Citations

Abstract Background: In ER+ breast cancer (BC) models, Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation is associated with expansion of CD44+/CD24low/- tumor initiating cells, down-regulation of ERα, and endocrine therapy resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, can restore ERα expression and endocrine sensitivity. Early phase studies evaluating alisertib alone or with fulvestrant for ER+ metastatic BC (MBC) demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising antitumor activity [Haddad, Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018]. A phase II trial was conducted to determine if the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib improved objective response rate (ORR) and to assess clinical activity of alisertib alone or with fulvestrant in patients (pts) with prior fulvestrant and CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to Arm A, alisertib (50 mg PO BID Days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 q 28 days) or Arm B, alisertib with fulvestrant (500 mg IM Day 1, 15 for Cycle 1 and q 28 days thereafter). Eligibility included postmenopausal women, history of ER+ BC, prior fulvestrant, ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy lines, and measurable disease. Stratification factors included prior CDK4/6i, ER level (<10%, ≥10%), and primary/secondary endocrine resistance. Pts on Arm A could cross over to Arm B at progression. With 45 pts per arm, a one sided alpha=0.15 sequential binomial test would have an 85% chance of detecting an increase of ≥ 20% in the ORR of ArmB when the true ORR for Arm A is ≤ 20%. ORR was defined as a partial response (PR) + complete response (CR) by RECIST v.1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), 24-week clinical benefit rate (CBR = CR + PR + absence of progression for> 6 cycles), overall survival, duration of response (DoR), and safety. Blood and tumor specimens were collected at baseline, end of Cycle 1, and progression. Results: Pts enrolled July 2017 - November 2019 with 118 pre-registered, 96 registered, and 90 evaluable for the primary endpoint (Arm A: 45, Arm B: 45). Median age was 60 (range 33, 85). Nearly all received prior fulvestrant (n=89, 98.9%), aromatase inhibitor (n=83, 92.2%), and CDK4/6i (n=88, 97.8%). Most had secondary endocrine resistance (n=71, 78.9%). Pre-registration biopsy for ER was positive in 84 pts (86.7%) and negative in 6 pts (13.3%). More pts on Arm B had prior everolimus (A: 35.6%, B: 57.8%) and prior chemotherapy (A: 44.4%, B: 55.6%) for MBC. The ORR for alisertib and fulvestrant was 20.0% (90% CI: 10.9-32.3%), not significantly greater than alisertib alone 17.8% (90% CI: 9.2-29.8%). The 24-week CBR for Arm A was 42.2% (90% CI: 29.7-55.6%; n=19, including 7 PR) and Arm B was 31.1% (90% CI: 19.9-44.3%; n=14, including 8 PR). As of July 1, 2020, the median DoR was not reached in either arm. The median PFS time was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.9 - 9.3) for Arm A and 5.1 months (95%CI: 3.8 - 7.6) for Arm B. Seventeen pts (18.9%) remain on treatment (A: 12, B: 5) having received at least 11 cycles (range up to 32+ cycles). At least one dose reduction was required for pts (A: 19, B: 18), most commonly due to neutropenia. The most common severe (grade ≥3) adverse events included neutropenia (n=19, 42.2% in each arm), anemia (A: 15.6%, B: 8.8%), and fatigue (n=5, 11.1% Arm B only). Pts discontinued therapy due to disease progression equally in each arm (n=28, 62.2%), however more pts on Arm B (n=12) than Arm A (n=5) discontinued therapy due to toxicity, refusal or other reasons. Conclusion: While the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib did not improve ORR, promising clinical activity with alisertib monotherapy was observed overall and notably for pts with endocrine and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. More severe toxicities and treatment discontinuation were observed in pts receiving combination therapy. Correlative blood (CTC/cfDNA) and tissue (AURKA, ERα, and stemness biomarkers) studies are underway. Citation Format: Tufia Haddad, Antonino D'Assoro, Vera Suman, Jodi Carter, Brendan McMenomy, Erica Mayer, Meghan Karuturi, Aki Morikawa, Paul Marcom, Claudine Isaacs, Sun Young Oh, Amy Clark, Ingrid Mayer, Khandan Keyomarsi, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Ciara O'Sullivan, Prema Peethambaram, Timothy Hobday, Minetta Liu, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Randomized phaseII trial to evaluate alisertib alone or combined with fulvestrant for advanced, endocrine-resistant breast cancer (TBCRC 041) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-05.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-10.

