Citations

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in histopathologic specimens can provide important prognostic information in diverse solid tumor types, and may also be of value in predicting response to treatments. However, implementation as a routine clinical biomarker has not yet been achieved. As successful use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and other forms of immunotherapy become a clinical reality, the need for widely applicable, accessible, and reliable immunooncology biomarkers is clear. In part 1 of this review we briefly discuss the host immune response to tumors and different approaches to TIL assessment. We propose a standardized methodology to assess TILs in solid tumors on hematoxylin and eosin sections, in both primary and metastatic settings, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group guidelines for TIL assessment in invasive breast carcinoma. A review of the literature regarding the value of TIL assessment in different solid tumor types follows in part 2. The method we propose is reproducible, affordable, easily applied, and has demonstrated prognostic and predictive significance in invasive breast carcinoma. This standardized methodology may be used as a reference against which other methods are compared, and should be evaluated for clinical validity and utility. Standardization of TIL assessment will help to improve consistency and reproducibility in this field, enrich both the quality and quantity of comparable evidence, and help to thoroughly evaluate the utility of TILs assessment in this era of immunotherapy.

Assessment of the immune response to tumors is growing in importance as the prognostic implications of this response are increasingly recognized, and as immunotherapies are evaluated and implemented in different tumor types. However, many different approaches can be used to assess and describe the immune response, which limits efforts at implementation as a routine clinical biomarker. In part 1 of this review, we have proposed a standardized methodology to assess tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in solid tumors, based on the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group guidelines for invasive breast carcinoma. In part 2 of this review, we discuss the available evidence for the prognostic and predictive value of TILs in common solid tumors, including carcinomas of the lung, gastrointestinal tract, genitourinary system, gynecologic system, and head and neck, as well as primary brain tumors, mesothelioma and melanoma. The particularities and different emphases in TIL assessment in different tumor types are discussed. The standardized methodology we propose can be adapted to different tumor types and may be used as a standard against which other approaches can be compared. Standardization of TIL assessment will help clinicians, researchers and pathologists to conclusively evaluate the utility of this simple biomarker in the current era of immunotherapy.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is an established prognostic biomarker for aggressive HER2+ breast cancer (BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. Pertuzumab (P) has established survival benefit in the metastatic setting, and received accelerated approval in the neoadjuvant setting when combined with trastuzumab (H) and docetaxel(D) as part of a complete treatment regimen for early breast cancer. We tested its ability, when combined with standard therapy (paclitaxel, T, and H) to improve pCR (ypT0ypN0) over TH in the adaptively randomized, phase II, I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant trial. Methods: Enrolled patients (pts) had invasive BC ?2.5 cm in HER2-positive subsets. Pts were adaptively randomized to control (TH, qwk x 12) or THP (P, q3wk x 4) followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4 and surgery. To compare THP to TH we utilized all control pts accrued over the course of the trial, adjusting for potential differences due to time period treated, which were informed by the several other treatment arms that have been in the trial. Adaptive assignment to the experimental arms was based on current Bayesian probabilities of superiority over control. “Graduation” by signature and futility stopping were based upon Bayesian predictive probability of success in a 2-arm, N = 300 phase III randomized 1:1 trial of THP vs. TH with pCR endpoint. Results: THP met the predictive probability criterion and graduated in 3 signatures: all HER2+, HER2+/HR+, and HER2+/HR- (See Table 1). Final accrual: 44 THP and 31 TH. Safety data will be shown. Conclusions: I-SPY 2's standing platform trial efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined pt subsets. THP -> AC substantially improves pCR rates over standard TH -> AC in all 3 HER2+ signatures, including HR+ and HR- subsets. APHINITY, a trial of adjuvant pertuzumab with a primary outcome of invasive disease-free survival, is ongoing. Table 1Signature*Estimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Signature*THPControl (TH)Probability THP Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase IIIHER2+54% (38%-70%)22% (5%-39%)99.8%96%HER2+/HR+44% (24%-63%)17% (0%-34%)99%91%HER2+/HR-74% (53%-95%)33% (6%-59%)99.8%98%*HR = Hormone Receptor Citation Format: Meredith Buxton, Angela M. DeMichele, Stephen Chia, Laura van't Veer, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Henry Kaplan, Julie Lang, Douglas Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Stacy Moulder, Kathy Albain, Judy Boughey, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara Haley, Susan Minton, Andres Forero, Rita Nanda, Anthony Elias, Larissa Korde, Rebecca Viscuzi, Hope Rugo, Richard Schwab, Fraser Symmans, Melissa Paoloni, Nola Hylton, Michael Hogarth, Julia Lyandres, Jane Perlmutter, Ashish Sanil, Christina Yau, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Efficacy of pertuzumab/trastuzumab/paclitaxel over standard trastuzumab/paclitaxel therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT106.

