Landscape of Baseline and Acquired Genomic Alterations in Circulating Tumor DNA with Abemaciclib Alone or with Endocrine Therapy in Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

To identify potential predictors of response and resistance mechanisms in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) treated with the cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor abemaciclib ± endocrine therapy (ET), baseline and acquired genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were analyzed and associated with clinical outcomes.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

MONARCH 3: postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy in the advanced setting were randomly assigned to abemaciclib or placebo plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). nextMONARCH: women with HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer that progressed on/after prior ET and chemotherapy were randomly assigned to abemaciclib alone (two doses) or plus tamoxifen. Baseline and end-of-treatment plasma samples from patients in MONARCH 3 and nextMONARCH (monotherapy arms) were analyzed to identify somatic genomic alterations. Association between genomic alterations and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was assessed.

RESULTS

Most patients had ≥1 genomic alteration detected in baseline ctDNA. In MONARCH 3, abemaciclib+NSAI was associated with improved mPFS versus placebo+NSAI, regardless of baseline alterations. ESR1 alterations were less frequently acquired in the abemaciclib+NSAI arm than placebo+NSAI. Acquired alterations potentially associated with resistance to abemaciclib ± NSAI included RB1 and MYC.

CONCLUSIONS

In MONARCH 3, certain baseline ctDNA genomic alterations were prognostic for ET but not predictive of abemaciclib response. Further studies are warranted to assess whether ctDNA alterations acquired during abemaciclib treatment differ from other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Findings are hypothesis generating; further exploration is warranted into mechanisms of resistance to abemaciclib and ET. See related commentary by Wander and Bardia, p. 2008.

Long-term Mammography Screening Trends and Predictors of Return to Screening after the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from a Statewide Registry

Purpose To evaluate long-term trends in mammography screening rates and identify sociodemographic and breast cancer risk characteristics associated with return to screening after the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, statewide screening mammography data of 222 384 female individuals aged 40 years or older (mean age, 58.8 years ± 11.7 [SD]) from the Vermont Breast Cancer Surveillance System were evaluated to generate descriptive statistics and Joinpoint models to characterize screening patterns during 2000-2022. Log-binomial regression models estimated associations of sociodemographic and risk characteristics with post-COVID-19 pandemic return to screening. Results The proportion of female individuals in Vermont aged 50-74 years with a screening mammogram obtained in the previous 2 years declined from a prepandemic level of 61.3% (95% CI: 61.1%, 61.6%) in 2019 to 56.0% (95% CI: 55.7%, 56.3%) in 2021 before rebounding to 60.7% (95% CI: 60.4%, 61.0%) in 2022. Screening adherence in 2022 remained substantially lower than that observed during the 2007-2010 apex of screening adherence (66.1%-67.0%). Joinpoint models estimated an annual percent change of -1.1% (95% CI: -1.5%, -0.8%) during 2010-2022. Among the cohort of 95 644 individuals screened during January 2018-March 2020, the probability of returning to screening during 2020-2022 varied by age (eg, risk ratio [RR] = 0.94 [95% CI: 0.93, 0.95] for age 40-44 vs age 60-64 years), race and ethnicity (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.90] for Black vs White individuals), education (RR = 0.84 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.86] for less than high school degree vs college degree), and by 5-year breast cancer risk (RR = 1.06 [95% CI: 1.04, 1.08] for very high vs average risk). Conclusion Despite a rebound to near prepandemic levels, Vermont mammography screening rates have steadily declined since 2010, with certain sociodemographic groups less likely to return to screening after the pandemic. Keywords: Mammography, Breast, Health Policy and Practice, Neoplasms-Primary, Epidemiology, Screening Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

Real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients treated with eribulin after prior phosphoinositide 3-Kinase inhibitor treatment for metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration approved eribulin for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Since then, the treatment landscape has evolved with many new therapy classes, a more recent one being the small molecule inhibitors of phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K). We sought to characterize the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of patients with MBC who received eribulin following prior treatment with a PI3K inhibitor.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study based on medical record review included MBC patients who initiated eribulin between March 2019 and September 2020 following prior treatment with a PI3K inhibitor was conducted. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated from the initiation of eribulin therapy using Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS

82 eligible patients were included. Patients' median age at eribulin initiation was 62 years; 86.5% had hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative tumors. Eribulin was most often administered in the second or third line (82.9%) in the metastatic setting. Best overall response on eribulin was reported as complete or partial response in 72% of the patients. The median rwPFS was 18.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.4-not estimable); median OS was not reached. The estimated rwPFS and OS rates at 12 months were 63.3% (95% CI, 50.5-73.7) and 82.6% (95% CI, 72.4-89.3), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world study suggests that eribulin may be a potential treatment option for MBC patients who fail a prior PI3K inhibitor.

Near-Infrared Spectral Tomography for Predicting Residual Cancer Burden during Early-Stage Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate whether near-infrared spectral tomography (NIRST) might serve as a reliable prognostic tool to predict residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) based upon early treatment response measurements.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A total of thirty-five patients with breast cancer receiving NAC were included in this study. NIRST imaging was performed at multiple time points, including: before treatment, at end of the first cycle, at the mid-point, and post-NAC treatments. From reconstructed NIRST images, average values of total hemoglobin (HbT) were obtained for both the tumor region and contralateral breast at each time point. RCB scores/classes were assessed by a pathologist using histologic slides of the surgical specimen obtained after completing NAC. Logistic regression of the normalized early percentage change of HbT in the tumor region (ΔHbT%) was used to predict RCB and determine its significance as an indicator for differentiating cases within each RCB class.

RESULTS

The ΔHbT% at the end of the first cycle, as compared with pretreatment levels, showed excellent prognostic capability in differentiating RCB-0 from RCB-I/II/III or RCB-II from RCB-0/I/III (P < 0.001). Corresponding area under the curve (AUC) values for these comparisons were 0.97 and 0.94, and accuracy values were 0.90 and 0.83, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NIRST holds promise as a potential clinical tool that can be seamlessly integrated into existing clinical workflow within the infusion suite. By providing early assessment of RCB, NIRST has potential to improve breast cancer patient management strategies.

Early Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated with Eribulin After Prior Immuno-Oncology or Antibody-Drug Conjugate Therapy

Introduction

Eribulin was approved by the FDA in 2010 for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the United States (US). More recently, several immuno-oncology (IO) and antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) regimens have been approved for MBC. We assessed the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in MBC patients treated with eribulin following treatment with an IO or ADC in US clinical practice.

Materials and Methods

In a retrospective patient medical chart review study, patients with MBC, aged ≥18 years, who initiated eribulin therapy between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, treated with either prior IO or ADC in the metastatic setting were included. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses.

Results

In the study population (N=143), median age at eribulin initiation was 62 years; 64% were Caucasian, and 67% had triple-negative MBC (TNBC). Eribulin therapy was used in the second to fifth line of therapy in the metastatic setting; median treatment duration was 7.2 months. The overall response rate for eribulin was 59.4%. Median rwPFS and OS from eribulin initiation were 21.4 months (95% CI, 12.9-not estimable [NE]) and 24.2 months (95% CI, 17.5-NE), respectively. In patients with TNBC, median rwPFS and OS from eribulin initiation were 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.8-NE) and 18.3 months (95% CI, 14.9-NE), respectively.

Conclusion

These real-world data provide evidence for the clinical effectiveness outcomes of eribulin treatment among MBC patients previously treated with an IO or ADC.

Real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes associated with tucatinib therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Background

Tucatinib is an oral human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-directed therapy approved in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for use in patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with/without brain metastases (BM). To inform clinical decision-making, it is important to understand tucatinib use in real-world clinical practice. We describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes for tucatinib treatment in the real-world setting.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with HER2+ MBC (January 2017-December 2022) who received tucatinib treatment in a nationwide, de-identified electronic health record-derived metastatic breast cancer database. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were described at baseline (prior to tucatinib initiation). Key outcomes included real-world time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), time to next treatment (rwTTNT), and overall survival (rwOS).

Results

Of 3,449 patients with HER2+ MBC, 216 received tucatinib treatment (n=153 with BM; n=63 without BM) and met inclusion criteria. Median (range) age of patients was 56 (28-84) years, 57.9% were White, and 68.5% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Median (IQR) follow-up from start of tucatinib treatment was 12 (6-18) months. Among all patients who received tucatinib treatment, median (95% CI) rwTTD was 6.5 (5.4-8.8) months with 39.8% and 21.4% remaining on treatment at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Median (95% CI) rwTTNT was 8.7 (6.8-10.7) months. Patients who received the approved tucatinib triplet combination after ≥1 HER2-directed regimen in the metastatic setting had a similar median (95% CI) rwTTD (any line: 8.1 [5.7-9.5] months; second-line (2L) and third-line (3L): 9.4 [6.3-14.1] months) and rwTTNT (any line: 8.8 [7.1-11.8] months; 2L and 3L: 9.8 [6.8-14.1] months) to the overall population. Overall, median (95% CI) rwOS was 26.6 (20.2-not reached [NR]) months, with similar findings for patients who received the tucatinib triplet (26.1 [18.8-NR] months) and was NR in the subgroup limited to the 2L/3L population.

Conclusion

Tucatinib treatment in the real-world setting was associated with a similar median rwTTD, rwTTNT, and rwOS as in the pivotal HER2CLIMB trial, with particular effectiveness in patients in the 2L/3L setting. These results highlight the importance of earlier use of tucatinib in HER2+ MBC.

AMEERA-3: Randomized Phase II Study of Amcenestrant (Oral Selective Estrogen Receptor Degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Monotherapy in Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Amcenestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) demonstrated promising safety and efficacy in earlier clinical studies for endocrine-resistant, estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In AMEERA-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04059484), an open-label, worldwide phase II trial, patients with ER+/HER2- aBC who progressed in the (neo)adjuvant or advanced settings after not more than two previous lines of endocrine therapy (ET) were randomly assigned 1:1 to amcenestrant or single-agent endocrine treatment of physician's choice (TPC), stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastases, previous/no treatment with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, compared using a stratified log-rank test (one-sided type I error rate of 2.5%).

RESULTS

Between October 22, 2019, and February 15, 2021, 290 patients were randomly assigned to amcenestrant (n = 143) or TPC (n = 147). PFS was numerically similar between amcenestrant and TPC (median PFS [mPFS], 3.6 v 3.7 months; stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.051 [95% CI, 0.789 to 1.4]; one-sided P = .643). Among patients with baseline mutated ESR1; (n = 120 of 280), amcenestrant numerically prolonged PFS versus TPC (mPFS, 3.7 v 2.0 months; stratified HR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.565 to 1.435]). Overall survival data were immature but numerically similar between groups (HR, 0.913; 95% CI, 0.595 to 1.403). In amcenestrant versus TPC groups, treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) occurred in 82.5% versus 76.2% of patients and grade ≥3 events occurred in 21.7% versus 15.6%.

CONCLUSION

AMEERA-3 did not meet its primary objective of improved PFS with amcenestrant versus TPC although a numerical improvement in PFS was observed in patients with baseline ESR1 mutation. Efficacy and safety with amcenestrant were consistent with the standard of care for second-/third-line ET for ER+/HER2- aBC.

Alternating 17β-Estradiol and Aromatase Inhibitor Therapies Is Efficacious in Postmenopausal Women with Advanced Endocrine-Resistant ER+ Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Strategies to implement estrogen therapy for advanced estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer are underdeveloped. Preclinical data suggest that cycling treatment with 17β-estradiol followed by estrogen deprivation can control tumor growth long-term.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Postmenopausal women with advanced ER+/HER2- breast cancer with recurrence or progression on ≥ 1 antiestrogen or aromatase inhibitor (AI)-based therapy were eligible. Patients received 17β-estradiol (2 mg orally, three times a day) for 8 weeks followed by AI (physician's choice) for 16 weeks, alternating treatments on an 8-week/16-week schedule until disease progression. Patients then optionally received continuous single-agent treatment until a second instance of disease progression. Endpoints included 24-week clinical benefit and objective response per RECIST, and tumor genetic alterations.

RESULTS

Of 19 evaluable patients, clinical benefit rate was 42.1% [95% confidence interval (CI), 23.1%-63.9%] and objective response rate (ORR) was 15.8% (95% CI, 5.7%-37.9%). One patient experienced a grade 3 adverse event related to 17β-estradiol. Among patients who received continuous single-agent treatment until a second instance of disease progression, clinical benefit was observed in 5 of 12 (41.7%) cases. Tumor ER (ESR1) mutations were found by whole-exome profiling in 4 of 7 (57.1%) versus 2 of 9 (22.2%) patients who did versus did not experience clinical benefit from alternating 17β-estradiol/AI therapy. The only two patients to experience objective responses to initial 17β-estradiol had tumor ESR1 mutations.

