Gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and endocrine therapy in women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: results from the dose expansion groups of an open-label, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: The PI3K-mTOR pathway is frequently dysregulated in breast cancer. Combining an inhibitor targeting all class I PI3K isoforms and mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1)-mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) with endocrine therapy and a CDK4/6 inhibitor might provide more effective tumour control than standard-of-care therapy. To evaluate this hypothesis, gedatolisib, a pan-PI3K-mTOR inhibitor, was assessed in a phase 1b trial combined with palbociclib and endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer. Results from the dose expansion portion of this trial are reported herein. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, phase 1b study recruited female patients aged at least 18 years from 17 sites across the USA with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Four patient groups were studied in the dose expansion portion of the study: treatment-naive in the advanced setting (first line; group A), progression on 1-2 lines of endocrine therapy but CDK4/6 inhibitor-naive (group B); and one or more previous lines (second-line and higher) of therapy, including a CDK4/6 inhibitor (groups C and D). Gedatolisib 180 mg was administered intravenously weekly in 28-day treatment cycles for groups A-C, and on days 1, 8, and 15 for group D. Letrozole (group A), fulvestrant (groups B-D), and palbociclib (all groups) were administered at standard doses and schedules. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate per RECIST version 1.1 in the evaluable analysis set. This trial is completed and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02684032. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 19, 2019, 103 female participants were enrolled in the dose expansion groups A (n=31), B (n=13), C (n=32), and D (n=27). Median follow-up was 16·6 months (IQR 5·7-48·4) for group A, 11·0 months (7·6-16·9) for group B, 3·6 months (1·8-7·5) for group C, and 9·4 months (5·3-16·7) for group D for the primary endpoint. Gedatolisib, palbociclib, and endocrine therapy induced an objective response in 23 (85·2%; 90% CI 69·2-94·8) of 27 evaluable first-line participants (group A). In the second-line and higher setting, an objective response was observed in eight (61·5%; 90% CI 35·5-83·4) of 13 evaluable group B participants, seven (25·0%; 12·4-41·9) of 28 evaluable group C participants, and 15 (55·6%; 38·2-72·0) of 27 evaluable group D participants; this included participants with both wild-type and mutated PIK3CA tumours. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (65 [63%] of 103), stomatitis (28 [27%]), and rash (21 [20%]). Grade 3-4 hyperglycaemia was reported in six (6%) participants. 23 (22%) of 103 participants had a treatment-related serious adverse event, and there were no treatment-related deaths. Nine (9%) participants discontinued treatment because of a treatment-emergent adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Gedatolisib plus palbociclib and endocrine therapy showed a promising objective response rate compared with the published results for standard-of-care therapies and had an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer and Celcuity.

Outcomes and clinicopathologic characteristics associated with disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk early stage breast cancer: the I-SPY SURMOUNT study.

PURPOSE: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) expressing epithelial markers in the bone marrow are associated with recurrence and death, but little is known about risk factors predicting their occurrence. We detected EPCAM+/CD45- cells in bone marrow from early stage breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the I-SPY 2 Trial and examined clinicopathologic factors and outcomes. METHODS: Patients who signed consent for SURMOUNT, a sub-study of the I-SPY 2 Trial (NCT01042379), had bone marrow collected after NAC at the time of surgery. EPCAM+CD45- cells in 4 mLs of bone marrow aspirate were enumerated using immunomagnetic enrichment/flow cytometry (IE/FC). Patients with > 4.16 EPCAM+CD45- cells per mL of bone marrow were classified as DTC-positive. Tumor response was assessed using the residual cancer burden (RCB), a standardized approach to quantitate the extent of residual invasive cancer present in the breast and the axillary lymph nodes after NAC. Association of DTC-positivity with clinicopathologic variables and survival was examined. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were enrolled, 51 of whom had successful EPCAM+CD45- cell enumeration. Twenty-four of 51 (47.1%) were DTC-positive. The DTC-positivity rate was similar across receptor subtypes, but DTC-positive patients were significantly younger (p = 0.0239) and had larger pretreatment tumors compared to DTC-negative patients (p = 0.0319). Twenty of 51 (39.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). While DTC-positivity was not associated with achieving pCR, it was significantly associated with higher RCB class (RCB-II/III, 62.5% vs. RCB-0/I; 33.3%; Chi-squared p = 0.0373). No significant correlation was observed between DTC-positivity and distant recurrence-free survival (p = 0.38, median follow-up = 3.2 years). CONCLUSION: DTC-positivity at surgery after NAC was higher in younger patients, those with larger tumors, and those with residual disease at surgery.

