Search

Purpose: To determine (i) the relationship between candidate biomarkers of the antiproliferative (Ki67) response to letrozole and palbociclib alone and combined in ER+/HER2− breast cancer; and (ii) the pharmacodynamic effect of the agents on the biomarkers. Experimental Design: 307 postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2− primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant treatment with letrozole for 14 weeks; letrozole for 2 weeks, then letrozole+palbociclib to 14 weeks; palbociclib for 2 weeks, then letrozole+palbociclib to 14 weeks; or letrozole+palbociclib for 14 weeks. Biopsies were taken at baseline, 2 and 14 weeks and surgery at varying times after stopping palbociclib. Immunohistochemical analyses were conducted for Ki67, c-PARP, ER, PgR, RB1, CCNE1, and CCND1. Results: Higher baselines ER and PgR were significantly associated with a greater chance of complete cell-cycle arrest (CCCA: Ki67 Conclusions: High CCNE1 levels were confirmed as a biomarker of resistance to letrozole+palbociclib. Ki67 recovery within 3–9 days of discontinuing palbociclib indicates incomplete suppression of proliferation during the “off” week of its schedule.

Purpose: ESR1 mutations are acquired frequently in hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer after prior aromatase inhibitors. We assessed the clinical utility of baseline ESR1 circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in the two phase III randomized trials of fulvestrant versus exemestane. Experimental Design: The phase III EFECT and SoFEA trials randomized patients with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy, between fulvestrant 250 mg and exemestane. Baseline serum samples from 227 patients in EFECT, and baseline plasma from 161 patients in SoFEA, were analyzed for ESR1 mutations by digital PCR. The primary objectives were to assess the impact of ESR1 mutation status on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in a combined analysis of both studies. Results: ESR1 mutations were detected in 30% (151/383) baseline samples. In patients with ESR1 mutation detected, PFS was 2.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0–2.6] on exemestane and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.0–6.0) on fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39–0.89; P = 0.01). In patients without ESR1 mutations detected, PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI, 3.7–6.2) on exemestane and 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.6–5.5) on fulvestrant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81–1.37; P = 0.69). There was an interaction between ESR1 mutation and treatment (P = 0.02). Patients with ESR1 mutation detected had 1-year OS of 62% (95% CI, 45%–75%) on exemestane and 80% (95% CI, 68%–87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.04; restricted mean survival analysis). Patients without ESR1 mutations detected had 1-year OS of 79% (95% CI, 71%–85%) on exemestane and 81% (95% CI, 74%–87%) on fulvestrant (P = 0.69). Conclusions: Detection of ESR1 mutations in baseline ctDNA is associated with inferior PFS and OS in patients treated with exemestane versus fulvestrant.

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy.METHODS: We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804.FINDINGS: Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96–99% (n=800, kappa 0·89–0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83–98) overall and 98% (87–100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0–23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9–49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6–48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3–17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1–33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C).INTERPRETATION: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment.FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology.

Background: HER2 mutations occur in approximately 3% of HER2 non-amplified cancers and include missense substitutions and indels within the tyrosine kinase domain resulting in oncogenic HER2 activation. Neratinib, an irreversible EGFR, HER2 and ERBB4 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated activity in pre-clinical HER2 mutant models, and in a prior phase I trial with HER2 mutations identified through tumour testing. The plasmaMATCH trial Cohort B assessed the efficacy of neratinib in BC patients with a HER2 mutation identified in ctDNA testing. Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial was an open-label, multi-centre, multi-cohort platform trial, consisting of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced BC. Patients with a HER2 mutation identified via ctDNA testing were registered to Cohort B. Patients were treated with 240mg neratinib once daily. Patients with ER positive BC were also treated with fulvestrant 500mg intramuscularly on Cycle 1 Days 1 and 15, and Cycle 2 onwards every 28 days. The primary endpoint for Cohort B was confirmed objective response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1. Using a single stage A’Hern design with a target response rate of 25%, unacceptable response rate of 5%, alpha=5% and power=80%, at least 3 responses out of 16 evaluable patients were required to infer efficacy. Results: Following ctDNA testing, 21 patients enrolled in Cohort B (58% of patients with HER2 mutations identified in ctDNA testing). Eighteen (86%) were ER positive, 2 (10%) were HER2 amplified, and 18 (86%) had visceral metastases. The most common HER2 mutations detected in baseline plasma were L755S (47.6%), V777L (19%), and S310F (14.3%). In the 20 evaluable patients, confirmed response rate was 25.0% (95%CI 8.7-49.1%, 5/20) (first 16 evaluable patients: 4/16, 25.0% (95%CI 7.3-52.4)). One patient had a complete response, ongoing at 29 months duration, and three additional patients had unconfirmed partial responses. Median progression free survival was 5.4 months (IQR 3.4-9.1) and median duration of response was 5.7 months (IQR 3.7-9.7 months) with 3 patients continuing on treatment. The most common clinically significant grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20%) and hypertension (15%). Conclusions: Neratinib, with or without fulvestrant, was active in advanced BC patients with HER2 mutations identified in ctDNA testing, meeting the pre-specified threshold for efficacy. Citation Format: Andrew M Wardley, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Iain Macpherson, Richard D Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Peter Stephens, Olga Oikonomidou, Jeremy P Braybrooke, Mark Tuthill, Jacinta Abraham, Matthew C Winter, Belinda Kingston, Katie Wilkinson, Judith M Bliss, Alistair Ring, Nicholas Turner, on behalf of the plasmaMATCH Trial Management Group. Results from plasmaMATCH trial treatment cohort B: A phase II trial of neratinib plus fulvestrant in ER positive breast cancer or neratinib alone in ER negative breast cancer in patients with a HER2 mutation identified via ctDNA screening (CRUK/15/010) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-07.