CONCLUSIONS

Alternating 17β-estradiol/AI therapy may be a promising treatment for endocrine-refractory ER+ breast cancer, including following progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors or everolimus. Further study is warranted to determine whether the antitumor activity of 17β-estradiol differs according to ESR1 mutation status.

Abstract PD13-11: PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

Background Abemaciclib is approved for patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) with progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). The MONARCH 2 trial showed a statistically significantly benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.553; 95% CI: 0.449-0.681; p &lt; 0.001), overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.606-0.945; p = 0.01) and a manageable safety profile for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone. Here we report the pre-specified final overall survival (OS) analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial (NCT02107703). Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib or placebo, plus fulvestrant for treatment of pre-, peri- or postmenopausal women with CDK 4 & 6 inhibitor naïve HR+, HER2- ABC that progressed during ET. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg twice daily, plus fulvestrant. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary versus secondary). OS and safety were key secondary endpoints, and chemotherapy-free survival was an exploratory endpoint defined as the time from randomization to initiation of chemotherapy or death, whichever occurs the earliest. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to analyze time-to-event variables. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate treatment effect hazard ratio (HR). The prespecified final analysis was planned to occur based on approximately 441 OS events. Data cutoff was March 18, 2022. Results 669 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (n = 446) or placebo (n = 223), plus fulvestrant. Baseline characteristics have been previously reported (Sledge et. al., Jama Oncol 2020). The median follow-up time was approximately 80 months and at the time of the data cutoff, 11% of pts were still receiving study drug in the abemaciclib arm versus 2% in the placebo arm. 440 OS events were observed in the ITT population (abemaciclib arm: 283 events; placebo arm: 157 events). The median OS was 45.8 months in the abemaciclib arm and 37.2 months in the placebo arm (HR: 0.784; 95% CI: 0.644-0.955). The maintained separation of the KM curves beyond the medians is illustrated by the differences in the estimated 5- and 6-year OS rates between arms (5-year: 41.2% versus 29.2%; 6-year: 34.7% versus 23.7%; abemaciclib versus placebo respectively). While OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, a more pronounced benefit is noted in subgroups associated with a poorer prognosis such as visceral disease (HR: 0.643; 95% CI: 0.499-0.829), primary resistance to ET (HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.436-0.922) or negative progesterone receptor status (HR: 0.623; 95% CI: 0.405-0.959). Moreover, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant deferred the initiation of chemotherapy (HR: 0.674; 95% CI: 0.562-0.809), with substantial difference in yearly chemotherapy-free survival rates (3 year: 42% vs 29.3%; 4 year: 37% vs 18.6%; 5 year: 32.4% vs 14.7%). Notably with longer exposure to abemaciclib, no new additional safety risks or cumulative toxicities were identified. Conclusions At the prespecified final OS analysis of the MONARCH 2 trial, with a median follow-up of 6.5 years, the statistically significant benefit previously demonstrated was confirmed and maintained. OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, with numerically greater effect size observed among patients with poorer prognosis. Importantly, the survival benefit came with a substantial extension of the chemotherapy-free survival time, which is an important consideration for pts with ABC. The results also provide assurance of the safety of abemaciclib with longer-term use.

Citation Format: Antonio Llombart-Cussac, George Sledge, Masakazu Toi, Patrick Neven, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Kenichi Inoue, Xavier Pivot, Meena Okera, Norikazu Masuda, Peter A. Kaufman, Han Koh, Eva-Maria Grischke, PierFranco Conte, Valerie Andre, Yuanyuan Bian, Ashwin Shahir, Gertjan van Hal. PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-11.

Abstract P1-03-02: Efficacy of eribulin mesylate in HER2-low and HER2-0 metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Results from an analysis of two phase 3 studies

Background: Breast cancer (BC) with low-level HER2 expression (HER2-low) is defined by an immunohistochemistry (IHC) score of 1+ or 2+ without HER2 gene amplification or excess HER2 gene copy number, as measured by in situ hybridization (ISH). This represents approximately half of patients with BC overall (estimated as 55% for hormone-receptor positive [HR+] BC and 38% for triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]; Scott, ASCO, 2021). Some data suggest that patients with HER2-low BC may respond differently to treatment than those whose BC has no HER2 expression (HER2-0). In this post hoc unplanned analysis, we analyzed data from two pivotal phase 3 studies (Studies 305 and 301) comparing eribulin with other chemotherapeutic agents (treatment of physician’s choice and capecitabine, respectively [“control”]) in patients with both HER2-low and HER2-0 MBC. Methods: Patients with MBC, 2–5 (Study 305) or &lt; 2 (Study 301) prior lines of chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease, and who had received an anthracycline and a taxane, were analyzed. HER2-expression status was determined by IHC and/or ISH assays. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method adjusted by study; comparisons of PFS and OS between treatment groups were performed using stratified (by prior capecitabine use, geographic region, and study) log-rank tests. Hazard ratios were estimated by a stratified Cox model. For each study, median PFS and OS were also calculated for HR+ and TNBC subgroups. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between treatment groups among patients with HER2-low (n=427) and HER2-0 (n=824) BC. Patients with HER2-low or HER2-0 BC showed trends toward benefit with eribulin treatment. In patients with HER2-low and HER2-0 BC, median OS was longer with eribulin vs control (15.1 vs 12.0 months and 15.2 vs 12.5 months, respectively); median PFS by independent imaging review (IIR) was also longer with eribulin vs control (4.0 vs 3.1 months and 3.9 vs 3.1 months, respectively). Objective response rate (ORR) by IIR was also higher with eribulin vs control in patients with HER2-low and HER2-0 BC (13.7% vs 9.2% and 10.2% vs 7.4%, respectively). In a separate analysis, median OS was longer with eribulin vs capecitabine in patients with TNBC and HER2-low and HER2-0 (15.4 vs 10.3 months and 14.4 vs 8.9 months, respectively). Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis, treatment with eribulin demonstrated trends toward improved OS, PFS, and ORR compared with chemotherapy controls in patients with HER2-low or HER2-0 MBC. Funding source: This trial was sponsored by Eisai Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA. Medical writing support was provided by Oxford PharmaGenesis Inc., Newtown, PA, USA, and was funded by Eisai Inc., Nutley, NJ, USA.

Citation Format: Chris Twelves, Peter A. Kaufman, Ahmad Awada, Seock-Ah Im, Bagrat Lalayan, Ran Xie, Linda T. Vahdat, Javier Cortés. Efficacy of eribulin mesylate in HER2-low and HER2-0 metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Results from an analysis of two phase 3 studies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-02.

Abstract P6-10-06: A preoperative window-of-opportunity study of imlunestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: Results from the EMBER-2 study

Background: Imlunestrant is a novel, orally bioavailable selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) with pure antagonistic properties that result in sustained inhibition of estrogen receptor (ER)-dependent gene transcription and cell growth. In a phase 1 study, imlunestrant monotherapy showed favourable safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy in heavily pre-treated ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer patients (Jhaveri ASCO 2022). Here, we present pharmacodynamic (PD) data from the preoperative window of opportunity (WOO) study (EMBER-2, NCT04647487), evaluating the biological activity of imlunestrant monotherapy in ER+, HER2-negative (HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC).

Methods: Post-menopausal women with stage I–III operable ER+ (&gt;50%) or Allred score &gt;5, HER2- untreated EBC ≥1 cm in diameter were randomized 1:1 to imlunestrant 400 mg once daily (QD) or imlunestrant 800 mg QD for 15 days (treatment window of -2 to +7 days) up to the surgery date. Pre- and on-treatment tumor samples were compared for changes in PD biomarkers. Primary study objective was change in ER expression (measured by IHC and quantified by H-score). Secondary objectives were change in progesterone receptor (PR) expression (measured by IHC and quantified by H-score) and Ki-67 (measured by IHC and expressed by percentage positive scoring) along with evaluation of safety and tolerability.

Results: From Apr 28, 2021, to Mar 11, 2022, 58 patients were enrolled of which 54 were biomarker-evaluable for ER expression (400 mg: n = 28; 800 mg: n = 26). Patient demographics and tumor characteristics for all enrolled patients were similar across cohorts, with a median age of 64 years (50-83), 72% invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), 28% invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), 59% stage I, 36% stage II and 5% stage III disease. 91% of the patients had a compliance rate higher than 80%. Among biomarker evaluable patients, relative reduction in PD biomarkers after a median of 15 days (range 13 to 23 days) of treatment are presented in Table 1. There was no significant difference in PD biomarker modulation noted between the two imlunestrant doses (400 mg vs 800 mg) or based on tumor histology (IDC, ILC). Imlunestrant was well tolerated. There were no discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were mainly grade 1, most commonly: fatigue (10%), diarrhea (9%), hot flushes (7%), and nausea (5%). There were no TRAEs of diarrhea and nausea observed at the 400 mg dose. No grade 3 or higher TRAEs were reported.

Conclusion: Imlunestrant demonstrated evidence of target engagement along with consistent biological activity across all evaluated dose levels and was well tolerated in an EBC population, further supporting continued adjuvant development in the ongoing EMBER-4 study. Additional biomarker analyses for the EMBER-2 study are also planned.

Table 1. Relative reduction in PD biomarkers from Baseline to Day 15

Citation Format: Patrick Neven, Nicole Stahl, Maria Vidal, Miguel Martín, Nadia Harbeck, Peter A. Kaufman, Francois-Clement Bidard, Peter A. Fasching, Philippe Aftimos, Erika Hamilton, Stacey Carter, Peter Schmid, Duncan Wheatley, Manali Bhave, Kelly K. Hunt, Swati A. Kulkarni, Roohi Ismail-Khan, Claudia Karacsonyi, Shawn T. Estrem, Umut Ozbek, Bastien Nguyen, Eva Ciruelos. A preoperative window-of-opportunity study of imlunestrant in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer: Results from the EMBER-2 study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-10-06.

Abstract P1-03-03: Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated with Eribulin After Prior PI3K Inhibitor Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer

Background: Eribulin has been used in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) following approval in 2010 in the United States (US). Recently, several new therapeutic classes have been approved for patients with MBC, including the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor alpelisib. This study aimed to assess the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with MBC treated with eribulin following alpelisib in US clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective, noninterventional medical chart review study was performed to obtain de-identified patient data via participating oncologists. Study population included adult female patients with a diagnosis of MBC who initiated eribulin therapy between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, following prior therapy with alpelisib. Eribulin treatment parameters and patient characteristics were captured. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since eribulin initiation was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: This interim analysis included 47 eligible patients (median age 62 years at eribulin initiation; 77% Caucasian). The majority (91.5%) of this cohort had HR+/HER2– MBC; 72.3% had a known PIK3CA mutation. Eribulin was classified as 2nd line, 3rd line, and 4th line or later in 34%, 47%, and 19% of patients, respectively, in regard to the line of therapy in the metastatic setting. At last follow-up, eribulin treatment was ongoing for 34% of patients. The median treatment duration was 5.2 months (q1, q3: 3.9, 7.1) among those who had discontinued eribulin, and 11.3 months (q1, q3: 10.0, 13.7) among those who were still on treatment. At last follow-up, 72.3% of patients were alive. The estimated PFS rate at 12 months was 57.1% (95% CI: 40.0-70.9). Median was not reached for OS after initiation of eribulin; the estimated OS rates at 12 and 24 months were 80.2% (95% CI: 65.3-89.2) and 61.8% (95% CI: 37.2-79.2), respectively. Conclusion: Among patients with MBC who initiated eribulin following prior treatment with a PI3K inhibitor, over 60% were estimated to survive for at least 2 years. Future studies to confirm these results are warranted.

Citation Format: Ravi K. Goyal, Jingchuan Zhang, Keith L. Davis, Peter A. Kaufman. Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated with Eribulin After Prior PI3K Inhibitor Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-03.

Abstract P4-03-30: Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes associated with tucatinib therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Background: Tucatinib is an oral HER2-targeted therapy that was approved by the FDA in April 2020 for use in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine for treatment of patients with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In the randomized HER2CLIMB trial median (95% CI) overall survival (mOS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients receiving tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine were 21.9 (18.3, 31.0) and 7.8 (7.5, 9.6) months, respectively. HER2CLIMB utilized a placebo + trastuzumab + capecitabine comparator arm and included patients with active and stable brain metastasis (BM).

