1
|
Seyedi S, Teo R, Foster L, Saha D, Mina L, Northfelt D, Anderson KS, Shibata D, Gatenby R, Cisneros LH, Troan B, Anderson ARA, Maley CC. Testing Adaptive Therapy Protocols Using Gemcitabine and Capecitabine in a Preclinical Model of Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:257. [PMID: 38254748 PMCID: PMC10813385 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16020257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2023] [Revised: 12/31/2023] [Accepted: 12/31/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Adaptive therapy, an ecologically inspired approach to cancer treatment, aims to overcome resistance and reduce toxicity by leveraging competitive interactions between drug-sensitive and drug-resistant subclones, prioritizing patient survival and quality of life instead of killing the maximum number of cancer cells. In preparation for a clinical trial, we used endocrine-resistant MCF7 breast cancer to stimulate second-line therapy and tested adaptive therapy using capecitabine, gemcitabine, or their combination in a mouse xenograft model. Dose modulation adaptive therapy with capecitabine alone increased survival time relative to MTD but not statistically significantly (HR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.043-1.1, p = 0.065). However, when we alternated the drugs in both dose modulation (HR = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.024-0.55, p = 0.007) and intermittent adaptive therapies, the survival time was significantly increased compared to high-dose combination therapy (HR = 0.07, 95% CI = 0.013-0.42, p = 0.003). Overall, the survival time increased with reduced dose for both single drugs (p < 0.01) and combined drugs (p < 0.001), resulting in tumors with fewer proliferation cells (p = 0.0026) and more apoptotic cells (p = 0.045) compared to high-dose therapy. Adaptive therapy favors slower-growing tumors and shows promise in two-drug alternating regimens instead of being combined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sareh Seyedi
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Ruthanne Teo
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Luke Foster
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Daniel Saha
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
| | - Lida Mina
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
| | - Karen S. Anderson
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
- Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Darryl Shibata
- Department of Pathology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA;
| | - Robert Gatenby
- Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33629, USA (A.R.A.A.)
| | - Luis H. Cisneros
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Brigid Troan
- Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA
| | - Alexander R. A. Anderson
- Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33629, USA (A.R.A.A.)
| | - Carlo C. Maley
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sperduto W, McCullough A, Northfelt D, McGee L, Pockaj B, Jogerst K. Implications of a Supernumerary Nipple Breast Cancer in a BReast CAncer Sequence Variation Carrier: A Case Report. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 2023; 7:437-442. [PMID: 37752967 PMCID: PMC10518438 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.08.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Supernumerary nipples develop on the chest and abdominopelvic regions along the embryonic milk line. Their anatomy varies from isolated accessory nipples to complete supernumerary nipples (accessory nipple, areola, and underlying glandular breast tissue). Patients with a pathogenic BReast CAncer (BRCA) sequence variation are at an increased cumulative risk of developing breast cancer, and it is the standard of care for them to be offered medical or surgical risk reduction. Given the relatively low prevalence of breast cancer within supernumerary nipples and ectopic glandular breast tissue, no current recommendations exist to guide multidisciplinary management of patients with BRCA sequence variations and ectopic breast tissue. Our case is of a 62-year-old female BRCA-1 carrier with a previous history of right breast cancer who developed a new primary breast cancer within a supernumerary nipple after undergoing surgical risk reduction. With no current consensus on the surgical management of supernumerary nipples in BRCA-1 carriers, our recommendation is to perform a thorough physical examination before risk-reducing operation. If supernumerary nipples or ectopic glandular breast tissue are present, wide-local excision of the tissue should be offered for more complete surgical risk reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Will Sperduto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | - Donald Northfelt
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Lisa McGee
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
| | | | - Kristen Jogerst
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ
- Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Seyedi S, Teo R, Foster L, Saha D, Mina L, Northfelt D, Anderson KS, Shibata D, Gatenby R, Cisneros L, Troan B, Anderson ARA, Maley CC. Testing Adaptive Therapy Protocols using Gemcitabine and Capecitabine on a Mouse Model of Endocrine-Resistant Breast Cancer. bioRxiv 2023:2023.09.18.558136. [PMID: 37781632 PMCID: PMC10541126 DOI: 10.1101/2023.09.18.558136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/03/2023]
Abstract
Highly effective cancer therapies often face limitations due to acquired resistance and toxicity. Adaptive therapy, an ecologically inspired approach, seeks to control therapeutic resistance and minimize toxicity by leveraging competitive interactions between drug-sensitive and drug-resistant subclones, prioritizing patient survival and quality of life over maximum cell kill. In preparation for a clinical trial in breast cancer, we used large populations of MCF7 cells to rapidly generate endocrine-resistance breast cancer cell line. We then mimicked second line therapy in ER+ breast cancers by treating the endocrine-resistant MCF7 cells in a mouse xenograft model to test adaptive therapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or the combination of those two drugs. Dose-modulation adaptive therapy with capecitabine alone increased survival time relative to MTD, but not statistically significant (HR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.043- 1.1 P = 0.065). However, when we alternated the drugs in both dose modulation (HR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.024 - 0.55, P = 0.007) and intermittent adaptive therapies significantly increased survival time compared to high dose combination therapy (HR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.013 - 0.42; P = 0.003). Overall, survival time increased with reduced dose for both single drugs (P < 0.01) and combined drugs (P < 0.001). Adaptive therapy protocols resulted in tumors with lower proportions of proliferating cells (P = 0.0026) and more apoptotic cells (P = 0.045). The results show that Adaptive therapy outperforms high-dose therapy in controlling endocrine-resistant breast cancer, favoring slower-growing tumors, and showing promise in two-drug alternating regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sareh Seyedi
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Ruthanne Teo
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Luke Foster
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Daniel Saha
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
| | - Lida Mina
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
| | - Karen S. Anderson
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ
- Center for Personalized Diagnostics, Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe AZ 85287
| | - Darryl Shibata
- Department of Pathology, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
| | - Robert Gatenby
- Center for Evolutionary Therapy and Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33629, USA
| | - Luis Cisneros
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| | - Brigid Troan
- Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Raleigh, NC, 27606, USA
| | - Alexander R. A. Anderson
- Center for Evolutionary Therapy and Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL 33629, USA
| | - Carlo C. Maley
- Arizona Cancer Evolution Center, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Biodesign Center for Biocomputing, Security and Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
- Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Shen F, Jiang G, Philips S, Gardner L, Xue G, Cantor E, Ly RC, Osei W, Wu X, Dang C, Northfelt D, Skaar T, Miller KD, Sledge GW, Schneider BP. Cytochrome P450 Oxidoreductase (POR) Associated with Severe Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients of European Ancestry from ECOG-ACRIN E5103. Clin Cancer Res 2023; 29:2494-2500. [PMID: 37126018 PMCID: PMC10411392 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-22-2431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/25/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Paclitaxel is a widely used anticancer therapeutic. Peripheral neuropathy is the dose-limiting toxicity and negatively impacts quality of life. Rare germline gene markers were evaluated for predicting severe taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) in the patients of European ancestry. In addition, the impact of Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C8, CYP3A4, and CYP3A5 metabolizer status on likelihood of severe TIPN was also assessed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Whole-exome sequencing analyses were performed in 340 patients of European ancestry who received a standard dose and schedule of paclitaxel in the adjuvant, randomized phase III breast cancer trial, E5103. Patients who experienced grade 3-4 (n = 168) TIPN were compared to controls (n = 172) who did not experience TIPN. For the analyses, rare variants with a minor allele frequency ≤ 3% and predicted to be deleterious by protein prediction programs were retained. A gene-based, case-control analysis using SKAT was performed to identify genes that harbored an imbalance of deleterious variants associated with increased risk of severe TIPN. CYP star alleles for CYP2C8, CYP3A4, and CYP3A5 were called. An additive logistic regression model was performed to test the association of CYP2C8, CYP3A4, and CYP3A5 metabolizer status with severe TIPN. RESULTS Cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase (POR) was significantly associated with severe TIPN (P value = 1.8 ×10-6). Six variants were predicted to be deleterious in POR. There were no associations between CYP2C8, CYP3A4, or CYP3A5 metabolizer status with severe TIPN. CONCLUSIONS Rare variants in POR predict an increased risk of severe TIPN in patients of European ancestry who receive paclitaxel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fei Shen
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Guanglong Jiang
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Santosh Philips
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Laura Gardner
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Gloria Xue
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Erica Cantor
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Reynold C. Ly
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | | - Xi Wu
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Chau Dang
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer center, New York, New York
| | | | - Todd Skaar
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | - Kathy D. Miller
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Haddad TC, Suman V, Giridhar KV, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt D, Ernst B, Sideras K, O’Sullivan CC, Singh R, Desta Z, Taraba J, Goodnature B, Goetz MP, Wang L, Ingle JN. Abstract OT1-04-02: Anastrozole dose escalation for optimal estrogen suppression in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer: A prospective trial. Cancer Res 2023. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs22-ot1-04-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: We performed matched case-control studies utilizing cohorts of postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors (AI) on MA.27 [anastrozole, exemestane] or PreFace [letrozole] to assess the association between estrogen suppression after 6 months of treatment and an early breast cancer (EBC) event within 5 years of AI initiation (Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:2986-98). We found a significant 3.0-fold increase in risk of an EBC event for those taking anastrozole with levels of estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL, but not for exemestane or letrozole. Given these findings we designed a prospective pharmacodynamic (PD) study to evaluate the impact of anastrozole (1 mg/day: ANA1) on E1 and E2 levels, and among those with inadequate estrogen suppression (IES: E1 ≥1.3 pg/mL and E2 ≥0.5 pg/mL), to evaluate the safety and PD efficacy of high-dose anastrozole (10 mg/day: ANA10), which has been found to be safe in prior clinical trials (Cancer 1998;83:1142-52). Methods: Post-menopausal women with stage I-III, ER ≥1% positive/HER2-negative breast cancer who were candidates for anastrozole were eligible after completion of locoregional therapy and chemotherapy, as clinically indicated. Women who were pre-menopausal at diagnosis were not eligible. All patients received 8-10 weeks of ANA1, after which those with adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1< 1.3 pg/mL or E2< 0.5 pg/mL) came off study. Those with IES went on to receive ANA10 for 8-10 weeks, followed by letrozole (2.5 mg/day: LET) for 8-10 weeks. All patients were managed at their treating oncologist’s discretion following study discontinuation. E1 and E2 blood levels were measured pre-treatment and after completion of each treatment cycle by a CLIA-approved liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry in the Immunochemical Core Laboratory at Mayo Clinic. With a sample size of 29 patients with IES after ANA1, a one-sided binomial test of proportions with a significance level of 0.05 will have an 87% chance of rejecting the proportion with AES after ANA10 is at most 25% (Ho) when the true proportion is at least 50%. Specifically, the null hypothesis is rejected if the number of women with AES after ANA10 is 12 or more. Data lock was July 6, 2022. Results: Of the 161 women enrolled from April 2020 through May 2022, 3 withdrew consent prior to start of ANA1 and 2 were ineligible; thus, 156 women comprised the study cohort. Median patient age was 64 years (range 44-86), 10% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity and/or non-white race, and 15% received chemotherapy. Six patients remain on ANA1, and 10 discontinued ANA1 due to refusal (7), adverse event (AE) (2), or COVID-19 (1). Forty-one of the remaining 140 patients (29.3%; 95%CI: 21.9-37.6%) had IES with ANA1. Nine of these 41 patients did not go on to ANA10 due to refusal (6) or AE (3). Of the 32 patients who started ANA10, 8 remain on treatment, 5 discontinued due to refusal (3) or AE (1-grade 2 urinary tract infection; 1-grade 1 palpitations), and 19 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting ANA10. No grade 3-5 AEs or grade 2 hot flashes or arthralgias were reported. Of these 19 patients, 14 achieved AES with ANA10 (73.7%; 95%CI: 48.8-90.9%). All 19 patients switched to LET of which 3 remain on treatment, 1 is missing E1/E2 data, and 15 had a blood draw 45 days or more after starting LET. Of these 15 patients, 10 maintained AES, 2 acquired AES with LET, and 3 no longer had AES. Anastrozole and letrozole drug levels will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: Approximately 29% of postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- BC receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/daily had IES. A majority of these patients achieved AES with dose escalation to ANA10 without tolerability issues. E1 and E2 levels are logical biomarkers given the mechanism of action of anastrozole, and further study utilizing them to determine the optimal dose of anastrozole for a given patient should be performed.
Citation Format: Tufia C. Haddad, Vera Suman, Karthik V. Giridhar, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Donald Northfelt, Brenda Ernst, Kostandinos Sideras, Ciara C. O’Sullivan, Ravinder Singh, Zeruesenay Desta, Jodi Taraba, Barbara Goodnature, Matthew P. Goetz, Liewei Wang, James N. Ingle. Anastrozole dose escalation for optimal estrogen suppression in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer: A prospective trial [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 OT1-04-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Barbara Goodnature
- 12Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Specialized Program of Research Excellence, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sullivan CCO, He J, Suman VJ, Kalari KR, Leon-Ferre RA, Villasboas-Bisneto JC, Chalasani P, Yasar DG, Anderson DM, Stella PJ, Jaslowski AJ, Tannenbaum SH, Saverimuthu A, Northfelt D, Moreno-Aspitia A, Carter JM, Liu MC, Wang L, Lou Z, Goetz MP. Abstract OT2-19-05: A phase I/II trial of abemaciclib and T-DM1 in women and men with HER2-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed on treatment with a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) (ACCRU-BR-1801). Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-ot2-19-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Although major advances have been made in the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), the goal of care remains largely palliative, therefore better treatments are needed. Given encouraging preclinical and clinical data, the combination of cyclin dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors and HER2-directed therapy is further being evaluated in this trial. Trial Design: In this phase I/II multicenter trial, we will determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of abemaciclib (Abem) combined with T-DM1. Three Abem dose levels will be examined, 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg. The phase 2 portion of this trial will examine whether PFS is increased with addition of Abem to T-DM1 in two pt cohorts - those with ER+ HER2+ MBC and those with ER-HER2+ MBC. For phase 2, a pre-registration biopsy is required to confirm ER and HER2-status and to determine levels of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; vimentin (an epithelial-mesenchymal transition marker); and CD8 and FOXP3 expression. Blood samples will be collected pretreatment , at 6 weeks, and at progression for all pts. Eligibility Criteria: Phase I&II: All pts must have HER2+ MBC per ASCO-CAP guidelines and prior treatment with a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For the phase Iportion, pts can have measurable or non-measurable disease with no restriction on the number of prior lines of therapy. In the phase II portion, pts must have measurable disease with ≤1-2 prior lines of chemotherapy alone, ≤1 HER2-directed therapy alone, and/or chemotherapy with HER2-directed therapies. There is no limit on prior endocrine therapy. Specific Aims: The primary objective of the phase II trial is to assess whether addition of Abem to T-DM1 increases PFS in one or both patient cohorts. Secondary objectives include an assessment of toxicity, objective response rates and overall survival. Correlative studies will assess the association between baseline TIL levels, vimentin expression, and CD8/FOXP3 expression with PFS. Changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, CTCs, ctDNA and serum thymidine kinase 1 during the course of treatment will be examined to determine if there is a link with PFS outcomes overall and separately for each cohort. Pharmacogenomic studies will determine if pts with the FCGR3A-158 polymorphism derive less benefit from T-DM1 and have inferior PFS outcomes compared with pts who do not have this polymorphism. Statistical Methods:Phase I: Standard 3+3 design, with dose limiting toxicities as per protocol. Phase II: For each pt cohort, a stratified randomization scheme will be used to assign pts to treatment with liver mets as a stratification factor.