Abstract Background: I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/is ypN0)). DNA repair deficiency in cancer cells can lead to immunogenic neoantigens, activation of the STING pathway, and PARP inhibition can also upregulate PD-L1 expression. Based on these rationales we tested the combination of durvalumab (anti-PDL1), olaparib (PARP inhibitor) and paclitaxel in I-SPY2. Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5 cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MammaPrint high molecular profile. Treatment included durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks x 3, olaparib 100 mg twice daily through weeks 1-11 concurrent with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12 (DOP) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC x 4. All patients undergo serial MRI imaging and imaging response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Regimens “graduation with success” when the Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial in the appropriate biomarker groups reaches > 85%. Results: A total of 73 patients received DOP treatment including 21 HR- tumors (i.e. triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC) and 52 HR+ tumors between May 2018 - June 2019. The control group included 299 patients with HER2- tumors. The DOP arm graduated in June 2019, 13 months after enrollment had started, for all HER2- negative and the HR+/HER2- cohorts with > 0.85% predictive probabilities of success. 72 patient completed surgery and evaluable for pCR, the final predicted probabilities of success in a future phase III trial to demonstrate higher pCR rate with DOP compared to control are 81% for all HER2- cancers (estimated pCR rate 37%), 80% for TNBC (estimated pCR rate 47%) and 74.5% for HR+/HER2- patients (estimated pCR rate 28%). Association between pCR and germline BRCA status and immune gene expression including PDL1 will be presented at the meeting. No unexpected toxicities were seen, but 10 patients (14%) had possibly immune or olaparib related grade 2/3 AEs (3 pneumonitis, 2 adrenal insufficiency, 1 colitis, 1 pancreatitis, 2 elevated LFT, 1 skin toxicity, 2 hypothyroidism, 1 hyperthyroidism, 1 esophagitis). Conclusion: I-SPY2 demonstrated a significant improvement in pCR with durvalumab and olaparib included with paclitaxel compared to chemotherapy alone in women with stage II/III high-risk, HER2-negative breast cancer, improvement was seen in both the HR+ and TNBC subsets. Citation Format: Lajos Pusztai, Hyo S. Han, Christina Yau, Denise Wolf, Anne M. Wallace, Rebecca Shatsky, Teresa Helsten, Judy C. Boughey, Tufia Haddad, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Carla Falkson, A. Jo Chien, Rita Mukhtar, Anthony Elias, Borges Virginia, Rita Nanda, Douglas Yee, Kevin Kalinsky, Kathy S. Albain, Aixa Soyano Muller, Kathleen Kemmer, Amy S. Clark, Claudine Isaacs, Alexandra Thomas, Nola Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Michelle Melisko, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, Amy Wilson, Amy Wilson, Ruby Singhrao, Smita Asare, Laura J. van't Veer, Angela M. DeMichele, Ashish Sanil, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Trial Consortium I-SPY 2. Evaluation of durvalumab in combination with olaparib and paclitaxel in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT011.

1016 Background: The ph III EMBRACE trial of E vs physician’s choice of tx led to FDA approval of E as ≥3rd-line tx for MBC pts with prior exposure to anthracyclines/taxanes. The ph III BOLD 301 trial of E vs capecitabine in advanced BC treated with anthracyclines/taxanes showed a nonsignificant trend to improved median OS for all pts; pre-planned analysis by HER2 status revealed a nominally significant benefit for HER2- pts. Methods: RU011201I is an investigator initiated ph III trial with 1:1 randomization to E (1.4 mg/m2 D1,8 q21days) vs P (90 mg/m2 D1,8,15 q28days) within strata defined by (neo)adjuvant taxanes (yes/no), HR status (+/-), and line of tx (1st/2nd). Pts had measurable or non-measurable disease by RECIST v1.1; new or progressive mets; peripheral neuropathy (PN) gr<2; ≤1 prior chemotx regimens for advanced or MBC. Asymptomatic brain mets with stable MRIs for >3 mos were allowed. (Neo)adjuvant taxanes were allowed if >12 mos between tx completion and disease recurrence. Radiographic studies occur q12wks. Survival