Background: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing may provide a more current assessment of the genetic profile of advanced breast cancer (BC) compared with analysis of the primary tumour, with repeat advanced disease biopsy conducted infrequently in routine clinical practice. The plasmaMATCH trial was designed to assess the clinical utility of using ctDNA testing to select patients for targeted therapies. Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial was an open-label, multi-centre, multi-cohort platform trial, consisting of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced BC, with patients recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts with therapies matched to mutations identified in ctDNA (A: ESR1 mutation - extended-dose fulvestrant 500mg every 2 weeks, B: HER2 mutation - neratinib +/- fulvestrant (standard dosing), C: AKT1 in ER positive BC -capivasertib + fulvestrant (standard dosing), D: AKT1 in ER negative BC or PTEN inactivating mutation - capivasertib). A fifth cohort (E) recruited patients with triple negative BC with no actionable mutation to receive olaparib + AZD6738, and will be reported separately. Each cohort had a specific phase II single arm design. ctDNA testing was conducted with two technologies: digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) at a central laboratory prospectively in all patients, and error corrected sequencing with Guardant360 prospectively from part-way through recruitment and retrospectively for the remaining patients. Tumour sequencing from an advanced disease biopsy was conducted retrospectively, not influencing cohort entry. The primary endpoint for Cohorts A-D is confirmed objective response rate by RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival, safety and frequency of mutations identified in ctDNA screening. Results: Entry into ctDNA testing for Cohorts A-D was closed on 26/Apr/2019 with 1044 patients registered. ctDNA screening results were received for 1033 patients (99%), with 142 patients entered into Cohorts A-D (A 84, B 21, C 18, D 19). Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and sequencing results was high (individual gene level agreement 95.5%-99.4%, kappa 0.89-0.93). Predefined efficacy criteria were met in Cohorts B (neratinib for HER2 mutations) and C (capivasertib for AKT mutations), with exploratory analysis of Cohort D identifying activity of capivasertib in AKT1 mutations (Table 1). Efficacy criteria were not met in Cohort A (extended-dose fulvestrant for ESR1 mutations). Adverse events were consistent with prior reports, with extended-dose fulvestrant well tolerated. Table 1: Efficacy results from plasmaMATCHMutationCohortConfirmed response rate, % (95%CI; n/N)Median PFS (IQR), monthsAll patientsFirst 16 evaluable patients*ESR1A8.1% (3.0-16.8; 6/74)-2.2 (1.7-5.3)HER2B25.0% (8.7-49.1; 5/20)25.0% (7.3-52.4; 4/16)5.4 (3.4-9.1)AKT1C22.2% (6.4-47.6; 4/18)18.8% (4.0-45.6; 3/16)10.2 (3.2-18.2)AKT basketD10.5% (1.3-33.1; 2/19)12.5% (1.6-38.3; 2/16)3.4 (1.8-5.5)AKT133.3% (4.3-77.7; 2/6)--PTEN0 % (0/13)--*Predefined cohort efficacy thresholds for response were set: 13/78 (A); 3/16 (B, C, D) Conclusion: Circulating tumour DNA testing offers accurate tumour genotyping, sufficient for routine clinical practice. This approach can be used to identify patients with rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, who have clinically relevant response rates with matched targeted therapies. Citation Format: Nicholas Turner, Belinda Kingston, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Andrew M Wardley, Iain Macpherson, Richard D Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Peter Stephens, Olga Oikonomidou, Jeremy P Braybrooke, Mark Tuthill, Jacinta Abraham, Matthew C Winter, Hannah Bye, Michael Hubank, Claire Snowdon, Daniel Rea, David Cameron, Abeer Shaaban, Katrina Randle, Katie Wilkinson, Laura Moretti, Judith M Bliss, Alistair Ring, on behalf of the plasmaMATCH Trial Management Group. Results from the plasmaMATCH trial: A multiple parallel cohort, multi-centre clinical trial of circulating tumour DNA testing to direct targeted therapies in patients with advanced breast cancer (CRUK/15/010) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-06.

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is found in the plasma of over 90% of patients with advanced breast cancer (BC). ctDNA analysis can establish the current genomic profile of an individual’s cancer and identify potentially targetable mutations. The genomic landscape of advanced BC and clinical associations has yet to be fully defined. This analysis describes the genomic landscape of ctDNA in patients screened for the UK plasmaMATCH study. Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial was an open-label, multi-centre, multi-cohort platform trial, consisting of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced BC. The trial consists of parallel treatment cohorts (Cohorts A-E) with therapies matched to mutations identified in ctDNA testing. The genomic landscape of ctDNA in advanced BC was prospectively analysed for hotspot PIK3CA,AKT1, HER2 and ESR1 mutations using digital droplet PCR (ddPCR, Bio-Rad), and using an error-corrected 73-gene targeted panel (Guardant360, Guardant Health) prospectively from part-way through the trial, and retrospectively for the remaining patients. Results: Entry into ctDNA testing for Cohorts A-D was closed on 26/Apr/2019, at which time 1044 patients had been registered and 1025 tested with ddPCR. 800 patients had targeted panel ctDNA sequencing (364 prospective, 436 retrospective) (Table 1). Targeted sequencing identified a somatic alteration in 92.9% of patients (743/800). The most frequent mutations were TP53 (44.1%), PIK3CA (34.9%), ESR1 (33.1%), GATA3 (11.0%) and ARID1A (7.8%). ESR1 (33.1%) and KRAS (4.1%) alterations occurred at higher frequency in ctDNA compared to a metastatic tissue sequencing series (q Genomic AlterationddPCR*Targeted Panel**All % n = 1025HR+ HER2-% n = 658HR+ HER2+ % n = 62HR- HER2+ % n = 36TNBC % n = 172All % n = 800HR+ HER2- % n = 515HR+ HER2+ % n = 48HR- HER2+ % n = 26TNBC % n = 136PIK3CA mutation25.829.933.919.49.334.939.041.734.614.7ESR1 mutation27.737.819.40033.143.522.900.7AKT1 mutation4.24.01.604.75.05.22.104.4ERBB2 mutation2.73.208.31.26.46.612.515.42.2PTEN mutationNANANANANA6.98.54.23.84.4ERBB2 amplificationNANANANANA5.81.931.357.71.5MSI highNANANANANA1.10.42.101.5* Phenotype data based on 928 patients with known phenotype tested by ddPCR for targetable hotspot mutations.** Phenotype data based on 725 patients with known phenotype sequenced by targeted panel. All pathogenic mutations are shown, including mutations not tested by ddPCR. Citation Format: Belinda Kingston, Hannah Bye, Michael Hubank, Giselle Walsh, Claire Swift, Matthew Beaney, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Andrew M Wardley, Iain Macpherson, Richard D Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Katie Wilkinson, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Judith M Bliss, Nicholas Turner, Alistair Ring, on behalf of the plasmaMATCH Trial Management Group. The genomic landscape of breast cancer based on ctDNA analysis: Data from the plasmaMATCH trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-07.