For each pt cohort, a stratified log rank test will be used to assess whether PFS is increased with the addition of Abem to T-DM1. A non-binding futility analysis will be applied in each cohort after 58 events in the ER+ HER2+ MBC study cohort and 48 events in the ER- HER2+ MBC study cohort. Present Accrual: 0; target accrual: minimal 120 pts., maximal 140 pts
CohortOne-sidedalphaPowerAccrual Period (accrual rate)Follow-up after close of enrollmentPFS with T-DM1PFS with abema and T-DM1Number of eligible patientsER+/HER2+0.100.912 months (5-6 pts per month)12 months12 weeks24 weeks64 (32 per arm)ER-/HER2+0.100.8512 months (3-4 pts per month)12 months6 weeks12 weeks50 (25 pts per arm)
Citation Format: Ciara C O Sullivan, Jun He, Vera J Suman, Krishna R Kalari, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Jose C Villasboas-Bisneto, Pratima Chalasani, Demet Gokalp Yasar, Daniel M Anderson, Philip J Stella, Anthony J Jaslowski, Susan H Tannenbaum, Angela Saverimuthu, Donald Northfelt, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Jodi M Carter, Minetta C Liu, Liewei Wang, Zhenkun Lou, Matthew P Goetz. A phase I/II trial of abemaciclib and T-DM1 in women and men with HER2-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed on treatment with a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) (ACCRU-BR-1801) [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 OT2-19-05.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jun He
- Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Philip J Stella
- IHA Hematology Oncology at St. Joe's Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dong C, Thomas S, Honrao C, Rodrigues LO, Tessier N, Zhang B, Sanati S, Vij K, Ernst BJ, Anderson KS, Opyrchal M, Ademuyiwa F, Peterson LL, Goetz MP, Northfelt D, O'Day E, Ma C. Abstract P5-13-20: Identifying a metabolite signature that correlates with tumor proliferation in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors from matched plasma and serum samples. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p5-13-20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CKD4/6i) have demonstrated clinical utility extending progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for advanced hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative (HR+/HER2-) breast cancer patients. The efficacy in early-stage breast cancer (eBC) is unclear, with conflicting results from adjuvant CDK4/6i trials on invasive disease-free survival. Thus, there is a critical need to identify biomarkers of response (BoR) to determine which, if any, eBC patients could benefit from this treatment. This BoR could also stratify advanced BC patients for likelihood to respond to CDK4/6i. Metabolism is influenced by both genome and environment, and changes in the metabolome can be correlated with drug responsiveness. Thus, metabolite BoRs may serve to identify eBC patients for which CDK4/6i would offer a therapeutic benefit.Methods: Plasma and serum samples from 50 early-stage ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients, treated with neoadjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (palbo) and aromatase inhibitor (AI) anastrozole on NeoPalAna trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01723774), were collected from treatment-naïve patients (BL) and 3 consecutive time points: anastrozole,1 mg daily for 4 weeks (C1D1), anastrozole plus palbo,125 mg daily, for 15 days (C1D15), and for 4-5 months before surgery (SURG). Metabolites were extracted from all samples via methanol and chloroform precipitation and quantified using an unbiased, non-destructive, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based profiling platform (Olaris®, Inc., Waltham, MA). Statistical analysis and machine learning was used to identify differential metabolites and generate predictive models. A separate validation set of samples was collected from a subset of patients (N=6) who received an additional cycle of palbo treatment prior to surgery to assess model accuracy. Results: Non-parametric differential expression analysis of BL/C1D1, BL/C1D15, and C1D1/C1D15 identified 53 ,97, and 90 differential NMR resonances in plasma (p<0.05) and 36, 34, and 25 differential NMR resonances in serum (p<0.05), respectively. Based on the proliferative marker Ki67 levels at C1D15, 37 patients were classified as responders (Ki67≤2.7%) and 6 patients as non-responders (Ki67>2.7%). Analysis of the responder (R) and non-responder (NR) groups identified that 13 plasma and 14 serum resonances (21 unique resonances and 6 overlapping) were differentially expressed (p<0.05) at C1D1. Many of the differential resonances could be mapped back to amino acid metabolites including several branched chain amino acids such as leucine, valine, and isoleucine, and positively charged amino acids such as lysine. A Olaris® BoR score was generated using 5 differential resonances that had an AUC of 0.931 (training set) and 100% accuracy when predicting palbo-response in a blinded test set (N=6).Conclusion: The differential metabolites identified from matching plasma and serum samples suggest that, compared to serum, plasma has a better representation of the metabolic changes associated with palbo treatment-response. While comparing samples from R and NR patients, amino acids were found to be consistently altered in both serum and plasma before palbo treatment. In addition, a BoR model based on select metabolites could precisely stratify palbo-response in a blinded dataset. A larger independent validation cohort is ongoing.
Citation Format: Chen Dong, Shana Thomas, Chandrashekhar Honrao, Leonardo O. Rodrigues, Nathalie Tessier, Bo Zhang, Souzan Sanati, Kiran Vij, Brenda J. Ernst, Karen S. Anderson, Mateusz Opyrchal, Foluso Ademuyiwa, Lindsay L. Peterson, Matthew P. Goetz, Donald Northfelt, Elizabeth O'Day, Cynthia Ma. Identifying a metabolite signature that correlates with tumor proliferation in early-stage breast cancer patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors from matched plasma and serum samples [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 P5-13-20.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Shana Thomas
- Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Kiran Vij
- Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Cynthia Ma
- Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ademuyiwa FO, Northfelt D, O'Connor T, Levine E, Luo J, Tao Y, Hoog J, Laury M, Summa T, Hammerschmidt T, Guo Z, Frith A, Weilbaecher K, Opyrchal M, Aft R, Clifton K, Suresh R, Bagegni N, Hagemann IS, Ma CX. Abstract P2-13-01: Phase 2 study of neoadjuvant palbociclib, letrozole, and trastuzumab in patients with ER+ HER2+ breast cancer (PALTAN). Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p2-13-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background Patients (pts) with ER+ HER2+ breast cancer (BC) are less likely to achieve pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dual HER2 blockade than pts with ER- HER2+ BC. Endocrine therapy (ET) plus trastuzumab is effective in advanced ER+ HER2+ BC, but pCR rate is low in the neoadjuvant setting. Inhibition of CDK4/6 and HER2 results in synergistic reduction in cell proliferation in preclinical studies. We therefore combined ET with CDK4/6 inhibition and trastuzumab in ER+ HER2+ BC as a chemotherapy-sparing regimen. Methods We evaluated the efficacy of palbociclib, letrozole, trastuzumab (PLT) in the neoadjuvant setting for pts with stages II or III ER+ HER2+ BC. Primary endpoint was pCR after 16 weeks of therapy. We assumed null of 15% pCR and pCR ≥ 30% warrants further investigation. To achieve 80% power at 1-sided 0.05 significance, 48 pts were to be enrolled. Evaluable population included pts who completed Cycle (C) 1 unless discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) prior to completing C1. All who received one dose on study were considered evaluable for toxicity. Biopsies were collected at baseline (BL), C1 day 15 (C1D15), and surgery for RNA sequencing and central Ki67 assessment, for PAM50 subtype distribution, complete cell cycle arrest (CCCA: Ki67 ≤2.7%) at C1D15 and surgery, and treatment induced signaling changes. Results Accrual stopped early due to futility. 26 pts accrued were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. pCR (residual cancer burden- [RCB] 0) was 7.7% (95% CI 0.9 - 25.1%) and RCB 0/I was 38.5% (95% CI 20.2 - 59.4%). TEAEs (n= 337) were seen in all pts (71.5% grade [G] 1, 19.3% G2, 8.6% G3, 0.6% G4); the most common were leukopenia (7.7%), neutropenia (7.1%), anemia (5.9%). G3/4 TEAEs occurred in 19 pts (73.1%). Among the 19, incidence of G3/4 neutropenia was 50%, hypertension 26.9%, leucopenia 7.7%. TEAEs (hypertension, ventricular tachycardia, pulmonary edema) leading to treatment discontinuation were reported in 1 pt. Two pts had at least one SAE. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Pt reported outcomes using NCI PRO-CTCAE revealed no differences in appetite, nausea, respiratory symptoms, edema, palpitations, rashes and dry skin, or concentration from BL to end of C4. Pts had worsening hair loss from BL to end of C4. Ki67 analysis indicated CCCA in 78% at C1D15, compared to 18% at surgery after only P had been discontinued approximately 4 weeks prior to surgery. RNA sequencing was performed on available biopsies collected at BL (N=16), C1D15 (N=5), and surgery (N=2) from 16 pts. Among 16 BL samples, PAM50 subtyping identified 5 (31.3%) basal-like, 2 (12.5%) HER2-E, 6 (37.5%) Lum B, and 3 (18.8%) normal. Subtype switching to Lum A at C1D15 (N=3, 1 each with HER2-E, Lum B, and normal at BL) or normal (N=2, 1 basal and 1 HER2-E at BL) was observed. 161 genes were differentially expressed (FDR p<0.05); 145 downregulated and 16 upregulated comparing C1D15 to BL. MKI67, TK1, CCNB1, AURKB, PLK1 were among the downregulated genes, consistent with CCCA for majority of the samples at C1D15 by Ki67. Analysis of the Molecular Signatures Database Hallmark gene-sets comparing C1D15 and BL samples demonstrated downregulated biological processes involved in proliferation (E2F targets, G2M checkpoint, MYC targets, mitotic spindle), signaling (Estrogen response, mTORC1 signaling), and DNA damage (DNA repair) at C1D15, consistent with the mechanisms of action of the study drugs. E2F targets were higher in BL samples of RCB II/III, compared to RCB I (FDR p=0.042). Conclusions PALTAN did not meet its primary endpoint of pCR. Neoadjuvant PLT showed a pCR of 7.7% but was well tolerated. RNA sequencing and Ki67 data indicated potent anti-proliferative effects of study treatments, despite significant heterogeneity of intrinsic subtypes. Clinical trial information: NCT02907918.
Citation Format: Foluso O Ademuyiwa, Donald Northfelt, Tracey O'Connor, Ellis Levine, Jingqin Luo, Yu Tao, Jeremy Hoog, Marie Laury, Tracy Summa, Trish Hammerschmidt, Zhanfang Guo, Ashley Frith, Katherine Weilbaecher, Mateusz Opyrchal, Rebecca Aft, Katherine Clifton, Rama Suresh, Nusayba Bagegni, Ian S Hagemann, Cynthia X Ma. Phase 2 study of neoadjuvant palbociclib, letrozole, and trastuzumab in patients with ER+ HER2+ breast cancer (PALTAN) [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 P2-13-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Yu Tao
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Shen F, Jiang G, Gardner L, Xue G, Philips S, Ly R, Wilberforce O, Wu X, Cantor E, Dang C, Northfelt D, Skaar T, Miller KD, Sledge G, Schneider BP. Abstract P1-08-02: Cytochrome P450 reductase gene , POR, associated with paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy in patients of European ancestry from the adjuvant breast cancer trial, ECOG-ACRIN E5103. Cancer Res 2022. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs21-p1-08-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is one of the most important survivorship issues of cancer patients with the potential to substantially impact quality of life. TIPN can lead to dose reductions, early cessation, and has the potential to compromise treatment efficacy. We previously reported both rare (SBF2) and common germline (FCAMR) predictors for TIPN in patients of African descent through whole-exome sequencing (WES) and a genome-wide association study (GWAS), respectively, in the adjuvant, randomized phase III breast cancer trial, E5103. These predictors are now being evaluated in the prospective ECOG-ACRIN trial EAZ171 (NCT04001829). We have also previously reported our evaluation of common germline variants for patients of European descent through GWAS in E5103 with validation in another adjuvant breast cancer trial, E1199. Herein, we evaluated for rare variants that were associated with risk of TIPN in patients of European ancestry from WES in E5103. Methods: Gene-based rare variant analyses using SKAT were performed to compare select cases of severe TIPN (n=172) and controls without any evidence of TIPN (n=170) derived from E5103. Cases were defined as those with at least grade 3 TIPN and controls were optimally. matched by demographic and risk factors and had no reported evidence for TIPN of any grade. Germline WES was conducted using Ion Proton™ Sequencers from Life Technologies with an average >100X coverage of the exome. Rare variants with a minor allele frequency <3% predicted to be deleterious by protein prediction programs were retained for the analysis. 7,278 genes passed quality control and were included in the analysis, setting the threshold for significance at a p-value < 6.87 ×10-6 after Bonferroni correction. Results: Cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase (POR) was significantly associated with an increased risk of grade 3+ TIPN (p =1.82 ×10-6). Six variants predicted to be deleterious in POR were identified in the study population. Paclitaxel is predominately metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C8 and 3A4. A functional cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase is required for the catalytic activities of all 57 CYP family members to metabolize drugs, xenobiotics, and steroid hormones. Conclusion: Rare variants in cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase predicted an increased risk of severe TIPN in patients receiving paclitaxel. These rare variants in POR may modulate the catalytic activities of P450 enzymes that are responsible for paclitaxel metabolism and have a striking biological rationale as contributors to TIPN. Work is ongoing to validate these findings mechanistically and to identify strategies to nullify the impact of these deleterious variants.
Citation Format: Fei Shen, Guanglong Jiang, Laura Gardner, Gloria Xue, Santosh Philips, Reynold Ly, Osei Wilberforce, Xi Wu, Erica Cantor, Chau Dang, Donald Northfelt, Todd Skaar, Kathy D. Miller, George Sledge, Bryan P Schneider. Cytochrome P450 reductase gene, POR, associated with paclitaxel induced peripheral neuropathy in patients of European ancestry from the adjuvant breast cancer trial, ECOG-ACRIN E5103 [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 P1-08-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fei Shen
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | - Laura Gardner
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Gloria Xue
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | - Reynold Ly
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | - Xi Wu
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Erica Cantor
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | - Chau Dang
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Todd Skaar
- Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Patel BK, Pizzitola V, Northfelt D, Anderson K, Giurescu M, Mazza G, Lorans R, Eversman W, Sharpe R, Kling J, Millstine D, Brenda E, Cronin P, Apsey H, Palmieri J, Pockaj B, Halyard M. Abstract PS2-41: Supplemental contrast enhanced mammography screening of women with elevated risk of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-ps2-41] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective and Rationale: To investigate the utility of screening Contrast Enhanced Mammography (CEM) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single institution, IRB approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic women 35 years of age or older who were deemed at elevated risk of breast cancer, defined as IBIS v.8.0 lifetime risk of breast cancer score >15% or a prior personal history of breast cancer. Enrollment started in January 2019 and is on-going. An interim data analysis was performed. Women were invited to undergo supplemental CEM screening within 180 days of negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2) conventional 2D/3D screening mammography (MG). Patients with prior screening MBI, ultrasound or MR imaging within 12 months were excluded from study participation. Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CEM, along with their 95% confidence intervals, as well as the biologic profiles of MG-occult, CEM detected cancers. Results: A total of 351 women were enrolled in this prospective study over a 20-month period. To date, we have 1 year follow up on 106 cases with negative follow-up MG. Average age of the participants was 56 years ± 9.44 (standard deviation); 11 patients had screening 2D MG, 333 had combined 3-D and 2-D screening MG; 309 dense and 37 non-dense breasts based on ACR BI-RADS categories.
