Citations

Importance Although adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves outcomes in high-risk early-stage breast cancer, opportunities remain to further enhance response. Dual checkpoint blockade offers a potential strategy to further enhance efficacy. Objective To evaluate the combination of anti−programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) cemiplimab and anti−lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) added to neoadjuvant therapy in ERBB2 -negative early-stage, high-risk breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants The I-SPY2 (Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response With Imaging and Molecular Analysis 2) is an ongoing randomized clinical platform trial being conducted at multiple US clinical sites including patients with early-stage (II or III) ERBB2 -negative, high-risk breast cancer. Participants, continuously enrolled since 2010, were adaptively randomized from February 2, 2020, to December 9, 2021, to one of several experimental neoadjuvant therapies or control groups based on receptor subtypes defined by hormone receptor (HR), ERBB2 status, and MammaPrint (Agendia Inc) molecular risk, categorized as high (MP1) or ultrahigh (MP2). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2022, to August 5, 2025. Interventions Both groups received weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks, then doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by surgery; concomitant with paclitaxel, the intervention group also received 4 doses of cemiplimab and fianlimab (PCF) every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Pathologic complete response (pCR). Treatments graduated when they achieved 85% bayesian probability of success in a subtype-specific phase 3 trial. Pathway-specific biomarkers were assessed for response prediction. Results A total of 78 participants (mean [SD] age, 47 [39-54] years) were randomized to the intervention group, with 350 participants (mean [SD] age, 48 [39-57] years) randomized to the historical control population. PCF graduated in all clinical signatures, with pCR rates vs control of 44% (95% CI, 34%-53%) vs 21% (95% CI, 17%-25%) in all ERBB2 , 53% (95% CI, 39%-67%) vs 29% (95% CI, 22%-36%) in triple-negative, and 36% (95% CI, 23%-49%) vs 14% (95% CI, 9%-19%) in HR-positive and ERBB2 -negative disease. Among the total participants, 16 (21%) experienced adrenal insufficiency, including hypophysitis (11% grade 3 or 4), mostly occurring after immunotherapy completion. PCF was found to be highly effective in the subset of patients with immune signature positive status (ImPrint positive). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, the combination of PD-1 and anti−LAG-3 inhibition with standard NAC was effective in early-stage ERBB2 -negative breast cancer, particularly in patients displaying a positive ImPrint immune signature. These results warrant further definitive trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01042379

LBA514 Background: Preclinical and clinical data show that antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) such as T-DXd may synergize with immunotherapy. Rilvegostomig (R) is a monovalent, Fc-reduced, dual checkpoint bispecific IgG1 monoclonal antibody against PD-1 and TIGIT receptors. R + T-DXd was evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy for up to 4 cycles. Methods: I-SPY2.2 is a phase II neoadjuvant trial with three neoadjuvant sequences (Blocks A/B/C). All HER2-negative subtypes were eligible for R + T-DXd in Block A. Predicted responders at the end of Block A or B could undergo surgery; otherwise, they continued to Block B +/- C. Block B pts received paclitaxel +/- carboplatin +/- pembrolizumab and Block C pts doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (AC) +/- pembrolizumab, HR+ immune+ received IO in Blocks B/C. Results are analyzed by receptor and response predictive subtypes (RPS), that include expression-based immune, and luminal signatures with hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. Some pts were randomized to a control regimen (skipping R + T-DXd in block A and starting in block B). To minimize risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD) that could lead to treatment discontinuation, pts underwent pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CTs every 6 weeks. Abnormalities were reviewed in real time. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR), within each RPS and HR/HER2 signature, with estimated pCR (EpCR) rates compared to subtype-specific block A goal rates and control pts in those groups. Other endpoints included safety and treatment discontinuation. Results: 105 pts were treated with R + T-DXd in block A, while 31 pts were randomized to the control regimen. Block A EpCR rate was 57% in the 12 HR+Immune+ pts vs a pre-specified goal of 15% (posterior probability, PP > .99). In 35 HR-Immune+ pts EpCR was 52% vs a pre-specified goal of 40% (PP = .87). No other groups (Immune-) had a PP > .85 for their respective pCR goal rate. HER2-IHC was 0 (27.6%), 1+ (49.5%) and 2+ (22.9%) in the treatment arm vs. 37.7%, 37.7%, and 24.7% in the control arm, with no difference in distribution between arms in immune subtypes. The most common adverse events in Block A were fatigue (84.8%), nausea (81.0%) and alopecia (58.1%). ILD was the most common adverse event of special interest in Block A and overall, occurring in 12 pts (11.4%; 7G1, 4G2, 1G3) during Block A and in 3 pts (G1, 2.9%) in other Blocks. 