Background: Activation of the AKT pathway can result from diverse rare genetic events, including mutation of AKT1, AKT2/3 E17K, and through inactivating mutation or homozygous deletion of PTEN. AKT1 mutations and genetic loss of PTEN are associated with activation of AKT signalling and selective sensitivity to AKT inhibition in pre-clinical models. Capivasertib is a potent catalytic inhibitor of AKT1, AKT2 and AKT3 with activity both in vivo and in the clinic. The plasmaMATCH trial assessed the efficacy of capivasertib in BC patients with rare AKT activating mutations. Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial is an open-label, multi-centre, multi-cohort platform trial, consisting of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced BC. Patients with AKT1 mutations in ER negative BC; or AKT2/3 E17K mutations, PIK3R1 or PTEN inactivating mutations orhomozygous deletion of PTEN in both ER positive and ER negative BC were recruited. Mutations were identified in ctDNA testing in plasmaMATCH or in prior tumour sequencing. Patients were treated with capivasertib 480mg BID 4 days on - 3 days off. The primary endpoint for Cohort D is confirmed objective response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1. Using a single stage A’Hern design with a target response rate of 25%, unacceptable response rate of 5%, alpha=5% and power=80%, at least 3 responses out of 16 evaluable patients were required to infer efficacy for capivasertib. Results: In total 19 patients were recruited in Cohort D, 12 following ctDNA testing and 7 on tumour testing. Fifteen (79%) were ER positive, all were HER2 non-amplified, and 14 (74%) had visceral metastases. Mutations were AKT1 E17K (5 patients), AKT1 L52R (1), PTEN inactivating mutation (12), and PTEN homozygous deletion (1). All patients were evaluable with overall confirmed response rate of 10.5% (95%CI 1.3-33.1%, 2/19) (first 16 evaluable patients: 2/16, 12.5% (95%CI 1.6-38.3)). Two further patients had unconfirmed responses. Median progression free survival was 3.4 months (IQR 1.8-5.5 months) and median duration of response 3.9 months (IQR 3.7-4.2 months) with 1 patient continuing treatment. In patients with AKT1 mutations there was a 33% response rate (2/6) with 2 further unconfirmed responses. There were no responses in patients with PTEN mutations (0/13). The most common clinically significant grade 3 or 4 adverse events were rash (26%), hypertension (11%), transaminase increase (11%) and vomiting (11%). Conclusions: Capivasertib monotherapy did not meet pre-specified criteria for efficacy in this group of patients with a range of AKT pathway activating mutations. In exploratory analysis, capivasertib was active in patients with AKT1 mutations. Citation Format: Richard D Baird, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Andrew M Wardley, Iain Macpherson, Rebecca Roylance, Peter Stephens, Olga Oikonomidou, Jeremy P Braybrooke, Mark Tuthill, Jacinta Abraham, Matthew C Winter, Belinda Kingston, Katie Wilkinson, Nicholas Turner, Alistair Ring, Judith M Bliss, on behalf of the plasmaMATCH Trial Management Group. Results from plasmaMATCH trial treatment cohort D: A phase II trial of capivasertib in patients with an AKT activation basket mutation identified via ctDNA testing or tumour sequencing (CRUK/15/010) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-14.

Background: AKT1 mutation occurs in approximately 3% of breast cancer (BC), enriched in advanced BC. The AKT1 E17K mutation results in constitutive activation of AKT1, associated with sensitivity to AKT inhibitor capivasertib in pre-clinical models, and in a prior phase I trial with AKT1 mutations identified through tumour testing. The plasmaMATCH trial Cohort C assessed the efficacy of capivasertib and fulvestrant in ER positive BC patients with an AKT1 mutation in ctDNA testing. Methods: The plasmaMATCH trial was an open-label, multi-centre, multi-cohort platform trial, consisting of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced BC. Patients with an AKT1 mutation identified via ctDNA testing were registered to Cohort C. Patients were treated with capivasertib 400mg BID 4 days on - 3 days off, plus fulvestrant 500mg intramuscularly on Cycle 1 Days 1 and 15, and Cycle 2 onwards every 28 days. The primary endpoint for Cohort C was confirmed objective response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1. Using a single stage A’Hern design with a target response rate of 25%, unacceptable response rate of 5%, alpha=5% and power=80%, at least 3 responses out of 16 evaluable patients were required to infer efficacy. Results: Following ctDNA testing, 18 patients enrolled in Cohort C (42% of patients with AKT1 mutations identified in ctDNA testing). All were ER positive, 1 (5.6%) was HER2 amplified, and 17 (94%) had visceral metastases. Mutation was AKT1 E17K in 17 patients and AKT1 L52R in 1 patient. All patients were evaluable with a confirmed response rate of 22.2% (95%CI 6.4-47.6%, 4/18) (first 16 evaluable patients: 3/16, 18.8% (95%CI 4.0-45.6)). A further 4 patients had an unconfirmed partial response. Median progression free survival was 10.2 months (IQR 3.2-18.2 months) and the median duration of response was 7.5 months (IQR 4.1-9.8 months) with 4 patients continuing on treatment. The most common clinically significant grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (22%), rash (17%), diarrhoea (11%) and hyperglycaemia (11%). Conclusions: Capivasertib plus fulvestrant was active in patients with ER positive breast cancer and AKT1 mutations identified in ctDNA testing, meeting the pre-specified threshold for efficacy Citation Format: Rebecca Roylance, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Andrew M Wardley, Iain Macpherson, Richard D Baird, Peter Stephens, Olga Oikonomidou, Jeremy P Braybrooke, Mark Tuthill, Jacinta Abraham, Matthew C Winter, Belinda Kingston, Katie Wilkinson, Alistair Ring, Judith M Bliss, Nicholas Turner, on behalf of the plasmaMATCH Trial Management Group. Results from plasmaMATCH trial treatment cohort C: A phase II trial of capivasertib plus fulvestrant in ER positive breast cancer patients with an AKT1 mutation identified via ctDNA screening (CRUK/15/010) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-19-11.

Background Increasing the dose intensity of cytotoxic therapy by shortening the intervals between cycles, or by giving individual drugs sequentially at full dose rather than in lower-dose concurrent treatment schedules, might enhance efficacy. Methods To clarify the relative benefits and risks of dose-intense and standard-schedule chemotherapy in early breast cancer, we did an individual patient-level meta-analysis of trials comparing 2-weekly versus standard 3-weekly schedules, and of trials comparing sequential versus concurrent administration of anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy. The primary outcomes were recurrence and breast cancer mortality. Standard intention-to-treat log-rank analyses, stratified by age, nodal status, and trial, yielded dose-intense versus standard-schedule first-event rate ratios (RRs). Findings Individual patient data were provided for 26 of 33 relevant trials identified, comprising 37 298 (93%) of 40 070 women randomised. Most women were aged younger than 70 years and had node-positive disease. Total cytotoxic drug usage was broadly comparable in the two treatment arms; colony-stimulating factor was generally used in the more dose-intense arm. Combining data from all 26 trials, fewer breast cancer recurrences were seen with dose-intense than with standard-schedule chemotherapy (10-year recurrence risk 28·0% vs 31·4%; RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·82–0·89; p Interpretation Increasing the dose intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy by shortening the interval between treatment cycles, or by giving individual drugs sequentially rather than giving the same drugs concurrently, moderately reduces the 10-year risk of recurrence and death from breast cancer without increasing mortality from other causes.