CEM depicted 8 additional breast cancers (table 1), which were otherwise MG occult, for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 patients, 95% CI (9.9, 44.3). 1 false negative cancer on CEM imaging which was further detected on MR imaging only. Biopsy revealed 16 benign changes (16/28=57%), 4 high-risk lesions (4/28=14%), and 8 breast cancers (8/28=29%) (table 2). CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.942, 95% CI (0.917, 0.967), high NPV 0.997, 95% CI (0.991, 1.000) and moderate PPV (0.286, 95% CI (0.118, 0.453) and sensitivity (0.889, 95% CI (0.684, 1.000)). Size of CEM detected cancers ranged from 7 to 57 mm. Conclusion: This pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 22.7 per 1000 during prevalence round of CEM screening in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. These initial results are comparable to results reported for high-risk surveillance MR imaging. Larger, multi-institutional high-risk CEM trials are needed for those patients who are not otherwise undergoing regular supplemental surveillance MR imaging.
Citation Format: Bhavika K. Patel, Victor Pizzitola, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Marina Giurescu, Gina Mazza, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Juliana Kling, Denise Millstine, Ernst Brenda, Patricia Cronin, Heidi Apsey, Jennifer Palmieri, Barbara Pockaj, Michele Halyard. Supplemental contrast enhanced mammography screening of women with elevated risk of breast cancer [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 PS2-41.
Collapse
|
11
|
Carnahan M, Pockaj B, Pizzitola V, Giurescu M, Lorans R, Eversman W, Sharpe R, Cronin P, Northfelt D, Anderson K, Ernst B, Patel B. Abstract PS3-23: Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery. Cancer Res 2021. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs20-ps3-23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an emerging breast imaging technique utilizing iodinated contrast to highlight areas of neovascularity. The role of CEM in patients with breast implants has not yet been characterized. We report our clinical experience of CEM in patients with breast augmentation surgery to better understand the potential diagnostic utility and limitations of CEM in the setting of breast implants.
Materials and Methods: A HIPPA compliant, IRB exempt single-institution review of prospective CEM cases who had “breast implants” in their report between 01/2015 and 03/2020. Medical records were reviewed to supplement database information.
Results: Forty-six patients were included with a mean age of 52 years (range 33-72). Clinical indications included: high risk research screen 3 (6%), diagnostic evaluation for abnormal imaging 24 (52%), further evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancer 12 (26%) or assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response 7 (15%). Thirty patients had malignant lesions. Histology was invasive ductal carcinoma (90%), invasive lobular carcinoma (7%), and ductal carcinoma in situ (3%). CEM identified the index cancer and extent of disease in 28/30 (93%) of malignant cases. In two patients (7%), the malignant lesion was not included in the field-of-view due to its location. One of these lesions was a far medial mass within the breast which was detected by ultrasound alone. The other false negative CEM was a palpable axillary mass negative on both mammogram (MG) and MRI but seen by ultrasound.
Twenty-three (50%) underwent additional breast MRI of which 20 had an already diagnosed cancer. the findings on CEM were concordant with MR imaging for the index lesion in 19/20 (95%) cases (kappa=0.86; p <0.001).
Six additional lesions were found by CEM and confirmed by MRI. Of these lesions, 33% were found to be malignant and changed the surgical procedure. Four were only seen on CEM (no MRI comparison was available) and 75% were found to be malignant. One was only seen on MRI and was benign. One additional lesion was only seen as an asymmetry on MG without CEM or MRI correlate. This was benign on both the biopsy and surgical pathology.
Conclusions: CEM appears to be a valuable breast imaging modality for diagnostic evaluations and surgical staging, including patients with breast implants. Due to technical artifacts and positioning limitations for posterior lesions, we recommend performing CEM with implant displaced views. Breast centers that use CEM, should be aware of field of view as a potential limitation when evaluating extent of disease in patients with breast augmentation.
Citation Format: Molly Carnahan, Barbara Pockaj, Victor Pizzitola, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, William Eversman, Richard Sharpe, Patricia Cronin, Donald Northfelt, Karen Anderson, Brenda Ernst, Bhavika Patel. Experience of contrast-enhanced mammography in patients with breast augmentation surgery [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 PS3-23.
Collapse
|
12
|
Sullivan CCO, Kalari KR, Suman VJ, Vedell PT, Moyer A, Carlson E, Sinnwell J, Alaparthi T, Tang X, Thompson K, Sung J, Moreno-Aspitia A, Northfelt D, Liu MC, Haddad TC, Peethambaram P, Chumsri S, Ruddy KJ, Giridhar KV, Leon-Ferre RA, Gill P, Ranginwala M, Javed A, Batoo S, McMenomy BP, Weinshilboum R, Wang L, Goetz MP. Abstract P2-11-07: Comprehensive tumor sequencing to identify biomarkers of palbociclib response: First report of the PROMISE study. Cancer Res 2020. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs19-p2-11-07] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: The combination of cyclin dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors (CDK4/6i) with endocrine therapy (ET) has resulted in clinically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in hormone-receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, most patients’ disease ultimately progresses on CDK4/6i and ET. Therefore, further research is necessary to understand the mechanisms driving primary and secondary resistance. PROMISE is a multicenter prospective cohort study enrolling women with HR-positive MBC commencing treatment with palbociclib + letrozole (1st line) or palbociclib + fulvestrant (2nd Line). The study provides a comprehensive “omic” assessment of blood, tumor, urine and the fecal microbiome to identify molecular or cellular features associated with primary endocrine resistance (e.g. disease progression ≤ 12 months on treatment) and acquired resistance to CDK 4/6i. Additionally, patient derived xenografts and organoids are created to test new drug strategies designed to overcome resistance to CDK 4/6i and ET. Here, we present initial sequencing results from pretreatment biospecimens collected from PROMISE study participants. Methods: On-study tumor biopsies and blood samples were collected for DNA/RNA sequencing (TempusTM). The analyzed biospecimens were all obtained prior to initiation of palbociclib and ET. We correlated patient clinical characteristics (phenotypes) with molecular data and responses to protocol treatment. The data were analyzed using a series of cutting-edge bioinformatics pipelines for somatic and germline mutations in addition to copy number alterations (CNAs). The study database was locked for analysis on 06/20/2019. Results: We analyzed the somatic single nucleotide variants/INDELs (sSNV/INDEL) profiles across the tumor samples to determine the genes that were least likely to occur as a result of background mutation processes. Twenty-six patients had somatic copy number alterations (sCNA) and/or sSNV/INDEL in at least one of 18 genes with the most significant sSNV/INDEL profiles (p < 0.03) which included clinically and biologically relevant genes. The genes with the most statistically significant sSNV/INDEL mutation profiles were GATA3, PIK3CA, CDH1, and ESR1 (p < 0.0009). We observed a high percentage of tumors with somatic alterations in GATA3 (23% sSNV/INDEL, 15% sCNA), PIK3CA (38%, 12%), CDH1 (19%, 50%) and ESR1 (19%, 58%). ESR1 mutations were more frequent in patients receiving 2nd line treatment. Other frequently altered genes included TP53 (15%, 46%), MAP2K4 (8%, 50%), DNAAF1 (8%, 50%), and CDKN1B (8%, 35%). Further, ZNF317 and F3 were altered in 9 and 7 patients, respectively. Twenty-four samples had alterations in at least one of the CDK4/6 pathway genes (RB1, CCNE2, CCND1, CDK6, ESR1, CDKN2A, CCND3, CDK4, CDK2 and CCNE1). Four patients progressed on therapy; three of the four patients had mutations in PIK3CA, and one had a mutation in ESR1. Results of the RNA sequencing data (N=26) will be presented at the SABCS meeting. Conclusions: This is the first report of a prospective study designed to characterize the genomic landscape of ER+/HER2- MBC prior to palbociclib treatment. We observed high frequencies of known targetable alterations in PIK3CA and ESR1, including in patients that progress, which is consistent with previous reports. RNA sequencing data will be presented at the meeting.
Citation Format: Ciara C O Sullivan, Krishna R Kalari, Vera J Suman, Peter T Vedell, Ann Moyer, Erin Carlson, Jason Sinnwell, Tejaswi Alaparthi, Xiaojia Tang, Kevin Thompson, Jaeyun Sung, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Donald Northfelt, Minetta C Liu, Tufia C Haddad, Prema Peethambaram, Saranya Chumsri, Kathryn J Ruddy, Karthik V Giridhar, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Paula Gill, Mohammad Ranginwala, Asad Javed, Sameer Batoo, Brendan P. McMenomy, Richard Weinshilboum, Liewei Wang, Matthew P Goetz. Comprehensive tumor sequencing to identify biomarkers of palbociclib response: First report of the PROMISE 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 P2-11-07.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Paula Gill
- 4Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI
| | | | - Asad Javed
- 4Mayo Clinic Health System, La Crosse, WI
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Calderon E, Webb C, Kosiorek HE, Richard J Gray M, Cronin P, Anderson K, Northfelt D, McCullough A, Ocal IT, Pockaj B. Are we choosing wisely in elderly females with breast cancer? Am J Surg 2019; 218:1229-1233. [DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2019] [Revised: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 08/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
|
14
|
Calderon E, Kosiorek H, Cronin P, McCullough A, Northfelt D, Ocal I, Pockaj B. Presentation and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Women with Breast Cancer Based on Molecular Subtypes. J Am Coll Surg 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.08.101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
15
|
Anders C, Munster P, Northfelt D, Han HS, Ma C, Maxwell F, Wang T, Belanger B, Zhang B, Moore Y, Sachdev JC. TRLS-06. PHASE 1 EXPANSION STUDY OF IRINOTECAN LIPOSOME INJECTION (nal-IRI) IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC BREAST CANCER (mBC): FINDINGS FROM THE COHORT WITH ACTIVE BRAIN METASTASIS (BM). Neurooncol Adv 2019. [PMCID: PMC7213350 DOI: 10.1093/noajnl/vdz014.039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND: nal-IRI is a liposomal formulation of irinotecan (topoisomerase-1 inhibitor). Preclinical data show that nal-IRI accumulates in BMs and prolongs survival in animal models of BM. Findings from a phase 1 expansion study (NCT01770353), evaluating patients with mBC and active BM, are reported. METHODS: This phase 1 expansion study enrolled patients with mBC who received multiple prior lines of cytotoxic therapy in the metastatic setting, including one cohort with mBC and active BM, defined as radiographic evidence of new or progressive central nervous system (CNS) metastases after radiation therapy with ≥1 lesion of ≥1 cm in the longest dimension on gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Patients received nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 (free-base equivalent; FBE) every two weeks (q2w) as an intravenous infusion over 90 minutes, escalating to 70 mg/m2 FBE q2w, if tolerated. RECIST v1.1 and modified RECIST criteria were used to assses non-CNS and CNS disease, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were enrolled (10 with active BM). Median age was 53 years (range 29–70 years) and median number of prior cytotoxic anti-cancer regimens was 3 (range 0–6); 29 patients received ≥1 dose of nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 FBE. Overall, nal-IRI monotherapy appeared to be well tolerated, and achieved ≥30% objective response rates for both CNS and non-CNS disease. Among the 10 patients with active BM, 6 achieved CNS disease control (3 partial responses [PRs] and 3 stable disease [SD]), including one patient with durable CNS SD and non-CNS PR for 2 years. Among 7 patients with serial evaluation of CNS metastases posttreatment, 6 patients achieved a reduction in target CNS lesions compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nal-IRI resulted in CNS disease control among 6 of 10 heavily pretreated patients with mBC and active BM. Further exploration of nal-IRI in patients with mBC and active BM is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Cynthia Ma
- Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA
| | | | | | | | - Bin Zhang
- Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA
| | - Yan Moore
- Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Ertz-Archambault N, Rogoff L, Kosiorek H, Ernst B, Anderson K, Pockaj B, Gray R, Northfelt D. Abstract P1-11-13: Depomedroxyprogesterone therapy for hot flashes in survivors of ER-expressing breast cancer: Impact on recurrence and survival. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p1-11-13] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Survivors of ER-expressing operable breast cancer (ER+BC) generally do not receive hormone replacement therapy for menopausal symptoms due to concern about provoking recurrence of disease. Single dose depomedroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 400 mg IM has previously been shown (Loprinzi CL, et al. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1409) to be the most effective non-estrogen therapy available for menopausal hot flashes (HF) but long-term evidence of safety in survivors of ER+BC is lacking.
Methods
Consecutive patients previously diagnosed with ER+BC who received MPA for HF between January 2007 and December 2012 were retrospectively identified in the breast cancer patient database at Mayo Clinic Arizona. Medical records were audited for breast cancer outcomes in these cases and in contemporaneous control patients with ER+BC who did not receive MPA, matched for age, stage of disease, and year of diagnosis. Statistical comparisons of local-regional recurrence and event-free survival were performed.
Results
92 patients who received MPA were identified and matched 1:1 with contemporaneous controls. Median follow-up duration was 5.7 years in cases and 4.5 years in controls. Estimated local-regional recurrence free survival at 10 years was 85% (95% CI, 72-100%) in cases and 95% (95% CI, 86-100%) in controls. Matched pairs hazard ratio was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.06-16.0) for local-regional recurrence free survival. Estimated event-free survival at 10 years was 81% (95% CI, 69-97%) in cases and 76% (95% CI, 64-92%) in controls. Matched pairs hazard ratio was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.10-1.41) for event-free survival. The majority (77%) of case patients experienced satisfactory relief of hot flashes from MPA injection.
Conclusion
In this retrospective case-control study we were unable to identify a detrimental effect of MPA therapy for HF in survivors of ER+BC. MPA may be acceptable for management of HF in this population.
Citation Format: Ertz-Archambault N, Rogoff L, Kosiorek H, Ernst B, Anderson K, Pockaj B, Gray R, Northfelt D. Depomedroxyprogesterone therapy for hot flashes in survivors of ER-expressing breast cancer: Impact on recurrence and survival [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 P1-11-13.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - L Rogoff
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - H Kosiorek
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - B Ernst
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - K Anderson
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - B Pockaj
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - R Gray
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - D Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
McDonald BR, Contente-Cuomo T, Sammut SJ, Ernst B, Odenheimer-Bergman A, Perdigones N, Chin SF, Farooq M, Cronin PA, Anderson KS, Kosiorek H, Northfelt D, McCullough A, Patel B, Caldas C, Pockaj B, Murtaza M. Abstract P4-01-21: Multiplexed targeted digital sequencing of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal residual disease in early and locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p4-01-21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background:
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis holds potential for minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in early stage breast cancer. However, sensitivity for MRD is limited due to low ctDNA levels in early stage patients and limited blood volumes. Loss of input DNA during library preparation, limited multiplexing or low sensitivity of current molecular methods further limit accuracy. To address this gap, we have developed TARgeted DIgital Sequencing (TARDIS), a novel method for simultaneous analysis of multiple patient-specific mutations in plasma DNA.
Methods:
Using tumor exome sequencing, we identify and prioritize somatic founder mutations, design nested primers and evaluate them for multiplex performance. Using 5-10 ng input plasma DNA, we perform 1) targeted linear pre-amplification to improve downstream molecular conversion, 2) single-stranded adapter ligation to incorporate unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) and 3) targeted PCR to prepare sequencing-ready libraries. The resulting sequencing reads have fixed target-specific ends and variable ligation ends. We utilize fragment size and UMIs to group sequencing reads into read families. To ensure specificity, we require targeted mutations are supported by 2 or more read families.
