Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium

Abstract Background: The risk of distant recurrence gene signature, MammaPrint (MP), together with the molecular subtyping gene signature, BluePrint (BP), stratifies breast tumors into Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal subtypes, independent of immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) expression. In the Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST), MP and BP identified patients likely to respond to neoadjuvant treatment with higher accuracy compared to conventional methods. Here, we report 5-year follow up (FU) data in breast cancer (BC) patients from the NBRST registry with discordant clinical and genomic subtyping.Methods: This prospective study enrolled 1072 early-stage BC patients from 2009-2014 who received MP and BP testing. Patients received neoadjuvant therapy following standard of care and consented to 5 years post-surgery FU. IHC determined hormone receptor (HR) status, including ER and PR, and IHC and/or FISH determined HER2 status. Median FU for distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS) was 4.6 and 5 years, respectively. Differences in DMFS and OS was assessed by Kaplan Meier analysis and log-rank test.Results: Overall, BP reclassified 22% of tumors into different molecular subtypes compared to IHC/FISH (Table). BP reclassified 17% of ER+HER2- tumors as BP Basal, with higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates compared to ER+/BP Luminal tumors (36% vs. 4%). ER+/BP Basal patients had similar pCR rates as triple negative BC (TNBC)/BP Basal patients (36% vs. 37%) following neoadjuvant treatment, and pCR correlated with improved survival outcomes. The 5-year DMFS and OS probabilities were lower in ER+/BP Basal patients compared to TNBC/BP Basal patients and were substantially lower compared to ER+/BP Luminal patients (P < 0.001). There were 106 HR-HER2+ patients, of whom BP reclassified 23.6% to Basal and 2.8% as Luminal B; the remaining 73.6% were confirmed HER2 by BP. The 5-year DMFS and OS probabilities were worse in HER2+/BP Basal patients compared to HER2+/BP HER2 patients. Of 142 triple positive (TP, ER+PR+HER2+) patients, BP classified 55% as Luminal, 39% as HER2, and 6% as Basal, with higher pCR rates observed in BP Basal and BP HER2 tumors compared to BP Luminal. The 5-year DMFS and OS probabilities were substantially lower in TP/BP Basal patients compared to TP/BP HER2 and TP/BP Luminal patients (P < 0.05 and P < 0.04). Of clinical HER2+ patients (HR+ or HR-) that received pertuzumab, patients that reclassified as BP Basal had worse OS compared to BP HER2 patients (P < 0.04).Conclusion: ER+HER2- and HER2+ patients that reclassified as BP Basal are more likely to achieve pCR and have improved survival, demonstrating the clinical utility of BP in the neoadjuvant setting. These patients may benefit from optimized chemotherapy used for TNBC, including novel emerging treatments such as PD-1 and PARP1 inhibitors, in addition to HER2-targeted therapy. Furthermore, HER2+ tumors that were confirmed HER2 by BP may have high response rates to regimens containing TDM-1. Lastly, BP identified a subgroup of triple positive BC patients, who reclassified as BP Luminal, that may avoid overtreatment. Overall, molecular subtyping using MP and BP is more accurate in stratifying patients and predicting treatment responses and 5-year disease outcomes than conventional methods and thus, facilitates successful treatment decisions. Clinical subtypeFrequency of BP classificationBluePrint subtypepCR%5-yr DMFS (95% CI)5-yr OS (95% CI)TNBC (n=236)0.42% (1/236)Luminal A100% (1/1)N/AN/A2.54% (6/236)Luminal B16.67% (1/6)N/AN/A1.27% (3/236)HER233.33% (1/3)N/AN/A95.76% (226/236)Basal36.73% (83/226)100% (pCR)100% (pCR)60.5% (50.5-69.1)(non-PCR)64.3%(52.1-71.2) (non-PCR)ER+HER2- (n=520)28.84% (152/520)Luminal A1.97% (3/152)91.1% (84.0-95.2)94.6% (88.3-97.6)52.37% (276/520)Luminal