8 pts discontinued T-DXd + R due to ILD and proceeded to the next Block. Conclusions: When considering the full treatment strategy including block B and C regimens, experimental strategies had similar EpCR rates vs. controls in immune+ subtypes but block A rates exceeded pre-defined goal thresholds. This infers that treatment beginning with R + T-DXd has equivalent efficacy to standard of care for immune+ pts, but 64% pts with pCR skip chemotherapy (Block B) and 97% avoid AC (Block C). R + T-DXd participants avoided persistent ILD. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

625 Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter phase II adaptive platform trial evaluating novel agents for stage II-III high-risk breast cancer using response-predictive subtypes (RPS) and a sequential neoadjuvant treatment design of up to three blocks (A/B/C). Investigational regimens are given in Block A, followed by response-guided escalation to standard-of-care (SOC) therapy (tx) in subsequent blocks or early surgery for responders. Topoisomerase I (TOPO1) inhibition plus PARP inhibition may enhance DNA damage and tumor response. DAN-222 is a tumor-targeted polymeric camptothecin conjugate designed to improve the therapeutic index of TOPO1 inhibition. Based on favorable phase 1 safety and preliminary activity in metastatic breast cancer, DAN-222 plus niraparib was evaluated as Block A tx in HER2− disease. Notably, the neoadjuvant regimen used a higher dose of niraparib (200 mg daily) than the prior phase 1 metastatic study. Methods: Patients (pts) with HER2− breast cancer were randomized to DAN-222 plus niraparib for up to 12 weeks in Block A. Response was assessed by serial MRI and biopsy. Inadequate responders escalated early to SOC tx in Blocks B/C. Primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR). Secondary endpoints included residual cancer burden, safety, early discontinuation, and treatment-strategy performance versus subtype-specific SOC tx controls. Given established PARPi sensitivity in BRCA mut disease, the key objective was to assess clinically meaningful activity of DAN-222 plus niraparib in BRCA wt pts. Accordingly, a prespecified Bayesian interim futility analysis focused on BRCA wt and tested the probability of the true pCR rate after Block A alone exceeded 15% after 50 pts. Results: Fifty pts enrolled from Sep to Dec 2024. In BRCA wt (n=47), estimated Block A pCR was 3%, with posterior probability of 0.02 that that true pCR exceeded 15%, meeting futility criteria and prompting arm closure. Across all blocks, pCR rate was 57% (8/14) for HR-HER2−; 11% (4/36) for HR+ HER2−, largely after SOC tx. 2/3 BRCA mut pts achieved pCR. Treatment strategies initiating with DAN-222 plus niraparib underperformed subtype-specific controls. 68% discontinued Block A early, mainly due to toxicity. Grade ≥3 cytopenias were common: neutropenia (n=25; 50%), anemia (24%), and thrombocytopenia (18%). Cystitis occurred in 36% (1 grade ≥3). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant DAN-222 plus niraparib showed insufficient activity and no treatment-strategy benefit in BRCA wt HER2− breast cancer, underscoring challenges for TOPO1–PARP inhibitor combinations. Although not supported for further development in this setting, these results highlight the strength of I-SPY 2 in rapidly enrolling patients and quickly distinguishing ineffective from promising therapeutic strategies to accelerate progress toward improved outcomes for patients with curable breast cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

536 Background: Folate receptor alpha (FRα) is overexpressed in ~80% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC). We previously demonstrated that patients (pts) with breast cancer naturally mount immune responses to FRα. In prior Phase I and II studies, a GM-CSF-adjuvanted FRα peptide vaccine (FRPV) was safe and induced durable FRα-specific T-cell immunity in 83–90% of pts with breast and ovarian cancer. Methods: Eligible pts were women ≥18 years with TNBC (ER/PR ≤10%) with 1+ of the following: stage ≥T1c disease, node-positivity, or residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive FRPV or placebo (GM-CSF alone) every 28 days for cycles 2-7 and then every six months for 7 booster doses, with cycle 1 consisting of cyclophosphamide 50mg orally twice daily for days 1-7 and 15-21 (in both arms). Randomization was stratified by chemotherapy setting (adjuvant only vs neoadjuvant) and stage (I/II vs III). FRα expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. The