data are collected q12wks after the Off-Tx Visit. Pts reported side effects weekly; post-baseline symptomatic AE rates worse than baseline were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact tests. We report clinical outcomes and the primary objective related to PRO-CTCAE use. Results: 201 pts enrolled 3/2014 - 5/2018 with 33.8 mos median f/u; 3 are on tx as of 2/20/20 (1E, 2P). Pt characteristics were the same between E vs P: median age 62 yrs (range 27-85); 42% prior taxane; 78% ER+; 70% starting 1st line tx. Baseline lesion distribution was similar except for lung mets (37E, 53P). No difference was seen between E vs P in PFS (5.7 vs 5.9 mos; P=0.72), OS (18.1 vs 16.4 mos; P=0.75), TTF (5.3 vs 4.9 mos; P=0.82), DOR (10.8 vs 12.3 mos; P=0.84), or number of metastatic events (55 vs 54). 37E and 36P pts required ≥1 dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities ≥ gr 3 were higher with E (40 vs 22%). PN events were similar: 56 vs 58 total, 4 vs 7 motor, 52 vs 51 sensory. Median duration of PN and median time to 1st PN event were 74 vs 140 and 56 vs 41 days. Worsened numbness/tingling severity and other pt-reported AE rates were similar, but worsened numbness/tingling interference (63% vs 78%, P=0.04) and vomiting frequency (35% vs 57%, P=0.005) were lower with E. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were equivalent with E vs P as 1st/2nd line tx for HER2- advanced BC. The nature and severity of PN were similar between arms, but time of onset, duration, and interference with daily living favor E. E may be a suitable treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02037529 .

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for management of patients with breast cancer (BC) with germline mutations in BC susceptibility genes. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process. RESULTS Fifty-eight articles met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the local therapy recommendations; six randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy met eligibility criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with newly diagnosed BC and BRCA1/ 2 mutations may be considered for breast-conserving therapy (BCT), with local control of the index cancer similar to that of noncarriers. The significant risk of a contralateral BC (CBC), especially in young women, and the higher risk of new cancers in the ipsilateral breast warrant discussion of bilateral mastectomy. Patients with mutations in moderate-risk genes should be offered BCT. For women with mutations in BRCA1/ 2 or moderate-penetrance genes who are eligible for mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy is a reasonable approach. There is no evidence of increased toxicity or CBC events from radiation exposure in BRCA1/ 2 carriers. Radiation therapy should not be withheld in ATM carriers. For patients with germline TP53 mutations, mastectomy is advised; radiation therapy is contraindicated except in those with significant risk of locoregional recurrence. Platinum agents are recommended versus taxanes to treat advanced BC in BRCA carriers. In the adjuvant/neoadjuvant setting, data do not support the routine addition of platinum to anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy. Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and talazoparib) are preferable to nonplatinum single-agent chemotherapy for treatment of advanced BC in BRCA1/ 2 carriers. Data are insufficient to recommend PARP inhibitor use in the early setting or in moderate-penetrance carriers. Additional information available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Abstract Purpose In breast MRI, contrast enhancement of normal fibroglandular tissue is referred to as background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Hormonal status significantly affects the degree of BPE, potentially due to the association with mammary vascularity and activity1-5. Studies have shown that BPE may be associated with breast cancer survival6, treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)7,8 and future breast cancer risk9. In most patients undergoing NAC, BPE is suppressed by the nonspecific anti-proliferative effects of chemotherapy on normal breast and/or ovary5,10. However, some patients exhibit equivalent or even stronger BPE post-NAC compared to pre-NAC. We hypothesized that non-suppressed BPE