Tucatinib and stereotactic radiosurgery in the management of HER2 positive breast cancer brain metastases.

PURPOSE: HER2-positive breast cancer has a high risk of brain metastasis. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is standard of care for limited brain metastases. Tucatinib, a HER2-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated intracranial efficacy in the HER2-CLIMB Trial. However, it is unknown whether tucatinib with SRS is safe or effective. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of HER2-positive breast cancer treated with SRS and tucatinib for brain metastases management was performed. All patients received tucatinib and SRS for the management of active brain metastases. The primary endpoint was local and distant brain tumor control. Secondary endpoints were intracranial progression free survival (CNS-PFS), systemic PFS, overall survival (OS), and neurotoxicity. RESULTS: A total of 135 lesions treated with SRS over 39 treatment sessions in 22 patients were identified. Median follow-up from tucatinib initiation was 20.8 months. Local brain control was 94% at 12-months and 81% at 24-months. Distant brain control was 39% at 12-months and 26% at 24-months. Median survival was 21.2 months, with 12- and 24-month OS rates of 84% and 50%, respectively. Median CNS-PFS was 11.3 months, with 12- and 24-month CNS-PFS rates of 44.9% at both time points. Median systemic PFS was not reached, with 12- and 24-month systemic PFS rates of 86% and 57%, respectively. Symptomatic radiation necrosis occurred in 6 (4%) lesions. No additional unexpected toxicities were noted. CONCLUSIONS: SRS in combination with tucatinib, capecitabine, and trastuzumab appears to be a safe and feasible treatment for HER2 + brain metastases. Further prospective evaluation of potential synergistic effects is warranted.

The presentation of brain metastases in melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and breast cancer and potential implications for screening brain MRIs.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the presentation and institutional outcomes treating brain metastases (BM) of breast cancer (BC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and melanoma origin. METHODS: Patients with brain metastases treated between 2014 and 2019 with primary melanoma, NSCLC, and BC were identified. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from dates of initial BM diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients were identified including melanoma (31%), NSCLC (51%), and BC (18%). Patients with BC were younger at BM diagnosis (median age: 57) than NSCLC (65) and melanoma patients (62, p < 0.0001). Breast cancer patients were more likely to present with at least 5 BM (27%) than NSCLC (14%) and melanoma (13%), leptomeningeal disease (23%, 6%, and 6%, p = 0.0004) and receive whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) (58%, 37%, and 22%, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in surgical resection (24%, 24%, and 29%, p = 0.166). Median OS was shorter for BC patients (9.9, 10.3, and 13.7 months, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients were more likely to be younger, present with advanced disease, require WBRT, and have poorer OS than NSCLC and melanoma patients. Further investigation is needed to determine which BC patients are at sufficient risk for brain MRI screening.

Evolving management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease.

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer are at a particularly high risk of breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) and leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Improvements in systemic therapy have translated to improved survival for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. However, the optimal management of these cases is rapidly evolving and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, a team of radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, and breast surgeon created a review of the evolving management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. We assess the epidemiology, diagnosis, and evolving treatment options for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD, as well as the ongoing prospective clinical trials enrolling these patients. The management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD represents an increasingly common challenge that involves the coordination of local and systemic therapy. Advances in systemic therapy have resulted in an improved prognosis, and promising targeted therapies currently under prospective investigation have the potential to further benefit these patients.

