control, regardless of advanced tumor stage at presentation. Rather, tumor biology and response to therapy were the best predictors of LRR. These data highlight the opportunity to minimize the morbidity of extensive surgical therapy for patients with excellent response to systemic therapy. LRR rates by clinical features and treatment status FrequencyLRR RateP valueClinical Stage 0.5I240 (47.5%)5.8% II185 (36.6%)8.7% III80 (15.8%)6.3% Tumor Subtype 0.014ER+PR+Her2-161 (26.4%)3.1% ER+PR-Her2-56 (9.2%)3.6% Her2+176 (28.9%)6.3% Triple negative216 (35.5%)11.1% Local therapy 0.169Lumpectomy85 (13.5%)11.8% Lumpectomy with radiation198 (31.4%)5.6% Mastectomy173 (27.5%)5.2% Mastectomy with radiation174 (27.6%)8.6% Axillary surgery 0.23None5 (0.8%)20% SLN329 (52.2%)5.8% ALND296 (47%)8.5% Axillary radiation 0.535Yes42 (6.7%)9.5% No588 (93.3%)7.0% Axillary management 0.2No surgery or radiation5 (0.8%)20.0% SLN312 (50%)5.3% SLN+Axillary radiation17 (2.7%)8.3% ALND271 (43%)10.3% ALND+Axillary radiation25 (4%)5.4% RCB 0.0020/1293 (50.1%)3.8% 2/3292 (49.9%)10.3% Citation Format: Silverstein J, Suleiman L, Yau C, Price ER, Singhrao R, Yee D, DeMichele A, Isaacs C, Albain KS, Chien AJ, Forero-Torres A, Wallace AM, Pusztai L, Ellis ED, Elias AD, Lang JE, Lu J, Han HS, Clark AS, Korde L, Nanda R, Northfelt DW, Khan QJ, Viscusi RK, Euhus DM, Edmiston KK, Chui SY, Kemmer K, Wood WC, Park JW, Liu MC, Olopade O, Leyland-Jones B, Tripathy D, Moulder SL, Rugo HS, Schwab R, Lo S, Helsten T, Beckwith H, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Consortium, Berry DA, Asare SM, Esserman LJ, Boughey JC, Mukhtar RA. The impact of local therapy on locoregional recurrence in women with high risk breast cancer in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-01.

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate safety and efficacy outcomes for subjects on the ECHELON-1 study treated in North America (NA). Patients and Methods: ECHELON-1 is a global, open-label, randomized phase III study comparing doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine in combination with brentuximab vedotin (A+AVD) versus ABVD (AVD + bleomycin) as first-line therapy in subjects with stage III or IV classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL; NCT01712490). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD or ABVD intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle for up to 6 cycles. Results: The NA subgroup consisted of 497 subjects in the A+AVD (n = 250) and ABVD (n = 247) arms. Similar to the primary analysis based on the intent-to-treat population, the primary endpoint [modified progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review] demonstrated an improvement among subjects who received A+AVD compared with ABVD (HR = 0.60; P = 0.012). For PFS, the risk of progression or death was also reduced (HR = 0.50; P = 0.002). Subsequent anticancer therapies were lower in the A+AVD arm. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were more common, but there were fewer study discontinuations due to AEs in the A+AVD arm as compared with ABVD. Noted differences between arms included higher rates of febrile neutropenia (20% vs. 9%) and peripheral neuropathy (80% vs. 56%), but lower rates of pulmonary toxicity (3% vs. 10%) in subjects treated with A+AVD versus ABVD. Conclusions: The efficacy benefit and manageable toxicity profile observed in the NA subgroup of ECHELON-1 support A+AVD as a frontline treatment option for patients with stage III or IV cHL.

TPS592 Background: Persistent cell proliferation (Ki67 > 10%) on tumor biopsies as early as 2-4 weeks (wks) on neo endocrine therapy (ET) identifies resistant tumors in ~20% patients (pts) with early stage ER+ HER2- BC who are at high risk of relapse. Palbo plus ET significantly improves progression free survival in pts with ET naïve or resistant advanced ER+ HER2- BC, and is being evaluated in the adjuvant setting. However, biomarkers predictive of palbo sensitivity are unknown. Ki67 analysis of serial tumor biopsies in the neo palbo and ana (NeoPalAna) trial demonstrated that 2 wks of palbo plus ana potently inhibited Ki67 and induced complete cell cycle arrest (CCCA, Ki67≤2.7%) in tumors with high Ki67 post 4 wks ana run-in. This study is therefore aimed to prospectively investigate the biological activity of palbo plus ana in ET resistant ER+ HER2- BC. Methods: The primary objective is to assess the rate of CCCA (central Ki67 ≤2.7%) after 2 wks of neo palbo and ana. Secondary objectives include analysis of tumor biopsies to explore response biomarkers. Key inclusions include women with clinical stage 2/3 ER+ HER2- BC, central Ki67 > 10% after ≥2 wks of any neo ET, adequate organ function. Key exclusions include prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor, treatment of BC except ET, concomitant use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitor. Pts receive palbo (125mg PO daily, days 1-21, 28-day cycle), ana (1 mg PO daily) and goserelin (if premenopausal). Pts with C1D15 Ki67 > 10% will discontinue study. If C1D15 Ki67 ≤10%, pt will receive 4 cycles of treatment, and additional 10-12 days of palbo if counts normalized within 3 wks post C4D28. Following surgery, pts are eligible for 2 years of adjuvant palbo. A sample size of 37 (stage 1, n = 12, stage 2 n = 25) by simon optimal two stage phase II design will be employed to assess whether the rate of CCCA is ≤5% vs ≥20% (90% power, alpha 0.1). Stage 2 will proceed if ≥1 had CCCA in stage 1. If ≤3 of 37 had CCCA, this regimen will be considered ineffective. The study is active and has enrolled 4 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01723774.