Results:
To assess analytical performance, we targeted 8 mutations in cell-free DNA reference samples with 0.25%-2% mutation allele fractions (AFs). Precision across 7-16 replicates at each AF level agreed with expectations of Poisson distribution, demonstrating effective analysis of ˜70% of input DNA. At 2%, 1%, 0.5% and 0.25% AFs, variant-level sensitivity was 96.4%, 96.4%, 91.1% and 65.8%, approaching the theoretical limit given input DNA. At 0.25% AF, 3-7 mutations were detected per sample, achieving 100% sample-level sensitivity. In 16 wild-type replicates, no targeted mutations were called (100% specificity). Averaging multiple mutations improved precision in sample-level AF estimates. Mean AFs from 8 mutations for the 2% sample were 2.34%-2.80% (5.8% CV).
In 6 patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), we analyzed 8-18 patient-specific mutations (mean 11.8). Before treatment, ctDNA was detected in 5/6 patients at mean AFs of 0.02%-1.19% (mean 0.40%), supported by 2-10 mutations (mean 5.6). Of these 5 patients, 4 had residual disease after NAT and ctDNA was detected pre-operatively or during NAT in 3/4 patients. 1 patient achieved pathological Complete Response and ctDNA was undetectable after NAT.
Conclusions:
Preliminary results suggest TARDIS enables accurate MRD detection after neoadjuvant therapy in patients with early stage breast cancer. On-going work is expanding this analysis to include additional patients and investigate the clinical validity of peri-operative ctDNA monitoring.
Summary of clinical resultsPatientPre-NAT Stage (TNM)SubtypeNo. of Mutations TargetedBaseline ctDNA (AF%, No. of Mutations)ctDNA after or during NAT (AF%, No. of Mutations)Residual Tumor (TNM)1T3 N1ER+ PR+ HER2-8+ (0.02%, 2)-T2 N12T3 N0TNBC12+ (0.29%, 6)+ (0.01%, 1)T1a N03T2 N1TNBC18+ (1.19%, 10)+ (0.01%, 1)T1mi N04T3 N1TNBC10+ (0.02%, 3)+ (0.05%, 3)T3 N15T2 N0TNBC9+ (0.46%, 7)-pathCR6T1c N1TNBC14--pathCR
Citation Format: McDonald BR, Contente-Cuomo T, Sammut S-J, Ernst B, Odenheimer-Bergman A, Perdigones N, Chin S-F, Farooq M, Cronin PA, Anderson KS, Kosiorek H, Northfelt D, McCullough A, Patel B, Caldas C, Pockaj B, Murtaza M. Multiplexed targeted digital sequencing of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal residual disease in early and locally advanced breast cancer [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 P4-01-21.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- BR McDonald
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - T Contente-Cuomo
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - S-J Sammut
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - B Ernst
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Odenheimer-Bergman
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - N Perdigones
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - S-F Chin
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Farooq
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - PA Cronin
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - KS Anderson
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - H Kosiorek
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - D Northfelt
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A McCullough
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - B Patel
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - C Caldas
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - B Pockaj
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Murtaza
- Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Schwab R, Clark A, Yau C, Wolf D, Chien AJ, Majure M, Ewing C, Wallace A, Roesch E, Helsten T, Forero A, Stringer-Reasor E, Vaklavas C, Nanda R, Jaskowiak N, Boughey J, Haddad T, Han H, Lee C, Albain K, Isaacs C, Elias A, Ellis E, Shah P, Lang J, Lu J, Tripathy D, Kemmer K, Yee D, Haley B, Korde L, Edmiston K, Northfelt D, Viscusi R, Khan Q, Symmans WF, Perlmutter J, Hylton N, Rugo H, Melisko M, Wilson A, Singhrao R, Asare S, van't Veer L, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L. Abstract P1-15-02: Withdrawn. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p1-15-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was withdrawn by the authors.
Citation Format: Schwab R, Clark A, Yau C, Wolf D, Chien AJ, Majure M, Ewing C, Wallace A, Roesch E, Helsten T, Forero A, Stringer-Reasor E, Vaklavas C, Nanda R, Jaskowiak N, Boughey J, Haddad T, Han H, Lee C, Albain K, Isaacs C, Elias A, Ellis E, Shah P, Lang J, Lu J, Tripathy D, Kemmer K, Yee D, Haley B, Korde L, Edmiston K, Northfelt D, Viscusi R, Khan Q, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Symmans WF, Perlmutter J, Hylton N, Rugo H, Melisko M, Wilson A, Singhrao R, Asare S, van't Veer L, DeMichele A, Berry D, Esserman L. 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 P1-15-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Schwab
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A Clark
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - C Yau
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - D Wolf
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - AJ Chien
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - M Majure
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - C Ewing
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A Wallace
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - E Roesch
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - T Helsten
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A Forero
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - E Stringer-Reasor
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - C Vaklavas
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - R Nanda
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - N Jaskowiak
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - J Boughey
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - T Haddad
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - H Han
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - C Lee
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - K Albain
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - C Isaacs
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A Elias
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - E Ellis
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - P Shah
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - J Lang
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - J Lu
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - D Tripathy
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - K Kemmer
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - D Yee
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - B Haley
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - L Korde
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - K Edmiston
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - D Northfelt
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - R Viscusi
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - Q Khan
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - WF Symmans
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - J Perlmutter
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - N Hylton
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - H Rugo
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - M Melisko
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A Wilson
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - R Singhrao
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - S Asare
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - L van't Veer
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - A DeMichele
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - D Berry
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | - L Esserman
- University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA; University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Quantum Leap Health Care Collaborative, San Francisco, CA; University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Mayo Rochester, Rochester, MN; Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Loyola University, Chicago, IL; Georgetown University, Washington, DC; University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO; Swedish Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA; University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, OR; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX; CTEP, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Washington DC; Mayo Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ; University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ; University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS; Berry Consultants, LLC, Houston, TX; Gemini Group, Ann Arbor; Inova Health System, Fairfax, VA
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Moreno V, Gil-Martin M, Johnson M, Aljumaily R, Lopez-Criado M, Northfelt D, Crittenden M, Jabbour S, Rosen L, Calvo E, Papadopoulos K, Garrido P, Hervás Morón A, Rietschel P, Mohan K, Li J, Stankevich E, Feng M, Lowy I, Fury M. MA04.01 Cemiplimab, a Human Monoclonal Anti-PD-1, Alone or in Combination with Radiotherapy: Phase 1 NSCLC Expansion Cohorts. J Thorac Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
20
|
Norton N, Fox N, McCarl CA, Tenner KS, Ballman K, Erskine CL, Necela BM, Northfelt D, Tan WW, Calfa C, Pegram M, Colon-Otero G, Perez EA, Clynes R, Knutson KL. Generation of HER2-specific antibody immunity during trastuzumab adjuvant therapy associates with reduced relapse in resected HER2 breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2018; 20:52. [PMID: 29898752 PMCID: PMC6000975 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-018-0989-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2017] [Accepted: 05/15/2018] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Resected HER2 breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab and chemotherapy have superior survival compared to patients treated with chemotherapy alone. We previously showed that trastuzumab and chemotherapy induce HER2-specific antibodies which correlate with improved survival in HER2 metastatic breast cancer patients. It remains unclear whether the generation of immunity required trastuzumab and whether endogenous antibody immunity is associated with improved disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting. In this study, we addressed this question by analyzing serum anti-HER2 antibodies from a subset of patients enrolled in the NCCTG trial N9831, which includes an arm (Arm A) in which trastuzumab was not used. Arms B and C received trastuzumab sequentially or concurrently to chemotherapy, respectively. METHODS Pre-and post-treatment initiation sera were obtained from 50 women enrolled in N9831. Lambda IgG antibodies (to avoid detection of trastuzumab) to HER2 were measured and compared between arms and with disease-free survival. RESULTS Prior to therapy, across all three arms, N9831 patients had similar mean anti-HER2 IgG levels. Following treatment, the mean levels of antibodies increased in the trastuzumab arms but not the chemotherapy-only arm. The proportion of patients who demonstrated antibodies increased by 4% in Arm A and by 43% in the Arms B and C combined (p = 0.003). Cox modeling demonstrated that larger increases in antibodies were associated with improved disease-free survival in all patients (HR = 0.23; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS These results show that the increased endogenous antibody immunity observed in adjuvant patients treated with combination trastuzumab and chemotherapy is clinically significant, in view of its correlation with improved disease-free survival. The findings may have important implications for predicting treatment outcomes in patients treated with trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00005970 . Registered on July 5, 2000.
Collapse
MESH Headings
- Adult
- Aged
- Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage
- Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects
- Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/immunology
- Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage
- Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects
- Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics
- Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy
- Breast Neoplasms/immunology
- Breast Neoplasms/pathology
- Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects
- Combined Modality Therapy
- Disease-Free Survival
- Female
- Humans
- Kaplan-Meier Estimate
- Middle Aged
- Neoplasm Metastasis
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/drug therapy
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/immunology
- Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology
- Receptor, ErbB-2/immunology
- Recurrence
- Trastuzumab/administration & dosage
- Trastuzumab/adverse effects
- Treatment Outcome
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Norton
- Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| | - Nicholas Fox
- Department of Pathology, Medicine and Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | - Christie-Ann McCarl
- Department of Pathology, Medicine and Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | - Kathleen S. Tenner
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
| | - Karla Ballman
- Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY USA
| | | | - Brian M. Necela
- Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85259 USA
| | - Winston W. Tan
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| | - Carmen Calfa
- Sylvester Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL 33136 USA
| | - Mark Pegram
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
| | - Gerardo Colon-Otero
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| | - Edith A. Perez
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| | - Raphael Clynes
- Department of Pathology, Medicine and Dermatology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032 USA
| | - Keith L. Knutson
- Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Padrnos L, Bennett R, Kosiorek H, Dueck AC, Northfelt D, Mikhael J, Tibes R, Khera N, Mesa RA. Living with Cancer: an Educational Intervention in Cancer Patients Can Improve Patient-Reported Knowledge Deficit. J Cancer Educ 2018; 33:653-659. [PMID: 27730534 PMCID: PMC8148893 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1123-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
A cancer diagnosis requires significant information to facilitate health care decision making, understand management options, and health care system navigation. Patient knowledge deficit can decrease quality of life and health care compliance. Surveys were distributed to attendees of the Mayo Clinic "Living with and Surviving Cancer" patient symposium January 2015. Follow-up survey was sent to participants 3 months after the symposium. Surveys included demographic data and patient-reported disease comprehension, symptom burden, desired information, and quality-of-life assessment. Demographics: 113 patients completed the pre-intervention survey. Average age was 64.7 years. Disease types included hematologic (N = 50) and solid malignancies (N = 77). Most patients self-reported adequate baseline understanding of their disease (80 %), screening tests (74 %), and monitoring tools (72 %). Lowest knowledge topics were legal issues (13 %) and pain management (35 %). Pre- and post-analysis: 79 of the initial 113 participants completed both surveys. In the post-symposium setting, durable knowledge impact was noted in disease understanding (pre 80 % vs post 92 %), treatment options (pre 60 % vs post 76 %), nutrition (pre 68 % vs post 84 %), and legal issues (pre 15 % vs post 32 %). Most patients desired increased understanding regarding disease, screening tests, nutrition, and stress and fatigue management. The level of desired information for these topics decreased in the post-symposium setting, statistically significant decrease noted in 4 of 5 topics assessed. Knowledge needs and deficit in cancer care range from disease-specific topics, social stressors, and health care navigation. A cancer patient-centered symposium can improve patient-reported knowledge deficit, with durable responses at 3 months, but patient needs persist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leslie Padrnos
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | | | - Heidi Kosiorek
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Amylou C Dueck
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Joseph Mikhael
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Raoul Tibes
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Nandita Khera
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Ruben A Mesa
- Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Hilal T, Covington M, Pockaj B, Northfelt D, Wu T, Zwart C, Li J, Patel BK. Abstract P4-02-03: Pre-neoadjuavnt therapy MRI phenotype can predict response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-p4-02-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) is increasingly used for the treatment of low and intermediate grade, hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer. Several MRI phenotypes that may predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have been identified, but little data exists for phenotypes associated with response to NET. This study analyzed imaging phenotypes for all patients treated with NET with the aim to identify specific features that can be predictive of response to therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was retrospective and included 21 patients with clinical stage I, II, and III breast cancer. The tumors were grade 1 or 2, estrogen receptor (ER) positive in >20% of cells, and HER2 non-amplified. MRI examinations were performed in all women before NET. MRI interpretation included mass shape, non-mass enhancement (NME) pattern, background parenchymal enhancement, and MRI phenotype (I well-defined unicentric mass; II well defined multilobulated mass; III area enhancement with nodularity; IV area enhancement without nodularity; V septal spreading). Type of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy included: tamoxifien alone, an aromatase inhibitor (AI) alone, AI + ovarian suppression, and AI + a non-chemotherapeutic agent. Patients received NET for a total duration ranging between 3 - 6 months, with one patient receiving therapy for 18 months. Clinically meaningful response was defined as stable or decreased tumor size by clinical exam and confirmed at resection by comparing final pathologic T stage with clinical T stage.
RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were identified. Median age was 62 (range 36-84) years. Most were post-menopausal 17 (81%). Pre-neoadjuvant meadian tumor size on MRI was 3.9 (range 1.0-7.5) cm and comprised T1 3 (14.3%), T2 8 (38.1%), T3/4 10 (47.6%). Pre-treatment N stage was N0 14 (66.7%), N1 7 (33.3%) and pre-NET stage was I in 3 (14.3%), II in 8 (38.1%), and III in 10 (47.6%) patients. The majority 17 (81%) had some tumor reduction, and 4 (19%) had no response. No one achieved a complete response. Of the 17 responders, 7 (41%) had a good response defined as >25% decrease in tumor size. Median tumor size after NET was 3.1 (range 0.6-11) cm and the distribution of T stage was T1 7 (33.3%), T2 9 (42.9%), and T3/4 5 (23.8%). Eleven of 12 (92%) patients with well-defined phenotypes had a response as compared to 6 of 9 (67%) patients with non-well defined phenotypes. Phenotype was not predictive of a good response to therapy, 4 were in the well-defined phenotype and 3 were in the non-well defined phenotype groups. All 4 non-responders had moderate or marked background enhancement as compared to 5 of 17 responders (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: A well-defined pre treatment MRI phenotype was significantly predictive of a positive response to NET, while a non well-defined MRI phenotype and higher degree of background enhancement was significantly predictive of negative response to NET. This warrants further prospective evaluation, especially in association with Ki-67 levels. If validated, pre treatment MRI phenotype can be applied in the clinical decision to either initiate NET or referral for upfront surgical resection.
Citation Format: Hilal T, Covington M, Pockaj B, Northfelt D, Wu T, Zwart C, Li J, Patel BK. Pre-neoadjuavnt therapy MRI phenotype can predict response to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-02-03.