The genomics of advanced breast cancer (ABC) has been described through tumour tissue biopsy sequencing, although these approaches are limited by geographical and temporal heterogeneity. Here we use plasma circulating tumour DNA sequencing to interrogate the genomic profile of ABC in 800 patients in the plasmaMATCH trial. We demonstrate diverse subclonal resistance mutations, including enrichment of HER2 mutations in HER2 positive disease, co-occurring ESR1 and MAP kinase pathway mutations in HR + HER2− disease that associate with poor overall survival (p = 0.0092), and multiple PIK3CA mutations in HR + disease that associate with short progression free survival on fulvestrant (p = 0.0036). The fraction of cancer with a mutation, the clonal dominance of a mutation, varied between genes, and within hotspot mutations of ESR1 and PIK3CA. In ER-positive breast cancer subclonal mutations were enriched in an APOBEC mutational signature, with second hit PIK3CA mutations acquired subclonally and at sites characteristic of APOBEC mutagenesis. This study utilises circulating tumour DNA analysis in a large clinical trial to demonstrate the subclonal diversification of pre-treated advanced breast cancer, identifying distinct mutational processes in advanced ER-positive breast cancer, and novel therapeutic opportunities., Circulating tumour DNA can provide useful information on disease burden. Here, the authors analysed circulating tumour DNA from 800 patients from a breast cancer clinical trial and investigate the subclonal nature of the disease, and identify DNA mutations associated with resistance and poor survival.

Background: Early changes in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels may identify which patients respond to therapy earlier than imaging, with ctDNA levels falling rapidly in patients who respond to therapy. The plasmaMATCH trial assessed the utility of ctDNA testing with an error-corrected 73-gene targeted panel (Guardant360, Guardant Health) to allocate patients to four mutation matched therapy cohorts. ESR1-extended fulvestrant (A), HER2-neratinib +/- fulvestrant (B), AKT1-capivasertib + fulvestrant (C), AKT basket-capivasertib (D). Here, we report paired baseline and early on treatment ctDNA analysis from plasmaMATCH, to establish the optimal criteria for predicting progression free survival (PFS). Methods: In plasmaMATCH treatment cohorts, plasma samples were collected for ctDNA analysis pre-treatment at cycle 1-day 1 (C1D1) and cycle 2-day 1 (C2D1) timepoints, and sequenced with the Guardant 360 assay. Patients were included if they had a minimum of 14 days of treatment in the first cycle. Multiple different methods were investigated to integrate variant allele fractions (VAF) of mutations identified at each timepoint to estimate the level of ctDNA, including maximum VAF, mean VAF and weighted mean VAF, and weighted mean VAF of clonal mutations at C1D1. Variants with a VAF Table 1ctDNA dynamics categoryMedian PFS months (95%CI)6-month PFSORRUndetectable (N=11) CDR=018.2 (10.2-NA)91%9/11 (82%)Suppressed (N=14) CDR 05.4 (4.6-NA)48%6/14 (43%)High (N=52) CDR >=0.1322.4 (2.0-3.7)8%4/52 (8%) Citation Format: Javier Pascual, Rosalind J Cutts, Belinda Kingston, Sarah Hrebien, Lucy S Kilburn, Sarah Kernaghan, Laura Moretti, Katie Wilkinson, Andrew M Wardley, Iain R Macpherson, Richard D Baird, Rebecca Roylance, Michael Hubank, Giselle Walsh, Iris Faull, Kimberly C Banks, Richard B Lanman, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Judith M Bliss, Alistair Ring, Nicholas C Turner. Assessment of early ctDNA dynamics to predict efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic breast cancer: Results from plasmaMATCH trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-02.

Background: \ud Preoperative and perioperative aromatase inhibitor (POAI) therapy has the potential to improve outcomes in women with operable oestrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer. It has also been suggested that tumour Ki67 values after 2 weeks (Ki672W) of POAI predicts individual patient outcome better than baseline Ki67 (Ki67B). The POETIC trial aimed to test these two hypotheses.\ud \ud Methods: \ud POETIC was an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial (done in 130 UK hospitals) in which postmenopausal women aged at least 50 years with WHO performance status 0–1 and hormone receptor-positive, operable breast cancer were randomly assigned (2:1) to POAI (letrozole 2·5 mg per day orally or anastrozole 1 mg per day orally) for 14 days before and following surgery or no POAI (control). Adjuvant treatment was given as per UK standard local practice. Randomisation was done centrally by computer-generated permuted block method (variable block size of six or nine) and was stratified by hospital. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to recurrence. A key second objective explored association between Ki67 (dichotomised at 10%) and disease outcomes. The primary analysis for clinical endpoints was by modified intention to treat (excluding patients who withdrew consent). For Ki67 biomarker association and endpoint analysis, the evaluable population included all randomly assigned patients who had paired Ki67 values available. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02338310; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2007-003877-21; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN63882543. Recruitment is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing.\ud \ud Findings: \ud Between Oct 13, 2008, and April 16, 2014, 4480 women were recruited and randomly assigned to POAI (n=2976) or control (n=1504). On Feb 6, 2018, median follow-up was 62·9 months (IQR 58·1–74·1). 434 (10%) of 4480 women had a breast cancer recurrence (280 [9%] POAI; 154 [10%] control), hazard ratio 0·92 (95% CI 0·75–1·12); p=0·40 with the proportion free from breast cancer recurrence at 5 years of 91·0% (95% CI 89·9–92·0) for patients in the POAI group and 90·4% (88·7–91·9) in the control group. Within the POAI-treated HER2-negative subpopulation, 5-year recurrence risk in women with low Ki67B and Ki672W (low–low) was 4·3% (95% CI 2·9–6·3), 8·4% (6·8–10·5) with high Ki67B and low Ki672W (high–low) and 21·5% (17·1–27·0) with high Ki67B and Ki672W (high–high). Within the POAI-treated HER2-positive subpopulation, 5-year recurrence risk in the low–low group was 10·1% (95% CI 3·2–31·3), 7·7% (3·4–17·5) in the high–low group, and 15·7% (10·1–24·4) in the high–high group. The most commonly reported grade 3 adverse events were hot flushes (20 [1%] of 2801 patients in the POAI group vs six [

Background Selection of resistance mutations may play a major role in the development of endocrine resistance. ESR1 mutations are rare in primary breast cancer but have high prevalence in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) for advanced breast cancer. We investigated the evolution of genetic resistance to the first-line AI therapy using sequential ctDNA sampling in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods Eighty-three patients on the first-line AI therapy for metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months to disease progression and ctDNA analysed by digital droplet PCR and enhanced tagged-amplicon sequencing (eTAm-Seq). Mutations identified in progression samples by sequencing were tracked back through samples before progression to study the evolution of mutations on therapy. The frequency of novel mutations was validated in an independent cohort of available baseline plasma samples in the Study of Faslodex versus Exemestane with or without Arimidex (SoFEA) trial, which enrolled patients with prior sensitivity to AI. Results Of the 39 patients who progressed on the first-line AI, 56.4% (22/39) had ESR1 mutations detectable at progression, which were polyclonal in 40.9% (9/22) patients. In serial tracking, ESR1 mutations were detectable median 6.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.7–NA) before clinical progression. Utilising eTAm-Seq ctDNA sequencing of progression plasma, ESR1 mutations were demonstrated to be sub-clonal in 72.2% (13/18) patients. Mutations in RAS genes were identified in 15.4% (6/39) of progressing patients (4 KRAS, 1 HRAS, 1 NRAS). In SoFEA, KRAS mutations were detected in 21.2% (24/113) patients although there was no evidence that KRAS mutation status was prognostic for progression free or overall survival. Conclusions Cancers progressing on the first-line AI show high levels of genetic heterogeneity, with frequent sub-clonal mutations. Sub-clonal KRAS mutations are found at high frequency. The genetic diversity of AI resistant cancers may limit subsequent targeted therapy approaches.

