Search

Background: Several neoadjuvant trials have been conducted directed at treating triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients with platinum agents with pathologic complete response (pCR) rates ranging from 16%-32%. Eribulin mesylate, a nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mechanism of action, has clinical activity as monotherapy in breast cancer and other solid tumors. A recent phase I trial found that the combination of eribulin mesylate with carboplatin was well tolerated and showed activity in advanced solid tumors. The recommended dose for future trials was eribulin mesylate 1.1 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC6. We proposed a neoadjuvant phase II trial with the combination of carboplatin and eribulin in patients with TNBC. Methods: 30 patients were enrolled between November 2011 and February 2013. Patients received eribulin at 1.4 mg/m2 (intravenously over 2-5 minutes) on days 1 and 8 followed by carboplatin AUC = 6 (intravenously over 30 minutes) on day 1 every 21 days for a total of 4 cycles. Definitive surgery was performed 3-8 weeks after completion of therapy. Our primary endpoint was to determine the pCR in TNBC patients treated with the combination of carboplatin and eribulin. Secondary objectives included determination of the clinical response rate, residual cancer burden (RCB), toxicity evaluation, in addition to correlative markers including TLE3, Smad3, cyclins/CDKs, and PIN1 and the Homologous Recombination Deficiency Assay (HRD). Results: There was an initial safety run-in to evaluate the appropriate dose of eribulin in the study population. After the 10th patient, the study was temporarily suspended; toxicity was assessed for the first 10 patients (cycle 1 only) to assess whether eribulin at 1.4mg/m2 or a dose reduction to 1.1 mg/m2 would be required for the remaining patients. Of the first 10 patients, only 2 of 10 experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, and 0 of 10 patients experienced grade 3 or 4 peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, the study was continued for the remaining 20 patients with eribulin dosed at 1.4 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC = 6. Thirty of the planned 30 patients have been enrolled to date. Of the 30 patients, 24 have completed therapy and 6 are currently on study. Of the 24 patients who have completed therapy, 11 have achieved a pCR (45.83%). As for clinical response rates, 5 have had stable disease (20.8%), 5 have had a complete response (20.8%), and 13 have had a partial response (54.2%). Final results will be presented at the time of the meeting including pCR, RCB, toxicity and correlative studies. The combination of eribulin and carboplatin was well tolerated with a predictable side effect profile. Of the 24 patients who have completed therapy, 8 (33%) required a dose reduction in eribulin for grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. One patient had neutropenic fever. There were no dose reductions for thrombocytopenia thus far. Correlative studies are in progress. Conclusion: The combination of carboplatin and eribulin in the neoadjuvant setting appears to be safe and efficacious in patients with TNBC. Statistical analysis on outcomes for the entire study population and correlative study results on pre- and post-treatment tissues are forthcoming. Future randomized clinical trials should evaluate further this regimen. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-14-14.

The inclusion of medically vulnerable population in research is required to improve population health. Ethnic Minorities are among the most medically underserved, and represent 40% of the US population. Hence, ethnic minority inclusion in biomedical research is essential to ensure optimal applicability and benefit of medical advancements. Informed by the Community Health Educator (CHE) program of the NCI-CRCHD and charged by our Cancer Center goal to reduce the burden of cancer within our Catchment area communities, we created and tested our Partnered for Inclusion and Access in Research (PAIR) model to increase community responsiveness and minority participation in our research. First, using a team science community engaged approach, our research institute – including basic, translational, clinical and population researchers – aligned with our clinical care, hospital component to form a common Community Advisory Council (CAC). The CAC enhances the integrated representation of the community’s voice within our research and practice. Our CAC, therefore, serves as a resource in reaching other community advisors for targeted research and community benefit programs. For example, our CAC facilitated the inclusion of African American, Chinese and Latino communities for our U01 project investigating breast cancer and the environment. Secondly, in collaboration with community partners including ACS, we are training community research navigators to broaden our reach, and increase community capacity to engage with researchers and participate in research, as well as address their pressing health concerns. Thirdly, we created a culturally and linguistically tailored brief video promoting Latino participation in clinical trials (CT), biospecimen studies (BB) and population research. This video is used in combination with direct referral to a research study with the intent of increasing awareness, acceptability, access and participation of Latinos in CT, BB and population research. Our report focusing on a BB study with Latinas, show that, to date a total of 372 women were accrued resulting in an 88% BB enrollment. Therefore, our community engaged, culturally and linguistically appropriate PAIR model demonstrates utility and effectiveness in engaging ethnic minorities and in particular Latinos in biomedical research. Future plans include continued, expanded face-to-face and technology platform dissemination of PAIR. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, Mayra Serrano, Steve Rosen, Marisela Huerta, Katty Nerio, Alejandro Fernandez, Lisa Dowd, Phyllis Clark, Lucy Young, Mary Ann Van Duyen, Precilla Belin. Using community team science: An advocacy engaged approach to recruit ethnic minorities in cancer research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-052. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-LB-052