in post-NAC MRI may be associated with inferior treatment response. This study aimed to investigate the association between BPE suppression and treatment response as defined by pathologic complete response (pCR). Methods This study included patients with stage II/III breast cancer enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL being treated with standard NAC with or without investigational agents. The whole cohort was split into two subgroups based on hormone receptor status (HR+, n= 536; HR-, n=452). Patients underwent dynamic contrast enhanced MRIs at four time points during NAC: baseline (T0), after 3 weeks of the first regimen (T1), inter-regimen (T2), and pre-surgery (T3). Using in-house software, the contralateral breast parenchyma was automatically segmented for the entire breast volume. Quantitative BPE (qBPE) was calculated as the mean early (~150s post-contrast injection) percent enhancement of the central 50% of the axial slices. A breast radiologist reviewed all exams and excluded those where automated segmentation failed to accurately define tissue. For T1, T2 and T3, BPE was categorized based on the change from T0 as suppressed (qBPE &lt; qBPE[T0]) or non-suppressed (qBPE ≥ qBPE[T0]). Chi-squared test was used to examine the association between BPE suppression and pCR, with p&lt;0.05 considered statistically significant. Results HR+ cohort: pCR rates were lower for patients with non-suppressed BPE than those with suppressed BPE at every visit (T1-T3) (Table 1). The difference was statistically significant at T2 (p=0.04) and T3 (p=0.01). Table 1: HR+ cohortpCR rate (%)No. of pCR patientsNo. of non-pCR patientsTotal number of patientsP valueOverall22.8122414536BPE at T1suppressed23.6822663480.45non-suppressed20.532124156BPE at T2suppressed25.7972803770.04*non-suppressed16.01789106BPE at T3suppressed25.7982833810.01*non-suppressed12.5128496 HR- cohort: pCR rates were slightly lower for the non-suppressed BPE group, but no statistically significant association was found (Table 2). Table 2: HR- cohortpCR rate (%)No. of pCR patientsNo. of non-pCR patientsTotal number of patientsP valueOverall44.7202250452BPE at T1suppressed46.81411603010.66non-suppressed44.45265117BPE at T2suppressed48.81441512950.79non-suppressed47.3434891BPE at T3suppressed49.31461502960.94non-suppressed48.9434588 Conclusion In HR+ breast cancer, lack of BPE suppression may indicate inferior treatment response. The contrasting results in HR+ and HR- cohorts are noteworthy in terms of the possible relationship between suppression of normal mammary and ovarian activity and treatment response in HR+ cancer. Reference Radiographics 2014; 34: 234-47. Radiology 1997; 203: 137-44. Radiology 1997; 203: 145-9. Breast J 2005; 11: 236-41. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 669-73. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 4705-16. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 1590-6. Transl Oncol 2015; 8: 204-9. J Clin Oncol 2019; : JCO1800378. Radiology 2015; 277: 687-96. Citation Format: Natsuko Onishi, Wen Li, David C. Newitt, Roy Harnish, Jessica Gibbs, Ella F. Jones, Alex Nguyen, Lisa Wilmes, Bonnie N. Joe, Michael J. Campbell, Amrita Basu, Laura J. van’t Veer, Angela DiMichele, Douglas Yee, Donald A. Berry, Kathy S. Albain, Judy C. Boughey, A. Jo Chien, Amy S. Clark, Kirsten K. Edmiston, Anthony D. Elias, Erin D. Ellis, David M. Euhus, Heather S. Han, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J. Khan, Julie E. Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L. Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W. Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K. Viscusi, Anne M. Wallace, Rachel Yung, Michelle E. Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Smita M. Asare, Julie E. Yau, Christina Yau, Laura J. Esserman, Nola M. Hylton. Lack of background parenchymal enhancement suppression in breast MRI during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with inferior treatment response in hormone receptor positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-05.