Capecitabine and stereotactic radiation in the management of breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the safety and efficacy of concurrent capecitabine and stereotactic radiotherapy in the setting of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM). METHODS: Twenty-three patients with BCBM underwent 31 stereotactic sessions to 90 lesions from 2005 to 2019 with receipt of capecitabine. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of stereotactic radiation. Imaging was independently reviewed by a neuro-radiologist. RESULTS: Median follow-up from stereotactic radiation was 9.2 months. Receptor types of patients treated included triple negative (n = 7), hormone receptor (HR)+/HER2- (n = 7), HR+/HER2+ (n = 6), and HR-/HER2+ (n = 3). Fourteen patients had stage IV disease prior to BCBM diagnosis. The median number of brain metastases treated per patient was 3 (1 to 12). The median dose of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was 21 Gy (range: 15-24 Gy) treated in a single fraction and for lesions treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT) 25 Gy (24-30 Gy) in a median of 5 fractions (range: 3-5). Of the 31 stereotactic sessions, 71% occurred within 1 month of capecitabine. No increased toxicity was noted in our series with no cases of radionecrosis. The 1-year OS, LC, and DIC were 46, 88, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In our single institution experience, we demonstrate stereotactic radiation and capecitabine to be a safe treatment for patients with BCBM with adequate LC. Further study is needed to determine the potential synergy between stereotactic radiation and capecitabine in the management of BCBM.

Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) and stereotactic radiation in the management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent concerns about the toxicity of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with stereotactic radiation, we assessed our institutional outcomes treating HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) with T-DM1 and stereotactic radiation. METHODS: This is a single institution series of 16 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who underwent 18 stereotactic sessions to 40 BCBM from 2013 to 2019 with T-DM1 delivered within 6 months. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), distant intracranial control (DIC), and systemic progression-free survival (sPFS) from the date of SRS. A neuro-radiologist independently reviewed follow-up imaging. RESULTS: One patient had invasive lobular carcinoma, and 15 patients had invasive ductal carcinoma. All cases were HER2-positive, while 10 were hormone receptor (HR) positive. Twenty-four lesions were treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) to a median dose of 21 Gy (14-24 Gy). Sixteen lesions were treated with fractionated stereotactic radiation (FSRT) with a median dose of 25 Gy (20-30Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. Stereotactic radiation was delivered concurrently with T-DM1 in 19 lesions (48%). Median follow up time was 13.2 months from stereotactic radiation. The 1-year LC, DIC, sPFS, and OS were 75, 50, 30, and 67%, respectively. There was 1 case of leptomeningeal progression and 1 case (3%) of symptomatic radionecrosis. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that stereotactic radiation and T-DM1 is well-tolerated and effective for patients with HER2-positive BCBM. An increased risk for symptomatic radiation necrosis was not noted in our series.

Clinical Outcomes With Abemaciclib After Prior CDK4/6 Inhibitor Progression in Breast Cancer: A Multicenter Experience.

BACKGROUND: Inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6i) are widely used as first-line therapy for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+ MBC). Although abemaciclib monotherapy is also FDA-approved for treatment of disease progression on endocrine therapy, there is limited insight into the clinical activity of abemaciclib after progression on prior CDK4/6i. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified patients with HR+ MBC from 6 cancer centers in the United States who received abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i, and abstracted clinical features, outcomes, toxicity, and predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: In the multicenter cohort, abemaciclib was well tolerated after a prior course of CDK4/6i (palbociclib)-based therapy; a minority of patients discontinued abemaciclib because of toxicity without progression (9.2%). After progression on palbociclib, most patients (71.3%) received nonsequential therapy with abemaciclib (with ≥1 intervening non-CDK4/6i regimens), with most receiving abemaciclib with an antiestrogen agent (fulvestrant, 47.1%; aromatase inhibitor, 27.6%), and the remainder receiving abemaciclib monotherapy (19.5%). Median progression-free survival for abemaciclib in this population was 5.3 months and median overall survival was 17.2 months, notably similar to results obtained in the MONARCH-1 study of abemaciclib monotherapy in heavily pretreated HR+/HER2-negative CDK4/6i-naïve patients. A total of 36.8% of patients received abemaciclib for ≥6 months. There was no relationship between the duration of clinical benefit while on palbociclib and the subsequent duration of treatment with abemaciclib. RB1, ERBB2, and CCNE1 alterations were noted among patients with rapid progression on abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with HR+ MBC continue to derive clinical benefit from abemaciclib after progression on prior palbociclib. These results highlight the need for future studies to confirm molecular predictors of cross-resistance to CDK4/6i therapy and to better characterize the utility of abemaciclib after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i.

Breast cancer subtype predicts clinical outcomes after stereotactic radiation for brain metastases.

