TBCRC 039: a phase II study of preoperative ruxolitinib with or without paclitaxel for triple-negative inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) have overall poor clinical outcomes, with triple-negative IBC (TN-IBC) being associated with the worst survival, warranting the investigation of novel therapies. Preclinical studies implied that ruxolitinib (RUX), a JAK1/2 inhibitor, may be an effective therapy for TN-IBC. METHODS: We conducted a randomized phase II study with nested window-of-opportunity in TN-IBC. Treatment-naïve patients received a 7-day run-in of RUX alone or RUX plus paclitaxel (PAC). After the run-in, those who received RUX alone proceeded to neoadjuvant therapy with either RUX + PAC or PAC alone for 12 weeks; those who had received RUX + PAC continued treatment for 12 weeks. All patients subsequently received 4 cycles of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide prior to surgery. Research tumor biopsies were performed at baseline (pre-run-in) and after run-in therapy. Tumors were evaluated for phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3) by immunostaining, and a subset was also analyzed by RNA-seq. The primary endpoint was the percent of pSTAT3-positive pre-run-in tumors that became pSTAT3-negative. Secondary endpoints included pathologic complete response (pCR). RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients were enrolled, of whom 21 completed preoperative therapy. Two patients achieved pCR (8.7%). pSTAT3 and IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling decreased in post-run-in biopsies of RUX-treated samples, while sustained treatment with RUX + PAC upregulated IL-6/JAK/STAT3 signaling compared to RUX alone. Both treatments decreased GZMB+ T cells implying immune suppression. RUX alone effectively inhibited JAK/STAT3 signaling but its combination with PAC led to incomplete inhibition. The immune suppressive effects of RUX alone and in combination may negate its growth inhibitory effects on cancer cells. CONCLUSION: In summary, the use of RUX in TN-IBC was associated with a decrease in pSTAT3 levels despite lack of clinical benefit. Cancer cell-specific-targeting of JAK2/STAT3 or combinations with immunotherapy may be required for further evaluation of JAK2/STAT3 signaling as a cancer therapeutic target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT02876302. Registered 23 August 2016.

Second primary non-breast cancers in young breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the incidence, timing, and risk factors for second primary non-breast cancers (SPNBC) among young breast cancer (BC) survivors. METHODS: This study included participants of the Young Women's BC Study (YWS) who were diagnosed with stage 0-III BC between 2006 and 2016 and age 40 or younger at diagnosis (N = 1,230). Patient characteristics, treatment information, and clinical events were collected via serial surveys. Tumor and treatment data were obtained from medical record review. Five- and 10-year risks of SPNBCs were estimated via the cumulative incidence function, considering death, metastasis, or second primary BC as competing events. Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for SPNBC risk based on risk factors including demographics, germline genetics, primary BC characteristics, and treatments. RESULTS: Among 1,230 women, over a median follow-up of 10.1 years, 47 patients (4%) developed an SPNBC. Types of malignancy included melanoma (n = 10), thyroid (n = 10), ovarian (n = 4), sarcoma (n = 4), uterine (n = 3), rectal (n = 3), bladder (n = 2), cervical (n = 2), head/neck (n = 2), lung (n = 2), lymphoma (n = 2), pancreatic (n = 2), and renal (n = 1). Five and 10-year cumulative incidence were 1.4% and 3.2%, respectively. Median time between primary BC and SPNBC was 7.3 years. No patient factors, primary tumor characteristics, or treatments were statistically significantly associated with SPNBC in univariable or multivariable models. CONCLUSION: In this population, five-year cumulative incidence was higher than that reported among healthy women under 50 years of age, highlighting the importance of long-term surveillance for new non-breast cancers in young adult BC survivors.

HER2 heterogeneity and treatment response-associated profiles in HER2-positive breast cancer in the NCT02326974 clinical trial.

BACKGROUNDHER2-targeting therapies have great efficacy in HER2-positive breast cancer, but resistance, in part due to HER2 heterogeneity (HET), is a significant clinical challenge. We previously described that in a phase II neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and pertuzumab (P) clinical trial in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer, none of the patients with HER2-HET tumors had pathologic complete response (pCR).METHODSTo investigate cellular and molecular differences among tumors according to HER2 heterogeneity and pCR, we performed RNA sequencing and ERBB2 FISH of 285 pretreatment and posttreatment tumors from 129 patients in this T-DM1+P neoadjuvant trial. A subset of cases was also subject to NanoString spatial digital profiling.RESULTSPretreatment tumors from patients with pCR had the highest level of ERBB2 mRNA and ERBB signaling. HER2 heterogeneity was associated with no pCR, basal-like features, and low ERBB2 expression yet high ERBB signaling sustained by activation of downstream pathway components. Residual tumors showed decreased HER2 protein levels and ERBB2 copy number heterogeneity and increased PI3K pathway enrichment and luminal features. HET tumors showed minimal treatment-induced transcriptomic changes compared with non-HET tumors. Immune infiltration correlated with pCR and HER2-HET status.CONCLUSIONResistance mechanisms in HET and non-HET tumors are distinct. HER2-targeting antibodies have limited efficacy in HET tumors. Our results support the stratification of patients based on HET status and the use of agents that target downstream components of the ERBB signaling pathway in patients with HET tumors.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02326974.FUNDINGThis study was funded by Roche and the National Cancer Institute.

Clinicogenomic characterization of inflammatory breast cancer.

