Single-cell and spatial profiling identify three response trajectories to pembrolizumab and radiation therapy in triple negative breast cancer.

Strategies are needed to better identify patients that will benefit from immunotherapy alone or who may require additional therapies like chemotherapy or radiotherapy to overcome resistance. Here we employ single-cell transcriptomics and spatial proteomics to profile triple negative breast cancer biopsies taken at baseline, after one cycle of pembrolizumab, and after a second cycle of pembrolizumab given with radiotherapy. Non-responders lack immune infiltrate before and after therapy and exhibit minimal therapy-induced immune changes. Responding tumors form two groups that are distinguishable by a classifier prior to therapy, with one showing high major histocompatibility complex expression, evidence of tertiary lymphoid structures, and displaying anti-tumor immunity before treatment. The other responder group resembles non-responders at baseline and mounts a maximal immune response, characterized by cytotoxic T cell and antigen presenting myeloid cell interactions, only after combination therapy, which is mirrored in a murine model of triple negative breast cancer.

A phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab plus paclitaxel or flat-dose capecitabine in 1st/2nd line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Chemoimmunotherapy with anti-programmed cell death 1/ligand 1 and cytotoxic chemotherapy is a promising therapeutic modality for women with triple-negative breast cancer, but questions remain regarding optimal chemotherapy backbone and biomarkers for patient selection. We report final outcomes from a phase Ib trial evaluating pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) with either weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly) or flat-dose capecitabine (2000 mg orally twice daily for 7 days of every 14-day cycle) in the 1st/2nd line setting. The primary endpoint is safety (receipt of 2 cycles without grade III/IV toxicities requiring discontinuation or ≥21-day delays). The secondary endpoint is efficacy (week 12 objective response). Exploratory aims are to characterize immunologic effects of treatment over time, and to evaluate novel biomarkers. The trial demonstrates that both regimens meet the pre-specified safety endpoint (paclitaxel: 87%; capecitabine: 100%). Objective response rate is 29% for pembrolizumab/paclitaxel (n = 4/13, 95% CI: 10-61%) and 43% for pembrolizumab/capecitabine (n = 6/14, 95% CI: 18-71%). Partial responses are observed in two subjects with chemo-refractory metaplastic carcinoma (both in capecitabine arm). Both regimens are associated with significant peripheral leukocyte contraction over time. Response is associated with clinical PD-L1 score, non-receipt of prior chemotherapy, and the H&E stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte score, but also by a novel 27 gene IO score and spatial biomarkers (lymphocyte spatial skewness). In conclusion, pembrolizumab with paclitaxel or capecitabine is safe and clinically active. Both regimens are lymphodepleting, highlighting the competing immunostimulatory versus lymphotoxic effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Further exploration of the IO score and spatial TIL biomarkers is warranted. The clinical trial registration is NCT02734290.

Immunomodulatory Activity of a Colony-stimulating Factor-1 Receptor Inhibitor in Patients with Advanced Refractory Breast or Prostate Cancer: A Phase I Study.

PURPOSE: Tumor-associated macrophages correlate with increased invasiveness, growth, and immunosuppression. Activation of the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) results in proliferation, differentiation, and migration of monocytes/macrophages. This phase I study evaluated the immunologic and clinical activity, and safety profile of CSF-1R inhibition with the mAb LY3022855. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were treated with LY3022855 intravenously in 6-week cycles in cohorts: (A) 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); (B) 1.0 mg/kg on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5; (C) 100 mg once weekly; (D)100 mg Q2W. mCRPC patients were enrolled in cohorts A and B; patients with MBC were enrolled in all cohorts. Efficacy was assessed by RECIST and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (22 MBC; 12 mCRPC) received ≥1 dose of LY3022855. At day 8, circulating CSF-1 levels increased and proinflammatory monocytes CD14DIMCD16BRIGHT decreased. Best RECIST response was stable disease in five patients with MBC (23%; duration, 82-302 days) and three patients with mCRPC (25%; duration, 50-124 days). Two patients with MBC (cohort A) had durable stable disease >9 months and a third patient with MBC had palpable reduction in a nontarget neck mass. Immune-related gene activation in tumor biopsies posttreatment was observed. Common any grade treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, asymptomatic increased lipase, and creatine phosphokinase. CONCLUSIONS: LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed evidence of immune modulation. Clinically meaningful stable disease >9 months was observed in two patients with MBC.

Dietary fat reduction and breast cancer outcome: interim efficacy results from the Women's Intervention Nutrition Study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical and observational studies suggest a relationship between dietary fat intake and breast cancer, but the association remains controversial. We carried out a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial to test the effect of a dietary intervention designed to reduce fat intake in women with resected, early-stage breast cancer receiving conventional cancer management. METHODS: A total of 2437 women were randomly assigned between February 1994 and January 2001 in a ratio of 40:60 to dietary intervention (n = 975) or control (n = 1462) groups. An interim analysis was performed after a median follow-up of 60 months when funding for the intervention ceased. Mean differences between dietary intervention and control groups in nutrient intakes and anthropometric variables were compared with t tests. Relapse-free survival was examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis, stratified log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Dietary fat intake was lower in the intervention than in the control group (fat grams/day at 12 months, 33.3 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 32.2 to 34.5] versus 51.3 [95% CI = 50.0 to 52.7], respectively; P<.001), corresponding to a statistically significant (P = .005), 6-pound lower mean body weight in the intervention group. A total of 277 relapse events (local, regional, distant, or ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence or new contralateral breast cancer) have been reported in 96 of 975 (9.8%) women in the dietary group and 181 of 1462 (12.4%) women in the control group. The hazard ratio of relapse events in the intervention group compared with the control group was 0.76 (95% CI = 0.60 to 0.98, P = .077 for stratified log rank and P = .034 for adjusted Cox model analysis). Exploratory analyses suggested a differential effect of the dietary intervention based on hormonal receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: A lifestyle intervention reducing dietary fat intake, with modest influence on body weight, may improve relapse-free survival of breast cancer patients receiving conventional cancer management. Longer, ongoing nonintervention follow-up will address original protocol design plans, which called for 3 years of follow-up after completion of recruitment.