PURPOSE: We investigated the prognostic ability of tumor subtype for patients with breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) treated with stereotactic radiation (SRT). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 181 patients who underwent SRT to 664 BCBM from 2004 to 2019. Patients were stratified by subtype: hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-), HR-positive, HER2-positive (HR+/HER2+), HR-negative, HER2-positive (HR-/HER2+), and triple negative (TN). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate overall survival (OS), local control (LC), and distant intracranial control (DIC) from the date of SRT. Multivariate analysis (MVA) was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Median follow up from SRT was 11.4 months. Of the 181 patients, 47 (26%) were HR+/HER2+, 30 (17%) were HR-/HER2+, 60 (33%) were HR+/HER2-, and 44 (24%) were TN. Of the 664 BCBMs, 534 (80%) received single fraction stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with a median dose of 21 Gy (range 12-24 Gy), and 130 (20%) received fractionated stereotactic radiation therapy (FSRT), with a median dose of 25 Gy (range 12.5-35 Gy) delivered in 3 to 5 fractions. One-year LC was 90%. Two-year DIC was 35%, 23%, 27%, and 16% (log rank, p = 0.0003) and 2-year OS was 54%, 47%, 24%, and 12% (log rank, p < 0.0001) for HR+/HER2+, HR-/HER2+, HR+/HER2-, and TN subtypes, respectively. On MVA, the TN subtype predicted for inferior DIC (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00-2.60, p = 0.049). The modified breast-Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA) significantly predicted DIC and OS (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subtype is prognostic for OS and DIC for patients with BCBM treated with SRT.

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Management of brain metastases in breast cancer: a review of current practices and emerging treatments.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) are becoming an increasingly common diagnosis due to improved systemic control and more routine surveillance imaging. Treatment continues to require a multidisciplinary approach managing systemic and intracranial disease burden. Although, improvements have been made in the diagnosis and management of BCBM, brain metastasis patients continue to pose a challenge for practitioners. METHODS: In this review, a group of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, breast surgeons, and neurosurgeons specializing in the treatment of breast cancer reviewed the available published literature and compiled a comprehensive review on the current state of BCBM. RESULTS: We discuss the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment options (including systemic, surgical, and radiotherapy treatment modalities), and treatment response evaluation for BCBM. Furthermore, we discuss the ongoing prospective trials enrolling BCBM patients and their biologic rationale. CONCLUSIONS: BCBM management is an increasing clinical concern. Multidisciplinary management combining the strengths of surgical, systemic, and radiation treatment modalities with prospective trials incorporating knowledge from the basic and translational sciences will ultimately lead to improved clinical outcomes for BCBM patients.

Trilaciclib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Trilaciclib is an intravenous cell-cycle inhibitor that transiently maintains immune cells and haemopoietic stem and progenitor cells in G1 arrest. By protecting the immune cells and bone marrow from chemotherapy-induced damage, trilaciclib has the potential to optimise antitumour activity while minimising myelotoxicity. We report safety and activity data for trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with evaluable, biopsy-confirmed, locally recurrent or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who had no more than two previous lines of chemotherapy were recruited from 26 sites in the USA, three in Serbia, two in North Macedonia, one in Croatia, and one in Bulgaria; sites were academic and community hospitals. Availability of diagnostic samples of tumour tissue confirming triple-negative breast cancer was a prerequisite for enrolment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive web-response system, stratified by number of previous lines of systemic therapy and the presence of liver metastases, to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and intravenous carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve 2 µg × h/mL) on days 1 and 8 (group 1), gemcitabine and carboplatin plus intravenous trilaciclib 240 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (group 2), or gemcitabine and carboplatin on days 2 and 9 plus trilaciclib on days 1, 2, 8, and 9 (group 3) of 21-day cycles. Patients continued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or discontinuation by the investigator. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of combining trilaciclib with gemcitabine and carboplatin chemotherapy. The primary endpoints were duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1 and the occurrence of severe neutropenia during the treatment period. Overall survival was included as a key secondary endpoint. Analyses were in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2016-004466-26, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978716, and is ongoing but closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2017, and May 15, 2018, 142 patients were assessed for eligibility and 102 were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=34), group 2 (n=33), or group 3 (n=35). Of all patients, 38 (37%) had received one or two lines of previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. Median follow-up was 8·4 months (IQR 3·8-13·6) for group 1, 12·7 months (5·5-17·4) for group 2, and 12·9 months (6·7-16·8) for group 3. Data cutoff for myelosuppression endpoints was July 30, 2018, and for antitumour activity endpoints was May 17, 2019. During cycle 1, mean duration of severe neutropenia was 0·8 day (SD 2·4) in group 1, 1·5 days (3·5) in group 2, and 1·0 day (2·6) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 one-sided adjusted p=0·70). Severe neutropenia occurred in nine (26%) of 34 patients in group 1, 12 (36%) of 33 patients in group 2, and eight (23%) of 35 patients in group 3 (p=0·70). Overall survival was 12·6 months (IQR 5·8-15·6) in group 1, 20·1 months (9·4-not reached) in group 2, and 17·8 months (8·8-not reached) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 two-sided p=0·0023). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (22 [73%] of 34), neutropenia (21 [70%]), and thrombocytopenia (18 [60%]) in group 1; neutropenia (27 [82%] of 33), thrombocytopenia (18 [55%]) and anaemia (17 [52%]) in group 2; and neutropenia (23 [66%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (22 [63%]), and nausea (17 [49%]) in group 3. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: No significant differences were observed in myelosuppression endpoints with trilaciclib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer; however, the regimen was generally well tolerated and overall survival results were encouraging. Further studies of trilaciclib in this setting are warranted. FUNDING: G1 Therapeutics.