Abstract Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is an established prognostic biomarker for aggressive HER2+ breast cancer (BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. T-DM1 and pertuzumab have established benefits in metastatic HER2+ BC. We tested their ability when combined, without paclitaxel, to improve pCR rates (ypT0ypN0) over standard therapy in the randomized, phase 2, I-SPY 2 neoadjuvant trial. Methods: Enrolled patients (pts) had invasive breast cancer ?2.5 cm in HER2-positive subsets. Pts were adaptively randomized to 12 wkly cycles of paclitaxel+trastuzumab (TH, control) or T-DM1+pertuzumab (T-DM1+P) without T, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) x 4 and surgery. We utilized all TH control pts accrued over the course of the trial, adjusting for potential differences due to time period treated, which were informed by the several other treatment arms that have been in the trial. Adaptive assignment to the various experimental arms in the trial was based on current Bayesian probabilities of superiority vs. control. “Graduation” by signature and futility stopping were based upon Bayesian predictive probability of success in a future 2-arm, N = 300 neoadjuvant Phase 3 randomized 1:1 trial of T-DM1+P vs. control with pCR endpoint. Results: T-DM1+P met the predictive probability criterion and graduated from I-SPY 2 in 3 signatures: all HER2+, HER2+/HR+, HER2+/HR- (Table 1). Final accrual: 52 T-DM1+P and 31 TH. Safety data will be shown. Conclusions: I-SPY 2's standing platform trial mechanism efficiently evaluates agents in biomarker-defined pt subsets. T-DM1+P (w/o T) -> AC substantially improves pCR rates over standard TH -> AC in all 3 HER2+ signatures, including HR+ and HR- subsets. These findings warrant further investigation of these agents without paclitaxel in a neoadjuvant trial powered for survival endpoints. Table 1Signature*Estimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability T-DM1+P Is Superior to Control**Predictive Probability of Success in Phase 3T-DM1+PControl (TH)HER2+52% (36%-68%)22% (5%-39%)99.5%94%HER2+/HR+46% (26%-66%)17% (0% - 34%)99.1%93%HER2+/HR-64% (39%-88%)33% (6%-59%)98%90%*HR = Hormone Receptor Citation Format: Angela M. DeMichele, Stacy Moulder, Meredith Buxton, Douglas Yee, Anne Wallace, Jo Chien, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Judy Boughey, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara Haley, Julie Lang, Henry Kaplan, Susan Minton, Andres Forero, Anthony Elias, Rita Nanda, Larissa Korde, Richard Schwab, Michelle Melisko, Ashish Sanil, Michael Hogarth, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Jane Perlmutter, Julia Lyandres, Christina Yau, Don Berry, Laura Esserman, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators. Efficacy of T-DM1+pertuzumab over standard therapy for HER2+ breast cancer: Results from the neoadjuvant I-SPY 2 TRIAL. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr CT042.