Collapse
|
23
|
Hilal T, Covington M, Sugi M, Zhang N, Pockaj B, Northfelt D, Ocal IT, Patel BK. Abstract PD2-11: Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is comparable to MRI in the assessment of residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-pd2-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently, no study has assessed the performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) in evaluating tumor response in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST). This study aims to evaluate whether the accuracy of CESM is comparable to MRI in detection of residual breast cancer following NST.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of CESM cases at our institution between September 2014 and June 2016 identified patients who had both CESM and MRI pre- and post-NST with pathologic assessment after surgical management. Size of residual malignancy (if any) on post-neoadjuvant CESM and MRI was compared to surgical pathology (reference standard). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was documented and compared to Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) score for confirmation. Bland-Altman plots were used to visualize the differences between CESM/MRI and pathologic tumor size.
RESULTS: Forty female patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 52.3 years (range 35-73). Type of NST included: 34 (85%) chemotherapy and 6 (15%) endocrine therapy. Histological analysis showed invasive ductal carcinoma in 38 (95%), the remaining cases consisted of one invasive lobular carcinoma, and one mixed invasive carcinoma. Mean tumor size after NST was 10.3 mm (range 0-75 mm) for CESM and 9.7 mm (range 0-60 mm) for MRI compared to 15.7 mm (range 0-100 mm) on final surgical pathology. Equivalence tests demonstrated that the mean tumor size measured by CESM or by MRI is equivalent to the mean tumor size measured by pathology within -1 and 1 cm range (p=0.0132 for CESM and p=0.0194 for MRI).
Difference in Measurement Post-NST Compared to Pathology Path Tumor Size (mm)CESM Tumor Size (mm)MRI Tumor Size (mm)Mean (SD)15.7 (24.5)10.3 (18.9)9.7 (16.3)Difference Compared with Path (SD); P value -5.4 (12.6); 0.0132-6.0 (11.7); 0.0194
A complete radiologic response was seen in 25 CESM and 22 MRI cases which was confirmed by pathology in 17 and 14, respectively. Alternatively, CESM and MRI demonstrated residual disease in 15 patients and 18 patients respectively and this was confirmed on pathology in 15 and 15, respectively.
Accuracy of CESM vs. MRIModalityResidual Disease by Pathology (N=23)Complete Response by Pathology (N=17)SensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVResidual Disease by CESM (N=15)150Complete Response by CESM (N=25)81765.2%100%100%68%Residual Disease by MRI (N=18)153Complete Response by MRI (N=22)81465.2%82.4%83.3%63.6%
All patients who achieved a pCR had an RCB score of 0 indicating no residual cancer in lymph nodes. Among patients with residual disease, their mean RCB score was 2.6 (range 0.8-4.18).
CONCLUSION: In this study, CESM was comparable to MRI in assessing residual malignancy after completion of NST, thereby offering a potentially faster and less expensive alternative to MRI for monitoring treatment response in the neoadjuvant setting.
Citation Format: Hilal T, Covington M, Sugi M, Zhang N, Pockaj B, Northfelt D, Ocal IT, Patel BK. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is comparable to MRI in the assessment of residual breast cancer following neoadjuvant systemic therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-11.
Collapse
|
24
|
Ma CX, Suman V, Goetz MP, Northfelt D, Burkard ME, Ademuyiwa F, Naughton M, Margenthaler J, Aft R, Gray R, Tevaarwerk A, Wilke L, Haddad T, Moynihan T, Loprinzi C, Hieken T, Barnell EK, Skidmore ZL, Feng YY, Krysiak K, Hoog J, Guo Z, Nehring L, Wisinski KB, Mardis E, Hagemann IS, Vij K, Sanati S, Al-Kateb H, Griffith OL, Griffith M, Doyle L, Erlichman C, Ellis MJ. A Phase II Trial of Neoadjuvant MK-2206, an AKT Inhibitor, with Anastrozole in Clinical Stage II or III PIK3CA-Mutant ER-Positive and HER2-Negative Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23:6823-6832. [PMID: 28874413 PMCID: PMC6392430 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-1260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2017] [Revised: 07/25/2017] [Accepted: 08/30/2017] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
Purpose: Hyperactivation of AKT is common and associated with endocrine resistance in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. The allosteric pan-AKT inhibitor MK-2206 induced apoptosis in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer under estrogen-deprived condition in preclinical studies. This neoadjuvant phase II trial was therefore conducted to test the hypothesis that adding MK-2206 to anastrozole induces pathologic complete response (pCR) in PIK3CA mutant ER+ breast cancer.Experimental Design: Potential eligible patients with clinical stage II/III ER+/HER2- breast cancer were preregistered and received anastrozole (goserelin if premenopausal) for 28 days in cycle 0 pending tumor PIK3CA sequencing. Patients positive for PIK3CA mutation in the tumor were eligible to start MK-2206 (150 mg orally weekly, with prophylactic prednisone) on cycle 1 day 2 (C1D2) and to receive a maximum of four 28-day cycles of combination therapy before surgery. Serial biopsies were collected at preregistration, C1D1 and C1D17.Results: Fifty-one patients preregistered and 16 of 22 with PIK3CA-mutant tumors received study drug. Three patients went off study due to C1D17 Ki67 >10% (n = 2) and toxicity (n = 1). Thirteen patients completed neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery. No pCRs were observed. Rash was common. MK-2206 did not further suppress cell proliferation and did not induce apoptosis on C1D17 biopsies. Although AKT phosphorylation was reduced, PRAS40 phosphorylation at C1D17 after MK-2206 persisted. One patient acquired an ESR1 mutation at surgery.Conclusions: MK-2206 is unlikely to add to the efficacy of anastrozole alone in PIK3CA-mutant ER+ breast cancer and should not be studied further in the target patient population. Clin Cancer Res; 23(22); 6823-32. ©2017 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia X Ma
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Vera Suman
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Mark E Burkard
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Foluso Ademuyiwa
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Michael Naughton
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Julie Margenthaler
- Section of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Rebecca Aft
- Section of Endocrine and Oncologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Richard Gray
- Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Amye Tevaarwerk
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Lee Wilke
- Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Tufia Haddad
- Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | - Tina Hieken
- Department of General Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Erica K Barnell
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Zachary L Skidmore
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Yan-Yang Feng
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kilannin Krysiak
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Jeremy Hoog
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Zhanfang Guo
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Leslie Nehring
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kari B Wisinski
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Elaine Mardis
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Ian S Hagemann
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Kiran Vij
- Division of Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Souzan Sanati
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Hussam Al-Kateb
- Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Obi L Griffith
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Malachi Griffith
- Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- McDonnell Genome Institute, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
- Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Laurence Doyle
- Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, NCI, Bethesda, Maryland
| | | | - Matthew J Ellis
- Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Wolf J, Lourenco A, Alpers J, Rohatgi N, Constantini C, Hollingsworth A, Grobmyer S, Pederson H, Haythem A, Polen W, Northfelt D, Morris M, Baker K, Ghosh K, Kass F, Arterbery E, Yang R, Tran Q, Letsios E, Mulpuri R, Reese DE. Abstract P1-02-08: Provista-002: A prospective, multi-center study to determine the effectiveness of a biomarker assay to distinguish benign from invasive breast cancer in women with BI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 imaging reports. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-p1-02-08] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
This abstract was not presented at the symposium.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Wolf
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - A Lourenco
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - J Alpers
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - N Rohatgi
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - C Constantini
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - A Hollingsworth
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - S Grobmyer
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - H Pederson
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - A Haythem
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - W Polen
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - D Northfelt
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - M Morris
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - K Baker
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - K Ghosh
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - F Kass
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - E Arterbery
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - R Yang
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - Q Tran
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - E Letsios
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - R Mulpuri
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| | - DE Reese
- Rhode Island Hospital; Avera Cancer Institute; Sutter Institute; Scripps; Provista Diagnostics; Mercy Women's Hospital; Cleveland Clinic; Henry Ford Health System; Summit Medical Group New Jersey; Mayo Clinic; Banner Research Institute; St. Joseph's Hospital; Sansum Clinic; St. Mary's of Michigan; Lahey Clinic
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Knutson KL, Clynes R, Shreeder B, Yeramian P, Kemp KP, Ballman K, Tenner KS, Erskine CL, Norton N, Northfelt D, Tan W, Calfa C, Pegram M, Mittendorf EA, Perez EA. Improved Survival of HER2+ Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Trastuzumab and Chemotherapy Is Associated with Host Antibody Immunity against the HER2 Intracellular Domain. Cancer Res 2016; 76:3702-10. [PMID: 27197192 DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-3091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2015] [Accepted: 04/06/2016] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
The addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy extends survival among patients with HER2(+) breast cancer. Prior work showed that trastuzumab and chemotherapy augments HER2 extracellular domain (ECD)-specific antibodies. The current study investigated whether combination therapy induced immune responses beyond HER2-ECD and, importantly, whether those immune responses were associated with survival. Pretreatment and posttreatment sera were obtained from 48 women with metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer on NCCTG (now Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology) studies, N0337 and N983252. IgG to HER2 intracellular domain (ICD), HER2-ECD, p53, IGFBP2, CEA, and tetanus toxoid were examined. Sera from 25 age-matched controls and 26 surgically resected HER2(+) patients were also examined. Prior to therapy, some patients with metastatic disease had elevated antibodies to IGFBP2, p53, HER2-ICD, HER2-ECD, and CEA, but not to tetanus toxin, relative to controls and surgically resected patients. Treatment augmented antibody responses to HER2-ICD in 69% of metastatic patients, which was highly associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.5, P = 0.0042) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.7, P = 0.038). Augmented antibody responses to HER2-ICD also correlated (P = 0.03) with increased antibody responses to CEA, IGFBP2, and p53, indicating that treatment induces epitope spreading. Paradoxically, patients who already had high preexisting immunity to HER2-ICD did not respond to therapy with increased antibodies to HER2-ICD and demonstrated poorer PFS (HR = 1.6, P < 0.0001) and OS (HR = 1.4, P = 0.0006). Overall, the findings further demonstrate the importance of the adaptive immune system in the efficacy of trastuzumab-containing regimens. Cancer Res; 76(13); 3702-10. ©2016 AACR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keith L Knutson
- Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida.
| | - Raphael Clynes
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Barath Shreeder
- Department of Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Patrick Yeramian
- Cancer Vaccines and Immune Therapies Program, Center for Diseases of Aging, Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute of Florida, Port St. Lucie, Florida
| | - Kathleen P Kemp
- Cancer Vaccines and Immune Therapies Program, Center for Diseases of Aging, Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute of Florida, Port St. Lucie, Florida
| | - Karla Ballman
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kathleen S Tenner
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - Nadine Norton
- Department of Cancer Biology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Winston Tan
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | | | | | - Elizabeth A Mittendorf
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Edith A Perez
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Ma CX, Gao F, Northfelt D, Goetz M, Forero A, Naughton M, Ademuyiwa F, Suresh R, Anderson KS, Margenthaler J, Aft R, Hobday T, Moynihan T, Gillanders W, Cyr A, Eberlein TJ, Hieken T, Krontiras H, Hoog J, Han J, Guo Z, Vij K, Mardis E, Al-Kateb H, Sanati S, Ellis MJ. Abstract S6-05: A phase II trial of neoadjuvant palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor, in combination with anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 estrogen receptor positive HER2 negative (ER+HER2-) breast cancer (BC). Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-s6-05] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
ER+ BC is associated with activated CDK4/6. The CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (P) markedly improves time to progression in advanced ER+HER2- BC. We conducted a neoadjuvant phase II trial to determine the activity of P in primary breast cancer as a prelude to adjuvant studies.
Methods
To assess molecular changes induced by anastrozole (A) or P+A, patients (pts) were treated initially with A alone (1mg PO daily) for 28 days in cycle 0 (C0) before the addition of P (125mg PO daily on D1-21 each cycle) on C1D1. P+A was administered for 4 28-day cycles followed by C5 with A alone for 2-4 weeks (wks) before surgery. P was added in C5 for 10-12 days immediately prior to surgery in the last 20 pts enrolled to assess molecular changes induced by A, either alone or in combination with P immediately prior to surgery, in resected tumor. Goserelin was added in premenopausal pts.
Research tumor biopsies were obtained at baseline, C1D1, and C1D15. Central Ki67 analysis was performed at all timepoints, those with Ki67 >10% at C1D15 went off study treatment.
The primary endpoint was complete cell cycle arrest (CCA), defined as Ki67 <2.7%, at C1D15. Patient stratification was based on PIK3CA mutation status with an initial focus on PIK3CA wild type (WT) disease. Pts with PIK3CA mutant (Mut) tumors enrolled to a separate cohort. A sample size of 33 pts in the PIK3CA WT cohort was chosen based on the Fleming's single-stage phase II design to test the hypothesis that P+A leads to > 50% improvement over A in CCA rate on C1D15 biopsy (44% with A alone based on historical data, vs 66% with P+A, power = 0.8, alpha=0.05). The primary endpoint is met if >20 pts achieved CCA in this cohort.
Correlative endpoints included assessment of markers of proliferation, apoptosis, senescence, Rb, gene expression microarray, intrinsic subtype, and next generation sequencing of 83-gene panels, which will be reported at the meeting.
Results
Between 4/23/2013 and 4/24/2015, 50 pts (33 PIK3CA WT, 11 PIK3CA Mut, 2 pending, 4 tissue quantity or quality not sufficient for sequencing (QNS)) were enrolled to the study. Median age was 57.5 (range: 34.1–79.6) years. Four pts, all with WT PIK3CA, went off study due to Ki67 >10% on C1D15 biopsy, 26 pts completed treatment and surgery, 1 refused surgery, 3 withdrew study treatment in C1, and 16 continued to receive study drug (2 in C0, 3 in C1, 4 in C2, 5 in C3, 1 in C4, and 1 in C5). Among the 40 pts currently evaluable for the primary endpoint (C1D15 Ki67), CCA occurred in 34 (85%) pts, including 9 of 9 (100%) PIK3CA Mut, 22 of 28 (78.5%) WT, and 3 of 3 QNS pts. Preliminary analysis of available data indicated a significantly lower Ki67 value after 2 wks of P+A (C1D15) compared to that on A alone (C1D1) (p=0.034, n=18).
Conclusion
This study met the primary endpoint demonstrating that P+A is a highly effective anti-proliferative combination. The sequential biopsy design clearly demonstrated that P+A increased cell cycle control over A alone. P+A was effective regardless of PIK3CA mutation status and these results support the evaluation of this combination in the adjuvant setting for ER+HER2- BC.