Objectives: Describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes for tucatinib-based treatment in the real-world setting.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients treated for HER2+ MBC between January 2017 and March 2022 in the nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health Metastatic Breast Cancer database who received tucatinib-based treatment outside of a clinical trial setting. Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients were described at baseline (MBC diagnosis) as well as at initiation of each oncologist-defined, rule-based line of therapy (LOT). Key outcomes included time to next treatment (TTNT), persistence, and mOS.

Results: Of 2,057 patients treated for HER2+ MBC in the study period who met the inclusion criteria, 154 received tucatinib-based treatment. Of these patients, 18 (12%), 44 (29%), 33 (21%) and 59 (38%) received tucatinib-based treatment in the first-line (1L), second-line (2L), third-line (3L), and fourth-line or further (4L+) respectively. Median age at MBC diagnosis was 54 years. Median follow-up from tucatinib-based treatment initiation was 8.6 months. Overall, 106 (69%) had BM prior to initiating tucatinib therapy (14 [78%], 37 [84%], 20 [61%], and 35 [59%] in 1L, 2L, 3L, and 4L+ respectively). Those with BM initiated tucatinib-based treatment after a median of 2 prior therapies, compared with 2.5 in the non-BM group. The most common metastatic treatment regimens prior to 2L tucatinib-based treatment were trastuzumab + pertuzumab-based, and the most common regimens immediately following 2L tucatinib-based treatment were trastuzumab-based and trastuzumab deruxtecan. The most common regimens immediately prior to and following 3L tucatinib-based treatment were T-DM1 and trastuzumab deruxtecan, respectively. The median (95% CI) TTNT was 8.4 (6.3, 11.3) months overall, and 12.8 (5.5, not reached [NR]) months, 9.8 (4.8, NR) months, and 9.5 (6.1, 15.3) months in 1L, 2L, and 3L, respectively, the median OS was not reached overall (Table 1). Of patients with sufficient follow-up since treatment initiation, 65% (62/96) remained on tucatinib-based treatment after 6 months and 40% (20/50) after 12 months.

Conclusion: The majority of patients receiving tucatinib-based treatment in clinical practice have BM at treatment initiation, constituting a larger proportion of the population than in HER2CLIMB (47.5% of patients). Tucatinib-based treatment use in the real-world setting is associated with a similar mOS and TTNT as in HER2CLIMB.

Table 1: Median overall survival and time to next treatment in HER2CLIMB and this study *Time to next treatment was used as a proxy for progression-free survival in the HER2CLIMB clinical trial population. CI, confidence interval; mOS, median overall survival; NR, not reached; TTNT, time to next treatment.

Citation Format: Peter A. Kaufman, Edward Neuberger, Ling-I Hsu, Naomi Schwartz, Karen Bartley, Shu Wang, Yutong Liu, Matthew T. Blahna, Brian T. Pittner, Gabriel Wong, Carey Anders. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes associated with tucatinib therapy in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-03-30.

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency

IMPORTANCE

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by mammography screening is a controversial outcome with potential benefits and harms. The association of mammography screening interval and woman's risk factors with the likelihood of DCIS detection after multiple screening rounds is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a 6-year risk prediction model for screen-detected DCIS according to mammography screening interval and women's risk factors.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cohort study assessed women aged 40 to 74 years undergoing mammography screening (digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis) from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2020, at breast imaging facilities within 6 geographically diverse registries of the consortium. Data were analyzed between February and June 2022.

EXPOSURES

Screening interval (annual, biennial, or triennial), age, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast biopsy history, breast density, body mass index, age at first birth, and false-positive mammography history.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Screen-detected DCIS defined as a DCIS diagnosis within 12 months after a positive screening mammography result, with no concurrent invasive disease.

RESULTS

A total of 916 931 women (median [IQR] age at baseline, 54 [46-62] years; 12% Asian, 9% Black, 5% Hispanic/Latina, 69% White, 2% other or multiple races, and 4% missing) met the eligibility criteria, with 3757 screen-detected DCIS diagnoses. Screening round-specific risk estimates from multivariable logistic regression were well calibrated (expected-observed ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03) with a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.639 (95% CI, 0.630-0.648). Cumulative 6-year risk of screen-detected DCIS estimated from screening round-specific risk estimates, accounting for competing risks of death and invasive cancer, varied widely by all included risk factors. Cumulative 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk increased with age and shorter screening interval. Among women aged 40 to 49 years, the mean 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was 0.30% (IQR, 0.21%-0.37%) for annual screening, 0.21% (IQR, 0.14%-0.26%) for biennial screening, and 0.17% (IQR, 0.12%-0.22%) for triennial screening. Among women aged 70 to 74 years, the mean cumulative risks were 0.58% (IQR, 0.41%-0.69%) after 6 annual screens, 0.40% (IQR, 0.28%-0.48%) for 3 biennial screens, and 0.33% (IQR, 0.23%-0.39%) after 2 triennial screens.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, 6-year screen-detected DCIS risk was higher with annual screening compared with biennial or triennial screening intervals. Estimates from the prediction model, along with risk estimates of other screening benefits and harms, could help inform policy makers' discussions of screening strategies.

Margetuximab Versus Trastuzumab in Patients With Previously Treated HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer (SOPHIA): Final Overall Survival Results From a Randomized Phase 3 Trial

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Final overall survival (OS) in SOPHIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02492711), a study of margetuximab versus trastuzumab, both with chemotherapy, in patients with previously treated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer, is reported with updated safety. Overall, 536 patients in the intention-to-treat population were randomly assigned to margetuximab (15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks; n = 266) plus chemotherapy or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks after a loading dose of 8 mg/kg; n = 270) plus chemotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival, previously reported, and OS. Final OS analysis was triggered by 385 prespecified events. The median OS was 21.6 months (95% CI, 18.89 to 25.07) with margetuximab versus 21.9 months (95% CI, 18.69 to 24.18) with trastuzumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17; P = .620). Preplanned, exploratory analysis of CD16A genotyping suggested a possible improvement in OS for margetuximab in CD16A-158FF patients versus trastuzumab (median OS, 23.6 v 19.2 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.00) and a possible improvement in OS for trastuzumab in CD16A-158VV patients versus margetuximab (median OS, 31.1 v 22.0 months; HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.01 to 3.12). Margetuximab safety was comparable with trastuzumab. Final overall OS analysis did not demonstrate margetuximab advantage over trastuzumab. Margetuximab studies in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer with different CD16A allelic variants are warranted.

postMONARCH: A phase 3 study of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with HR+, HER2-, metastatic breast cancer following progression on a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor and endocrine therapy

TPS1117

Background: The use of cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 & 6) inhibitors plus endocrine therapy (ET) has transformed the management of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). However, most patients will experience disease progression. Identification of treatment options following progression is an unmet medical need. Additionally, as CDK4 & 6 inhibitors are now being deployed in the adjuvant setting, determination of optimal therapy following metastatic relapse is an important question. In patients with disease progression following a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor-based regimen, continuing CDK4 & 6 inhibition with abemaciclib while switching the ET backbone may provide benefit and delay the need for cytotoxic chemotherapy. Abemaciclib is an oral, selective, and potent CDK4 & 6 inhibitor administered continuously and approved as monotherapy or with ET for treatment of HR+, HER2- ABC. Abemaciclib has also been approved with ET for the adjuvant treatment of HR+, HER2-, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence and a Ki-67 score ≥20%. Fulvestrant is a selective ER degrader (SERD) approved for treatment of HR+, HER2- ABC. The postMONARCH study investigates whether abemaciclib plus fulvestrant will improve outcomes in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC after disease relapse or progression after adjuvant or first-line treatment with a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor plus ET. Methods: postMONARCH is a Phase 3, global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC and with disease progression on treatment with a prior CDK4 & 6 inhibitor plus an aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy for ABC or recurrence on/after treatment with a CDK4 & 6 inhibitor plus ET in the adjuvant setting. Eligible patients are randomized 1:1 to receive abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily or placebo, plus fulvestrant. Stratification factors include geography, presence of visceral metastasis, and duration of prior CDK4 & 6 inhibitor-based regimen. The study is powered at 80% with a cumulative Type I error of 0.025 to detect the superiority of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in terms of investigator-assessed progression free survival. Key secondary endpoints include overall survival, PFS by blinded independent central review, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and pharmacokinetics. This study opened in Jan 2022, plans for approximately 122 centers in 18 countries, and anticipates enrolling ̃350 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT05169567.

A phase 1a/b trial of imlunestrant (LY3484356), an oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (aBC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer (EEC): Monotherapy results from EMBER

1021

Background: Imlunestrant is a novel, orally bioavailable SERD with pure antagonistic properties that result in sustained inhibition of ER-dependent gene transcription and cell growth. In dose escalation, imlunestrant showed favorable safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary efficacy in patients with ER+, HER2- aBC and ER+ EEC (Phase 1a EMBER, Jhaveri 2021). Here we present updated data from the dose escalation (Phase 1a) and dose expansion (Phase 1b) of imlunestrant monotherapy in EMBER (NCT04188548). Methods: Phase 1a/1b enrolled patients with ER+ aBC (prior ET sensitivity; ≤3 prior therapies for aBC in Phase 1a following protocol amendment and ≤2 in Phase 1b) and ER+ EEC (prior platinum therapy; no prior fulvestrant or aromatase inhibitor). Premenopausal women received a concomitant GnRH agonist. Serial plasma samples were obtained for PK and ctDNA analysis. Key endpoints included recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) determination, safety and tolerability, PK, objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 (ORR: complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) in patients with measurable disease and ≥1 post-baseline tumor assessment or discontinued prior to tumor assessment, and clinical benefit rate (CBR: CR or PR, or stable disease ≥24 weeks) in patients enrolled ≥24 weeks prior to data cut. Results: As of January 14, 2022, 138 patients (n = 114 aBC, n = 24 EEC) received imlunestrant monotherapy at doses ranging from 200-1200 mg QD. Median age was 62.0 years (range 32-95). Median number of prior therapies for aBC and EEC was 2 (range 0-8) and 1 (0-5), respectively. aBC patients had received a prior ET (94.7%), CDK4/6 inhibitor (92.1%), fulvestrant (50.9%) and chemotherapy (26.3%). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were grade 1. At the RP2D (400 mg QD, n= 69), the most common all grade TEAE’s were nausea (33.3%), fatigue (27.5%), and diarrhea (23.2%). Across all doses, the incidence of treatment-related grade 3 AEs was low (3.6%). No patient discontinued due to a TEAE. In evaluable aBC patients, ORR was 8.0% (6/75) and CBR was 40.4% (42/104). In evaluable EEC patients, ORR was 5.0% (1/20 had a PR- ongoing pending confirmation) and CBR was 47.1% (8/17). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of baseline ESR1 mutation status as determined by ctDNA sequencing. Additional biomarker analyses will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Imlunestrant continues to demonstrate a favorable side effect profile, with no cardiac or opthalmic safety signals, and has continued evidence of clinical activity in heavily pre-treated ER+ aBC and EEC patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04188548.