study was designed to detect (at 30 months after the last pt enrolled) a disease-free survival (DFS) difference of 14% assuming a 3.5-year DFS rate of 70% in the control group and with 78% power. Results: 280 pts were enrolled (median age 52). The majority had stage I or II tumors (n = 219, 78%). There were numerically more node-positive tumors in the vaccine arm, 78 (41%) vs 27 (32%), p = 0.15. Median follow-up was 3.5 years, and 33 (FRPV: 25, placebo: 8) DFS events were observed; 3.5-year DFS rate was 88% with FRPV and 90% with placebo (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.64–3.15; p = 0.39). Overall survival (OS) also did not differ by arm (HR 2.48, 95% CI 0.55–11.20; p = 0.22). Among node-positive pts (n = 105), DFS did not differ between arms (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.34–2.66; p = 0.92). However, a numerical DFS event rate improvement (14% for vaccine vs. 26% for placebo) was observed in 61 patients with stage III disease (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16–1.68; p = 0.26). DFS did not differ by chemotherapy setting or by receipt of anthracycline, capecitabine, and/or an immune checkpoint inhibitor. FRPV was well tolerated, with predominantly grade 1–2 adverse events (AEs) and no vaccine-related grade ≥4 AEs. FRα expression was available from tumor in 230 pts, with 72% expressing > 0. Overall, DFS was not significantly associated with FRα expression (0 vs > 0; HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.21–1.44; p = 0.21), and no significant differences in DFS by FRα expression were observed between treatment arms. Conclusions: FRPV following oral cyclophosphamide was safe, with no vaccine-related high-grade AEs. While no significant improvement in DFS or OS was observed overall, a numeric trend toward improved DFS was observed in pts with stage III TNBC. This finding is hypothesis-generating and supports further evaluation of FRα-targeted vaccination in higher-risk TNBC. Immune correlative analyses are ongoing to better define vaccine immunogenicity and its relationship to clinical outcomes. Clinical trial information: W81XWH-15-1-0293.

1056 Background: Resistance to HER2-directed therapies remains a major challenge in HER2-positiveMBC. In preclinical models, HER2+ tumors overexpress poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), and PARP inhibition induces apoptosis through NF-κB suppression even in the absence of pathogenic mutations in BRCA 1/2 . We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and translational correlates of niraparib combined with trastuzumab in patients (pts) with refractory HER2+ MBC. Methods: This open-label Phase 1b/2 trial (NCT03368729) enrolled pts with HER2+ MBC (IHC 3+ and/or FISH amplified), measurable disease, LVEF ≥50%, and progression on ≥1 prior HER2-targeted therapy; stable CNS disease was allowed. Pts with germline BRCA1/2 mutations or prior PARP inhibitor exposure were excluded. Niraparib 300 mg orally was administered on Days 1–21 of a 21-day cycle with trastuzumab 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (loading dose 8 mg/kg on cycle 1). The Phase 2 portion used a Gehan/Simon two-stage design with early stopping for futility (P0=24%); ≥1 response among the first 20 patients triggered expansion to 40 patients. ORR was assessed by RECIST v1.1, meeting the primary endpoint and allowing response rate estimation with <7% standard error and a two-sided 95% exact CI width of 0.28. Gene expression profiling of paired tumor tissue and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was performed using the NanoString nCounter Tumor Signaling 360 panel at pretreatment compared to cycle 2. Results: Forty-six pts were enrolled (9/2019–2/2025); 41 were evaluable for response. Pts were heavily pretreated (median 3 prior regimens), including trastuzumab deruxtecan in 22 pts; 33% had brain metastases. Treatment-related adverse events were predominantly grade 1–2 and manageable. Clinical benefit rate (CBR) was 44% (18/41) including 1 complete response, 2 partial responses, and 15 stable disease. Eleven patients achieved disease control ≥ 6 months; 1 patient remained on treatment at data cutoff. Tumor profiling revealed enrichment of a B-cell–driven tertiary lymphoid structure signature with reduced hypoxia signaling in responders. Matched PBMC analyses demonstrated coordinated downregulation of interferon signaling, DNA damage response, metabolic activation, angiogenesis, and resistance pathways in clinical responders, whereas non-responders retained signatures of chronic stress and immune exhaustion. Conclusions: Niraparib plus trastuzumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile and durable clinical benefit in heavily pretreated HER2+ MBC. Integrated tumor and blood-based analyses identify immune-organized tumor microenvironments and systemic immune normalization as key correlates of prolonged response, supporting further investigation of PARP inhibition strategies. Clinical trial information: NCT03368729 .