Purpose To provide recommendations on the appropriate use of breast tumor biomarker assay results to guide decisions on systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Methods A literature search and prospectively defined study selection identified systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective–retrospective studies, and prospective comparative observational studies published from 2006 through September 2014. Results The literature search revealed 17 articles that met criteria for further review: 11 studies reporting discordances between primary tumors and metastases in expression of hormone receptors or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), one RCT that addressed the use of a biomarker to decide whether to change or continue a treatment regimen, and five prospective–retrospective studies that evaluated the clinical utility of biomarkers. Recommendations In patients with accessible metastases, biopsy for confirmation of disease process and retesting of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status should be offered, but evidence is lacking to determine whether changing anticancer treatment on the basis of change in receptor status affects clinical outcomes. With discordance of results between primary and metastatic tissues, the Panel consensus is to use preferentially the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status of the metastasis to direct therapy if supported by the clinical scenario and patient's goals for care. Carcinoembryonic antigen, cancer antigen 15-3, and cancer antigen 27-29 may be used as adjunctive assessments, but not alone, to contribute to decisions regarding therapy. Recommendations for tumor rebiopsy and use of circulating tumor markers are based on clinical experience and Panel informal consensus in the absence of studies designed to evaluate the clinical utility of the markers. As such, it is also reasonable for clinicians to not use these markers as adjunctive assessments.

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: We hypothesize that response to the pan-ERBB inhibitor, neratinib (N), may be predicted by pre-treatment HER2-EGFR signaling. In the I-SPY 2 TRIAL, N graduated in the HR-/HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy. For HER2+ patients, N was administered in place of trastuzumab. We evaluated 18 HER family signaling proteins as biomarkers of N response using reverse phase protein microarray (RPMA) data from pre-treatment LCM purified tumor epithelium. Methods: 168 patients (N: 106, concurrent controls: 62) had RPMA and pCR data. 18 biomarkers relating to HER family signaling were evaluated: AKT S473, AKT T308, EGFR, EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1148, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 total, ERBB3 Y1289, ERK1/2 T202/Y204, Heregulin, mTOR, mTOR S2448, PI3K p85 Y458/p55 Y199, PTEN S380, and SHC Y317. We assessed association between biomarker and response in the N and control arms alone (likelihood ratio test), and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction) using a logistic model. Analysis was also performed adjusting for HR/HER2 status. In an exploratory analysis, we selected the marker with the greatest interaction (phosphorylated EGFR (Y1173)) to dichotomize patients optimally based on the data and assessed it in the context of the graduating signature by adding the EGFR Y1173-High patients to the HR-/HER2+ subtype and evaluating the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data and does not account for multiplicities. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Results: 7 HER pathway markers (EGFR Y1068, EGFR Y1173, EGFR Y992, ERBB2 total, ERBB2 Y1248, ERBB3 Y1289, SHC Y317) are associated with response in the N but not the control arm. However, the difference in performance between arms did not reach significance by permutation testing. Adjusting for HR/HER2 status, EGFR Y1173 shows a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p = 0.049). In an exploratory analysis, we dichotomized patients by their EGFR Y1173 levels and evaluated the distribution of pCR rates (Table 1). Neratinib (n=106)Control (n=62)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=31)EGFR Y1173 High (n=75)EGFR Y1173 Low (n=29)EGFR Y1173 High (n=33)HR-/HER2+ (n=28)0 / 412 / 181 / 11 / 5Not HR-/HER2+ (n=140)3 / 2724 / 575 / 285 / 28Table 1 OR between EGFR Y1173 groups in the N relative to control arm is 10.1. When EGFR Y1173 High patients are added to the graduating HR-/HER2+ subset, the OR associated with treatment is 3.2 and is comparable to that in the HR-/HER2+ signature (OR: 2.1), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼50%. Evaluation of EGFR Y1173 under the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model is pending. Conclusion: Our sample size is too small to draw definitive conclusions. Our exploratory analysis reveals that HER family phosphoproteins associate with response to N, but only phosphorylated EGFR Y1173 appears to add value to the graduating signature. Given that this biomarker would expand the patient population that may benefit, it merits evaluation in other ongoing trials of neratinib. Citation Format: Julia D Wulfkuhle, Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Rosa I Gallagher, Ashish Sanil, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, I-SPY 2 TRIAL Investigators, Meredith Buxton, Angela DeMichele, Nola Hylton, William F Symmans, Laura van't Veer, Douglas Yee, Melissa Paoloni, Laura Esserman, Donald Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Emanuel F Petricoin III. Evaluation of HER family protein signaling network as a predictive biomarker for pCR for breast cancer patients treated with neratinib 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 P3-06-15.