A Phase II Trial of Selinexor (KPT-330) for Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: Single-agent selinexor has limited activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.Selinexor 60 mg by mouth twice weekly was generally well tolerated with a side-effect profile consistent with previous clinical trials.Future studies of selinexor in this population should focus on combination approaches and a biomarker-driven strategy to identify patients most likely to benefit. BACKGROUND: This phase II trial evaluated the safety, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of selinexor (KPT-330), an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: This phase II trial was designed to enroll 30 patients with metastatic TNBC. Selinexor was given at 60 mg orally twice weekly on days 1 and 3 of each week, three of each 4-week cycle. The primary objective of this study was to determine the clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as complete response + partial response + stable disease (SD) ≥12 weeks. RESULTS: Ten patients with a median age of 60 years (range 44-71 years) were enrolled between July 2015 and January 2016. The median number of prior chemotherapy lines was 2 (range 1-5). A planned interim analysis for the first stage per protocol was performed. Three patients had SD and seven had progressive disease. On the basis of these results and predefined stoppage rules, the study was halted. CONCLUSION: Selinexor was fairly well tolerated in patients with advanced TNBC but did not result in objective responses. However, clinical benefit rate was 30%, and further investigation of selinexor in this patient population should focus on combination therapies.

Breast leptomeningeal disease: a review of current practices and updates on management.

PURPOSE: Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is an advanced metastatic disease presentation portending a poor prognosis with minimal treatment options. The advent and widespread use of new systemic therapies for metastatic breast cancer has improved systemic disease control and extended survival; however, as patients live longer, the rates of breast cancer LMD are increasing. METHODS: In this review, a group of medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, breast surgeons, and neurosurgeons specializing in treatment of breast cancer reviewed the available published literature and compiled a comprehensive review on the current state of breast cancer LMD. RESULTS: We discuss the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment options (including systemic, intrathecal, surgical, and radiotherapy treatment modalities), and treatment response evaluation specific to breast cancer patients. Furthermore, we discuss the controversies within this unique clinical setting and identify potential clinical opportunities to improve upon the diagnosis, treatment, and treatment response evaluation in the management of breast LMD. CONCLUSIONS: We recognize the shortcomings in our current understanding of the disease and explore the future role of genomic/molecular disease characterization, technological innovations, and ongoing clinical trials attempting to improve the prognosis for this advanced disease state.

