Immunogenomic profiling and pathological response results from a clinical trial of docetaxel and carboplatin in triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not achieve pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a high risk of recurrence and death. Molecular characterization may identify patients unlikely to achieve pCR. This neoadjuvant trial was conducted to determine the pCR rate with docetaxel and carboplatin and to identify molecular alterations and/or immune gene signatures predicting pCR. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with clinical stages II/III TNBC received 6 cycles of docetaxel and carboplatin. The primary objective was to determine if neoadjuvant docetaxel and carboplatin would increase the pCR rate in TNBC compared to historical expectations. We performed whole-exome sequencing (WES) and immune profiling on pre-treatment tumor samples to identify alterations that may predict pCR. Thirteen matching on-treatment samples were also analyzed to assess changes in molecular profiles. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 127 (45.7%) patients achieved pCR. There was a non-significant trend toward higher mutation burden for patients with residual cancer burden (RCB) 0/I versus RCB II/III (median 80 versus 68 variants, p 0.88). TP53 was the most frequently mutated gene, observed in 85.7% of tumors. EGFR, RB1, RAD51AP2, SDK2, L1CAM, KPRP, PCDHA1, CACNA1S, CFAP58, COL22A1, and COL4A5 mutations were observed almost exclusively in pre-treatment samples from patients who achieved pCR. Seven mutations in PCDHA1 were observed in pre-treatment samples from patients who did not achieve pCR. Several immune gene signatures including IDO1, PD-L1, interferon gamma signaling, CTLA4, cytotoxicity, tumor inflammation signature, inflammatory chemokines, cytotoxic cells, lymphoid, PD-L2, exhausted CD8, Tregs, and immunoproteasome were upregulated in pre-treatment samples from patients who achieved pCR. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant docetaxel and carboplatin resulted in a pCR of 45.7%. WES and immune profiling differentiated patients with and without pCR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial information: NCT02124902, Registered 24 April 2014 & NCT02547987, Registered 10 September 2015.

Initial versus sequential adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy: a review of the current data.

OBJECTIVE: One of the principle unresolved questions in adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer is whether it is more beneficial for women to receive aromatase inhibitor (AI) monotherapy or start with tamoxifen and then switch to AI therapy. This review will compare the current available efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness data for AIs in the initial adjuvant and switch adjuvant settings. METHODS: A search of the Medline database from 1976 through 2006 was performed for the following terms: breast cancer, adjuvant, aromatase inhibitors, anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, tamoxifen, sequential, switching. A search for relevant abstracts from the EBCC, ECCO, ASCO, and SABCS conferences was also performed. RESULTS: In the upfront adjuvant setting, anastrozole and letrozole have both demonstrated a significant disease-free survival (DFS) benefit over tamoxifen. Upfront therapy with a nonsteroidal AI appears to be most critical for patients at risk of an early relapse, illustrated by the finding that upfront letrozole provided a significant early DFS advantage over tamoxifen only in patients with node-positive disease (hazard ratio = 0.71, p < 0.001). With respect to safety, both strategies have similar adverse event profiles. From an economic perspective, AIs, whether used upfront or sequentially, are considered cost-effective compared with tamoxifen due to the cost savings associated with a reduction in the breast cancer event rate. From the efficacy standpoint, modeling studies have produced inconsistent results and do not produce definitive data. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in patient populations, definitions of end points, and prior tamoxifen usage between the trials discussed necessitates a careful interpretation but may provide insights in the treatment decision-making process. The BIG 1-98 trial was designed to compare letrozole monotherapy versus a letrozole-to-tamoxifen or reverse-sequence approach and should provide insights to the question of optimal therapy. Until results are available, for higher-risk patients (i.e., those with positive lymph nodes), initiation of treatment with a non-steroidal AI may be beneficial to avoid tamoxifen-associated early relapses that occur in the first 2 years after diagnosis.