Citation Format: Ma CX, Gao F, Northfelt D, Goetz M, Forero A, Naughton M, Ademuyiwa F, Suresh R, Anderson KS, Margenthaler J, Aft R, Hobday T, Moynihan T, Gillanders W, Cyr A, Eberlein TJ, Hieken T, Krontiras H, Hoog J, Han J, Guo Z, Vij K, Mardis E, Al-Kateb H, Sanati S, Ellis MJ. A phase II trial of neoadjuvant palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitor, in combination with anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 estrogen receptor positive HER2 negative (ER+HER2-) breast cancer (BC). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-05.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- CX Ma
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - F Gao
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - D Northfelt
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - M Goetz
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - A Forero
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - M Naughton
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - F Ademuyiwa
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - R Suresh
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - KS Anderson
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Margenthaler
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - R Aft
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Hobday
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Moynihan
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - W Gillanders
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - A Cyr
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - TJ Eberlein
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Hieken
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - H Krontiras
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Hoog
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Han
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - Z Guo
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - K Vij
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - E Mardis
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - H Al-Kateb
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - S Sanati
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - MJ Ellis
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Sachdev JC, Ramanathan RK, Raghunand N, Anders C, Munster P, Minton S, Northfelt D, Blanchette S, Campbell K, Lee H, Klinz SG, Hendriks BS, Moyo V, Fitzgerald JB, Korn RL. Abstract OT3-02-14: A phase 1 study in patients with metastatic breast cancer to evaluate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging with ferrumoxytol as a potential biomarker for response to treatment with nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI, MM-398). Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-ot3-02-14] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Nal-IRI (MM-398, nanoliposomal irinotecan) is designed for extended circulation relative to free irinotecan and to exploit leaky tumor vasculature for enhanced drug delivery to tumors. Tumor deposition of nal-IRI and subsequent conversion to SN-38 in both neoplastic cells and tumor associated macrophages (TAM) may positively correlate with response to therapy. In phase I studies of nal-IRI, activity has been shown in metastatic breast cancer (MBC), pancreatic and colorectal cancer. Ferumoxytol (FMX) is an iron-oxide superparamagnetic nanoparticle that has been used off-label for its MRI contrast properties. FMX has long-circulating pharmacokinetics and is taken up by TAMs with similar distribution patterns to nal-IRI in preclinical models. A single site pilot study established the feasibility of performing quantitative FMX MRI. Thirteen patients with advanced cancer (3 with ER/PR+ MBC) were imaged with FMX MRI and treated with nal-IRI. Median tumor lesion FMX uptake in the pilot study was 32.6 and 34.5 μg/mL at 1 h and 24 h, respectively. Lesions with FMX uptake above the median were associated with greater reductions in tumor size following treatment with nal-IRI as determined by CT lesion measurements. The relationship between FMX levels in tumor lesions and nal-IRI activity may serve as a potential biomarker for nal-IRI deposition and response in solid tumors. This study has been expanded to include additional MBC patients to further evaluate the technical feasibility of FMX MRI at multiple study sites, and to evaluate activity of nal-IRI in patients with MBC.
Trial Design: Three cohorts of 10 patients with MBC in the following categories will be enrolled: ER and/or PR positive/HER2-negative, triple negative (TNBC) and MBC with brain metastases. An imaging phase will be followed by a treatment phase. The imaging phase consists of a baseline MRI scan, FMX infusion, and follow-up MRI scans at 1-4 and 24 h after infusion. The treatment phase begins 1-6 days after imaging and consists of nal-IRI 80 mg/m2 q2w. A pretreatment biopsy is required for correlative studies.
Study Objectives: The primary objective of this multisite expansion is to investigate the feasibility of FMX quantitation in tumor lesions at multiple lesion sites in breast cancer. The secondary objective is to characterize the efficacy of nal-IRI in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Eligibility Criteria: The key inclusion criteria include patients with MBC, ECOG 0 or 1 with adequate bone marrow reserve and no prior topoisomerase 1 inhibitor or anti-VEGF treatment. ER and/or PR positive/HER2-negative and TNBC patients must have had 1-3 prior lines of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting and have at least 2 measurable lesions. Patients with brain metastasis must be neurologically stable and have new or progressive brain metastases after prior radiation therapy with at least one lesion measuring ≥ 1 cm in longest diameter on gadolinium-enhanced MRI.
Status: This trial is currently recruiting patients.
Citation Format: Sachdev JC, Ramanathan RK, Raghunand N, Anders C, Munster P, Minton S, Northfelt D, Blanchette S, Campbell K, Lee H, Klinz SG, Hendriks BS, Moyo V, Fitzgerald JB, Korn RL. A phase 1 study in patients with metastatic breast cancer to evaluate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging with ferrumoxytol as a potential biomarker for response to treatment with nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI, MM-398). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-02-14.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JC Sachdev
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - RK Ramanathan
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - N Raghunand
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - C Anders
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - P Munster
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - S Minton
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - D Northfelt
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - S Blanchette
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - K Campbell
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - H Lee
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - SG Klinz
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - BS Hendriks
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - V Moyo
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - JB Fitzgerald
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| | - RL Korn
- Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Moffitt Cancer Center; University of North Carolina Lineberger Cancer Center; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Imaging Endpoints
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Ma CX, Suman VJ, Goetz M, Northfelt D, Burkard M, Ademuyiwa F, Naughton M, Margenthaler J, Aft R, Gray R, Tavaarwerk A, Wilke L, Haddad T, Moynihan T, Loprinzi C, Hieken T, Hoog J, Guo Z, Han J, Vij K, Mardis E, Sanati S, Al-Kateb H, Doyle L, Erlichman C, Ellis MJ. Abstract P5-13-04: A phase II neoadjuvant trial of MK-2206, an AKT inhibitor, in combination with anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 PIK3CA mutant estrogen receptor positive HER2 negative (ER+HER2-) breast cancer (BC). Cancer Res 2016. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs15-p5-13-04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Activating mutations in PIK3CA occur in approximately 40% ER+BC. MK-2206 (M), a pan-AKT inhibitor, induced apoptosis of ER+ BC under estrogen deprivation in preclinical studies. We conducted this neoadjuvant trial to determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate of M plus anastrozole (A) for PIK3CA mutant (Mut) ER+ BC.
Methods
This single arm open label study of M+A used a 2-stage Simon phase II design (stage 1, n=16; stage 2, n=13, alpha=0.10, power=0.90) to test whether pCR rate <1% (based on historical data with A alone), against the alternative that pCR rate ≥15% in PIK3CA Mut ER+ BC. At least 1 pCR in stage 1 was required to proceed to stage 2.
Eligible patients (pts) with clinical stage II or III ER+HER2- BC were pre-registered and proceeded to a research tumor biopsy for PIK3CA sequencing, followed by treatment with daily A monotherapy for 28 days (cycle 0). Pts with PIK3CA Mut BC were subsequently registered, underwent a second biopsy, and started M (150mg PO weekly) with daily A on cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) for a maximum of four 28-day cycles followed by surgery. Goserelin was added for premenopausal pts. A tumor biopsy on C1D17, 17 days post the start of M, was performed. Those with C1D17 Ki67 >10% discontinued study treatment. pCR was defined as no invasive cancer in the breast and the lymph nodes. Tumor specimens collected at all timepoints are being analyzed for markers of proliferation, apoptosis, and PI3K pathway activity, gene expression microarray, intrinsic subtypes, and next generation sequencing of 83 genes.
Results
Of the 51 pts pre-registered, 35 pts did not register due to no PIK3CA mutation (n=22), inadequate specimen for testing (n=6), physician/pt decision (n=7). The remaining 16 pts (median age: 58, range: 40-77 years) received combination therapy. Three pts did not complete 4 cycles due to C1D17 Ki67 >10% (n=2) and intolerability (grade (Gr) 4 transaminase elevation in C1, n=1). Other severe toxicities possibly related to M included Gr 3 rash (25%) and pruritus (12.5%). Of the 13 pts completed study therapy and underwent surgery, all had residual disease in the breast and 7 also had positive nodes. Table 1 summarized changes in Ki67 during treatment.
ComparisonsnAbsolute changes in Ki67 median (range)Wilcoxon signed rank p-valueC1D1 relative to pre-registration11-17.0% (-49.8 to 4.1%)0.0020C1D17 relative to pre-registration14-16.4% (-51.4 to 4.1%)0.0004C1D17 relative to C1D112-1.5% (-18.6 to 15.8%)0.9697C1D1, biopsy post 28 days of A alone; C1D17 biopsy post 17 days on combination therapy
Although Ki67 levels post A monotherapy (C1D1) or M+A (C1D17) were significantly lower than that of pre-registration samples, Ki67 did not differ between C1D17 and C1D1 samples. Other correlative studies are ongoing and results will be presented.
Conclusion
Despite the small sample size, biomarker analysis on serial biopsy specimens demonstrated that M+A is unlikely to be more effective than A alone in PIK3CA Mut ER+ BC. This trial demonstrated the feasibility of genomic sequencing for pt selection and the value of a small, well-designed proof-of-principle neoadjuvant trial for the evaluation of targeted agents.
Citation Format: Ma CX, Suman VJ, Goetz M, Northfelt D, Burkard M, Ademuyiwa F, Naughton M, Margenthaler J, Aft R, Gray R, Tavaarwerk A, Wilke L, Haddad T, Moynihan T, Loprinzi C, Hieken T, Hoog J, Guo Z, Han J, Vij K, Mardis E, Sanati S, Al-Kateb H, Doyle L, Erlichman C, Ellis MJ. A phase II neoadjuvant trial of MK-2206, an AKT inhibitor, in combination with anastrozole for clinical stage 2 or 3 PIK3CA mutant estrogen receptor positive HER2 negative (ER+HER2-) breast cancer (BC). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-04.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- CX Ma
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - VJ Suman
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - M Goetz
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - D Northfelt
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - M Burkard
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - F Ademuyiwa
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - M Naughton
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Margenthaler
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - R Aft
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - R Gray
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - A Tavaarwerk
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - L Wilke
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Haddad
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Moynihan
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - C Loprinzi
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - T Hieken
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Hoog
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - Z Guo
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - J Han
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - K Vij
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - E Mardis
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - S Sanati
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - H Al-Kateb
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - L Doyle
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - C Erlichman
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| | - MJ Ellis
- Washington University, Saint Louis, MO; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ; Universtiy of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Shiran A, Aly MFA, Hinojar R, Moustafa S, Mounir Agha HALA, Sanchis Ruiz L, Pilichowska E, Sarvari SI, Blondheim DS, Shimoni S, Jabaren M, Rosenmann D, Sagie A, Leibowitz D, Leitman M, Feinberg M, Liel-Cohen N, Kleijn SAK, Van Lenthe JHV, Menken-Negroiu RFM, Robbers LFR, Beek AMB, Kamp OK, Fernandez-Golfin C, Gonzalez-Gomez A, Casas Rojo E, Megias A, Esteban A, Segura De La Cal T, Rincon LM, Moya-Mur JL, Zamorano JL, Murphy K, Nelluri BK, Northfelt D, Shah P, Lee H, Wilansky S, Naqvi T, Meyer S, Mookadam F, Shalaby LOBNA, Attia WAEL, Abd El Mohsen GASER, Abd El Aziz OSSAMA, Abd El Rahman MOH, Andrea R, Falces C, Lopez-Sobrino T, Bijnens B, Sitges M, Baran J, Stec S, Kulakowski P, Zaborska B, Haugaa KH, Stokke TM, Ansari HZ, Leren IS, Hegbom F, Smiseth OA, Edvardsen T. Rapid Fire Abstract session: clinical applications of speckle tracking and tissue Doppler imaging881Two-dimensional strain for diagnosing chest pain in the emergency room (2DSPER): A multicenter prospective study882Comparison between three-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance for the prediction of prognosis in heart failure patients883Global myocardial mechanics with 2 Dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance feature tracking. Relations to hypertrophy and fibrosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy884Temporal trends of ventricular function with trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor II positive breast cancer patients885Early right ventricular dysfunction after Anthracycline chemotherapy in children; tissue Doppler imaging and 2-D speckle tracking echocardiography study886Prognostic value of left atrial strain in ambulatory patients with heart failure onset887Left atrial function and wall properties are better than volume in predicting the outcome after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation888Prediction of atrial fibrillation recurrence by strain echocardiographic assessment of left atrial function. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015. [DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jev266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
|
31
|
Moustafa S, Murphy K, Nelluri BK, Northfelt D, Shah P, Lee H, Wilansky S, Naqvi TZ, Meyer S, Mookadam F. Temporal Trends of Cardiac Chambers Function with Trastuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor II-Positive Breast Cancer Patients. Echocardiography 2015; 33:406-15. [DOI: 10.1111/echo.13087] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Sherif Moustafa
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Katie Murphy
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Bhargava K. Nelluri
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology/Oncology; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Parth Shah
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Howard Lee
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Susan Wilansky
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Tasneem Z. Naqvi
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Susan Meyer
- Division of Hematology/Oncology; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| | - Farouk Mookadam
- Division of Cardiovascular Diseases; Department of Medicine; Mayo Clinic Arizona; Scottsdale Arizona
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wolf DM, Yau C, Sanil A, Chien J, Wallace A, DeMichele A, Kaplan H, Yee D, Isaacs C, Albain K, Viscuzi R, Boughey J, Moulder S, Chui S, Khan Q, Styblo T, Edmiston K, Northfelt D, Elias A, Haley B, Tripathy D, Brown-Swigart L, Flynn S, Hirst G, Buxton M, Hylton N, Paoloni M, Symmans F, Esserman L, Berry D, Rugo H, Olopade OI, van 't Veer L. Abstract P3-06-25: MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to veliparib/carboplatin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Cancer Res 2015. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p3-06-25] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and Her2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. HER2- patients were randomized to receive standard chemotherapy or the oral PARP inhibitor veliparib in combination with carboplatin (V/C) and chemotherapy. V/C graduated in the triple-negative (TN) signature, where MP2 was not an eligible signature for graduation. Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of response to V/C.
Methods:115 HER2- patients (V/C: 71 and concurrent controls: 44) were considered in this analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the V/C and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate. To assess MP1/MP2 in the context of the graduating signature, we added the MP2 patients to the graduating TN subset and evaluated the treatment effect in this ‘biomarker-positive’ group. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). This analysis does not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study.
Results: In the V/C arm vs. concurrent controls, there were 66 MP1 (V/C: 32, Control: 34) and 49 MP2 patients (V/C: 39, Control: 10), 78% of which are TN. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1.
V/C (n=71)Control (n=44)MP1 (n=32)MP2 (n=39)MP1 (n=34)MP2 (n=10)TN (n=59)3 / 819 / 303 / 132 / 8HR+HER2- (n=56)1 / 244 / 94 / 210 / 2
The OR between MP1/MP2 risk groups for predicting pCR is 9.71 in the V/C arm (p=6.63E-05), in comparison to an OR of 0.97 in the control arm (p=1). There is a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (p=0.023), which remains upon adjusting for HR status (p= 0.028). Based on the I-SPY 2 Bayesian model, a Phase III trial with 300 MP2 patients has a 95% predictive probability of success. When the MP2 patients are added to the graduating TN subset, the OR associated with V/C is 4.36, which is comparable to that of the TN signature (OR: 4.29), while increasing the prevalence of biomarker-positive patients by ∼10%.
Conclusion: In our exploratory analysis, MP2 suggests higher sensitivity to V/C combination therapy relative to controls. This observation has prompted an investigation into the biological mechanisms distinguishing the MP1/MP2 subtype that may account for this specificity.
Citation Format: Denise M Wolf, Christina Yau, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Angela DeMichele, Hank Kaplan, Doug Yee, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Rebecca Viscuzi, Judy Boughey, Stacey Moulder, Steven Chui, Qamar Khan, Toncred Styblo, Kirsten Edmiston, Donald Northfelt, Anthony Elias, Barbara Haley, Debu Tripathy, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Hope Rugo, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to veliparib/carboplatin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-25.