Importance Patients with breast cancer remain at risk of relapse after adjuvant therapy. Celecoxib has shown antitumor effects in preclinical models of human breast cancer, but clinical evidence is lacking. Objective To evaluate the role of celecoxib as an addition to conventional therapy for women with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)–negative primary breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants The Randomized European Celecoxib Trial (REACT) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study conducted in 160 centers across the UK and Germany testing 2 years of adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo among 2639 patients recruited between January 19, 2007, and November 1, 2012, with follow-up 10 years after treatment completion. Eligible patients had completely resected breast cancer with local and systemic therapy according to local practice. Patients with ERBB2-positive or node-negative and T1, grade 1 tumors were not eligible. Randomization was in a 2:1 ratio between celecoxib or placebo. Statistical analysis was performed from May 5, 2019, to March 5, 2020. Interventions Patients received celecoxib, 400 mg, or placebo once daily for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis. Follow-up is complete. Results A total of 2639 patients (median age, 55.2 years [range, 26.8-86.0 years]) were recruited; 1763 received celecoxib, and 876 received placebo. Most patients’ tumors (1930 [73%]) were estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive and ERBB2 negative. A total of 1265 patients (48%) had node-positive disease, and 1111 (42%) had grade 3 tumors. At a median follow-up of 74.3 months (interquartile range, 61.4-93.6 years), DFS events had been reported for 487 patients (19%): 18% for those who received celecoxib (n = 323; 5-year DFS rate = 84%) vs 19% for those who received placebo (n = 164; 5-year DFS rate = 83%); the unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.17; log-rankP = .75). Rates of toxic effects were low across both treatment groups, with no evidence of a difference. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, patients showed no evidence of a DFS benefit for 2 years’ treatment with celecoxib compared with placebo as adjuvant treatment of ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Longer-term treatment or use of a higher dose of celecoxib may lead to a DFS benefit, but further studies would be required to test this possibility. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02429427and isrctn.org Identifier:ISRCTN48254013

Background. ESR1 mutations are acquired frequently in hormone receptor positive breast cancer after treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AI) in the metastatic setting. In prior analysis of the SoFEA phase III randomised trial, we demonstrated the detection of ESR1 mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) predicted for greater benefit of fulvestrant compared to exemestane (Fribbens et al JCO 2016). Methods. The phase III EFECT study randomised 693 patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer who had progressed on a prior non-steroidal AI, between fulvestrant loading dose and then 250mg q28 days and exemestane (Chia S, et al. J Clin Oncol 2008). Baseline serum samples were available from 227 patients in EFECT, and were analysed for the 8 most common ESR1 mutations by multiplex digital PCR. The association between baseline ESR1 status and time to progression (TTP) was analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results. ESR1 mutations were successfully analysed in 98% (222/227) of patients with baseline serum samples, with ESR1 mutations detected in 23.4% (52/222) samples. Overall, detection of ESR1 mutations at baseline was associated with shorter TTP (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.26-3.29, p=0.004). In patients with ESR1 mutation detected, TTP was 2.0 months (95%CI, 1.7-2.4) on exemestane and 3.5 months (95%CI, 1.9-5.0) on fulvestrant (HR 0.67, 95%CI 0.37-1.19, p=0.17). In patients without ESR1 mutations detected, TTP was 4.5 months (95%CI, 3.7-5.6) on exemestane and 3.7 months (95%CI, 3.3-5.2) on fulvestrant (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.75-1.45, p=0.78). A meta-analysis of SoFEA and EFECT will be presented at the conference. Conclusions. Historical serum samples may be used for ctDNA analysis, illustrating the potential for future research of sample archives. Patients with ESR1 mutation detected in ctDNA have poor outcome when treated with exemestane, replicating prior results from SoFEA and demonstrating clinical utility for ESR1 mutation ctDNA analysis. Citation Format: Turner N, Swift C, Kilburn L, Garcia-Murillas I, Johnston S, Budzar A, Robertson J, Gradishar W, Piccart M, Schiavon G, Chia S. Baseline circulating ESR1 mutation analysis in the randomised phase III EFECT study of fulvestrant versus exemestane in advanced hormone receptor positive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-04.