Abstract P2-14-18: A randomized phase II trial of carboplatin with or without nivolumab in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Background: Platinum agents induce DNA crosslinking and cause accumulation of genotoxic stress, which leads to immune activation via IFN-γ signaling, making the combination with nivolumab (PD-1 antibody) an attractive strategy to enhance the benefit of either agent alone in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Methods: In this phase II open-label, investigator-initiated, multicenter trial, patients with unresectable locally advanced or mTNBC treated with 0-1 prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting were randomized 1:1 to carboplatin (AUC 6) with or without nivolumab (360 mg) IV every 3 weeks. Stratification factors included: germline BRCA (gBRCA) status, prior neo/adjuvant platinum, and number of prior lines of metastatic therapy. After approval of PD-L1 inhibition for mTNBC, the study was amended to include first-line mTNBC only and PD-L1 status was added as a stratification factor. Patients randomized to carboplatin alone were allowed to crossover at progression to receive nivolumab (+ nab-paclitaxel post-amendment). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST 1.1 criteria of carboplatin with or without nivolumab in first-line mTNBC in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Key secondary objectives were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate, and duration and time to objective response. PD-L1 status was confirmed centrally using the SP142 Ventana assay (positive, ≥1% IC). Paired research biopsies at baseline, on-treatment and at progression were performed, if safely accessible. The trial closed to accrual prior to reaching target accrual due to approval of PD-1 inhibition in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for PD-L1+ mTNBC. Results: Between 1/30/2018 and 12/9/2020, 78 patients enrolled. Three patients did not receive protocol treatment, and the safety analysis was conducted among the 75 that received any treatment; 37 received carboplatin + nivolumab (Arm A), 38 received carboplatin alone (Arm B). Median age was 59.1 yrs (range: 25.4-75.8). Four patients (5.3%) had a known gBRCA1/2 mutation. Sixty-two (82.7%) patients received 0 prior lines (ITT population) and 13 (17.3%) 1 prior line of metastatic therapy. Sixty-seven patients (89.3%) experienced any grade ≥2 treatment-related adverse event (AE). The most frequent AE were platelet count decrease (n=40; 53.3%), anemia (n=36; 48.0%), neutrophil count decrease (n=33; 44.0%) and fatigue (n=24; 32.0%). Grade 3/4 AE were observed in 46 (61.3%) patients, and there was one grade 5 AE (COVID19 pneumonia). Any grade ≥2 immune-related AE (irAE) were observed in 25 of the 37 (67.6%) patients treated with carboplatin + nivolumab. Grade 3/4 irAE were observed in 11 (29.7%) patients. In the ITT population (32 on Arm A; 30 on Arm B), median PFS was 4.2 months with carboplatin + nivolumab, and 5.5 months with carboplatin (stratified HR 0.98, 95% CI [0.51 - 1.88]; p=0.95). ORR was 25% vs. 23.3%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, median OS was 17.5 months vs. 10.7 months (stratified HR 0.63, 95% CI [0.32 - 1.24]; p=0.18). In patients with PD-L1+ mTNBC (13 on Arm A; 11 on Arm B), median PFS was 8.3 months and 4.7 months, respectively (stratified HR 0.63, 95% CI [0.21 - 1.89]; p=0.41). ORR was 23.1% vs. 27.3%, respectively. Median OS was 17.5 months vs. 9.6 months (stratified HR 0.59, 95% CI [0.20 - 1.75]; p=0.34). Conclusions: Addition of nivolumab to carboplatin in patients with previously untreated mTNBC, unselected by PD-L1 status, did not significantly improve PFS. A trend toward improved PFS and OS was observed in patients with PD-L1+ mTNBC. Tissue, blood and intestinal microbiome biomarker analyses are planned; bulk tumor and single-cell sequencing, and TCR sequencing in peripheral blood are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03414684.

Citation Format: Ana C Garrido-Castro, Noah Graham, Kevin Bi, Jihye Park, Jingxin Fu, Tanya Keenan, Edward Thomas Richardson, Ricardo Pastorello, Paulina Lange, Victoria Attaya, Robert Wesolowski, Natalie Sinclair, Zarah Lucas, Steve Lo, Nadine Tung, Meredith Faggen, Peter A Kaufman, Caroline C Block, Fred Briccetti, Madhavi Toke, Wendy Chen, Kai Wucherpfennig, Sascha Marx, Ye Tian, Judith Agudo, Jennifer L Guerriero, Stuart Schnitt, Nancy U Lin, Eric P Winer, Elizabeth A Mittendorf, Nabihah Tayob, Eliezer Van Allen, Sara M Tolaney. A randomized phase II trial of carboplatin with or without nivolumab in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-18.

Cancer Care in the Wake of a Cyberattack: How to Prepare and What to Expect

PURPOSE

Cyberattacks targeting health care organizations are becoming more frequent and affect all aspects of care delivery. Cancer care is particularly susceptible to major disruptions because of the potential of immediate and long-term consequences for patients who often rely on timely diagnostic testing and regular administration of systemic therapy in addition to other local treatment modalities to cure or control their diseases. On October 28, 2020, a cyberattack was launched on the University of Vermont Health Network with wide-ranging consequences for oncology, including loss of access to all network intranet servers, e-mail communications, and the electronic medical record (EMR).

METHODS

This review details the immediate challenges faced by hematology and oncology during the cyberattack. The impact and response on inpatient, outpatient, and special patient populations are described. Steps that other academic- and community-based oncology practices can take to lessen the brunt of such an assault are suggested.

RESULTS

The two areas of immediate impact after the cyberattack were communications and lack of EMR access. The oncology-specific impact included loss of the individualized EMR chemotherapy plan templates and electronic safeguards built into multistep treatment preparation and delivery. With loss of access to schedules, basic patient information, encrypted communications platforms and radiology, and laboratory and pharmacy services, clinical outpatient care delivery was reduced by 40%. The infusion visit volume dropped by 52% in the first week and new patients could not access necessary services for timely diagnostic evaluation, requiring the creation of command centers to oversee ethical and transparent triage and allocation of systemic therapies and address new patient referrals. This included appropriate transfer of patients to alternate sites to minimize delays. Inpatient care including transitions of care was particularly challenging and addressing patient populations whose survival might be affected by delays in care.

CONCLUSION

Oncology health care leaders and providers should be aware of the potential impact of a cyberattack on cancer care delivery and preventively develop processes to mitigate the impact.

E2112: Randomized Phase III Trial of Endocrine Therapy Plus Entinostat or Placebo in Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer. A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group

PURPOSE

Endocrine therapy resistance in advanced breast cancer remains a significant clinical problem that may be overcome with the use of histone deacetylase inhibitors such as entinostat. The ENCORE301 phase II study reported improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the addition of entinostat to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane in advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

E2112 is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that enrolled men or women with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease progressed after nonsteroidal AI. Participants were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg by mouth once daily and entinostat (EE) or placebo (EP) 5 mg by mouth once weekly. Primary end points were PFS by central review and OS. Secondary end points included safety, objective response rate, and lysine acetylation change in peripheral blood mononuclear cells between baseline and cycle 1 day 15.

RESULTS

Six hundred eight patients were randomly assigned during March 2014-October 2018. Median age was 63 years (range 29-91), 60% had visceral disease, and 84% had progressed after nonsteroidal AI in metastatic setting. Previous treatments included chemotherapy (60%), fulvestrant (30%), and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor (35%). Most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events in the EE arm included neutropenia (20%), hypophosphatemia (14%), anemia (8%), leukopenia (6%), fatigue (4%), diarrhea (4%), and thrombocytopenia (3%). Median PFS was 3.3 months (EE) versus 3.1 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.13; P = .30). Median OS was 23.4 months (EE) versus 21.7 months (EP; hazard ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.21; P = .94). Objective response rate was 5.8% (EE) and 5.6% (EP). Pharmacodynamic analysis confirmed target inhibition in entinostat-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

The combination of exemestane and entinostat did not improve survival in AI-resistant advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

MONARCH 2: subgroup analysis of patients receiving abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as first-line and second-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer

PURPOSE

In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2- advanced breast cancer. This exploratory analysis assessed the efficacy of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant across subgroups of patients receiving study therapy as first- or second-line treatment for metastatic disease.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Improvements were estimated using Cox models, and a test of interactions of subgroups with treatment was performed.

RESULTS

The benefit in PFS (first-line, HR=0.57 [95% CI: 0.45-0.73]; second-line, HR=0.48 [95% CI: 0.36-0.64]) and OS (first-line, HR=0.85 [95% CI: 0.64-1.14]; second-line, HR=0.66 [95% CI: 0.46-0.94]) was observed across both subgroups, consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In first-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n=265; placebo arm, n=133), the numerically largest effect on PFS and OS was observed in patients with primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET) (PFS, HR=0.40 [95% CI: 0.26-0.63]; OS, HR=0.58 [95% CI: 0.35-0.97]) and visceral disease (PFS, HR=0.54 [95% CI: 0.39-0.73]; OS, HR=0.82 [95% CI: 0.58-1.20]). In second-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n=170; placebo arm, n=86), a numerical benefit in PFS and OS was observed across primary and secondary ET resistance, with numerically more pronounced effects observed in patients with visceral disease (PFS, HR=0.39 [CI: 0.27-0.57]; OS, HR=0.51 [95% CI: 0.33-0.81]). Prolongation of time to second disease progression, time to chemotherapy, and chemotherapy‑free survival was observed in both subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the ITT population, a benefit in PFS and OS was observed across the first- and second-line subgroups in MONARCH 2.

A first-in-human phase 1a/b trial of LY3484356, an oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader (SERD) in ER+ advanced breast cancer (aBC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer (EEC): Results from the EMBER study

1050

Background: Novel degraders and antagonists of ER are under evaluation in aBC, to overcome both ER mediated resistance and the bioavailability and dosing limitations of fulvestrant, the only approved SERD. ER is also overexpressed in ̃80% of EEC and endocrine therapy (ET) is utilized for these patients (pts). LY3484356, a novel, orally bioavailable SERD with pure antagonistic properties results in sustained inhibition of ER-dependent gene transcription and cell growth. Preclinically, LY3484356 shows favorable efficacy and pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, including antitumor activity in ESR1 mutants. Here we present the initial clinical data from EMBER, an ongoing first-in-human phase 1a/b trial of this novel agent. Methods: Phase 1a evaluated LY3484356 dose escalation (i3+3 design) in women with ER+, HER2- aBC (≤3 prior therapies for aBC following protocol amendment; prior ET sensitivity) and ER+ EEC (prior platinum therapy). Premenopausal women received a concomitant GnRH agonist. Key endpoints included determination of the recommended phase 2 dose, safety and tolerability, PK, and objective response rate and clinical benefit rate per RECIST v1.1. Results: As of the data cut (November 9, 2020), 28 pts (n = 24 aBC, n = 4 EEC) were enrolled at doses ranging from 200-1200 mg QD. Median age was 59 years (range, 35-80). Median number of prior therapies for aBC was 2 (range, 1-8; 6 pts enrolled prior to protocol amendment had received ≥4 prior therapies), including prior fulvestrant (46%), a CDK4/6 inhibitor (83%), and chemotherapy (33%). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mostly grade 1-2, including nausea (32%), fatigue (25%), and diarrhea (18%). The only grade 3 treatment-related AE was diarrhea (n = 1). TEAEs of bradycardia and QTc prolongation were not observed despite intensive central ECG monitoring. Dose-proportional increases in LY3484356 exposures were observed across all evaluated doses and t1/2 was 25-30 hours. At the starting dose level (200 mg QD), unbound LY3484356 exposures exceeded those achieved with fulvestrant. 16 of 28 pts were efficacy evaluable, with the remaining 12 pts ongoing prior to first scan. Among 16 evaluable pts, 11 (8 aBC, 3 EEC) had stable disease (10 pts ongoing), and 5 had progressive disease. RECIST responses were observed after the data cut and will be detailed at the meeting. Plasma ctDNA analysis indicated decreases in mutant allele frequencies, including mutant ESR1 in 9/12 (75%) evaluable pts across all dose levels. Conclusions: LY3484356 QD dosing shows favorable safety and PK properties, along with preliminary efficacy in pts with heavily pretreated ER+ aBC and EEC. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04188548 .

eMonarcHER: A phase 3 study of abemaciclib plus standard adjuvant endocrine therapy in patients with HR+, HER2+, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer

TPS596

Background: Hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC) with high-risk characteristics has a high risk of disease recurrence. Novel therapeutic options for this population are urgently needed. Abemaciclib is an oral, selective, and potent CDK4 & 6 inhibitor administered on a continuous schedule which is approved for HR+, HER2- advanced BC (ABC) as monotherapy and in combination with endocrine therapy (ET). Abemaciclib combined with ET demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) in participants (pt) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk early breast cancer (EBC) and also clinical activity in HR+, HER2+ ABC. The eMonarcHER trial investigates whether abemaciclib plus ET will improve IDFS in pts with HR+, HER2+, node-positive, high risk EBC. Methods: eMonarcHER is a phase 3 global, randomized, double-blinded, placebo (PB)-controlled trial in participants with HR+, HER2+, node-positive, high risk EBC who have completed adjuvant HER2-targeted therapy (tx). Eligible participants are randomized 1:1 to receive either abemaciclib 150 mg twice daily or PB, plus standard ET. Study intervention period will be ≤26 cycles (approximately 2 years) followed by ≤8 years of ET as medically indicated. Participants must have undergone definitive surgery of the primary breast tumor and have high-risk disease. High-risk disease is defined as (i) detection of residual axillary nodal disease at the time of definitive surgery in participants with prior neoadjuvant (neoadj) tx; or (ii) in patients not receiving neoadj tx, must have either ≥4 pathologically positive axillary lymph nodes (pALNs), or 1-3 pathological pALNs and either: histologic Grade 2-3 and/or primary invasive tumor size ≥5 cm. Participants must have received either adjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab with chemotherapy or adjuvant T-DM1. Stratification factors include treatment with neoadj tx, menopausal status, and region. The study is powered at approximately 80% to detect the superiority of abemaciclib plus ET over PB plus ET in terms of IDFS (as defined by the STEEP system) at a 1-sided α =.025 using a log-rank test. Assuming a hazard ratio of 0.73, this requires approximately 324 events at final IDFS analysis. Key secondary objectives include overall survival, distant relapse free survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. The study is planned to start in March 2021. Approximately 525 centers in 23 countries plan to enroll ̃2450 participants. Clinical trial information: NCT04752332.