B5.43% (15/276)75.2% (69.0-80.4)84.5% (79.0-88.7)1.33% (7/520)HER214.29% (1/7)N/AN/A17.46% (92/520)Basal35.9%(33/92)84.1% (67.8-92.5) (pCR)86.3% (70.1-94.1) (pCR)54.6% (42.0-65.5) (non-pCR)57% (43.7-68.2) (non-pCR)HR-HER2+ (n=106)2.83% (3/106)Luminal B66.67% (2/3)100%100%73.59% (78/106)HER269% (54/78)82.8% (69.9-90.5)88.6% (76.0-94.8)23.58% (25/106)Basal40% (10/25)79.0% (52.5-91.7)79.0% (52.5-91.7)Triple Positive (n=142)12.68% (18/142)Luminal A22.22% (4/18)88.8% (76.5-94.8)94.5% (83.8-98.2)42.25% (60/142)Luminal B11.67%(7/60)38.73% (55/142)HER244.44% (24/55)87.5% (72.0-94.7)97.9% (83.8-98.2)6.34% (9/142)Basal55.56%(5/9)62.5% (22.9-86.1)70.0% (22.5-91.8)HER2+ (HR+ or HR-)treated with pertuzumab (n=105)28.6%(30/105)Luminal37% (11/30)84.7% (63.8-94.1)92.2%(71.8-98.0)57%(60/105)HER282% (49/60)91.4% (78.3-96.8)92.9%(79.2-97.7)14%(15/105)Basal40% (6/15)66.0%(31.1-86.3)64.0% (29.1-85.1) Citation Format: Pat Whitworth, James Pellicane, Jr, Paul Baron, Peter Beitsch, Laura Lee, Michael Rotkis, Angela Mislowsky, Carrie Dul, Charles Nash, Bichlien Nguyen, Mary Murray, Paul Richards, Mark Gittleman, Stephanie Akbari, Shiyu Wang, Andrea Menicucci, Erin B Yoder, Lisa Blumencranz, William Audeh. Molecular subtyping by BluePrint improves prediction of treatment responses and survival outcomes in patients with discordant clinical and genomic classification [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 PS4-04.

Abstract Background: The PROMIS trial (NCT01617954) previously evaluated how a definitive result from the MammaPrint 70-gene signature (70-GS) can impact treatment recommendations for patients with an intermediate range recurrence score (RS 18-30) from the 21-gene assay (21-GA, Oncotype DX). Since publication of this study, TAILORx results published in 2018 (and further explored in June 2019) suggested an interaction between the 21-GA, patient age (≤50 yrs), and clinical risk. Initially, chemotherapy (CT) was recommended for all women ≤50 with a RS>16. Based on the recent clinical-risk analysis, Ovarian Function Suppression (OFS) + endocrine therapy (ET) has been suggested as an alternative treatment for low clinical risk (clin-low) women ≤50yrs with an RS 16-25. This current analysis examines the updated treatment recommendations based on the interaction between patient age and clinical risk, and explores the impact that the 70-GS can have on adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for women ≤50 years of age. Methods: 70-GS risk of recurrence was determined for 21-GA intermediate patients by standard diagnostic testing (Agendia, Irvine, CA). Clinical risk was assessed using the MINDACT, modified Adjuvant Online! algorithm (Cardoso, NEJM 2016). The 70-GS High and Low Risk classification were subdivided by RS groups 18-20, 21-25, and 26-30 and by clinical risk stratification. Results: 181 patients in PROMIS were ≤50 yrs. Of those, 64% (116/181) were clin-low, and 35% (63/181) were high clinical risk (clin-high) (2 unknown). Among patients ≤50 yrs with RS 18-20, 60% (27/45) of clin-low and 56% (15/27) of clin-high were found to be 70-GS Low Risk. Among patients with RS 21-25, 55% (30/55) of clin-low and 30% clin-high (8/26) were Low Risk by the 70-GS. For patients ≤50 yrs with RS 26-30, 15% (4/27) were found to be 70-GS Low Risk. Of all patients with RS 26-30, 21% (32/156) were Low Risk by 70-GS. Conclusions: With the follow-up publication for TAILORx, incorporation of clinical risk in addition to age, RS group, and the assumed benefit of chemotherapy-induced menopause, has presented additional layers of complexity for physicians treating breast cancer. The current analysis demonstrates that 46% of women ≤ 50yrs with a RS 21-25 are 70-GS Low Risk, and based upon the prospective, randomized MINDACT* trial data, can safely avoid CT. Overall, the 70-GS can precisely identify 20-60% of women ≤ 50yrs with intermediate RS (18-30) as genomic Low Risk with excellent