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing may provide a contemporary assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without need to repeat tumor biopsy. The plasmaMATCH trial was designed to assess the clinical utility of using ctDNA testing to select advanced breast cancer patients for targeted treatment. Methods: plasmaMATCH is an open label, multi-center, multi-cohort platform trial of ctDNA testing in ~1000 patients with advanced breast cancer, with patients recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: A:ESR1 mutation, B:HER2 mutation, C:AKT1 mutation (ER-positive cancer), D:AKT activation basket (AKT1 mutation ER-negative cancer or PTEN mutation). ctDNA testing was conducted with digital PCR and error-corrected targeted sequencing. Tumour sequencing from an advanced disease biopsy was conducted retrospectively, not influencing cohort entry. Each cohort had a phase II single-arm design with primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate using RECISTv1.1 in evaluable patients. Findings: 1051 patients registered, with ctDNA testing results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 95.5%-99.4% (n=800, kappa 0.89-0.93). ctDNA testing had 93-98% sensitivity for mutations identified in tissue sequencing. In patients with HER2 mutations, response rate with neratinib, plus fulvestrant in ER-positive cancer, was 25.0% (5/20, 95%CI 8.7-49.1%). In patients with AKT1 mutations and ER-positive cancer, response rate with capivasertib plus fulvestrant was 22.2% (4/18, 95%CI 6.4-47.6%). In patients with AKT1 mutations and ER-negative cancer, 33.3% (2/6, 95%CI,4.3-77.7) responded to capivasertib, although 0/13 patients with PTEN mutation responded. Response rate of ESR1 mutations with extended-dose fulvestrant was 8.1% (6/74, 95%CI 3.0-16.8%). Adverse events were consistent with prior reports. Interpretation: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of patients for mutation-directed therapies. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN16945804 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03182634 Funding: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/15/010,C30746/A19505), AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology. Declaration of Interests: NCT, AR, JMB, LSK, CS, LM, SK, KW, SM, HB, MH, BK and RC report grants from Cancer Research UK, grants and non-financial support in the form of study drug provision from AstraZeneca and Puma Biotechnology and non-financial support in the form of ctDNA sequencing from Guardant Health and provision of reagents from BioRad during the conduct of the study. NCT also reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Bicycle Theraputics, Taiiho, Zeno Pharmaceuticals and Repare Therapeutics and grants from BioRad, Clovis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and Guardant Health outside the submitted work. BK also reports personal fees from Guardant Health outside the submitted work. AMW reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees and other support from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD, AstraZeneca, Athenex and other support from Seattle Genetics, Andrew Wardley Ltd, Manchester Cancer Academy and Outreach Research and Innovation Group Limited outside the submitted work. IRM reports personal fees and non-financial support from Roche Products UK Ltd, Eli Lilly and Eisai and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daichi Sankyo, Genomic Health, Pierre Fabre and MSD outside the submitted work. RDB reports grants from AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech outside the submitted work. RR reports personal fees from Novartis, Eli-Lilly and Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Daiichi Sankyo and G1Therapeutics and non-financial support from Roche and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. PS reports personal fees from Novartis, Eisai and Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work.OO reports grants and personal fees from Pfizer and Eisai, personal fees from Roche/GNE and Tesaro, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly, grants from Novartis outside the submitted work. MT reports personal fees from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Vaccitech, Oxford Vacmedix, Lilly, Astellas, Genomic Health and Esai, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, BMS, Ipsen and non-financial support from EUSA Pharma outside the submitted work. JA reports grant and personal fees from Eisai and personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. MCW reports personal fees and non-financial support from Easai, Lilly and Roche and personal fees from Pfizer, Genomic Health and Novartis outside the submitted work. HB also reports personal fees from AstraZeneca outside of the submitted work. MH also reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Diagnostics and Eli Lilly during the conduct of the study. AS reports grants from Ventana Roche and Genomic Heath, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Hologic, Genomic Health and Ventana Roche outside the submitted work. JMB also reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Clovis Oncology and grants from Medivation outside the submitted work. AR also reports personal fees from Roche Products Limited, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly and MSD outside the submitted work. JPB, HG, DR, DC and KR have nothing to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was co-sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and approved by a Research Ethics Committee (16/SC/0271). All participants gave written informed consent prior to registration for ctDNA testing, and again prior to treatment cohort entry. Safety and efficacy data were reviewed regularly by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC). Trial oversight was provided by an independent Trial Steering Committee.

Purpose ESR1 mutations are selected by prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in advanced breast cancer. We assessed the impact of ESR1 mutations on sensitivity to standard therapies in two phase III randomized trials that represent the development of the current standard therapy for estrogen receptor–positive advanced breast cancer. Materials and Methods In a prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed ESR1 mutations in available archived baseline plasma from the SoFEA (Study of Faslodex Versus Exemestane With or Without Arimidex) trial, which compared exemestane with fulvestrant-containing regimens in patients with prior sensitivity to nonsteroidal AI and in baseline plasma from the PALOMA3 (Palbociclib Combined With Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor–Positive HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer After Endocrine Failure) trial, which compared fulvestrant plus placebo with fulvestrant plus palbociclib in patients with progression after receiving prior endocrine therapy. ESR1 mutations were analyzed by multiplex digital polymerase chain reaction. Results In SoFEA, ESR1 mutations were found in 39.1% of patients (63 of 161), of whom 49.1% (27 of 55) were polyclonal, with rates of mutation detection unaffected by delays in processing of archival plasma. Patients with ESR1 mutations had improved progression-free survival (PFS) after taking fulvestrant (n = 45) compared with exemestane (n = 18; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; P = .02), whereas patients with wild-type ESR1 had similar PFS after receiving either treatment (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.67; P = .77). In PALOMA3, ESR1 mutations were found in the plasma of 25.3% of patients (91 of 360), of whom 28.6% (26 of 91) were polyclonal, with mutations associated with acquired resistance to prior AI. Fulvestrant plus palbociclib improved PFS compared with fulvestrant plus placebo in both ESR1 mutant (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.74; P = .002) and ESR1 wild-type patients (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.70; P < .001). Conclusion ESR1 mutation analysis in plasma after progression after prior AI therapy may help direct choice of further endocrine-based therapy. Additional confirmatory studies are required.

Background Experimental evidence (Fisher et al, 1989) & a small clinical trial (IMPACT) respectively suggested peri-operative endocrine therapy (ET) may improve long-term disease-related outcome in patients undergoing primary surgery for ER positive (ER+) breast cancer (BC) & that tumor Ki67 levels after 2 weeks of peri-operative aromatase inhibitor (POAI) therapy might offer an effective way of predicting outcome & the need for additional adjuvant treatment. POETIC (*Peri-Operative Endocrine Therapy - Individualising Care) is a phase III randomized controlled trial designed to test these hypotheses & provide data to determine whether 2 week Ki67 improves prediction beyond that by baseline Ki67 of the group who have a higher risk of relapse in the first years after diagnosis in spite of best current standard of care. Patients & methods Postmenopausal patients with ER+ BC were randomised 2:1 to either, POAI (centre choice: letrozole 2.5mg or anastrozole 1mg daily) for 14 days prior to & 14 days following surgery or no POAI (Control). Randomization was stratified by treating center; adjuvant treatment was per UK routine practice. Tissue samples were collected at baseline & surgery (FFPE) for blinded Ki67 testing. Primary endpoint was Time to Recurrence (TTR: time from randomization to loco-regional or distant recurrence or BC death). A secondary endpoint was Ki67 at baseline & after 2 weeks of AI. Results Between 2008 & 2014, 4480 patients (2976 AI, 1504 Control) were randomized from 130 UK centers. Median age was 67 (IQR 62-75), 18% had grade 3 tumors, 39% were node positive and 61% had tumor size>2cm. For adjuvant ET 314 patients (7.2%) received tamoxifen (Tam), 3695 (84.6%) an AI, 251 (5.7%) Tam changing to AI and 109 (2.5%) changing from AI to Tam. On 8 August 2017, median follow-up was 60.7 months (IQR 49.5 to 72.2). 408/4480 (9.1%) patients have had a TTR event; 263 (8.8%) allocated to POAI compared to 145 (9.6%) controls: HR=0.91 (95%CI: 0.74, 1.12) Log-rank p=0.37. Adjusted HR=0.91 (95%CI: 0.74, 1.11). The relationship of Ki67 (baseline & after 2 weeks) with TTR in both the POAI & control groups will be presented for the overall ER+ population & HER2 defined sub-groups. Discussion There was no significant evidence that four weeks of POAI improved TTR compared with no POAI. POETIC will provide definitive evidence on the role of 2 week POAI-treated Ki67 to inform future practice & trials in terms of the potential to identify a group of patients for whom current standard of care appears insufficient in the few years post diagnosis. Citation Format: Robertson JFR, Dowsett M, Bliss JM, Morden JP, Wilcox M, Evans A, Holcombe C, Horgan K, Kirwan C, Mallon E, Sibbering M, Skene A, Vidya R, Cheang M, Banerji J, Kilburn L, Dodson A, Smith I. Peri-operative aromatase inhibitor treatment in determining or predicting longterm outcome in early breast cancer – The POETIC* Trial (CRUK/07/015) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-03.

Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors are being used in combination with aromatase inhibitors as therapy for advanced ER+ breast cancer (BC) and are being explored for use in primary BC. Few mechanisms driving resistance to added CDK4/6 inhibitors have been defined. The PALLET phase II randomized neoadjuvant trial of letrozole (LET) ± palbociclib (PALBO) in postmenopausal ER+HER2- primary BC reported that clinical response rate over 14wks was not significantly increased by adding PALBO to LET but suppression of Ki67 was significantly increased (Johnston et al, JCO 2018, 37, 178): after 14wks complete cell cycle arrest (CCCA, Ki67 Methods: 307 patients were randomized to LET (n=103) or LET+PALBO (n=204) for 14 wks. The first 2wks of LET+PALBO patients were randomised to LET, PALBO, or LET+PALBO. Biopsies were taken at baseline, 2wks and 14wks. Biomarker data are presented here for baseline only, other than Ki67 at both baseline and 14wks. IHC analyses were conducted on FFPE biopsies for ER, PgR, RB1, cyclin-E1, and cyclin-D1 (also FISH). RNA-seq was performed on fresh frozen biopsies. Association of each biomarker with CCCA was determined by logistic regression. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified between patients sensitive (CCCA) (n=94) and resistant (non-CCCA) (n=10) to treatments with or without PALBO at 14wks by DESeq2. Fifty hallmark gene sets were tested for significant enrichment with DEGs and differential gene sets were identified by using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA). Results: The association of IHC biomarkers with CCCA is shown in the table. Lower levels of ER, higher levels of cyclin-E1, and amplification of cyclin-D1 were each significantly associated with a greater chance of non-CCCA with LET+PALBO. High cyclin-E1 levels were also associated with reduced chance of CCCA with LET only. Patients with high baseline Ki67 also exhibited higher non-CCCA with LET+PALBO at 14wks (p=0.0002). In the RNAseq data we identified 1973 DEGs between the 14wk CCCA and non-CCCA patients for LET+PALBO. E2F and MYC targets, PI3K/AKT/MTOR signalling and interferon response gene sets were among the hallmark gene sets enriched for genes with higher expression in non-CCCA patients at 14wks for LET+PALBO (FDR Conclusion: Biomarkers associated with response/resistance to added PALBO were different from LET only. PALBO resistance was associated with higher baseline expression of cyclin-E1 (both IHC and RNA), CDK2, and genes related to E2F, MYC, interferon and MTOR signalling. These results suggest that multiple identifiable mechanisms of de novo resistance to PALBO are likely to exist in primary ER+ BC. On-going WES analyses will allow the significance of alterations at the DNA level to be presented. Table 1.Continuous measurement in a logistic regression for CCCA at 14 weeks; Oddsratio calculated separately for group A and groups B,C,D and were adjusted forregion (UK vs NA); * amplified vsnon-amplifiedContinuous measurement in a logistic regression for CCCA at 14 weeksBiomarkerLET LET+PALBOOdds ratio95% CIpOdds ratio95% CIpER1.120.36, 3.480.844.471.62, 12.380.004PgR4.381.03, 18.580.053.050.50, 18.560.23RB13.010.24, 38.560.400.420.05, 38.490.83Cyclin-E10.100.01, 0.840.030.020.00, 0.200.001Cyclin-D1 IHC3.090.51, 18.490.222.560.28, 23.330.40CyclinD1 FISH*1.470.43, 4.990.530.280.06, 0.860.03 Citation Format: Eugene F Schuster, Hui Xiao, Elena Lopez-Knowles, Lucy Kilburn, Mothaffar Rimawi, David A Wheeler, Katherine Pogue-Geile, Yuan Lui, Samuel A Jacobs, Chet Cornman, Shannon Puhalla, Maggie Cheang, Judith Bliss, Stephen Johnston, Mitch Dowsett, On behalf of the PALLET Trialists. Biomarkers of resistance to palbociclib in ER+ primary breast cancer in the PALLET trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-01.

1074 Background: In the Triple Negative Trial we observed no improved response rate (RR) to C over D in aTNBC [Tutt et al, Nat Med 2018], but we did in BRCA1/2 mutated (mut) patients (pts). We hypothesise tumors with other aberrant DNA damage response (DDR) characteristics having higher RR to DNA damage inducing C than D. Methods: We tested the predictive value of DDR process related gene expression signatures (PARPi7, chromosomal instability CIN70, TP53 & DDR Deficiency (DDRD)) on 192 treatment naïve primary tumours (PT) by total RNA-sequencing. Odds ratio (OR) for RR are reported. Paired PT & recurrent (REC) signature scores were compared. Results: Unexpectedly, high DDRD and PARPi7 were associated with higher RR to D than C ( p =0.01 & 0.06). No effect was observed for CIN70 or TP53 signature. To assess whether the unexpected results were due to biological changes 12 PT-REC pairs were available from pts who received chemotherapy (CT) between PT & REC. CIN70 increased from PT to REC, DDRD (non-significantly) & PARPi7 decreased. 4/5 TP53 wildtype classified PT samples classified as mut in REC. The BRCA1/2 & DDRD-treatment interactions only held in pts who received CT before trial entry (table). The PARPi7-treatment interaction only held in CT naïve pts. In CT naïve pts, high CIN70 tumors suggested higher C RR as hypothesized. Restricted to the 149 PAM50 basal-like pts, results were non-significant but similar trends seen. Conclusions: In this trial of aTNBC, DDRD high pts with prior CT had better RR to D than C. A possible explanation for this unexpected result is selective pressure of adjuvant DNA damaging CT and selection for relative taxane sensitivity in those who recur despite a high DDRD score. The hypothesised CIN70 treatment interaction was observed in CT naïve pts. Our results suggest care is required in application of signatures to initial diagnostic material when predicting response to DNA damaging agents at REC particularly in pts with prior CT. [Table: see text]

Germline mutations in BRCA1/2 predispose individuals to breast cancer (termed germline-mutated BRCA1/2 breast cancer, gBRCA-BC) by impairing homologous recombination (HR) and causing genomic instability. HR also repairs DNA lesions caused by platinum agents and PARP inhibitors. Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) harbor subpopulations with BRCA1/2 mutations, hypothesized to be especially platinum-sensitive. Cancers in putative 'BRCAness' subgroups - tumors with BRCA1 methylation; low levels of BRCA1 mRNA (BRCA1 mRNA-low); or mutational signatures for HR deficiency and those with basal phenotypes - may also be sensitive to platinum. We assessed the efficacy of carboplatin and another mechanistically distinct therapy, docetaxel, in a phase 3 trial in subjects with unselected advanced TNBC. A prespecified protocol enabled biomarker-treatment interaction analyses in gBRCA-BC and BRCAness subgroups. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). In the unselected population (376 subjects; 188 carboplatin, 188 docetaxel), carboplatin was not more active than docetaxel (ORR, 31.4% versus 34.0%, respectively; P = 0.66). In contrast, in subjects with gBRCA-BC, carboplatin had double the ORR of docetaxel (68% versus 33%, respectively; biomarker, treatment interaction P = 0.01). Such benefit was not observed for subjects with BRCA1 methylation, BRCA1 mRNA-low tumors or a high score in a Myriad HRD assay. Significant interaction between treatment and the basal-like subtype was driven by high docetaxel response in the nonbasal subgroup. We conclude that patients with advanced TNBC benefit from characterization of BRCA1/2 mutations, but not BRCA1 methylation or Myriad HRD analyses, to inform choices on platinum-based chemotherapy. Additionally, gene expression analysis of basal-like cancers may also influence treatment selection.