Clinical outcomes of breast leptomeningeal disease treated with intrathecal trastuzumab, intrathecal chemotherapy, or whole brain radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: Leptomeningeal disease is a rare presentation of advanced metastatic breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate craniospinal progression between intrathecal (IT) trastuzumab, IT chemotherapy, and whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in leptomeningeal disease. METHODS: A total of 56 patients were identified with breast cancer leptomeningeal disease at our institution treated with IT trastuzumab (n = 18; 32%), single-agent IT chemotherapy (methotrexate n = 14 or thiotepa n = 1; 27%), or WBRT alone (n = 23; 41%). Patients were treated beginning November 2012 and followed until November 2018. RESULTS: Median time from breast cancer diagnosis to development of leptomeningeal disease was 4.3 years. There were no significant differences noted between IT trastuzumab, IT chemotherapy, or WBRT groups in age (p = 0.4), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) (p = 0.07), or receipt of systemic therapy at time of leptomeningeal disease treatment (p = 0.47). Median follow-up of patients from leptomeningeal diagnosis was 5 months (range 0.2-81.1 months). Significant differences were noted in Kaplan-Meier (KM) craniospinal progression-free survival (CS-PFS) with 6-month rates of 44%, 18%, and 26% (p = 0.04) between IT trastuzumab, IT chemotherapy, and WBRT, respectively. Craniospinal control > 10 months was achieved in four patients treated with IT trastuzumab. Twelve-month KM OS rates were 54%, 10%, and 19% (p = 0.01) between IT trastuzumab, IT chemotherapy, and WBRT groups, respectively. IT therapy was adequately tolerated with three patients undergoing treatment-related hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: In our institutional series, significant differences were noted in CS-PFS and OS by treatment modality. IT trastuzumab should be considered in the management HER2+ breast leptomeningeal disease.

CDK 4/6 inhibitors and stereotactic radiation in the management of hormone receptor positive breast cancer brain metastases.

PURPOSE: Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors are becoming increasingly utilized in the setting of advanced, hormone receptor (HR+) positive breast cancer. Pre-clinical data suggests a potential synergy between radiation therapy (RT) and CDK4/6 inhibitors. We assessed clinical outcomes of patients treated at our institution with the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors and stereotactic radiation in the management of HR+ breast brain metastases. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients who received stereotactic radiotherapy for HR+ brain metastases within 6 months of CDK4/6 inhibitor administration was performed. The primary endpoint was neurotoxicity during or after stereotactic radiation. Secondary endpoints were local brain control, distant brain control, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 42 lesions treated with stereotactic radiation in 15 patients were identified. Patients received either palbociclib (n = 10; 67%) or abemaciclib (n = 5; 33%). RT was delivered concurrently, before, or after CDK4/6 inhibitors in 18 (43%), 9 (21%), and 15 (36%) lesions, respectively. Median follow-up following stereotactic radiation was 9 months. Two lesions (5%) developed radionecrosis, both of which received four prior RT courses to the affected lesion prior to onset of radionecrosis and subsequently managed with steroids and bevacizumab. Six- and 12-month local control of treated lesions was 88% and 88%, while 6- and 12-month distant brain control was 61% and 39%, respectively. Median OS was 36.7 months from the date of brain metastases diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiation to breast brain metastases was well tolerated alongside CDK4/6 inhibitors. Compared to historical data, brain metastases control rates are similar whereas survival appears prolonged.

Reviewing the significance of dendritic cell vaccines in interrupting breast cancer development.

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and is the most prevalent cancer in women. According to the U.S breast cancer statistics, about 1 in every 8 women develop an invasive form of breast cancer during their lifetime. Immunotherapy has been a significant advancement in the treatment of cancer with multiple studies reporting favourable patient outcomes by modulating the immune response to cancer cells. Here, we review the significance of dendritic cell vaccines in treating breast cancer patients. We discuss the involvement of dendritic cells and oncodrivers in breast tumorigenesis, highlighting the rationale for targeting oncodrivers and neoantigens using dendritic cell vaccine therapy. We review different dendritic cell subsets and maturation states previously used to develop vaccines and suggest the use of DC vaccines for breast cancer prevention. Further, we highlight that the intratumoral delivery of type 1 dendritic cell vaccines in breast cancer patients activates tumor antigen-specific CD4+ T helper cell type 1 (Th1) cells, promoting an anti-tumorigenic immune response while concurrently blocking pro-tumorigenic responses. In summary, this review provides an overview of the current state of dendritic cell vaccines in breast cancer highlighting the challenges and considerations necessary for an efficient dendritic cell vaccine design in interrupting breast cancer development.