Baseline characteristics and first-line treatment patterns in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the SystHERs registry

BACKGROUND

Systemic Therapies for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs, NCT01615068) was a prospective, observational disease registry designed to identify treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in real-world treatment settings.

METHODS

SystHERs enrolled patients aged ≥ 18 years with recently diagnosed HER2-positive MBC. Treatment regimens and clinical management were determined by the treating physician. In this analysis, patients were compared descriptively by first-line treatment, age, or race. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the associations between baseline variables and treatment selections. Clinical outcomes were assessed in patients treated with trastuzumab (Herceptin [H]) + pertuzumab (Perjeta [P]).

RESULTS

Patients were enrolled from June 2012 to June 2016. As of February 22, 2018, 948 patients from 135 US treatment sites had received first-line treatment, including HP (n = 711), H without P (n = 175), or no H (n = 62) (with or without chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy). Overall, 68.7% received HP + taxane and 9.3% received H without P + taxane. Patients aged < 50 years received HP (versus H without P) more commonly than those ≥ 70 years (odds ratio 4.20; 95% CI, 1.62-10.89). Chemotherapy was less common in patients ≥ 70 years (68.2%) versus those < 50 years (88.0%) or 50-69 years (87.4%). Patients treated with HP had median overall survival of 53.8 months and median progression-free survival of 15.8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of real-world data shows that most patients with HER2-positive MBC received first-line treatment with HP + taxane. However, older patients were less likely to receive dual HER2-targeted therapy and chemotherapy.

Abstract PS5-11: Prospective HER-2 testing using simultaneous immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH): Experience of dual testing in a single academic institution

Background: HER-2 testing informs prognosis and critically guides therapy in breast cancer. Current guidelines for immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing define 3+ as positive, 0 and 1+ as negative, and 2+ as equivocal with additional testing recommended. Guidelines for in situ hybridization (ISH) testing are more complex and generally define a HER-2/CEP17 ratio of ≥2.0 with average HER-2 copy number of ≥4.0 copies/cell as HER-2 positive. Further, HER-2 copy number between 4 and 6 per cell, with a ratio of &lt;2.0, is considered equivocal while &gt;6 per cell is frequently confirmed positive. Limited data suggest that an elevated HER-2 copy number alone has clinical relevance, however most clinical trials addressing HER-2 targeted therapeutics define HER-2 positive based on HER-2/CEP17 ≥2.0.

Design: From 2013-2016, all new invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed at the University of Vermont Medical Center were prospectively tested for HER-2 using both IHC and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) simultaneously. All testing was performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, using the 4B5 Rabbit Monoclonal Antibody (Ventana) for IHC and the INFORM dual ISH DNA probe (Ventana) for CISH. Interpretation was performed using published criteria, and all cases were independently analyzed by two experienced reviewers.

Results: 1906 patients underwent HER-2 testing by both IHC and CISH. 1671 (87.7%) patients had a HER-2/CEP17 ratio of &lt;2.0. Of patients considered to be non-amplified by the CISH ratio, 55 (3.2%) had a HER-2 copy number &gt;4. In IHC 0 and 1+ cases with HER-2/CEP17 ratio of &lt;2, 0.4% and 2.3% have equivocal and excess HER-2 copies/cell, respectively, compared to 10.8% for IHC 2+. Additionally, 17 (8.6%) of the IHC 3+ cases had a CISH ratio of &lt;2, of which 41.2% had &gt;4 HER-2 copies/cell (see table).

Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date that has examined the concurrent use of both IHC and ISH HER-2 assays prospectively in a real-time clinical setting. In the IHC 2+ cohort, only 12.5% were amplified by ISH testing. Interestingly, of those in the IHC 2+ cohort not amplified by CISH, 10.8% had an equivocal or excess HER-2 copy number. Further, while based on a very small sample size, 41.2% of IHC 3+ patients with a CISH ratio of &lt;2.0 had an equivocal or excess HER-2 average copy number. Finally, data on the clinical outcome and therapeutic benefit of HER-2 targeted therapy in patients with non-amplified ISH testing and equivocal or excess HER-2 copy number remains limited, and warrants further evaluation.

Table. Simultaneously tested IHC and CISH data for new invasive breast cancer casesIHCCISH ratio ≥2.0CISH ratio &lt;2.0HER-2 copies/cell (CISH ratio &lt;2.0 cohort)CISH ratio &lt;2.0 with ≥4 HER-2 copies/cellIHCnn (%)n (%)&lt;4 (n)4-6 (n)&gt;6 (n)05010 (0.0)501 (100.0)499200.4%1+94221 (2.2)921 (97.8)8992012.3%2+26533 (12.5)232 (87.5)20625010.8%3+198181 (91.4)17 (8.6)106141.2%Total1906235 (12.3)1671 (87.7)16145323.2%

Citation Format: Kara K Landry, Abiy B Ambaye, Donald L Weaver, Peter A Kaufman. Prospective HER-2 testing using simultaneous immunohistochemistry (IHC) and chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH): Experience of dual testing in a single academic institution [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 PS5-11.

Abstract PS10-12: Integrated safety summary of single agent and combination margetuximab in phase 1, 2, and 3 studies of HER2-positive advanced cancers and metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

Background Margetuximab (M) is an investigational Fc-engineered anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody that targets the same epitope as trastuzumab (T). Compared with T, M has higher affinity for both the 158V (high-binding) and 158F (low-binding) allotypes of the activating Fc receptor CD16A. M enhances innate immunity more effectively than T in vitro, including CD16A-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Samples collected from patients (pts) before and after single-agent treatment also demonstrate that M induces HER2-specific adaptive immune responses, including both T- and B-cell responses. The SOPHIA trial (NCT02492711) in pts with pretreated HER2+ MBC showed that M+chemotherapy (chemo) improved progression-free survival vs T+chemo, with comparable safety. A pooled analysis of M safety across 3 clinical trials is presented. Methods Study 01 (NCT01148849), an ongoing Phase 1 dose-finding/safety study of M monotherapy, enrolled 66 pts with advanced HER2+ carcinomas, including 27 with MBC. Study 02 (NCT01828021), a completed Phase 2 study of M monotherapy in low-expressing HER2+ MBC, enrolled 25 pts. Study 04 (NCT02492711), an ongoing Phase 3 study in pts with pretreated HER2+ MBC to compare M + chemo vs T + chemo, randomized 536 pts, of whom 264 and 265 received M and T, respectively. The pooled safety population includes all pts who received any M in Study 01 (cutoff 01Oct2015), Study 02 (cutoff 02Aug2017), and Study 04 (cutoff 10OCT2018). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), defined as AEs that began or worsened in severity on or after first dose of study drug through an End of Treatment Visit or 28 days after last study treatment, are reported. Results Of 355 pts that received at least 1 dose of M, 295 received 15 mg/kg Q3W, and 60 received other doses from 0.1 - 18 mg/kg. Median (mean, range) number of cycles for all dose levels was 5.0 (6.6, 1-43), higher on Study 04 (6.0) than Study 01 (1-3 across dose groups) or Study 02 (2.0). Most pts (347 [97.7%]) experienced at least 1 AE, and about half (173 [48.7%]) had at least 1 Grade &gt;/= 3 AE. Serious AE (SAE) incidence across studies was low (58 [16.3%]), and 21 pts (5.9%) discontinued M due to AEs. Most frequently reported AEs (&gt;/= 20%) were fatigue (124 [34.9]), nausea (103 [29.0%]), diarrhea (75 [21.1%]), and neutropenia (75 [21.1%]). Blood/lymphatic system disorders were the most frequent events by SOC, and largely restricted to Study 04. Increased neutropenia on M (26.1%), relative to T (20.4%), was observed in Study 04 yet both febrile neutropenia (M 3.0%, T 4.5%) and infections (M 36.4%, T 39.6%) were higher on T. By contrast, Study 01 and Study 02 revealed no tendency of M monotherapy to cause neutropenia. Overall, infusion related reactions (IRRs) were observed in 51 pts (14.4%), primarly at first infusion, including serious IRRs in 5 (1.4%). Also, 34 pts (9.6%) had &gt; 15% reduction in LVEF with a median time to &gt; 15% reduction of 49 days. In all pts with complete follow-up, these LVEF reductions were asymptomatic and reversible. No M-induced cardiac conduction abnormalities were noted. In Study 04, similar proportions in both groups experienced AEs (M 97.7%, T 96.2%), including Grade &gt;/= 3 AEs (M 52.3%, T 48.3%), SAEs (M 14.8%, T 17.4%), discontinuations due to AEs (M 3.0%, T 2.6%), and deaths due to AEs (M 0.8%, T 0.8%). As of the 23Feb2020 safety update, 2 pts remain on M in Study 01, after 116 and 109 cycles (6.7 and 6.3 years), respectively. In Study 04, 16 pts (6%) continued on M, and 7 (2.6%) remained on T. Discussion M has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile across Phase 1, 2, and 3 studies. It has been administered for over 6 years without long-term cumulative safety issues. Combined M plus chemotherapy Q3W demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability, similar to that for T plus chemotherapy Q3W in Study 04.

Citation Format: Seock-Ah Im, Fatima Cardoso, Javier Cortes, Giuseppe Curigliano, Mark D. Pegram, Hope S. Rugo, Ursa Brown-Glaberman, Denise A. Yardley, Sung-Bae Kim, Maaike de Boer, Zbigniew Nowecki, Vesna Glavicic, Ido Wolf, Nele Claes, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Thomas Bachelot, Peter A. Kaufman, Jan Baughman, Shengyan Hong, Kenneth Jacobs, Edwin Rock, William J. Gradishar. Integrated safety summary of single agent and combination margetuximab in phase 1, 2, and 3 studies of HER2-positive advanced cancers and metastatic breast cancer (MBC) [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 PS10-12.

Abstract PS12-13: Balixafortide (a CXCR4 antagonist) plus eribulin in HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: Final analysis from the Phase 1 single arm trial

Background: Balixafortide (B) is a potent, selective antagonist of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. High CXCR4 levels correlate with aggressive metastatic phenotypes and poor prognosis in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Efficacy and safety data were published recently from the Phase 1 trial investigating B + eribulin (E) in patients with HER2 negative MBC1. We report the final safety and efficacy analyses from this trial, including an assessment of dose-response and adverse events of particular interest (AEPIs) (e.g. neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy).

Methods: In this single-arm, dose escalation trial, patients (pts) received E + increasing doses of B using a 3+3 design in 3 parts: Part I cohorts received low B doses (0.5−1mg/kg) + increasing E doses (1.1−1.4mg/m2); Part II dose-escalation cohort for B (1−5.5mg/kg) + 1.4mg/m2 E; Expanded Cohort (EC) to confirm safety and efficacy of B 5.5mg/kg + 1.4mg/m2 E. Most cohorts received E on days 2 and 9, and B on days 1−3 and 8−10 of 21-day cycles.

Results: At entry, all 56 women (age range 33−82 years) were HER2 negative, CXCR4 positive. Most pts were Caucasian and heavily pretreated in the metastatic setting (line of chemotherapy on study: 29% 2nd line, 50% 3rd line, 21% 4th line). 75% were hormone receptor positive and 23% had triple negative breast cancer.

A linear dose-exposure was observed over the entire dose range tested for B. Cmax and AUC for E were within published ranges.

Safety findings (including AEPIs) remained similar to those reported previously1.

No dose-limiting toxicities were confirmed; therefore, the maximum tolerated dose of B was not reached. The highest B dose evaluated was 5.5mg/kg; pharmacokinetic evaluation showed that further protocolled dose increments of B would not have provided a sufficient increase in plasma levels. In addition, the objective response rate in Part II was 3-fold greater than published for eribulin alone which suggested that the anti-tumor activity of B was worthy of further exploration at 5.5mg/kg in the EC.

Efficacy data for the trial are shown in the table.

These data suggest a potential dose-response relationship for B across all efficacy endpoints, with efficacy being numerically greatest in the EC. While PFS and OS should be interpreted with caution in single arm trials, these data suggest potential benefit for this combination. Further analyses will be presented.