Collapse
|
33
|
Yau C, Wolf DM, Sanil A, Chien J, Wallace A, Boughey J, Yee D, Tripathy D, DeMichele A, Nanda R, Chiu S, Isaacs C, Albain K, Kaplan H, Moulder S, Viscusi R, Northfelt D, Edmiston K, Elias A, Styblo T, Haley B, Brown-Swigart L, Flynn S, Hirst GL, Buxton M, Hylton N, Paoloni M, Symmans WF, Esserman L, Berry D, Liu MC, Park JW, van 't Veer L. Abstract P3-06-29: MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Cancer Res 2015. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p3-06-29] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Further stratification of the 70-gene MammaPrintTM signature into ‘high’ and ‘ultra-high’ risk groups may help predict chemo-sensitivity. In I-SPY 2, patients were classified as MammaPrint High1 (MP1) or MammaPrint (ultra) High2 (MP2), with MP2 defined as MP_score <-0.154. MP1/MP2 classification was added to HR and HER2 to define the cancer subtypes used in the I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization engine. Neratinib (N), one of the experimental agents evaluated in I-SPY 2, graduated in the HR-HER2+ signature. All patients received at least standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide; T->AC). HER2- patients were randomized to receive N+T- >AC vs. T->AC. For HER2+ patients, neratinib was administered in place of trastuzumab (N+T->AC vs. H+T->AC). Here, we assess the performance of MP1/MP2 class as a specific biomarker of neratinib response.
Methods: 115 patients in the neratinib arm and 76 concurrently randomized controls had Agilent 44K microarrays and pCR data available for analysis. We assess association between MP1/MP2 and response in the neratinib and control arms alone using Fisher’s exact test, and relative performance between arms (biomarker x treatment interaction, likelihood ratio p < 0.05) using a logistic model. This analysis is also performed adjusting for HR status as a covariate, and in receptor subsets. Our study is exploratory with no claims for generalizability of the data. Statistical calculations are descriptive (e.g. p-values are measures of distance with no inferential content). Our analyses do not adjust for multiplicities of other biomarkers in the trial but outside this study.
Results: There are 133 MP1 patients (neratinib: 74, Control: 59) and 58 MP2 patients (neratinib: 41, Control: 17), 84% (49) of which are Her2-. The distribution of pCR rates among MP1/MP2 dichotomized groups are summarized in Table 1.
Neratinib (n=115)Control (n=76)MP1 (n=74)MP2 (n=41)MP1 (n=59)MP2 (n=17)HER2- (n=105)0 / 1715 / 337 / 395 / 16HER2+ (n=86)22 / 574 / 85 / 200 / 1
MP2, one of the 10 eligible signatures, did not meet the graduation threshold; and MP1/MP2 did not show a significant biomarker x treatment interaction (OR in neratinib relative to control arm = 1.25). The MP1/MP2 x treatment interaction remains non-significant after adjustment for HR and HER2 status (p=0.54). In HER2- patients receiving neratinib, 45% (15/33) of MP2 patients achieved a pCR, compared to 0% (0/17) of MP1 patients. In the HER2- controls, there is a 31% pCR rate in MP2 (5/16) vs. 18% in MP1 (7/39) patients (OR=2.14). This difference in performance between treatment arms appears significant (p=0.041). 90% of HER2+ patients are MP1, thus MP1/MP2 status x treatment interaction within the HER2+ subtype cannot be evaluated.
Conclusion: Within the I-SPY 2 population as a whole, MP1/MP2 stratification does not appear to be a specific biomarker of response to neratinib relative to the control arm. The number of HER2- patients is small and precludes any definitive conclusion, but these data motivate further investigation of the biological mechanisms distinguishing MP1 from MP2 to better understand chemotherapy and/or neratanib responsiveness.
Citation Format: Christina Yau, Denise M Wolf, Ashish Sanil, Jo Chien, Anne Wallace, Judy Boughey, Doug Yee, Debu Tripathy, Angela DeMichele, Rita Nanda, Steven Chiu, Claudine Isaacs, Kathy Albain, Hank Kaplan, Stacey Moulder, Rebecca Viscusi, Donald Northfelt, Kirsten Edmiston, Anthony Elias, Toncred Styblo, Barbara Haley, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Susan Flynn, Gillian L Hirst, Meredith Buxton, Nola Hylton, Melissa Paoloni, W Fraser Symmans, Laura Esserman, Don Berry, Minetta C Liu, John W Park, Laura van 't Veer. MammaPrint High1/High2 risk class as a biomarker of response to neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-29.
Collapse
|
34
|
Padrnos L, Dueck AC, Scherber R, Glassley P, Stigge R, Northfelt D, Mikhael J, Aguirre A, Bennett RM, Mesa RA. Quality of life and disease understanding: impact of attending a patient-centered cancer symposium. Cancer Med 2015; 4:800-7. [PMID: 25641947 PMCID: PMC4472202 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.422] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2014] [Revised: 12/12/2014] [Accepted: 12/16/2014] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of a patient-centered symposium as an educational intervention on a broad population of cancer patients. We developed a comprehensive patient symposium. Through voluntary questionnaires, we studied the impact of this cancer symposium on quality of life, cancer-specific knowledge, and symptom management among cancer patients. Symposium attendees were provided surveys prior to and 3 months following the educational intervention. Surveys included (1) EORTC-QLQ-C30; (2) disease understanding tool developed for this conference; (3) validated disease-specific questionnaires. Changes over time were assessed using McNemar's tests and paired t-tests for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A total of 158 attendees completed the pre-convention survey. Most respondents reported at least “quite a bit” of understanding regarding treatment options, screening modalities, symptomatology, and cancer-related side effects. Attendees endorsed the least understanding of disease-related stress, risk factors, fatigue management, and legal issues related to disease/treatment. At 3 months, there was improvement in understanding (12 of 14 areas of self-reported knowledge especially regarding nutrition, and stress/fatigue management). However, no significant change was seen in QLQ-C30 functioning, fatigue, pain, or insomnia. A patient symposium, as an educational intervention improves a solid knowledge base amongst attendees regarding their disease, increases knowledge in symptom management, but may be insufficient to impact QoL as a single intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leslie Padrnos
- Internal Medicine Residency Program, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Amylou C Dueck
- Division of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Robyn Scherber
- Internal Medicine Residency Program, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Pamela Glassley
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Rachel Stigge
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Donald Northfelt
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Joseph Mikhael
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | - Annette Aguirre
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| | | | - Ruben A Mesa
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Dietsch G, Northfelt D, Ramanathan R, Cohen P, Manjarrez K, Newkirk M, Bryan JK, Hershberg R. Abstract 2540: Immune modulation by the TLR8 agonist VTX-2337; a comparison of the pharmacodynamic response in cancer patients and healthy volunteers. Cancer Res 2014. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2014-2540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Immunotherapy has proven to be a successful treatment approach for some cancer patients. One promising paradigm in immunotherapy is targeting pathogen-associated molecule pattern receptors (PAMPS) such as the toll-like receptors (TLRs) to activate the innate immune system and enhance the development of tumor-directed adaptive immune responses. However, an ongoing concern in the application of immunotherapeutics is the potential for the immune response in cancer patients to be less robust than in healthy individuals, due to the underlying advanced neoplastic disease or due to previous regimens of cytotoxic drugs. To address this concern in relation to the response to TLR8 stimulation, we compared the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship defined in a phase 1 clinical trial of the selective small molecule TLR8 agonist VTX-2337 in oncology patients to the response in healthy volunteers.
A phase 1 dose-escalation clinical trial (A101) in subjects with advanced solid tumors (n=33) demonstrated that plasma levels of multiple biomarkers of immune activation, including G-CSF, MCP-1, MIP1-β and TNFα, increased in a dose-dependent manner and correlated with increasing plasma levels of VTX-2337. The PK/PD relationship defined in the initial clinical trial was closely aligned with predictions from both in vitro assays and preclinical studies conducted in cynomolgus monkeys. A subsequent phase 1 trial (A105) was conducted as a single-center, open-label, two-period, randomized, crossover, phase 1 study in normal volunteers (n=10). The objective of this study was to compare the PK/PD profiles and local tolerance of two formulations of VTX-2337. In this study, the two preparations of VTX-2337 demonstrated comparable PK profiles and PD responses.
At comparable dose levels, the PK profile and overall exposure (AUC) to VTX-2337 was similar for oncology patients and healthy volunteers. VTX-2337 induced the same repertoire of circulating cytokines and chemokines, indicative of TLR8 activation, in both populations. The magnitude of the mediator response in oncology patients was also highly comparable to the response in healthy volunteers that received a similar dose. This comparison demonstrates that the immune system of cancer patients with advanced disease remains highly responsive to TLR8 activation by VTX-2337.
In summary, advanced neoplastic disease or a prior treatment history with cytotoxic agents that can negatively impact immune cell function did not appear to moderate the response to VTX-2337 based on the PK/PD relationship using predictive biomarkers.
Citation Format: Greg Dietsch, Donald Northfelt, Ramesh Ramanathan, Peter Cohen, Kristi Manjarrez, Mona Newkirk, James Kyle Bryan, Robert Hershberg. Immune modulation by the TLR8 agonist VTX-2337; a comparison of the pharmacodynamic response in cancer patients and healthy volunteers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 2540. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2540
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ramesh Ramanathan
- 3Virginia G. Piper Cancer Center at Scottsdale Healthcare/TGen, Scottsdale, AZ
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Park JW, Liu MC, Yee D, DeMichele A, Veer LV', Hylton N, Symmans F, Buxton MB, Chien AJ, Wallace A, Melisko M, Schwab R, Boughey J, Tripathy D, Kaplan H, Nanda R, Chui S, Albain KS, Moulder S, Elias A, Lang JE, Edminston K, Northfelt D, Euhus D, Khan Q, Lyandres J, Davis SE, Yau C, Sanil A, Esserman LJ, Berry DA. Abstract CT227: Neratinib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer: Efficacy results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. Clin Trials 2014. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2014-ct227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
|
37
|
Schneider BP, Li L, Shen F, Miller KD, Radovich M, O'Neill A, Gray RJ, Lane D, Flockhart DA, Jiang G, Wang Z, Lai D, Koller D, Pratt JH, Dang CT, Northfelt D, Perez EA, Shenkier T, Cobleigh M, Smith ML, Railey E, Partridge A, Gralow J, Sparano J, Davidson NE, Foroud T, Sledge GW. Genetic variant predicts bevacizumab-induced hypertension in ECOG-5103 and ECOG-2100. Br J Cancer 2014; 111:1241-8. [PMID: 25117820 PMCID: PMC4453857 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.430] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2014] [Revised: 06/26/2014] [Accepted: 07/08/2014] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bevacizumab has broad anti-tumour activity, but substantial risk of hypertension. No reliable markers are available for predicting bevacizumab-induced hypertension. METHODS A genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed in the phase III bevacizumab-based adjuvant breast cancer trial, ECOG-5103, to evaluate for an association between genotypes and hypertension. GWAS was conducted in those who had experienced systolic blood pressure (SBP) >160 mm Hg during therapy using binary analysis and a cumulative dose model for the total exposure of bevacizumab. Common toxicity criteria (CTC) grade 3-5 hypertension was also assessed. Candidate SNP validation was performed in the randomised phase III trial, ECOG-2100. RESULTS When using the phenotype of SBP>160 mm Hg, the most significant association in SV2C (rs6453204) approached and met genome-wide significance in the binary model (P=6.0 × 10(-8); OR=3.3) and in the cumulative dose model (P=4.7 × 10(-8); HR=2.2), respectively. Similar associations with rs6453204 were seen for CTC grade 3-5 hypertension but did not meet genome-wide significance. Validation study from ECOG-2100 demonstrated a statistically significant association between this SNP and grade 3/4 hypertension using the binary model (P-value=0.037; OR=2.4). CONCLUSIONS A genetic variant in SV2C predicted clinically relevant bevacizumab-induced hypertension in two independent, randomised phase III trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B P Schneider
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - L Li
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - F Shen
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - K D Miller
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - M Radovich
- Department of General Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - A O'Neill
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA
| | - R J Gray
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA
| | - D Lane
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - D A Flockhart
- Indiana Institute for Personalized Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - G Jiang
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - Z Wang
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - D Lai
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - D Koller
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - J H Pratt
- Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
| | - C T Dang
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - D Northfelt
- Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ 85054, USA
| | - E A Perez
- Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
| | - T Shenkier
- BCCA – Vancouver Cancer Center, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4E6, USA
| | - M Cobleigh
- Department of Internal Medicine , Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA
| | - M L Smith
- Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX 75093, USA
| | - E Railey
- Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX 75093, USA
| | - A Partridge
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA
| | - J Gralow
- University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
| | - J Sparano
- Department of Oncology, Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, USA
| | - N E Davidson
- Cancer Institute and University of Pittsburgh Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA
| | - T Foroud
- Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA
| | - G W Sledge
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Khera N, Chang YH, Slack J, Fauble V, Leis JF, Noel P, Sproat L, Palmer J, Adams R, Fitch T, Northfelt D, Guy M, Tilburt J, Mikhael J. Impact of race and ethnicity on outcomes and health care utilization after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Leuk Lymphoma 2014; 56:987-92. [PMID: 25012944 DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2014.941834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Disparities in outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) are reported mostly by registry studies. We examined the association of self-reported race and ethnicity with outcomes and health care utilization after allogeneic HCT in a single center study. Clinical and socioeconomic data of 296 adult patients who underwent allogeneic HCT from November 2003 to October 2012 were analyzed. Survival was compared between non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) and minority patients using Cox proportional hazards regression. Some 73% of patients were NHW and 27% were racial/ethnic minority patients. More minority patients were younger and had lower socioeconomic status. Both unadjusted and adjusted overall and progression-free survival were comparable between the two groups. High risk disease, poor performance score and Medicare/Tricare were significant predictors of mortality. Health care utilization was comparable between the two groups. Homogeneity of medical care for allogeneic HCT may help overcome racial/ethnic disparities, but not those due to patients' primary insurance.