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive breast cancer subtype characterized by lack of estrogen receptor expression, progesterone receptor expression, and human epidermal growth factor 2 overexpression/amplification. Given its generally aggressive biology, current guidelines recommend systemic therapy for most patients, with anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens being historically preferred. However, the clinical outcomes of patients with stage I TNBC and the benefit (or lack thereof) of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy have not been prospectively evaluated as this population has largely been excluded from prospective randomized clinical trials. As such, management decisions for stage I TNBC are typically extrapolated from trials enrolling patients with stage II or III TNBC or based on retrospective analyses. Currently, the primary factor influencing systemic therapy decisions is the anatomic stage, without other biomarkers clinically used to guide systemic therapy. This review summarizes the existing evidence supporting current and emerging systemic therapy strategies for stage I TNBC, with a special focus on treatment de-escalation and promising biomarkers that can advance personalized treatment selection.

The treatment paradigm of stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is rapidly evolving, with the recent incorporation of pembrolizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy improving disease outcomes. Nevertheless, almost one in five patients with early-stage TNBC will relapse in 5 years, underscoring an urgent need to identify and improve outcomes for those at high risk of recurrence. Novel therapeutic strategies including antibody-drug conjugates, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, dual immune checkpoint blockade, and locoregional therapies to augment the antitumor immune response are being investigated in clinical trials. Biomarker strategies including tumor infiltrating lymphocytes, immune signatures, and circulating tumor DNA are being explored to identify patients at a high risk of relapse and to predict treatment response. In this article, we review recent advances in the management of stage II to III TNBC, highlight emerging investigational therapies and combinations, and explore novel biomarker strategies aimed at personalizing the care for patients with stage II to III TNBC.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by the lack of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression. Historically, treatment options for TNBC have been limited, because of the absence of actionable targets. The addition of immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy improved outcomes for a subset of patients with metastatic PD-L1–positive disease; however, a critical need for more effective therapies remains. Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been a promising advance in the management of advanced TNBC and are reshaping the landscape as they move earlier into the treatment algorithm. A greater understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of TNBC has enabled the pursuit of more targeted and personalized therapeutic strategies. Despite this, TNBC continues to have the least favorable outcomes compared with other breast cancer subtypes. This review highlights current evidence and future challenges in advanced TNBC, including optimizing therapeutic sequencing and the ongoing need for predictive biomarkers and novel agents.