Responses were observed regardless of line of chemotherapy on study or extent of CXCR4 expression and were numerically higher in hormone receptor positive patients.

Conclusions: A consistent dose response effect for B + E was suggested across all efficacy endpoints for heavily pretreated pts with HER2 negative MBC. When these results are compared with published data for E monotherapy in similar populations, the EC consistently shows numerically greater benefit for all efficacy endpoints2, 3.

The safety and tolerability of B + E appear comparable to published data on E or B alone, particularly for neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy1.

These results suggest that B + E could potentially provide a new treatment option in heavily pretreated patients with HER2 negative MBC. A Phase 3 trial exploring efficacy and safety of B 5.5mg/kg + E is ongoing.

1. Pernas S et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 812−242. Cortes J et al. Lancet. 2011; 377: 914−9233. Kaufman PA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 594−601

Part II(N=21)Expanded Cohort(N=24)Overall Efficacy Population(N=54)Objective Response Rate (95% CI)33% (15−57)38% (19−59)30% (18−44)median duration in months (IQR)2.8 (1.4−3.3)4.4 (3.1−5.3)3.2 (2.2−4.5)Clinical Benefit Rate (95% CI)43% (22−66)63% (41−81)44% (31−59)median duration in months (IQR)5.4 (4.2−6.7)8.1 (6.3−10.8)6.9 (5.4−10.3)median PFS in months (95% CI)4.2 (3−5.4)6.2 (2.9−8.1)4.6 (3.2–5.7)median OS in months (95% CI)10.4 (7.7−18.4)18 (12.2–27.2)16.8 (10.6–18.4)Landmark OS estimate12 months (95% CI)40% (19−60)75% (53−88)60% (45−72)18 months (95% CI)30% (12−50)50% (29−68)42% (29−55)24 months (95% CI)20% (6−39)33% (16−52)25% (14−37)CI: confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range; OS: overall survival; PFS: progression free survival

Citation Format: Peter A. Kaufman, Sonia Pernas, Miguel Martin, Marta Gil-Martin, Patricia Gomez Pardo, Sara Lopez-Tarruella, Luis Manso, Eva Ciruelos, Jose Alejandro Perez-Fidalgo, Cristina Hernando, Foluso O Ademuyiwa, Katherine Weilbaecher, Ingrid A Mayer, Timothy J. Pluard, Maria Martinez Garcia, Francois Ringeisen, Daniela Schmitter, Javier Cortes. Balixafortide (a CXCR4 antagonist) plus eribulin in HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: Final analysis from the Phase 1 single arm 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 PS12-13.

Abstract GS4-02: E2112: Randomized phase 3 trial of endocrine therapy plus entinostat/placebo in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group

Background: Endocrine therapy resistance in advanced breast cancer remains a significant clinical problem that may be overcome with use of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors such as entinostat. The ENCORE 301 randomized phase II study reported an improvement in progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with the addition of entinostat to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane in patients with advanced hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Protein lysine acetylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was associated with prolonged PFS in the entinostat arm.

Methods: E2112 is a multicenter randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that enrolled men or women with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer whose disease had progressed on a non-steroidal AI in the adjuvant or metastatic setting (NCT02115282). Study participants were also required to have an ECOG performance status 0-1 with measurable or non-measurable (limited to 20% of the study population) disease. One prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and prior treatment with fulvestrant and a CDK4/6 inhibitor was permitted but not required. Participants received exemestane 25mg po daily and entinostat (EE)/placebo (EP) 5mg po every week. Primary endpoints were PFS (central review) and OS. One-sided type 1 error 0.025 was split between two hypothesis tests: 0.001 for PFS test and 0.024 for OS. PFS tested in the first 360 pts, 88.5% power to detect 42% reduction in the hazard of PFS failure (median PFS, 4.1 to 7.1 months); OS tested in all 600 pts, 80% power to detect 25% reduction in the hazard of death (median OS, 22 to 29.3 months). Secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate (ORR), and changes in protein lysine acetylation status in PBMCs (CD3+ T cells, CD14+ monocytes, CD19+ B cells, pan-leukocyte marker CD45+ cells, CD56+ NK cells) between C1D1 and C1D15 (integrated biomarker).

Results: A total of 608 participants were randomized between March 2014 and October 2018 (305 EE, 303 EP), 98% enrolled in USA. Characteristics were well balanced between the arms. Median age was 63 years (range, 29-91), 99% female, 95% postmenopausal, 80% white and 15% black. A majority (84%) had disease resistant to AI in the metastatic setting at study entry, 78% had measurable disease and 60% visceral disease. Prior treatments included chemotherapy (60%), fulvestrant (30%), CDK4/6 inhibitor (35%), everolimus (3%). Median prior lines of chemotherapy was 1 (range, 0-4) and endocrine therapy was 2 (range, 1-7); in adjuvant/metastatic setting. Grade 3/4 adverse events in EE arm included neutrophil count decreased (20%), hypophosphatemia (14%), anemia (8%), white blood cell decreased (6%), fatigue (4%), diarrhea (4%), and platelet count decreased (3%). At final analysis, median PFS was 3.3 months (EE) versus 3.1 months (EP) (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.13, p=0.30). Median OS was 23.4 months (EE) versus 21.7 months (EP) (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.21, p=0.94). ORR was 4.6% (EE) and 4.3% (EP). The median fold change in lysine acetylation in PBMCs was approximately 1.5 in EE arm, and 1 in EP arm. Participants on EE had significantly higher increase in lysine acetylation by C1D15 than patients on EP (397 paired samples available for analysis, p&lt;0.001 for all). Additional biomarker analyses will be presented at time of meeting.

Conclusion: The combination of exemestane and entinostat did not improve survival in AI resistant advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Pharmacodynamic analysis confirmed target inhibition in entinostat-treated patients.

Citation Format: Roisin M Connolly, Fengmin Zhao, Kathy D Miller, Min-Jung Lee, Richard L Piekarz, Karen L Smith, Ursa Brown-Glaberman, Jennifer S Winn, Bryan A Faller, Adedayo A Onitilo, Mark E Burkard, George T Budd, Ellis G Levine, Melanie E Royce, Peter A Kaufman, Alexandra Thomas, Jane B Trepel, Antonio C Wolff, Joseph A Sparano. E2112: Randomized phase 3 trial of endocrine therapy plus entinostat/placebo in patients with hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. A trial of the ECOG-ACRIN cancer research group [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 GS4-02.

Overall survival analysis in patients with metastatic breast cancer and liver or lung metastases treated with eribulin, gemcitabine, or capecitabine

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to estimate the overall survival (OS) in real-world clinical practice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and visceral metastases (liver or lung) treated in the third-line setting with eribulin, gemcitabine or capecitabine overall and in the major clinical categories of MBC (TNBC, HR+/HER2−, and HER2+).

Methods

A retrospective, observational study was conducted with de-identified patient electronic health records from the Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA). Patients with a diagnosis of metastatic breast with lung or liver metastases, and treated with eribulin, gemcitabine, or capecitabine as third-line therapy were included in the analysis. Landmark survival was calculated as percentage of patients alive at 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Overall survival was compared between treatment arms within TNBC and HR+/HER2− using log-rank analysis. Cox regression analyses was performed to estimate hazard ratios for comparison of treatments within TNBC and HR+/HER2− subtype.

Results

443 patients with liver or lung metastases received third-line therapy with eribulin (n = 229), gemcitabine (n = 134), or capecitabine (n = 80). Eribulin patients had a higher percentage of patients alive at all landmark timepoints vs. gemcitabine, and a higher percentage of patients alive until 36 months vs. capecitabine. Median survival times showed that overall, and within the TNBC and HR+/HER2− subtype, patients receiving eribulin had a numerically higher median overall survival.

Conclusions

This real-world evidence study is consistent with randomized clinical trial data and demonstrates consistency of eribulin effectiveness in MBC patients with lung or liver metastases overall and in TNBC and HR+/HER2− disease.

Abstract 785: Genomic markers of response to monotherapy abemaciclib in the nextMONARCH 1 study

Background: Clinical data characterizing the genomic markers of response to single agent CDK4 & 6 inhibitors are lacking. Abemaciclib is the only CDK4 & 6 inhibitor indicated as monotherapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) following progression on endocrine therapy (ET) and prior chemotherapy (CT) in the metastatic setting. We explored the genomic alterations detected in baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients (pts) treated with abemaciclib monotherapy in the nextMONARCH 1 study.

Methods: nextMONARCH 1 (NCT02747004) was a Phase 2 study evaluating abemaciclib or abemaciclib + tamoxifen in women with HR+, HER2- ABC who had progressed on or after prior ET and had previously received CT. Pts (n=234) were randomized to abemaciclib 150 mg Q12H + daily tamoxifen 20mg (n=78), abemaciclib 150 mg Q12H (n=79), or abemaciclib 200 mg Q12H + prophylactic loperamide (n=77). Available baseline plasma samples for pts in the abemaciclib monotherapy arms (n=146; 94%) were analyzed by the Guardant360 next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay to identify potential tumor-related (i.e., somatic) genomic alterations including point mutations (SNV), indels, amplifications, and fusions in over 70 cancer-related genes.

Results: The majority of pts (91%) receiving abemaciclib monotherapy had at least one genomic alteration detected in baseline ctDNA. The intent to treat population and the translational research population had similar treatment benefit (7.4 mos [95% confidence interval, CI: 5.5, 9.1] versus 7.4 mos [CI: 5.5, 9.1], p=0.945). The most frequently altered genes detected in baseline ctDNA included: ESR1 (41%), PIK3CA (35%), TP53 (29%), FGFR1 (23%), GATA3 (20%), and MYC (20%). Overall, pts with any detectable ctDNA genomic alterations generally had a shorter median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared to pts without any detectable genomic alterations (6.8 mos [CI: 5.2, 9.0] versus 12.0 mos [CI: 5.4, 23.9], p=0.099). In particular, genomic alterations in PIK3CA, TP53, FGFR1, MYC, NF1, EGFR, ERBB2, or CCNE1 were associated with a significantly shorter mPFS in this heavily pretreated pt population. Pts with detected alterations in RB1 or ESR1 trended towards a shorter mPFS, while pts with detected alterations in GATA3 trended towards a longer mPFS.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first exploratory study to evaluate the genomic markers of response to monotherapy CDK4 & 6 inhibitor in a heavily pretreated pt population with HR+, HER2- ABC. These results provide insight into the genomic landscape of ABC and, if validated, could inform further trials of CDK4 & 6 inhibitors.

Citation Format: Erika P. Hamilton, Javier Cortes, Guy Jerusalem, Peter A. Kaufman, Ozgur Ozyilkan, Roberto Hegg, Lacey M. Litchfield, Hong Wang, Hillary T. Graham, Sameera R. Wijayawardana, Valerie M. Jansen, Miguel Martin. Genomic markers of response to monotherapy abemaciclib in the nextMONARCH 1 study [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 785.

Alliance A071701: Genomically guided treatment trial in brain metastases

TPS2573

Background: Brain metastases, most commonly derived from melanoma, lung and breast cancers, are the most common brain tumor, with approximately 200,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States. Median survival is on the order of months. For patients with clinically symptomatic brain metastases, approximately half succumb due to intracranial progression. In preclinical work, we demonstrated that brain metastases and primary tumors are often genetically distinct with frequent alterations in the CDK and PI3K pathway (Brastianos, Carter et al. Cancer Discovery 2015). Methods: We are currently accruing to a prospective multi-arm phase II study of CDK, PI3K/mTOR, and NTRK/ROS1 inhibitors in patients with brain metastases harboring alterations associated with sensitivity to these inhibitors (abemaciclib, paxalisib and entrectinib), respectively. Patients with new, recurrent or progressive brain metastases are eligible for this trial. Previously obtained tissue from brain metastases and extracranial sites (primary or extracranial metastases) are screened for the presence of these alterations, and if present in both tumor sites, patients will receive the appropriate corresponding targeted treatment. Screening is carried out with the SNaPshot NGS assay, which is a fully validated clinical test designed and developed at the MGH Center for Integrated Diagnostics. The primary endpoint of response rate (RR) in the central nervous system as per RANO criteria will be evaluated separately for each inhibitor, stratified by histology within each arm. There will be 21 evaluable patients assigned to each of the CDK and PI3K inhibitor and tumor type cohorts (breast, lung and other) and 10 patients assigned to the NTRK/ROS1 inhibitor cohort (lung) for a total of 136 evaluable patients. Although current systemic therapy for brain metastases is often ineffective, we hypothesize that targeted therapies will demonstrate efficacy in patients harboring the appropriate mutations. This study represents a novel individualized therapeutic approach in brain metastases, a disease with a critical need for effective therapy. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Genentech, Kazia Therapeutics Limited, Eli Lilly; Clinical trial information: NCT03994796 .