Background: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a rare and poorly characterized type of breast cancer with an aggressive clinical presentation. The biological mechanisms driving the IBC phenotype are relatively undefined-partially due to a lack of comprehensive, large-scale genomic studies and limited clinical cohorts. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 2457 patients with metastatic breast cancer who underwent targeted tumor-only DNA-sequencing was performed at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Clinicopathologic, single nucleotide variant (SNV), copy number variant (CNV) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) comparisons were made between clinically confirmed IBC cases within a dedicated IBC center versus non-IBC cases. Results: Clinicopathologic differences between IBC and non-IBC cases were consistent with prior reports-including IBC being associated with younger age at diagnosis, higher grade, and enrichment with hormone receptor (HR)-negative and HER2-positive tumors. The most frequent somatic alterations in IBC involved TP53 (72%), ERBB2 (32%), PIK3CA (24%), CCND1 (12%), MYC (9%), FGFR1 (8%) and GATA3 (8%). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a significant enrichment in TP53 SNVs in IBC; particularly in HER2-positive and HR-positive disease which was associated with worse outcomes. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) did not differ substantially between IBC and non-IBC cases and a pathway analysis revealed an enrichment in NOTCH pathway alterations in HER2-positive disease. Conclusion: Taken together, this study provides a comprehensive, clinically informed landscape of somatic alterations in a large cohort of patients with IBC. Our data support higher frequency of TP53 mutations and a potential enrichment in NOTCH pathway activation-but overall; a lack of major genomic differences. These results both reinforce the importance of TP53 alterations in IBC pathogenesis as well as their influence on clinical outcomes; but also suggest additional analyses beyond somatic DNA-level changes are warranted.

Hypofractionated vs Conventionally Fractionated Postmastectomy Radiation After Implant-Based Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) improves local-regional disease control and patient survival. Hypofractionation (HF) regimens have comparable efficacy and complication rates with improved quality of life compared with conventional fractionation (CF) schedules. However, the use of HF after mastectomy in patients undergoing breast reconstruction has not been prospectively examined. Objective: To compare HF and CF PMRT outcomes after implant-based reconstruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed patients 18 years or older undergoing mastectomy and immediate expander or implant reconstruction for breast cancer (Tis, TX, or T1-3) and unilateral PMRT from March 8, 2018, to November 3, 2021 (median [range] follow-up, 40.4 [15.4-63.0] months), at 16 US cancer centers or hospitals. Analyses were conducted between September and December 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to HF or CF PMRT. Chest wall doses were 4256 cGy for 16 fractions for HF and 5000 cGy for 25 fractions for CF. Chest wall toxic effects were defined as a grade 3 or higher adverse event. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the change in physical well-being (PWB) domain of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) quality-of-life assessment tool at 6 months after starting PMRT, controlling for age. Secondary outcomes included toxic effects and cancer recurrence. Results: Of 400 women (201 in the CF arm and 199 in the HF arm; median [range] age, 47 [23-79] years), 330 patients had PWB scores at baseline and at 6 months. There was no difference in the change in PWB between the study arms (estimate, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.86 to 1.11; P = .80), but there was a significant interaction between age group and study arm (P = .03 for interaction). Patients younger than 45 years had higher 6-month absolute PWB scores if treated with HF rather than CF regimens (23.6 [95% CI, 22.7-24.6] vs 22.0 [95% CI, 20.7-23.3]; P = .047) and reported being less bothered by adverse effects (mean [SD], 3.0 [0.9] in the HF arm and 2.6 [1.2] in the CF arm; P = .02) or nausea (mean [SD], 3.8 [0.4] in the HF arm and 3.6 [0.8] in the CF arm; P = .04). In the as-treated cohort, there were 23 distant (11 in the HF arm and 12 in the CF arm) and 2 local-regional (1 in the HF arm and 1 in the CF arm) recurrences. Chest wall toxic effects occurred in 39 patients (20 in the HF arm and 19 in the CF arm) at a median (IQR) of 7.2 (1.8-12.9) months. Fractionation was not associated with chest wall toxic effects on multivariate analysis (HF arm: hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.52-2.00; P = .95). Fewer patients undergoing HF vs CF regimens had a treatment break (5 [2.7%] vs 15 [7.7%]; P = .03) or required unpaid time off from work (17 [8.5%] vs 34 [16.9%]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the HF regimen did not significantly improve change in PWB compared with the CF regimen. These data add to the increasing experience with HF PMRT in patients with implant-based reconstruction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03422003.

Impact of Prepectoral vs. Subpectoral Tissue Expander Placement on Post-mastectomy Radiation Therapy Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common method of postmastectomy reconstruction. Many patients require postmastectomy radiation (PMRT). Tissue expanders (TEs), typically inserted as a first stage, have historically been placed subpectorally. More recently, prepectoral reconstruction has gained popularity, but its impact on PMRT is unknown. Prior studies focus on complication rates and aesthetic outcomes. This study examines whether there is a difference in radiation dosimetry among patients undergoing prepectoral versus subpectoral TE reconstruction. Methods: Electronic medical records and radiation plans of 50 patients (25 prepectoral, 25 subpectoral) who underwent mastectomy with immediate TE reconstruction at our institution or affiliate site were reviewed. Pectoralis major muscle and chest wall structures were contoured and mean percentage volumes of these structures receiving less than 95%, 100%, and more than 105% target radiation dose were calculated, as were heart and ipsilateral lung doses. Welch two sample t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson chi-squared tests were performed. Results: The groups had comparable patient and tumor characteristics and underwent similar ablative and reconstructive procedures and radiation dosimetry. Subpectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving less than 95% target dose ("cold spots"); prepectoral patients had larger mean areas receiving greater than 105% ("hot spots") and 100% target doses. There were no differences in chest wall, heart, and lung doses. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate an increased mean percentage area of pectoralis cold spots with subpectoral reconstruction and increased area of hot spots and 100% dose delivery to the pectoralis in prepectoral patients. Larger studies should analyze long-term effects of prepectoral reconstruction on radiation dosing and recurrence rates.