Collapse
|
39
|
Haluska P, Menefee M, Plimack ER, Rosenberg J, Northfelt D, LaVallee T, Shi L, Yu XQ, Burke P, Huang J, Viner J, McDevitt J, LoRusso P. Phase I dose-escalation study of MEDI-573, a bispecific, antiligand monoclonal antibody against IGFI and IGFII, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:4747-57. [PMID: 25024259 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This phase I, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of MEDI-573 in adults with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy or for which no standard therapy exists. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Patients received MEDI-573 in 1 of 5 cohorts (0.5, 1.5, 5, 10, or 15 mg/kg) dosed weekly or 1 of 2 cohorts (30 or 45 mg/kg) dosed every 3 weeks. Primary end points included the MEDI-573 safety profile, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and optimal biologic dose (OBD). Secondary end points included MEDI-573 pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and antitumor activity. RESULTS In total, 43 patients (20 with urothelial cancer) received MEDI-573. No dose-limiting toxicities were identified, and only 1 patient experienced hyperglycemia related to treatment. Elevations in levels of insulin and/or growth hormone were not observed. Adverse events observed in >10% of patients included fatigue, anorexia, nausea, diarrhea, and anemia. PK evaluation demonstrated that levels of MEDI-573 increased with dose at all dose levels tested. At doses >5 mg/kg, circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGFII were fully suppressed. Of 39 patients evaluable for response, none experienced partial or complete response and 13 had stable disease as best response. CONCLUSIONS The MTD of MEDI-573 was not reached. The OBD was 5 mg/kg weekly or 30 or 45 mg/kg every 3 weeks. MEDI-573 showed preliminary antitumor activity in a heavily pretreated population and had a favorable tolerability profile, with no notable perturbations in metabolic homeostasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Li Shi
- MedImmune, Gaithersburg, Maryland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Dietsch G, Whiting S, Northfelt D, Ramanathan R, Cohen P, Manjarrez K, Newkirk M, Bryan J, Hershberg R. Comparison of immune modulation by TLR8 agonist vtx-2337 (motolimod) in cancer patients and healthy volunteers. J Immunother Cancer 2014. [PMCID: PMC4288547 DOI: 10.1186/2051-1426-2-s3-p165] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
41
|
Ansell S, Northfelt D, Flinn I, Burris H, Dinner S, Villalobos V, Sikic B, Pilja L, Yellin M, Keler T, Davis T. A phase I study of an agonist anti-CD27 human antibody (CDX-1127) in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies or solid tumors. J Immunother Cancer 2013. [PMCID: PMC3991290 DOI: 10.1186/2051-1426-1-s1-p259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
|
42
|
Burris H, Ansell S, Neumanitis J, Weiss G, Sikic B, Northfelt D, Pilja L, Davis T, Yellin M, Keler T, Bullock T. A phase I study of an agonist anti-CD27 human antibody (CDX-1127) in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies or solid tumors. J Immunother Cancer 2013. [PMCID: PMC3991281 DOI: 10.1186/2051-1426-1-s1-p127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
|
43
|
Tan WW, Dueck AC, Flynn P, Steen P, Anderson D, Rowland K, Northfelt D, Perez EA. N0539 phase II trial of fulvestrant and bevacizumab in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an aromatase inhibitor: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (now Alliance) trial. Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2548-2554. [PMID: 23798616 PMCID: PMC3784332 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt213] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2012] [Revised: 04/24/2013] [Accepted: 04/29/2013] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Based on preclinical studies, the vascular endothelial pathway is an important mechanism for estrogen receptor resistance. We conducted a phase II study of fulvestrant and bevacizumab in patients with aromatase inhibitor pretreated metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A single-stage phase II study was conducted with these objectives: 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response, toxic effect, and overall survival. Regimen: 250 mg fulvestrant days 1 and 15 (cycle 1) then day 1 (cycle 2 and beyond) and 10 mg/kg bevacizumab days 1 and 15 of each 4-week cycle. RESULTS At interim analysis, 20 eligible patients initiated treatment, 11 were progression free and on treatment at 3 months, not meeting the protocol-specified efficacy requirements (at least 12 of 20). Accrual remained open during interim analysis with 36 patients enrolling before final study closure. Among the 33 eligible patients, the median PFS was 6.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.6-10.1 months]. Of the 18 with measurable disease, 4 (22%) patients (95% CI 6% to 48%) had a confirmed tumor response (1 complete, 3 partial). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hypertension 3 (9%) and headache 3 (9%). CONCLUSIONS The fulvestrant/bevacizumab combination is safe and tolerable; however, it did not meet its statistical end point.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W W Tan
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville
| | - A C Dueck
- Section of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale
| | - P Flynn
- Metro Minnesota CCOP, St Louis Park
| | - P Steen
- Sanford Medical Center, Fargo
| | | | | | - D Northfelt
- Divison of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, USA
| | - E A Perez
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Schenk E, Hendrickson AEW, Northfelt D, Toft DO, Ames MM, Menefee M, Satele D, Qin R, Erlichman C. Phase I study of tanespimycin in combination with bortezomib in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Invest New Drugs 2013; 31:1251-6. [PMID: 23543109 DOI: 10.1007/s10637-013-9946-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2013] [Accepted: 03/01/2013] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and characterize the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) of tanespimycin when given in combination with bortezomib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Phase I dose-escalating trial using a standard cohort "3+3" design performed in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients were given tanespimycin and bortezomib twice weekly for 2 weeks in a 3 week cycle (days 1, 4, 8, 11 every 21 days). RESULTS Seventeen patients were enrolled in this study, fifteen were evaluable for toxicity, and nine patients were evaluable for tumor response. The MTD was 250 mg/m(2) of tanespimycin and 1.0 mg/m(2) of bortezomib when used in combination. DLTs of abdominal pain (13 %), complete atrioventricular block (7 %), fatigue (7 %), encephalopathy (7 %), anorexia (7 %), hyponatremia (7 %), hypoxia (7 %), and acidosis (7 %) were observed. There were no objective responses. One patient had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS The recommended phase II dose for twice weekly 17-AAG and PS341 are 250 mg/m(2) and 1.0 mg/m(2), respectively, on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21 day cycle.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin Schenk
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Gonda 19, 200 First Street, S.W, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Moreno-Aspitia A, Dueck AC, Ghanem-Cañete I, Patel T, Dakhil S, Johnson D, Franco S, Kahanic S, Colon-Otero G, Tenner KS, Rodeheffer R, McCullough AE, Jenkins RB, Palmieri FM, Northfelt D, Perez EA. RC0639: phase II study of paclitaxel, trastuzumab, and lapatinib as adjuvant therapy for early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138:427-35. [PMID: 23479422 PMCID: PMC3608861 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2469-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2013] [Accepted: 02/26/2013] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
Lapatinib adds to the efficacy of trastuzumab in preclinical models and also in the neo-adjuvant setting. This study assesses the safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to paclitaxel and trastuzumab (THL) as part of the adjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer (HER2+ BC). In this single-arm phase II study, patients with stages I–III HER2+ BC received standard anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by weekly taxane, with concurrent standard trastuzumab, plus daily lapatinib for a total of 12 months. The primary endpoint was symptomatic congestive heart failure, secondary endpoints included overall safety. A total of 109 eligible patients were enrolled. Median follow-up is 4.3 years. No patients experienced congestive heart failure while on treatment. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline and at the end of THL were 63.6 % (N = 109, SD = 5.7) and 59.8 % (N = 98, SD = 8.1), respectively [mean change −3.95 % (N = 98, SD = 8.3), p < 0.001]. One hundred and two patients initiated post-AC treatment; of them, 31 % experienced grade 3 (no G4) diarrhea with lapatinib at 750 mg/day. The addition of lapatinib to paclitaxel and trastuzumab following AC does not add cardiac toxicity. Lapatinib dose of 750 mg/day in combination with standard chemotherapy plus trastuzumab has acceptable overall tolerability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 4500 San Pablo Rd. S., Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Miller KD, O'Neill A, Dang C, Northfelt D, Gradishar W, Sledge GW. Abstract P5-17-01: Bevacizumab (B) in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer - first toxicity results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group trial E5103. Cancer Res 2012. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs12-p5-17-01] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: A previous feasibility trial (E2104 – Ann Oncol 23(2):331–7,2012) suggested incorporation of B into anthracycline-containing adjuvant therapy was feasible but ongoing cardiac monitoring was required to define the true impact of B on cardiac function.
Methods: Patients (pts) were assigned 1:2:2 to one of three treatment arms. In addition to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by weekly paclitaxel, patients received either placebo (Arm A – AC>T) or B during chemotherapy (Arm B - BAC>BT), or B during chemotherapy followed by B monotherapy (15 mg/kg q3wk) for an additional 10 cycles (Arm C – BAC>BT>B). Randomization was stratified and B dose adjusted for choice of AC schedule (classical q3wk − 15 mg/kg; dose dense(dd) q2 wk − 10 mg/kg). When indicated, radiation and hormonal therapy were administered concurrently with B (for Arm C pts). The primary cardiac endpoint was the incidence of clinically apparent cardiac dysfunction (CHF)defined as symptomatic decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to below the lower limit of normal (LLN) or symptomatic diastolic dysfunction as assessed by independent review. Cumulative toxicity data as of Jan 23, 2012 are presented.
Results: From 11.07 to 2.11, 4994 pts were enrolled. Median age was 52; 80% received ddAC. Chemotherapy associated toxicities including myelosuppression (Grade 4 neutropenia 16/20/19%) and neuropathy (Grade ≥ 3 8/8/8%) were similar across all arms. Grade ≥ 3 hypertension/thrombosis/proteinuria/hemorrhage was reported by 7/3/<1/<1% of B-treated pts. 99 pts developed CHF, most commonly reported at the post-AC or post-T evaluation. After a median follow-up of 26 months, the cumulative incidence of clinical CHF at 15 months from randomization in Arm A/B/C was 1.0/1.7/2.9% respectively. Median age of CHF pts was 57; median baseline LVEF of CHF pts was 60.
Conclusion: Incorporation of B into anthracycline and taxane containing adjuvant therapy results in a significant but small increase in clinical CHF. The rate of clinical CHF is similar to that predicted by E2104 (2.5–2.9%) and reported In the FDA label for anthracycline pre-treated pts(3.8%). No unexpected toxicities were encountered.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-17-01.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- KD Miller
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| | - A O'Neill
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| | - C Dang
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| | - D Northfelt
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| | - W Gradishar
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| | - GW Sledge
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center; Dana Farber Cancer Institute; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Mayo Clinic; Northwestern University
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Yee D, Haddad T, Albain K, Barker A, Benz C, Boughey J, Buxton M, Chien AJ, DeMichele A, Dilts D, Elias A, Haluska P, Hogarth M, Hu A, Hytlon N, Kaplan HG, Kelloff GG, Khan Q, Lang J, Leyland-Jones B, Liu M, Nanda R, Northfelt D, Olopade OI, Park J, Parker B, Parkinson D, Pearson-White S, Perlmutter J, Pusztai L, Symmans F, Rugo H, Tripathy D, Wallace A, Wholley D, Van't Veer L, Berry DA, Esserman L. Adaptive trials in the neoadjuvant setting: a model to safely tailor care while accelerating drug development. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:4584-6; author reply 4588-9. [PMID: 23169510 DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.44.1022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
48
|
Erlichman C, Fernandez-Zapico M, Borad M, Molina J, Grothey A, Pitot H, Jatoi A, Northfelt D, McWilliams R, Okuno S, Haluska P. Abstract 1807: Phase I trial of the combined targeting of the Hedgehog (GDC-0449) and EGFR pathways (erlotinib) in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 2010. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1807] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
We have demonstrated that crosstalk between the Hedgehog-GLI-GLI and EGFR signaling pathway exists and contribute to pancreatic tumorigenesis. This interaction can be abrogated by targeting both pathways simultaneously and results in a synergistic antitumor effect in vitro and in vivo in pancreatic tumor models. Based on these results we have undertaken a phase I trial of GDC-0449 (an orally administered Hedgehog pathway inhibitor) and erlotinib (EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor to: 1) determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of GDC-0449 combined with erlotinib in unresectable solid tumors; 2) describe the adverse events associated with this treatment combination; 3) describe the responses of this treatment combination; and 4) to assess the effect of the erlotinib and GDC-0449 combination on selected biomarkers in circulating tumor cells (CTCs), tumor biopsies, and FDG-PET in a cohort of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer patients treated at the MTD. During the dose escalation portion of the trial, eligible patients receive GDC-0449 150 mg p.o. daily and erlotinib 50, 75, 100, or 150 mg daily p.o. at dose levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Eligibility criteria include: histologic proof of solid tumors that are unresectable, not amenable to any other standard therapies, or patient refused standard therapy,; ANC ≥> 1500/μL; PLT ≥> 100,000/ μL; Total bilirubin ≤< upper limit of normal (ULN); AST ≤< 3 x ULN; Creatinine ≤< 1.5 x ULN; Hemoglobin ≥> 9.0 g/dL; INR within normal limits (Cohort II [MTD Cohort] only); ECOG performance status (PS) 0, 1 or ≤ 2. For the MTD cohort, only patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas without prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease and tumor amenable to biopsies are eligible. Toxicity assessment is performed at each 28-day treatment cycles and response assessment every second treatment 28 day cycle. 12 patients have been entered-pancreas (3), colorectal (3), neuroendocrine (2), scc anus (2), gallbladder (1), thymoma (1). No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reported at dose level 4. At the MTD, up to 20 patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer will be entered to assess the biologic effect of GDC-0449+erlotinib. Pre- and post- treatment biopsies of metastases and FDG-PET will be performed. Weekly collection of CTCs will be undertaken and immunofluorescence microscopy of total & phosphoMAPK, EGFR, AKT, PATCHED1, GLI1, BCL-2, and quantitative PCR (Q-PCR) of PATCHED1, GLI1, and its target genes (BCL-2, BFL-1/A1, 4-1BB) will be performed. In addtion, total & phosphoMAPK, EGFR, and AKT, as well as PATCHED1, GLI1, BCL-2 by immunohistochemistry and Q-PCR of PATCHED1, GLI1, BCL-2, BFL-1/A1, 4-1BB will be analyzed in tumor biopsies. Supported by CA69912, CA136526 and CA102701.
Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1807.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Henry Pitot
- 1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | - Scott Okuno
- 1Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Apsey H, Roy V, Pockaj B, Northfelt D, Sticca R, Nikcevich DA, Mattar B, Fitch T, Perez EA. Surgical practice patterns following NCCTG N0338 “Phase II trial of docetaxel and darboplatin administered every two weeks as induction therapy for stage II and stage III breast cancer.”. J Clin Oncol 2009. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.623] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
623 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy plays an important role in breast cancer treatment. Unlike patients who undergo surgery followed by adjuvant therapy,there are no established guidelines for surgical management following neoadjuvant therapy. Methods: Surgical practice patterns from 50 patients in N0338 “Phase II trial of Docetaxel and Carboplatin administered every two weeks as induction therapy for Stage II and Stage III breast cancer” were reviewed. The protocol did not mandate surgical therapy leaving the decision to the treating surgeon and patient. Results: 66% of patients underwent mastectomy (M) and 33% underwent breast conservation therapy (BCT). Three (9%) had immediate reconstruction. Eight (24%) underwent contralateral prophylactic M. Residual tumor size did not always impact primary surgical therapy. In the M group 4 (12%) had no residual disease, 15 (45%) < 2cm and 14 (42%) > 2cm; whereas, in the BCT group 1 (6%) had no residual disease, 12 (70%) < 2cm and 4 (24%) > 2cm. Axillary lymph node (ALN) staging varied tremendously. Three (6%) patients presented with palpable lymphadenopathy and proceeded to complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after chemotherapy (CT). Fine needle aspiration (8) or core needle biopsy (7) of the axilla was performed in 15 (30%) patients before CT; 1 was negative and went on to have sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) after CT; 14 (94%) were positive with 13 (86%) going on to ALND and 1 SLNB after CT. Five (10%) underwent SLNB prior to CT. One (20%) was positive and went on to have ALND after CT; 4 (8%) were negative and had no further ALN staging. A total of 19 (39%) had SLNB after neoadjuvant therapy; 13 (68%) were positive and underwent ALND; 1 SLNB failed; 2 of 5 that were negative underwent ALND with 1 having a positive lymph node. Ten (20%) underwent ALND with no pre-operative staging with 8 being positive for ALN metastases. Conclusions: Review of study data from multiple institutions revealed no consistent criteria in selection of surgical intervention for the breast tumor or ALN staging. There remains a need for further research in this area to establish standard practice guidelines. Support from NIH, sanofi-aventis, Amgen, Breast Cancer Research Foundation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H. Apsey
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - V. Roy
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - B. Pockaj
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - D. Northfelt
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - R. Sticca
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - D. A. Nikcevich
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - B. Mattar
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - T. Fitch
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| | - E. A. Perez
- Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ; University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND; Duluth Clinic, Duluth, MN; Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program, Wichita, KS; Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Chiappori A, Williams C, Northfelt D, Adams J, Malik S, Edelman M, Rosen P, Van Echo D, Berger M, Haura E. 592 POSTER Obatoclax (GX17–070), a small molecule pan-bcl-2 inhibitor, in combination with docetaxel in a phase I/II trial enrolling patients with relapsed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EJC Suppl 2008. [DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6349(08)72526-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|