A phase Ib/II study of eribulin (ERI) plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) (ENHANCE 1)

1015

Background: As monotherapies, both ERI (a chemotherapeutic microtubule inhibitor) and PEMBRO (a programmed death [PD]-1 blocking immunotherapy) have shown promising antitumor activity in mTNBC. Emerging data suggest that the addition of immunotherapy to traditional chemotherapy holds promise for mTNBC. This open-label, single-arm, phase 1b/2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ERI + PEMBRO in mTNBC. Methods: Patients (pts) with mTNBC and ≤2 prior systemic anticancer therapies for metastatic disease were enrolled and stratified by prior number of therapy (Stratum 1, 0; Stratum 2, 1–2). Pts received IV ERI 1.4 mg/m2 on day (d)1 and d8 and IV PEMBRO 200 mg on d1 of a 21-d cycle. The primary objectives were safety and objective response rate (ORR per RECIST 1.1 by independent imaging review). Assessments also included efficacy outcomes by PD ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression status; PD-L1+ was defined as a combined positive score ≥1 using the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx. Results: As of data cutoff (July 31, 2019), 167 pts (Stratum 1, n=66; Stratum 2, n=101) were enrolled and treated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (66%), nausea (57%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (41%), alopecia (40%), and constipation (37%). No deaths were considered treatment related. The overall ORR was 23.4% (95% CI: 17.2–30.5). Efficacy outcomes by PD-L1 status (PD-L1+, n=74; PD-L1-, n=75) and stratum are presented (table). Conclusions: ERI + PEMBRO has activity in pts with mTNBC. There was a trend toward more robust activity for the combination among patients with PD-L1+ tumors compared to PD-L1- tumors in the first-line setting (Stratum 1); whereas, in the later-line setting (Stratum 2) similar survival outcomes were observed among the PD-L1+ and PD-L1- pts. ERI + PEMBRO shows promise for mTNBC with efficacy that appears greater than historical reports of either agent alone. Clinical trial information: NCT02513472 . [Table: see text]

Balixafortide (a CXCR4 antagonist) plus eribulin in HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer: Dose-response analysis of efficacy from phase I single-arm trial

e15209

Background: Balixafortide (B) is a potent, selective antagonist of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. High CXCR4 levels correlate with aggressive metastatic phenotypes and poor prognosis in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Efficacy and safety data were published recently from the Phase 1 trial investigating B + eribulin (E) in patients with HER2 negative MBC1. We report the final efficacy analyses from this trial, including assessment of dose-response. Methods: In this single-arm, dose escalation trial, patients (pts) received E + increasing doses of B using a 3+3 design in 3 parts: Part I (cohorts received low E doses); Part II (dose-escalation cohort for B [1−5.5mg/kg] + 1.4mg/m2 E); Expanded Cohort (EC; 5.5mg/kg B + 1.4mg/m2 E) to confirm safety and efficacy. Results: At entry, all 56 women (age range 33−82 years) were HER2-negative (IHC and/or FISH), CXCR4 positive. The majority were Caucasian. Most pts were heavily pre-treated in the metastatic setting (line of chemotherapy on study: 29% 2nd line, 50% 3rd line, 21% 4th line). 75% were hormone receptor positive and 23% had triple negative breast cancer. Conclusions: A consistent dose response effect for B + E was suggested in heavily pretreated pts with HER2 negative MBC across all efficacy endpoints. A comparison of these efficacy results, and particularly response data, with single agent data for E in similar populations2, 3 showed that pts in the EC had a more profound benefit observed consistently throughout all efficacy endpoints. Further data and analysis will be forthcoming for presentation. 1. 3 patients from Part II also included in EC because they received the B dose selected for EC (5.5mg/kg). 2. Part I was an initial safety run-in with lower E doses, and so is not included in the table. 1. Pernas S et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 812−24 2. Cortes J et al. Lancet. 2011; 377: 914−923 3. Kaufman PA et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 594−601. Clinical trial information: NCT01837095 . [Table: see text]

MONARCH 2: Subgroup analysis of patients receiving abemaciclib + fulvestrant as first- and second-line therapy for HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer

1061

Background: In MONARCH 2 (M2), abemaciclib (A), an oral selective cyclin dependent kinase 4 & 6 inhibitor, + fulvestrant (F) demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to placebo (P) + F in hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Numerically more pronounced PFS & OS improvement was noted in subgroups (Sub) with visceral (V) disease and primary endocrine resistance. Here we report efficacy data for M2 with respect to 1L and 2L Sub (last line of endocrine therapy [ET] in (neo)adjuvant and metastatic setting, respectively). Methods: M2 (NCT02107703) was a global, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial of A+ F (N = 446) or P + F (N = 223) in women with ET resistant (ETR) HR+, HER2- ABC regardless of menopausal status. Patients (pts) were stratified by site of metastasis (V, bone-only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). Exploratory Sub analyses of PFS and OS were conducted among pts in the ITT population with 1L vs 2L. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox models with a test of interactions of Sub with treatment performed. Results: At data cut-off (June 20th, 2019), the effect of A + F vs P + F was consistent across 1L (N = 265/133) and 2L (N = 170/86) Sub, with no statistically significant interaction for PFS (p = 0.341) or OS (p = 0.265). For 1L pts, improvements in PFS (HR: 0.57; 95% CI:0.45, 0.73) and OS (HR: 0.85; 95% CI:0.64, 1.14) were observed. Similar efficacy results were observed for 2L pts (PFS: HR: 0.48; [95% CI: 0.36, 0.64]; OS HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.46, 0.94]). The numerically largest effects in the 1L population were noted in pts with less favorable prognostic factors such as primary ETR (PFS: HR 0.40 [95% CI: 0.26, 0.63]; OS: HR 0.58 [95% CI:0.35, 0.97]) and V disease (PFS: HR 0.54 [95% CI: 0.39, 0.73]; OS: HR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.57, 1.17]). Conclusions: The statistically significant benefit observed in the M2 study was observed across 1L and 2L patients. In 1L patients (A+F Arm), improvements were observed for PFS and OS with the most pronounced effects noted in patients with less favorable prognostic factors. Clinical trial information: NCT02107703 .

Phase II trial of SAR439859 vs endocrine monotherapy in pre- and post-menopausal, estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC) with prior exposure to hormonal therapies

TPS1107

Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) targeting ER signaling is the mainstay of care for ER+ metastatic BC. There remains an unmet need in patients (pts) whose tumors become resistant to currently available ET. Selective ER degraders (SERDs) were developed to overcome resistance to existing ER-directed therapies by both competitively antagonizing and degrading ERs, while exploiting continued dependence of the tumor on ER signaling. SAR439859 is a potent SERD with robust preclinical ER degrading activity. In a Phase I dose escalation trial, SAR439859 demonstrated a favorable safety profile with no dose-limiting toxicities across all doses (20–600 mg QD). ER occupancy generally exceeded > 87% with plasma concentrations > 100 ng/mL. Overall response rate was 6.3% and clinical benefit rate was 50% (Campone. SABCS 2019. P5-11-02). The recommended Phase II monotherapy dose was 400 mg QD. Methods: This international, prospective, open-label, randomized Phase II study (NCT04059484; ACT16105) assesses safety and efficacy of SAR439859 in pts with ER+ (> 1%)/HER2- metastatic or locally advanced BC progressing on ≥ 6 months of continuous ET (0–2 lines in the metastatic setting). Prior CDK inhibitors are allowed. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥ 2, life expectancy < 3 months, > 1 chemotherapy or targeted therapy in the metastatic setting, concomitant illness and factors potentially affecting SAR439859 absorption. Pts are randomized 1:1 to SAR439859 400 mg QD orally or physician’s choice of endocrine monotherapy (fulvestrant, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitor). Pts receive 28-day cycles until unacceptable toxicity, progression, death, investigator decision or pt request. Stratification factors include visceral metastases, prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, and ECOG PS. Primary endpoint is progression-free survival (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit, pharmacokinetics, quality of life and safety. Target enrollment: n = 282; current enrollment: n = 9. Funding: Sanofi Clinical trial information: NCT04059484 .

Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on skeletal muscle size and function in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

Exercise has numerous benefits for patients with cancer, but implementation is challenging because of practical and logistical hurdles. This study examined whether neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can serve as a surrogate for classic exercise by eliciting an exercise training response in skeletal muscle of women diagnosed with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Patients (n = 22) with histologically confirmed stage I, II, or III breast cancer scheduled to receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy were randomized to 8 wk of bilateral neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES; 5 days/wk) to their quadriceps muscles or control. Biopsy of the vastus lateralis was performed at baseline and after 8 wk of intervention to assess muscle fiber size, contractility, and mitochondrial content. Seventeen patients (8 control/9 NMES) completed the trial and were included in analyses. NMES promoted muscle fiber hypertrophy (P < 0.001), particularly in fast-twitch, myosin heavy chain (MHC) IIA fibers (P < 0.05) and tended to induce fiber type shifts in MHC II fibers. The effects of NMES on single-muscle fiber contractility were modest, and it was unable to prevent declines in the function in MHC IIA fibers. NMES did not alter intermyofibrillar mitochondrial content/structure but was associated with reductions in subsarcolemmal mitochondria. Our results demonstrate that NMES induces muscle fiber hypertrophy and fiber type shifts in MHC II fibers but had minimal effects on fiber contractility and promoted reductions in subsarcolemmal mitochondria. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the utility of NMES as an exercise surrogate in cancer patients and other conditions.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This is the first study to evaluate whether neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can be used as an exercise surrogate to improve skeletal muscle fiber size or function in cancer patients receiving treatment. We show that NMES promoted muscle fiber hypertrophy and fiber type shifts but had minimal effects on single-fiber contractility and reduced subsarcolemmal mitochondria.

Baseline Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Outcomes in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer by Hormone Receptor Status from SystHERs

PURPOSE

We report treatments and outcomes in a contemporary patient population with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) by hormone receptor (HR) status from the Systemic Therapies for HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

SystHERs (NCT01615068) was an observational, prospective registry study of U.S.-based patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive MBC. Endpoints included treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 977 eligible patients (enrolled from 2012 to 2016), 70.1% (n = 685) had HR-positive and 29.9% (n = 292) had HR-negative disease. Overall, 59.1% (405/685) of patients with HR-positive disease received any first-line endocrine therapy (with or without HER2-targeted therapy or chemotherapy); 34.9% (239/685) received HER2-targeted therapy + chemotherapy + sequential endocrine therapy. Patients with HR-positive versus HR-negative disease had longer median overall survival (OS; 53.0 vs 43.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.87). Compared with patients with high HR-positive staining (10%-100%, n = 550), those with low HR-positive staining (1%-9%, n = 60) received endocrine therapy less commonly (64.2% vs 33.3%) and had shorter median OS (53.8 vs 40.1 months). Similar median OS (43.4 vs 40.1 months) was observed in patients with HR-negative versus low HR-positive tumors (1%-9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence that first-line HER2-targeted therapy, chemotherapy, and sequential endocrine therapy improves survival in patients with HR-positive, HER2-positive disease, only 34.9% of patients in this real-world setting received such treatment. Patients with low tumor HR positivity (1%-9%) had lower endocrine therapy use and worse survival than those with high tumor HR positivity (10%-100%).

Enhancing global access to cancer medicines

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Health-Related Quality of Life in MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib plus Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer After Endocrine Therapy

BACKGROUND

In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient-reported pain, global health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI-sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ-C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ-BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3-13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm.

RESULTS

On-treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9-month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI-sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI-sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and QLQ-C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.10).

CONCLUSION

HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine-resistant HR+, HER2-negative ABC.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient-reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient-reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2- ABC.

The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on Overall Survival in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer That Progressed on Endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Does treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant prolong the overall survival (OS) of patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer who progressed during prior endocrine therapy?

Findings

In the randomized, placebo-controlled MONARCH 2 trial of 669 patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median OS to 46.7 months compared with 37.3 months for patients receiving placebo plus fulvestrant.

Meaning

The addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant provided a clinically meaningful median OS benefit of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that had progressed on endocrine therapy.

Importance

Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)–positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated.