Abstract Background: In an adaptive randomized trial, when new treatment combinations are being tested, it is important to be able to identify patients who are progressing on treatment so that they can be changed to a different therapeutic regimen. We know that even within the molecularly high risk patients in I-SPY 2, there is considerable variation in biology. In this study, we will present results of using MRI-calculated functional tumor volume (FTV) to identify tumor progression for each breast cancer subtype. Methods: Patients (n=990) enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL who were randomized to the graduated experimental drug arms or controls from 2010 to 2016 were analyzed. Four MRI exams were performed for each patient: pre-NAC (T0), after 3 weeks of NAC (T1), between regimens (T2), and post-NAC (T3). Functional tumor volume (FTV) was calculated at each exam by summing voxels meeting enhancement thresholds. Tumor progression at T1, T2 or T3 was identified by a positive FTV change relative to T0. Visual inspection was used to exclude false progression due to strong background parenchymal enhancement post-contrast, prominent vessels, motion, or insufficient image quality. pCR was defined as no invasive disease in the breast and lymph nodes. Negative predictive value for pCR was defined as:NPV=number of true non-pCRs / number of patients with MRI assessed tumor progressions, where “true non-pCRs” referred to patients who were non-pCRs at surgery and were assessed as progressors by MRI. The analysis was performed in the full cohort and in sub-cohorts defined by HR and HER2 statuses. Results: Out of 990 patients, 878 had pCR outcome data (pCR or non-pCR, pCR rate = 35%). Total and non-pCR numbers for each subtype, number of patients with tumor progression assessed by MRI at T1, T2, and T3, and NPVs, are shown in Table 1. In the full cohort, the NPV increased consistently over treatment, from T1 (NPV=83%) to T2 (93%), and to T3 (100%). The HER2+ cancer subtypes showed fewer MRI-assessed tumor progressions than HER2- subtypes: e.g. 10/209 (5%) vs. 108/669 (16%) at T1. NPV was 100% for HER2+ subtypes at T1 and T2 except for a single misclassification of a HR- tumor at T1. Only 6 tumor progressors, all HER2- were identified at T3, and all were confirmed at surgery as non-pCRs (NPV=100%). For HR+/HER2-, the NPV increased slightly from 89% at T1 to 91% at T2, while triple negative subtype had a more substantial increase, from 78% to 92%. Conclusions: Our study showed strong association between tumor progressors assessed by MRI with true non-pCRs after NAC. For HER2+ tumors, although MRI progressors are rare, they strongly indicate non-pCR at all treatment time points, while HER2- subtypes show more accurate results later in treatment. We are evaluating MRI change at 6 weeks to determine if that time point is sufficient to predict progressors. Table 1 MRI assessed tumor progression at different treatment time pointN/non-pCRs/%non-pCRMRI assessed tumor progressionT1 (after 3 weeks)T2 (inter-regimen)T3 (post-NAC)NNPV (%)NNPV (%)NNPV (%)Full cohort878/572/65%11883.14192.76100%HR+/HER2-344/280/81%4588.91190.93100%HR+/HER2+134/85/63%610021000N/AHR-/HER2+75/23/31%47521000N/Atriple negative325/184/57%6377.82692.33100% Citation Format: Wen Li, Natsuko Onishi, David C Newitt, Jessica Gibbs, Lisa J Wilmes, Ella F Jones, Bonnie N Joe, Laura S Sit, Christina Yau, A. Jo Chien, Elissa Price, Kathy S Albain, Theresa Kuritza, Kevin Morley, Judy C Boughey, Kathy Brandt, Sadia Choudhery, Amy S Clark, Mark Rosen, Elizabeth S McDonald, Anthony D Elias, Dulcy Wolverton, Kelly Fountain, David M Euhus, Heather S Han, Bethany Niell, Jennifer Drukteinis, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K Viscusi, Anne M Wallace, Douglas Yee, Rachel Yung, Smita M Asare, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Donald A Berry, Angela DeMichele, Hiroyuki Abe, Deepa Sheth, Kirsten K Edmiston, Erin D Ellis, Richard Ha, Ralph Wynn, Erin P Crane, Charlotte Dillis, Michael Nelson, An Church, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J Khan, Karen Y Oh, Neda Jafarian, Dae Hee Bang, Christiane Mullins, Stefanie Woodard, Kathryn W Zamora, Haydee Ojeda-Fornier, Pulin Sheth, Linda Hovanessian-Larsen, Mohammad Eghtedari, Michael Spektor, Marina Giurescu, Mary S Newell, Michael A Cohen, Elise Berman, Constance Lehman, William Smith, Kim Fitzpatrick, Marisa H Borders, Wei Yang, Basak Dogan, Sally Goudreau, Thelma Brown, Laura J Esserman, Nola M Hylton. Breast cancer subtype specific association of pCR with MRI assessed tumor volume progression during NAC in the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-04.