survival with ET alone (>95% 5-yr DMFI [MINDACT]), who may otherwise be candidates for treatment with CT or OFS. *(Microarray in Node Negative and 1-3 Lymph Node Positive Disease May Avoid Chemotherapy) AgeRS GroupClinical RiskNMP Low Risk% recommended ET alone based on 70 -GStreatment recommendation based on 21-GA≤ 50RS 18-20Clin-low452760%OFS+ET or ET aloneClin-high / (unknown)26 (1)1556%CT+ET or OFS+ETTotal724258% ≤ 50RS 21-25Clin-low553055%OFS+ETClin-high / (unknown)26 (1)830%CT+ET or OFS+ETTotal823846% ≤ 50RS 26-30Clin-low1616%All receive CT+ET regardless of clinical riskClin-high11327%Total27415% Citation Format: Michaela Tsai, Hatem Soliman, Shelly Lo, Rubina Qamar, Raye Budway, Ellis Levine, Pat Whitworth, Blanche Mavromatis, Robin Zon, Sarah Untch, Lisa Blumencranz, Joseph McKelley, William Audeh, PROMIS Investigators Group. Treatment recommendations in ER+ patients ≤ 50 years: Comparison of the 21-gene assay and 70-gene signature in the PROMIS study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-11.

Liquid biopsy offers the ability to non-invasively analyze the genome of a tumor through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to identify targetable and prognostic genomic alterations. Few studies have rigorously analyzed ctDNA results and determined the fidelity with which they recapitulate the genomics of a sequenced tissue sample obtained from the same tumor. The clinical utility study (CUS) for the FoundationACT™ ctDNA assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA, USA; NCT02620527) is a multi-center prospective clinical study for multiple solid tumor types to compare genomic profiling of paired tissue and blood samples from the same patient. In this subset of the study, paired specimens from 96 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) were analyzed with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of the tumor tissue sample (FoundationOne®) and blood sample (FoundationACT™). Both samples underwent CGP using the hybrid capture-based Illumina Hi-Seq technology. Maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) was used to estimate the fraction of ctDNA in the sample. The set of genes and targeted regions common to both tumor and liquid were compared for each subject. Among these patients, 61% were male; 74% had clinical stage IV disease, 19% had clinical stage III disease, and 7% had clinical stage II disease. Time between the tissue biopsy and liquid biopsy (range, 0-709 days) had a significant impact on the positive percent agreement (PPA) between the two assays. Eighty percent of cases had evidence of ctDNA in the blood (MSAF >0). For all cases with MSAF >0, 171 base substitutions and insertions/deletions (indels) were identified in the tumor, and 79% (PPA) of these identical alterations were also identified in matched ctDNA samples; PPA increased to 87% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy, 95% for <90 days, and 100% PPA for <30 days. All known and likely short variants in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF were analyzed independently as testing of these genes is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for patients with CRC and have therapeutic implications. For NCCN genes, PPA was 80% for all time points for short variants; PPA increased to 90% for cases <270 days between the tissue and liquid biopsy. There was high concordance for KRAS G12X between tissue and liquid: overall percent agreement (97%), PPA (93%), negative percent agreement (NPA) (100%), positive predictive value (PPV) (100%), and negative predictive value (NPV) (96%) for the <270 day cohort. In cases where tumor tissue profiling is not possible, these results provide compelling evidence that genomic profiling of ctDNA in late stage CRC shows a high concordance with tumor tissue sequencing results and can be used to identify most clinically relevant alterations capable of guiding therapy for these patients.