Background: Lapatinib, a dual kinase inhibitor against EGFR and HER2, has activity in metastatic HER2+ breast cancer. Nab-paclitaxel has been found to be one of the most active agents in metastatic breast cancer. Its combination has not been studied in the neoadjuvant setting. We have conducted a pilot neoadjuvant trial in HER2+ patients (pts) combining lapatinib with nab-paclitaxel.Methods: Females with newly diagnosed breast cancer (stage I-III) received four cycles of lapatinib 1000 mg po/day and nab-paclitaxel 260mg /m2 IV every three weeks. Postoperative therapy was at the discretion of the investigator. The accrual goal of 30 pts has been met. The primary endpoint was clinical response rate (CRR) with secondary endpoints including pathologic complete response (pCR), toxicity, and proliferation, apoptosis and angiogenesis markers.Results: A total of 28 pts have completed all therapy to date. The most common toxicities were rash, neuropathy, fatigue and myalgias. Most toxicities were grade 1/2 although one pt developed grade 3 rash and five pts grade 3 diarrhea. Nab-paclitaxel was dose reduced in 8 and lapatinib in 10 of 104 cycles. No cardiac toxicity was observed. Response data is available on 25 pts. CRR was 88% with four complete clinical responses and 18 patients with partial clinical response. Three patients had stable disease. Four patients achieved pCR.Summary of efficacy and toxicityResponse Non-hematologic ToxicityGrade 1/2Grade 3/4Hematologic toxicity Overall response22 (88%)Nausea7 (25%)1 (3.6%)Anemia9 (32.1%)Complete response4 (16%)Rash19 (67.8%)1 (3.6%) Partial response18 (72%)Fatigue17 (60.7%)2 (7.2%) Stable disease3 (12%)Neuropathy14 (50%)0 pCR4 (19.0%)Arthralgias/17 (60.7%)1 (3.6%) Diarrhea15 (53.6%)5 (17.9%) Conclusions: The combination of lapatinib and nab-paclitaxel is very active as first-line treatment in HER2+ breast cancer. Toxicities, including rash and diarrhea were observed and medically managed. Patients did not receive prophylactic medications for rash or diarrhea Updated clinical data on all 30 patients as well as correlative markers will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 1091.

Background: Liposomal formulations such as pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) were developed to improve the therapeutic index and overall benefit of the anthracyclines (A). Lapatinib (L) is a selective and highly competitive inhibitor of ErbB1 and ErbB2 tyrosine kinases. The combination of conventional doxorubicin and an ErbB2 targeting agent (trastuzumab) was effective but led to an unacceptable risk of cardiac toxicity. The combination of PLD and L however may be effective with less cardiac risk. Methods: This is an open-label, phase I, dose-escalation trial of PLD at 20, 30, 45 and 60 mg/m2 IV every 4 weeks (maximum of 8 doses) and L, 1500 mg po daily until progression in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). EGFR and/or ErbB2 positivity was not required. Prior chemotherapy, endocrine therapy and trastuzumab were allowed however prior A use was limited to 240 mg/m2 of doxorubicin or 600 mg/m2 of epirubicin. Initially, prior EGFR targeting therapies were not allowed however the trial was subsequently amended to allow prior lapatinib. Concomitant CYP3A4 inducers/ inhibitors were not allowed. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥ 50% was required. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety, tolerability and feasibility of the combination of PLD and L, particularly with respect to cardiac safety. MUGAs were performed at entry and every 8 weeks thereafter. Results: 16 patients (PLD: 20 mg/m2 - 4 pts; 30 mg/m2 - 3 pts; 45 mg/m2 – 6 pts; 60 mg/m2- 3 pts) with a mean age of 53 yrs (range, 33-68) have been treated for a total of 30 treatment cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was not reached. One pt experienced an LVEF drop to < 50% after 4 cycles however this was accompanied by a pericardial effusion felt to be secondary to progressive disease. Adverse events observed include: grade IV- mucus plugging and knee pain in 1 pt each; grade III- fatigue and hand-foot-syndrome (HFS) in 2 pts each and edema, diarrhea, dizziness, headache, stomatitis and skin toxicity in 1 pt each; grade I/II in ≥2 pts- anemia, leucopenia, fatigue, shortness of breath, pain, nausea, stomatitis, anorexia, diarrhea, increased alkaline phosphatase or transaminases, hypoalbuminemia and hyperglycemia. Preliminary response data in 11 evaluable pts reveals 1 PR, 3 SD, and 8 PD. Event-free and overall survival curves are as shown.Conclusions: In the first 16 pts treated, the combination of PLD and L has been well tolerated without treatment-related cardiac toxicity. One pt experienced an LVEF drop to < 50%, however this was felt likely to be disease-related. DLT was not reached however grade 3 HFS occurred in 2 out of 3 pts in the 60 mg/m2 cohort. A pharmacokinetic interaction cohort at the 45 mg/m2 dose is planned. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 3096.