Abstract Background: The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1071 trial (Alliance) reported a false negative rate (FNR) of 12.6% with sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women presenting with node-positive breast cancer. Proposed methods to decrease the FNR include clip placement in the positive node at initial diagnosis with confirmation of resection of the clipped node at surgery and inclusion of residual metastatic cells identified by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for cytokeratins and disease measuring <0.2mm on H&E in the definition of node positivity after chemotherapy. Herein we evaluate the impact of these methods on FNR. Methods: Z1071 was a prospective multi-institutional trial in which women with clinical T0-4,N1-2,M0 breast cancer underwent both SLN surgery and axillary dissection (ALND) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The primary endpoint defined nodal metastasis as disease >0.2mm on H&E. Slides were submitted for central IHC staining when H&E-negative, unless performed locally. For this analysis, we expanded the definition of node positivity to include metastases less than 0.2mm on H&E and metastatic deposits identified by IHC. In 171 cases, a clip was placed in the node at initial biopsy and in these cases the SLNs and ALND were evaluated by x-ray or pathology to document clip location. FNR in the clip cohort is reported using the primary endpoint definition of node positive disease (>0.2mm on H&E). Results: In the 113 cases where the clip was found in the SLN the FNR was 6.4% (1.8-15.5%). In the 29 cases where the clip was found in the ALND specimen, the FNR was 22.2% (6.4-47.6%). IHC was available on 470 of 525 patients with cN1 disease and 2 SLNs resected. Using the definition of H&E metastasis >0.2mm, the FNR in these patients was 11.3% (34/301, 8.0-15.4%) which decreased to 8.7% (27/311, 5.6-11.8%) when including any disease <0.2mm. SLNs from 16 patients had disease <0.2mm in size. Seven patients previously classified as false negative SLN changed to true positive with identification of disease in the SLN. Nine patients changed from node-negative to node-positive with the only disease being <0.2mm disease found in the SLN. Nodal pathologic complete response rate changed from 36.0% to 33.8% with the inclusion of metastases <0.2mm. NResidual disease identified in SLNs or ALNDFNR (%)95% CINode positive definitionSLN metastases >0.2mm by H&E470301 (64.0%)11.38.0-15.4SLN metastasis any size on IHC or H&E470311 (66.2%)8.75.6-11.8Clip locationClip in SLN11462 (54.4%)6.41.8-15.5Clip in ALND2918 (62.1%)22.26.4-47.6Clip location unknown2920 (69.0%)14.33.0-36.3Clip not placed354207 (58.5%)13.59.1-18.9 Conclusion: Placement of a clip at initial diagnosis of node positive disease with identification of the clip during the SLN surgery reduces the FNR. Use of IHC with inclusion of metastases <0.2mm in the definition of residual nodal disease in women with node positive breast cancer after chemotherapy also improves the accuracy of SLN surgery. Use of one or both of these methods should be considered when performing SLN in this setting. Citation Format: Judy C Boughey, Karla V Ballman, William F Symmans, Linda M McCall, Elizabeth A Mittendorf, Gretchen M Ahrendt, Lee G Wilke, Bret Taback, Kelly K Hunt. Methods impacting the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node positive breast cancer (T0-T4,N1-2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy – Results from a prospective trial – ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) [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 P2-01-02.

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