Objective

To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET.

Design, Setting, and Participants

MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02.

Results

Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib.

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703

De Novo Versus Recurrent HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Patient Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival from the SystHERs Registry

Background

Limited data exist describing real‐world treatment of de novo and recurrent HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Materials and Methods

The Systemic Therapies for HER2‐Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs) was a fully enrolled (2012–2016), observational, prospective registry of patients with HER2‐positive MBC. Patients aged ≥18 years and ≤6 months from HER2‐positive MBC diagnosis were treated and assessed per their physician's standard practice. The primary endpoint was to characterize treatment patterns by de novo versus recurrent MBC status, compared descriptively. Secondary endpoints included patient characteristics, progression‐free and overall survival (PFS and OS, by Kaplan‐Meier method; hazard ratio [HR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] by Cox regression), and patient‐reported outcomes.

Results

Among 977 eligible patients, 49.8% (n = 487) had de novo and 50.2% (n = 490) had recurrent disease. A higher proportion of de novo patients had hormone receptor–negative disease (34.9% vs. 24.9%), bone metastasis (57.1% vs. 45.9%), and/or liver metastasis (41.9% vs. 33.1%), and a lower proportion had central nervous system metastasis (4.3% vs. 13.5%). De novo patients received first‐line regimens containing chemotherapy (89.7%), trastuzumab (95.7%), and pertuzumab (77.8%) more commonly than recurrent patients (80.0%, 85.9%, and 68.6%, respectively). De novo patients had longer median PFS (17.7 vs. 11.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59–0.80; p < .0001) and OS (not estimable vs. 44.5 months; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44–0.69; p < .0001).

Conclusion

Patients with de novo versus recurrent HER2‐positive MBC exhibit different disease characteristics and survival durations, suggesting these groups have distinct outcomes. These differences may affect future clinical trial design. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01615068 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).

Implications for Practice

SystHERs was an observational registry of patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), which is a large, modern, real‐world data set for this population and, thereby, provides a unique opportunity to study patients with de novo and recurrent HER2‐positive MBC. In SystHERs, patients with de novo disease had different baseline demographics and disease characteristics, had superior clinical outcomes, and more commonly received first‐line chemotherapy and/or trastuzumab versus those with recurrent disease. Data from this and other studies suggest that de novo and recurrent MBC have distinct outcomes, which may have implications for disease management strategies and future clinical study design.

The SystHERs breast cancer study was a fully enrolled, prospective registry study that explored contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), resulting in one of the largest real‐world datasets for this population and providing a unique opportunity to assess patients with de novo and recurrent HER2‐positive MBC. This article reports baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, patient‐reported outcomes, and clinical outcomes in these patient subsets.

Health Through Activity: Initial Evaluation of an In-Home Intervention for Older Adults With Cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a future full-scale trial to test the efficacy of an in-home occupational therapy intervention designed to reduce disability in older adult cancer survivors.

METHOD

Participants reporting activity limitations during or after cancer treatment were enrolled in a Phase 1 pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the 6-wk intervention (n = 30) to usual care (n = 29). Descriptive data on retention rates were collected to assess feasibility of intervention and study procedures. Potential efficacy was explored through participants' self-reported disability, quality of life, activity level, and behavioral activation at 0, 8, and 16 wk after enrollment.

RESULTS

Retention rates were high regarding completion of the intervention (90%) and outcome assessments (90% of usual-care participants and 80% of intervention participants). Outcomes consistently favored the intervention group, although group differences were small.

CONCLUSION

The procedures were feasible to implement and acceptable to participants.

SOPHIA primary analysis: A phase 3 (P3) study of margetuximab (M) + chemotherapy (C) versus trastuzumab (T) + C in patients (pts) with HER2+ metastatic (met) breast cancer (MBC) after prior anti-HER2 therapies (Tx)

1000

Background: Pretreated HER2+ MBC lacks a defined standard of care, although T is commonly used. M has similar HER2 binding and antiproliferative effects as T. By contrast, M’s Fc region is engineered to increase affinity for both alleles of the activating Fc receptor (FcR), CD16A, and decrease affinity for the inhibitory FcR, CD32B. The low affinity CD16A-158F allele (~85% of population) has been associated with diminished clinical response to T. In a Phase 1 trial, M demonstrated acceptable safety, anti-tumor activity, and evidence of HER2-specific antibody and T-cell responses. Methods: SOPHIA (NCT02492711), a randomized, open-label P3 trial, enrolled pts with HER2+ MBC after pertuzumab and 1–3 lines of prior Tx for MBC. Pts were randomized 1:1 to M (15 mg/kg IV q3w + C) or T (6 [8 for loading dose] mg/kg IV q3w + C), stratified by met sites (≤2, > 2), lines of Tx for met disease (≤2, > 2), and C choice (standard dose capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine). Primary endpoints are central blinded PFS and OS, assessed sequentially using the stratified log-rank test. Objective response rate (ORR) was a secondary endpoint. 257 PFS events were required to provide 90% power to show PFS superiority at 2-sided α = 0.05. Results: Intent-to-treat analysis (536 pts: M 266; T 270) occurred after 265 PFS events. M prolonged PFS over T (median 5.8 vs 4.9 mo, hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.98; P= 0.033). Treatment effects were more pronounced in pts with CD16A genotypes containing a 158F allele (median PFS 6.9 vs 5.1 mo, HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52–0.90; P= 0.005). In 524 pts with baseline measurable disease (M 262; T 262), ORR was higher with M (22%; 95% CI, 17.3-27.7%) vs T (16%; 95% CI 11.8-21.0%). Safety profiles were comparable in 529 pts who received study therapy. Grade ≥3 AEs and serious AEs occurred in 138 (52%) and 39 (15%) vs 128 (48%) and 46 (17%) pts on M vs T, respectively. PFS data cutoff: 10/10/18. Conclusions: In combination with chemotherapy in pretreated HER2+ MBC, M improves PFS over T with comparable safety. CD16A genotyping suggests a differential benefit in patients with a 158F allele. OS data are maturing. Clinical trial information: NCT02492711.

Balixafortide (a CXCR4 antagonist) + eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC): Survival outcomes of the phase I trial

2606

Background: Balixafortide (B) is a potent antagonist of the chemokine receptor CXCR4. Preclinical evidence suggests that disrupting CXCR4 dependent pathways prevents development of breast cancer metastases, enhances the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, and counteracts tumor cell evasion of the immune system. Encouraging safety and efficacy data were published recently from the ongoing Phase 1 trial investigating B + eribulin (E) in patients with HER2 negative MBC (Pernas S. et al. Lancet Oncol. 2018; 19: 812−24). The objective response rate, median progression free survival and median overall survival (OS) for the expanded cohort (EC) and the overall efficacy population (OEP) were 37.5% and 29.6%, 6.2 months and 4.5 months, and 18 months and 16.8 months, respectively. Here we report the 18 and 24 months landmark OS data from this trial. Methods: This trial enrolled 56 patients with HER2-negative, CXCR4-positive MBC, previously treated with 1−3 chemotherapy regimens for MBC. A 3+3 dose escalation design was used, followed by an EC. All cohorts received E on days 2 and 9, and B on days 1−3 and 8−10 of 21 day cycles. The association between various baseline biomarkers and treatment outcomes including OS is currently being investigated in a multivariate analysis (MVA). Results: Landmark survival data for the trial are shown in the table. Clinical trial information: NCT01837095. Conclusions: Landmark 18 months and 24 months OS data are consistent with the positive trend of all efficacy read-outs observed in this study and safety information is consistent with what was previously reported. Although inter-trial comparisons should be interpreted with caution, these survival rates, especially for the EC, are higher than those reported for eribulin monotherapy in similar MBC populations. These promising results suggest that B + E could potentially provide a new treatment option in heavily pre-treated patients with HER2 negative MBC and this is currently being investigated in a pivotal, randomized trial.[Table: see text]

Abstract PD1-02: Withdrawn

This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.

Citation Format: Cortes J, Martin M, Pernas S, Gomez Pardo P, Lopez-Tarruella S, Gil-Martin M, Manso L, Ciruelos E, Perez-Fidalgo JA, Hernando C, Ademuyiwa FO, Weilbaecher K, Mayer I, Pluard TJ, Martinez Garcia M, Vahdat L, Wach A, Barker D, Romagnoli B, Kaufman PA. Withdrawn [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 PD1-02.

Central Nervous System Metastasis in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Patient Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival from SystHERs

PURPOSE

Patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with central nervous system (CNS) metastasis have a poor prognosis. We report treatments and outcomes in patients with HER2-positive MBC and CNS metastasis from the Systemic Therapies for HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Study (SystHERs).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

SystHERs (NCT01615068) was a prospective, U.S.-based, observational registry of patients with newly diagnosed HER2-positive MBC. Study endpoints included treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO).

RESULTS

Among 977 eligible patients enrolled (2012-2016), CNS metastasis was observed in 87 (8.9%) at initial MBC diagnosis and 212 (21.7%) after diagnosis, and was not observed in 678 (69.4%) patients. White and younger patients, and those with recurrent MBC and hormone receptor-negative disease, had higher risk of CNS metastasis. Patients with CNS metastasis at diagnosis received first-line lapatinib more commonly (23.0% vs. 2.5%), and trastuzumab less commonly (70.1% vs. 92.8%), than patients without CNS metastasis at diagnosis. Risk of death was higher with CNS metastasis observed at or after diagnosis [median overall survival (OS) 30.2 and 38.3 months from MBC diagnosis, respectively] versus no CNS metastasis [median OS not estimable: HR 2.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.05-4.00 and HR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.52-2.49]. Patients with versus without CNS metastasis at diagnosis had lower quality of life at enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advances in HER2-targeted treatments, patients with CNS metastasis continue to have a poor prognosis and impaired quality of life. Observation of CNS metastasis appears to influence HER2-targeted treatment choice.

Phase 2 Study of Dose-Dense Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Followed by Eribulin Mesylate With or Without Prophylactic Growth Factor for Adjuvant Treatment of Early-Stage Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Eribulin has significantly improved overall survival for patients with metastatic breast cancer who received ≥ 2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease. This trial assessed eribulin as adjuvant therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I to III breast cancer received doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 provided intravenously on day 1 of each 14-day cycle for 4 cycles, with pegfilgrastim on day 2, followed by 4 cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 provided intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. There were 2 cohorts, as follows: cohort 1: no prophylactic growth factor with eribulin (allowed at physician's discretion only); cohort 2: prophylactic filgrastim with eribulin. The primary end point was feasibility, defined as the percentage of patients who completed the eribulin portion of the regimen without a dose omission, delay, or reduction due to an eribulin-related adverse event. Relative dose intensity of eribulin and toxicities are summarized by cohort. Exploratory end points included 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients (cohort 1, n = 55; cohort 2, n = 26) entered the treatment phase; 88% completed treatment. Feasibility was 72.9 % (90% confidence interval, 60.4, 83.2) in cohort 1 and 60.0% (90% confidence interval, 41.7, 76.4) in cohort 2. The most frequent eribulin-related adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (75.9%), peripheral neuropathy (54.4%), nausea (39.2%), neutropenia (35.4% [31.5% of patients in cohort 1; 44.0% in cohort 2]), and arthralgia (26.6%).

CONCLUSION

The primary end point of > 80% feasibility was not met. No unexpected adverse events were observed, and 62% of patients received full dosing with no dose delay or reduction. Further investigation of this regimen with alternative dosing schedules or use of growth factors could be considered.

Tissue oxygen saturation predicts response to breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy within 10 days of treatment

Ideally, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) assessment should predict pathologic complete response (pCR), a surrogate clinical endpoint for 5-year survival, as early as possible during typical 3- to 6-month breast cancer treatments. We introduce and demonstrate an approach for predicting pCR within 10 days of initiating NAC. The method uses a bedside diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging (DOSI) technology and logistic regression modeling. Tumor and normal tissue physiological properties were measured longitudinally throughout the course of NAC in 33 patients enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network multicenter breast cancer DOSI trial (ACRIN-6691). An image analysis scheme, employing z-score normalization to healthy tissue, produced models with robust predictions. Notably, logistic regression based on z-score normalization using only tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) measured within 10 days of the initial therapy dose was found to be a significant predictor of pCR (AUC  =  0.92; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1). This observation suggests that patients who show rapid convergence of tumor tissue StO2 to surrounding tissue StO2 are more likely to achieve pCR. This early predictor of pCR occurs prior to reductions in tumor size and could enable dynamic feedback for optimization of chemotherapy strategies in breast cancer.