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): Final overall survival results from a randomized phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the BROCADE3 study, the addition of veliparib to carboplatin plus paclitaxel resulted in a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus carboplatin and paclitaxel, in patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2)-mutated, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. We now report final overall survival (OS) data. METHODS: BROCADE3 is a randomized phase 3 study that enrolled patients with BRCA1/2-mutated, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who received ≤ 2 prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to carboplatin and paclitaxel, dosed with either veliparib or matching placebo. OS was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (N = 509), 337 patients were randomized to receive veliparib and 172 to placebo. Median OS was 32.4 months vs 28.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.916; 95% CI, 0.736-1.140; P = .434). The updated safety data for veliparib are consistent with those reported in the primary analysis; the addition of veliparib was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Final OS data indicate that the PFS improvement shown in the primary analysis did not translate into an OS benefit. The long survival times observed in both arms suggest that combination therapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin provides clinical benefit in the population of patients with BRCA1/2-mutated metastatic breast cancer.

Phase I-II study of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor tipifarnib plus sequential weekly paclitaxel and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in HER2/neu-negative inflammatory carcinoma and non-inflammatory estrogen receptor-positive breast carcinoma.

Tipifarnib (T) is a farnesyl transferase inhibitor (FTI) that enhances the antineoplastic effects of cytotoxic therapy in vitro, has activity in metastatic breast cancer, and enhances the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate to neoadjuvant doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy. We, therefore, performed a phase I-II trial of T plus neoadjuvant sequential weekly paclitaxel and 2-week AC chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Eligible patients with HER2-negative clinical stage IIB-IIIC breast cancer received 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2)) followed by AC (60/600 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks and filgrastim), plus T (100 or 200 mg PO on days 1-3 of each P dose, and 200 mg PO on days 2-7 of each AC cycle). The trial was powered to detect an improvement in breast pCR rate from 15 to 35 % (α = 0.10, ß = 0.10) in two strata, including ER and/or PR-positive, non-inflammatory (stratum A) and inflammatory carcinoma (stratum B). Of the 60 patients accrued, there were no dose-limiting toxicities among the first six patients treated at the first T dose level (100 mg BID; N = 3) or second T dose level (200 mg BID; N = 3) plus paclitaxel. Breast pCR occurred in 6/33 patients (18 %, 95 % confidence intervals (CI) 7-36 %) and 1/22 patients (4 %, 95 % CI 0-8 %) in stratum B. Combination of the FTI T with weekly paclitaxel-AC is unlikely to be associated with a breast pCR rate of 35 % or higher in patients with locally advanced HER2/neu-negative inflammatory or non-inflammatory ER- and/or PR-positive breast carcinoma.

A Gene Panel Associated With Abemaciclib Utility in ESR1-Mutated Breast Cancer After Prior Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4/6-Inhibitor Progression.

PURPOSE: For patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), first-line treatment is endocrine therapy (ET) plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i). After disease progression, which often comes with ESR1 resistance mutations (ESR1-MUT), which therapies to use next and for which patients are open questions. An active area of exploration is treatment with further CDK4/6i, particularly abemaciclib, which has distinct pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties compared with the other approved CDK4/6 inhibitors, palbociclib and ribociclib. We investigated a gene panel to prognosticate abemaciclib susceptibility in patients with ESR1-MUT MBC after palbociclib progression. METHODS: We examined a multicenter retrospective cohort of patients with ESR1-MUT MBC who received abemaciclib after disease progression on ET plus palbociclib. We generated a panel of CDK4/6i resistance genes and compared abemaciclib progression-free survival (PFS) in patients without versus with mutations in this panel (CDKi-R[-] v CDKi-R[+]). We studied how ESR1-MUT and CDKi-R mutations affect abemaciclib sensitivity of immortalized breast cancer cells and patient-derived circulating tumor cell lines in culture. RESULTS: In ESR1-MUT MBC with disease progression on ET plus palbociclib, the median PFS was 7.0 months for CDKi-R(-) (n = 17) versus 3.5 months for CDKi-R(+) (n = 11), with a hazard ratio of 2.8 (P = .03). In vitro, CDKi-R alterations but not ESR1-MUT induced abemaciclib resistance in immortalized breast cancer cells and were associated with resistance in circulating tumor cells. CONCLUSION: For ESR1-MUT MBC with resistance to ET and palbociclib, PFS on abemaciclib is longer for patients with CDKi-R(-) than CDKi-R(+). Although a small and retrospective data set, this is the first demonstration of a genomic panel associated with abemaciclib sensitivity in the postpalbociclib setting. Future directions include testing and improving this panel in additional data sets, to guide therapy selection for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.