Search

Purpose: We wanted to determine the prognosis and the phenotypic characteristics of hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer tumors harboring an ERBB2 mutation in the absence of a HER2 amplification. Experimental Design: We retrospectively collected information from the American Association of Cancer Research-Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange registry database from patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, ERBB2-mutated advanced breast cancer. Phenotypic and co-mutational features, as well as response to treatment and outcome were compared with matched control cases ERBB2 wild type. Results: A total of 45 ERBB2-mutant cases were identified for 90 matched controls. The presence of an ERBB2 mutation was not associated with worse outcome determined by overall survival (OS) from first metastatic relapse. No significant differences were observed in phenotypic characteristics apart from higher lobular infiltrating subtype in the ERBB2-mutated group. ERBB2 mutation did not seem to have an impact in response to treatment or time-to-progression (TTP) to endocrine therapy compared with ERBB2 wild type. In the co-mutational analyses, CDH1 mutation was more frequent in the ERBB2-mutated group (FDR < 1). Although not significant, fewer co-occurring ESR1 mutations and more KRAS mutations were identified in the ERBB2-mutated group. Conclusions: ERBB2-activating mutation was not associated with a worse OS from time of first metastatic relapse, or differences in TTP on treatment as compared with a series of matched controls. Although not significant, differences in coexisting mutations (CDH1, ESR1, and KRAS) were noted between the ERBB2-mutated and the control group.

Somatic mutations in phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (Patients were enrolled on the basis of localA total of 166 patients withTaselisib had limited activity in the tumor types tested and is no longer in development. This genome-driven study improves understanding of the activity, limitations, and resistance mechanisms of using PI3K inhibitors as monotherapy to target

ThePatients with HRSeventy-six patients (32/18/26 in cohorts 1/2/3) from nine countries were enrolled. The prespecified primary endpoint was met in cohort 1 with ORR of 19% [95% confidence interval (CI), 9%-35%], but not in cohorts 2 and 3 with ORR of 0% (95% CI, 0%-18%) and 15% (95% CI, 6%-34%), respectively. Frequent adverse events included hypertension (87%), hypothyroidism (45%), nausea (33%), and proteinuria (32%). Exploratory biomarker analyses suggested higher ORR in patients with highLucitanib had modest antitumor activity and significant hypertension-related toxicity in patients with HR

PURPOSE: Based on promising predinical data, we conducted a single-arm phase II trial to assess the clinical benefit rate (CBR) of neratinib, defined as complete/partial response (CR/PR) or stable disease (SD) ≥24 weeks, in HER2(mut) nonamplified metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) HER2(mut) detection. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue positive for HER2(mut) was required for eligibility. Neratinib was administered 240 mg daily with prophylactic loperamide. ctDNA sequencing was performed retrospectively for 54 patients (14 positive and 40 negative for tumor HER2(mut)). RESULTS: Nine of 381 tumors (2.4%) sequenced centrally harbored HER2(mut) (lobular 7.8% vs. ductal 1.6%; P = 0.026). Thirteen additional HER2(mut) cases were identified locally. Twenty-one of these 22 HER2(mut) cases were estrogen receptor positive. Sixteen patients [median age 58 (31–74) years and three (2–10) prior metastatic regimens] received neratinib. The CBR was 31% [90% confidence interval (CI),13%–55%], including one CR, one PR, and three SD ≥24 weeks. Median PFS was 16 (90% CI, 8–31) weeks. Diarrhea (grade 2, 44%; grade 3, 25%) was the most common adverse event. Baseline ctDNA sequencing identified the same HER2(mut) in 11 of 14 tumor-positive cases (sensitivity, 79%; 90% CI, 53%–94%) and correctly assigned 32 of 32 informative negative cases (specificity, 100%; 90% CI, 91%–100%). In addition, ctDNA HER2(mut) variant allele frequency decreased in nine of 11 paired samples at week 4, followed by an increase upon progression. CONCLUSIONS: Neratinib is active in HER2(mut), nonamplified MBC. ctDNA sequencing offers a noninvasive strategy to identify patients with HER2(mut) cancers for clinical trial participation.

Purpose: MAPK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways play important roles in many tumors. In this study, safety, antitumor activity, and pharmacokinetics of buparlisib (pan class PI3K inhibitor) and trametinib (MEK inhibitor) were evaluated. Experimental Design: This open-label, dose-finding, phase Ib study comprised dose escalation, followed by expansion part in patients with RAS- or BRAF-mutant non–small cell lung, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer. Results: Of note, 113 patients were enrolled, 66 and 47 in dose-escalation and -expansion parts, respectively. MTD was established as buparlisib 70 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily [5/15, 33% patients with dose-limiting toxicities (DLT)] and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily (1/10, 10% patients with DLTs). DLTs included stomatitis (8/103, 8%), diarrhea, dysphagia, and creatine kinase (CK) increase (2/103, 2% each). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 73 patients (65%); mainly CK increase, stomatitis, AST/ALT (aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase) increase, and rash. For all (21) patients with ovarian cancer, overall response rate was 29% [1 complete response, 5 partial responses (PR)], disease control rate 76%, and median progression-free survival was 7 months. Minimal activity was observed in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (1/17 PR) and pancreatic cancer (best overall response was SD). Relative to historical data, buparlisib exposure increased and trametinib exposure slightly increased with the combination. Conclusions: At RP2D, buparlisib 60 mg + trametinib 1.5 mg daily shows promising antitumor activity for patients with KRAS-mutant ovarian cancer. Long-term tolerability of the combination at RP2D is challenging, due to frequent dose interruptions and reductions for toxicity. Clin Cancer Res; 21(4); 730–8. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose: Breast cancer in young women is associated with poor prognosis. We aimed to define the role of gene expression signatures in predicting prognosis in young women and to understand biological differences according to age. Experimental Design: Patients were assigned to molecular subtypes [estrogen receptor (ER)+/HER2−; HER2+, ER−/HER2−)] using a three-gene classifier. We evaluated whether previously published proliferation, stroma, and immune-related gene signatures added prognostic information to Adjuvant! online and tested their interaction with age in a Cox model for relapse-free survival (RFS). Furthermore, we evaluated the association between candidate age-related genes or gene sets with age in an adjusted linear regression model. Results: A total of 3,522 patients (20 data sets) were eligible. Patients aged 40 years or less had a higher proportion of ER−/HER2− tumors (P < 0.0001) and were associated with poorer RFS after adjustment for breast cancer subtype, tumor size, nodal status, and histologic grade and stratification for data set and treatment modality (HR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.10–1.63, P = 0.004). The proliferation gene signatures showed no significant interaction with age in ER+/HER2− tumors after adjustment for Adjuvant! online. Further analyses suggested that breast cancer in the young is enriched with processes related to immature mammary epithelial cells (luminal progenitors, mammary stem, c-kit, RANKL) and growth factor signaling in two independent cohorts (n = 1,188 and 2,334). Conclusions: Proliferation-related prognostic gene signatures can aid treatment decision-making for young women. However, breast cancer arising at a young age seems to be biologically distinct beyond subtype distribution. Separate therapeutic approaches such as targeting RANKL or mammary stem cells could therefore be needed. Clin Cancer Res; 18(5); 1341–51. ©2012 AACR.