Abstract Background: In MBC, CTC enumeration is highly prognostic for both progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Multiparametric technologies enable for expanded phenotypic profiling of CTCs, including ER and HER2 assessment. Limited information is available on the concordance of CTC ER and HER2 levels compared to synchronously obtained tissue. We assessed the prognostic performance of CTC enumeration and phenotypic profiling of ER and HER2 on CTCs. Methods: The prospective, multi-institutional Aurora study enrolled pts with MBC of any subtype either at diagnosis of metastatic disease or at time of progression on any line of systemic therapy. Pts underwent a metastatic site biopsy, consented to archival primary tissue collection and donated blood samples serially every 3-4 months until progression. CTCs, from blood collected at study entry, were identified as nucleated, EpCAM+/ cytokeratin+/ CD45- cells using an automated imaging system (RareCyte, Seattle). ER and HER2 expression levels were measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI), with thresholds above 80 (ER) and 160 (HER2) considered positive. Comparisons were made to total RNAseq from paired metastatic tissue biopsies. PFS and OS were calculated from the time of study entry to last follow up or death. Results: Baseline CTC enumeration was performed in 154 pts. The most common clinical subtype was HR+/HER2- (59.7%), followed by HER2-positive (16.8%) and TNBC (15.5%). The median lines of prior therapy were 1 (range 0-10). At least 1 CTC was identified in 68/154 pts (44%), 30 (19%) had ≥ 5 CTCs, and 15 (9.7%) had CTC clusters. The median CTC value was 0 (0-877). The presence of CTCs (≥1 or ≥5) and CTC clusters was adversely associated with PFS and OS (Table 1 Table 1. CTC survival analyses Number Median PFS PFS HR (95% CI) Median OS OS HR (95% CI) Presence of CTC 0 CTC 86 7.37 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 20.72 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 1 CTC 68 4.7 (0.43 - 19.5) 1.65 (1.16-2.36) 12.04. (0.43-44.1) 2.13 (1.44-3.16) Presence of ≥ 5 CTC &lt;5 CTC 124 7.7 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 19.31 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 5 CTC 30 2.88 (0.43 - 18.7) 1.77 (1.15 - 2.71) 5.74 (0.43 - 29.3) 3.59 (2.26-5.70) Presence of clusters 0 clusters 139 7.37 (0.03 - 43.1) reference 18.06 (0.03 - 50.6) reference ≥ 1 cluster 15 1.91 (0.43 - 18.7) 2.06 (1.16 - 3.68) 3.42 (0.43 - 18.7) 5.44 (2.94-10.09) ). Across all subtypes, the median CTC ER-MFI across was 36.2 (range 4.2-10,016.6) and the median HER2-MFI was 139.6 (range 4.2-2480.5). We observed high intra-patient heterogeneity of ER-MFI (CV: 0.65 [0.34-1.25]) and HER2-MFI (CV: 0.79 [0.42-1.54]). Clinical metastatic subtype from metastasis at study entry was available in 54/68 pts with CTCs. Pts with clinical ER+ MBC had a higher median ER-MFI compared to clinical TNBC (111.9 vs 68.6, p = 0.02). However, 11 pts (26.8%) with clinical ER+ MBC had all CTCs with an ER-MFI &lt;80. Lower ER expression was observed in CTCs collected after prior exposure to a SERD (median ER-MFI: post-SERD [n=8] 27 vs post-aromatase inhibitor [n=4] 252, p&lt;2.22e-16). No correlations were observed between the median CTC ER-MFI or HER2-MFI and paired tissue ESR1 or ERBB2 RNA expression (n=66). Conclusions: CTCs are strongly predictive of PFS and OS. CTC ER- and HER2-MFI were highly heterogeneous without clear correlation with bulk tissue RNA expression. The clinical impact of discordant clinical receptor status and CTC receptor status warrants further exploration. Citation Format: K. V. Giridhar, W. C. Nenad, H. Ye, G. L. Wheeler, T. Hinoue, A. R. Michmerhuizen, B. M. Felsheim, U. R. Chandran, B. J. Kelly, E. R. Mardis, P. W. Laird, J. M. Balko, A. C. Garrido-Castro, S. Coppens, J. Bowen, R. Nanda, N. U. Lin, C. K. Anders, C. Isaacs, J. J. Tao, J. D. Anampa, N. Jahan, L. Huppert, A. DeMichele, B. H. Park, S. Vinayak, A. L. Delson, M. M. Magbanua, M. Balic, H. A. Parsons, A. V. Lee, L. A. Carey, L. Norton, A. C. Wolff, N. E. Davidson, I. Krop, T. A. King, C. M. Perou, K. A. Hoadley, Aurora US Metastases Network. Characterizing circulating tumor cell (CTC) enumeration and phenotypic profiling in blood with synchronously obtained tissue in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in TBCRC /AURORA US [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-07-17.