Pertuzumab became a standard part of neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) breast cancers approximately halfway through Neoadjuvant Breast Registry Symphony Trial (NBRST) enrollment, providing a unique opportunity to determine biologically which clinical HER2+ patients benefit most from dual targeting. As a neoadjuvant phase 4 study, NBRST classifies patients by both conventional and molecular subtyping. Of 308 clinical HER2+ patients enrolled in NBRST between 2011 and 2014 from 62 U.S. institutions, 297 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) with HER2-targeted therapy and underwent surgery. This study compared the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of BluePrint versus clinical subtypes with treatment, specifically differences between trastuzumab (T) treatment and trastuzumab and pertuzumab (T/P) treatment. In this study, 60% of the patients received NCT-T, and 40% received NCT-T/P. The overall pCR rate (ypT0/isN0) was 47%. BluePrint classified 161 tumors (54%) as HER2 type, with a pCR rate of 65%. This was significantly higher than the pCR rate for the 91 HER2+tumors (31%) classified as luminal (18%) (p=0.00001) and the 45 tumors (15%) classified as basal (44%) (p=0.0166). The patients treated with T/P had higher pCR rates than those treated with trastuzumab alone. The difference was most pronounced in the BluePrint luminal patients (8 vs. 31%). The highest pCR was reached by the BluePrint HER2-type patients treated with T/P (76%). The addition of pertuzumab leads to increased pCR rates for all HER2+ patient groups except for the BluePrint basal-type patients. This better response was most pronounced for the BluePrint luminal-type patients.

e18231Background: CINV is among the most debilitating and feared consequences of cancer treatment. It is therefore imperative to determine if patients are achieving similar response rates in practice as demonstrated in trials. This study evaluated the real world effectiveness of palonosetron, an NK-1 inhibitor, and dexamethasone in patients receiving HEC for prevention of CINV according to international antiemetic guidelines (ASCO, MASCC, NCCN). Methods: A phase IV prospective, multi-center observational study was conducted in which 107 patients were enrolled and treated in accordance with standard of care. All medications were commercially available and the decision to treat was made by the primary physician prior to and independent of participation in the study. The primary outcome for analysis was complete response (CR) defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication for CINV. CR was classified as acute- (0-24 hours), delayed-phase ( > 24-120 hours), and overall (0-120 hours). Nausea, vom...

PurposeThe purpose of the NBRST study is to compare a multigene classifier to conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC)/fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) subtyping to predict chemosensitivity as defined by pathological complete response (pCR) or endocrine sensitivity as defined by partial response.MethodsThe study includes women with histologically proven breast cancer, who will receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) or neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. BluePrint in combination with MammaPrint classifies patients into four molecular subgroups: Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and Basal.ResultsA total of 426 patients had definitive surgery. Thirty-seven of 211 (18 %) IHC/FISH hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2− patients were reclassified by Blueprint as Basal (n = 35) or HER2 (n = 2). Fifty-three of 123 (43 %) IHC/FISH HER2+ patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 36) or Basal (n = 17). Four of 92 (4 %) IHC/FISH triple-negative (TN) patients were reclassified as Luminal (n = 2) or HER2 (n = 2). NCT pCR rates were 2 % in Luminal A and 7 % Luminal B patients versus 10 % pCR in IHC/FISH HR+/HER2− patients. The NCT pCR rate was 53 % in BluePrint HER2 patients. This is significantly superior (p = 0.047) to the pCR rate in IHC/FISH HER2+ patients (38 %). The pCR rate of 36 of 75 IHC/FISH HER2+/HR+ patients reclassified as BPLuminal is 3 %. NCT pCR for BluePrint Basal patients was 49 of 140 (35 %), comparable to the 34 of 92 pCR rate (37 %) in IHC/FISH TN patients.ConclusionsBluePrint molecular subtyping reclassifies 22 % (94/426) of tumors, reassigning more responsive patients to the HER2 and Basal categories while reassigning less responsive patients to the Luminal category. These findings suggest that compared with IHC/FISH, BluePrint more accurately identifies patients likely to respond (or not respond) to NCT.