Abstract Background: Strong background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) may cause overestimation in tumor volume measured from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, which may adversely affect the ability of MR tumor volume to predict treatment outcome for patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Specifically, an overestimation of tumor volume can result in misclassification of patients with complete pathologic response (pCR) as non-responders, leading to less confidence in MRI prediction. As well, overestimation of extent of disease might lead to more aggressive surgical therapy than necessary. This study investigated whether high BPE in the contralateral breast influences the predictive performance of MRI-measured functional tumor volume (FTV) for patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing NAC. Methods: patients (n=990) enrolled in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL who were randomized to the graduated experimental drug arms or controls from 2010 to 2016 were analyzed. Each patient had 4 MRI exams: pre-NAC (T0), after 3 weeks of NAC (T1), between NAC regimens (T2), and post-NAC (T3). FTV was calculated at each MRI exam by summing voxels meeting enhancement thresholds. Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in the contralateral breast was calculated automatically as mean percentage enhancement on the early (nominal 150sec post-contrast) image in the fibroglandular tissue segmented from 5 continuous axial slices centered in the inferior-to-superior stack. For each treatment time point, patients having both FTV and BPE measurements were included in the analysis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was estimated as the association between FTV and pCR at T1, T2, and T3. The analysis was conducted in the full patient cohort and in sub-cohorts defined by hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. In each patient cohort, a cut-off BPE value was selected to classify patients with high vs. low BPE by testing AUCs estimated with low-BPE patients reached maximum when the cut-off value varied from median to maximum in steps of 10%. Results: Out of 990 patients, 878 had pCR outcome data (pCR or non-pCR, pCR rate = 35%). Table 1 shows the number of patients, pCR rate, and AUC of FTV for predicting pCR using all patients available vs. a subset patients with low BPE (&lt; BPE cut-off). In the full cohort, AUC increased slightly across all time points after patients with high BPE were removed. In the HR+/HER2- subtype, AUC increased at T1 after removal of cases with high BPE (0.65 vs. 0.71). For HR-/HER2+, AUC increased substantially after removal of high BPE cases (0.65 to 0.86 at T1, 0.71 to 0.87 at T2, and 0.71 to 0.89 at T3), with greater improvement at the early time point (T1) compared to later time points (T2 and T3). Only a slight improvement in the AUC was observed in the HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2- subtypes across all time points. Conclusions: High background parenchymal enhancement adversely affected the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured by DCE-MRI, at early treatment time point for HR+/HER2- and across all time points for HR-/HER2+ cancer subtype. The adverse effect might be offset using subtype-optimized enhancement threshold in calculating functional tumor volume. Table 1 Effect of BPE on the prediction of pCR using FTV at various treatment time pointsT1T2T3npCR rateAUCBPE cut-offnpCR rateAUCBPE cut-offnpCR rateAUCBPE cut-offFullAll64734%0.662762334%0.701761134%0.6925Subset45334%0.6831133%0.7230534%0.72HR+/HER2-All26218%0.651924918%0.718225518%0.7519Subset13118%0.7124818%0.7120419%0.76HR+/HER2+All10636%0.642110538%0.62269634%0.7120Subset5332%0.668438%0.665740%0.73HR-/HER2+All5175%0.65204774%0.71204973%0.7116Subset3073%0.862871%0.872475%0.89HR-/HER2-All22842%0.682822243%0.751821143%0.6916Subset15940%0.7111137%0.7810540%0.75 Citation Format: Wen Li, Natsuko Onishi, David C Newitt, Roy Harnish, Ella F Jones, Lisa J Wilmes, Jessica Gibbs, Elissa Price, Bonnie N Joe, A. Jo Chien, Donald A Berry, Judy C Boughey, Kathy S Albain, Amy S Clark, Kirsten K Edmiston, Anthony D Elias, Erin D Ellis, David M Euhus, Heather S Han, Claudine Isaacs, Qamar J Khan, Julie E Lang, Janice Lu, Jane L Meisel, Zaha Mitri, Rita Nanda, Donald W Northfelt, Tara Sanft, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Rebecca K Viscusi, Anne M Wallace, Douglas Yee, Rachel Yung, Michelle E Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Richard Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Laura J van't Veer, Christina Yau, Smita M Asare, Angela DeMichele, Sally Goudreau, Hiroyuki Abe, Deepa Sheth, Dulcy Wolverton, Kelly Fountain, Richard Ha, Ralph Wynn, Erin P Crane, Charlotte Dillis, Theresa Kuritza, Kevin Morley, Michael Nelson, An Church, Bethany Niell, Jennifer Drukteinis, Karen Y Oh, Neda Jafarian, Kathy Brandt, Sadia Choudhery, Dae Hee Bang, Christiane Mullins, Stefanie Woodard, Kathryn W Zamora, Haydee Ojeda-Fornier, Mohammad Eghedari, Pulin Sheth, Linda Hovanessian-Larsen, Mark Rosen, Elizabeth S McDonald, Michael Spektor, Marina Giurescu, Mary S Newell, Michael A Cohen, Elise Berman, Constance Lehman, William Smith, Kim Fitzpatrick, Marisa H Borders, Wei Yang, Basak Dogan, Laura J Esserman, Nola M Hylton. The effect of background parenchymal enhancement on the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured in MRI [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-02-01.