Background: Small-scale studies correlated the presence of thyroid autoimmunity with both improved or worsened breast cancer outcome. Objectives: We aimed to clarify this association in a large cohort using the phase III, randomized, controlled Taxotere as Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial (TACT, CRUK01/001). Methods: TACT women >18 years old with node-positive or high-risk node-negative early breast cancer (pT1–3a, pN0–1, M0), with stored plasma (n = 1,974), taken 15.5 (median; IQR 7.0–24.0) months after breast surgery were studied. Patients had also received chemotherapy (100%), radiotherapy (1,745/1,974; 88.4%), hormonal therapy (1,378/ 1,974; 69.8%), or trastuzumab (48/1,974; 2.4%). History of thyroid diseases and/or related treatments was not available. The prognostic significance of autoantibodies to thyroid peroxidase (TPOAb; positive ≥6 kIU/L), free-thyroxine and thyrotropin (combined: euthyroid, hypothyroid, hyperthyroid) was evaluated for disease-free survival (DFS), overall-survival (OS), and time-to-recurrence (TTR), with Cox regression models in univariate and multivariable analyses. The extended median follow-up was 97.5 months. Results: No difference in DFS was found by TPOAb status (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.78–1.19; p = 0.75) and/or thyroid function (unadjusted HR [hypothyroid vs. euthyroid]: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.79–1.68; p = 0.46; unadjusted HR [hyperthyroid vs. euthyroid]: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.82–1.61; p = 0.44). Similar results were obtained for OS, TTR, multivariable analyses, when TPOAb titre by tertiles was considered, and in a subgroup of 123 patients with plasma collected before adjuvant treatments. Conclusions: No evidence for a prognostic role of TPOAb and/or thyroid function in moderate-to-high-risk early breast cancer was found in the largest and longest observational study to date.

Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study of 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer (clinical trial information: ISRCTN11883920), has previously demonstrated that a switch from adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane was associated with clinically relevant improvements in efficacy. Here, we report the final efficacy analyses of this cohort. Patients and Methods Patients who remained disease free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the large number of non–breast cancer–related deaths now reported, breast cancer–free survival (BCFS), with censorship of intercurrent deaths, was the primary survival end point of interest. Analyses focus on patients with estrogen receptor-positive or unknown tumors (n = 4,599). Results At the time of the data snapshot, median follow-up was 120 months. In the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status, 1,111 BCFS events were observed with 508 (22.1%) of 2,294 patients in the exemestane group and 603 (26.2%) of 2,305 patients in the tamoxifen group. The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 6.7%), and the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92) favored exemestane. This difference remained in multivariable analysis that was adjusted for nodal status, prior use of hormone replacement therapy, and prior chemotherapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.90; P < .001). A modest improvement in overall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years in the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status was 2.1% (95% CI, −0.5% to 4.6%), and the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.01; P = .08). For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, −0.9% to 4.1%); the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.03, P = .15). No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients who reported a fracture event in the post-treatment period. Conclusion The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies have established that a strategy of switching to an aromatase inhibitor after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen can lead to sustained benefits in terms of reduction of disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality.

Background: Recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains difficult to treat, with an urgent need for more therapy options. Androgens bind to the androgen receptor (AR), commonly expressed in EOC. CYP17 inhibitor abiraterone irreversibly inhibits androgen biosynthesis. The Cancer of the Ovary Abiraterone (CORAL) trial was designed to evaluate the clinical activity of abiraterone in EOC. Patients & Methods: CORAL was a multi-centre, open-label, non-randomised, 2-stage phase II clinical trial. Eligible patients had progression within 12 months of last systemic therapy and no prior hormonal anti-cancer agents. Patients received abiraterone 1000 mg daily plus 5 mg prednisone until progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to combined Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours/Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup (RECIST/GCIG) criteria at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks. Results: A total of 42 patients were recruited; median age 65 (range 34–85) years; 37 (88.1%) had high-grade serous tumours; 20 (48%) had at least three prior lines of therapy; 29/40 (72.5%) were AR+. In stage 1, 1/26 response was observed (in an AR+, low-grade serous EOC); response lasted 47 weeks. Overall, 12 week ORR was 1/42 (2%), CBR was 11/42 (26%) (8/29 (28%) in AR+ patients). Disease control was ⩾6 months for 4/29 (14%). One patient (AR+, low-grade serous) had a RECIST response at 82 weeks. Four (10%) had grade ⩾3 hypokalaemia; 11 (26%) had dose delays. Conclusions: CORAL represents the first trial of an AR targeted agent in ovarian cancer. While responses were rare, a subset of patients achieved sustained clinical benefit. Targeting AR in EOC including low-grade serous cancer warrants further investigation. Trial registration: CORAL is registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN63407050; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63407050

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is an alternative to chemotherapy for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive early breast cancer (BC). We aimed to assess feasibility of recruiting patients to a study comparing chemotherapy versus endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with ER-rich primary BC, and response as well as translational endpoints were assessed. Patients requiring neoadjuvant therapy were randomised to chemotherapy: 6 x 3-weekly cycles FE100C or endocrine therapy: letrozole 2.5 mg, daily for 18-23 weeks. Primary endpoints were recruitment feasibility and tissue collection. Secondary endpoints included clinical, radiological and pathological response rates, quality of life and translational endpoints. 63/80 patients approached were eligible, of those 44 (70, 95 % CI 57-81) were randomised. 12 (54.5, 95 % CI 32.2-75.6) chemotherapy patients showed radiological objective response compared with 13 (59.1, 95 % CI 36.4-79.3) letrozole patients. Compared with baseline, mean Ki-67 levels fell in both groups at days 2-4 and at surgery [fold change: 0.24 (95 % CI 0.12-0.51) and 0.24; (95 % CI 0.15-0.37), respectively]. Plasma total cfDNA levels rose from baseline to week 8 [fold change: chemotherapy 2.10 (95 % CI 1.47-3.00), letrozole 1.47(95 % CI 0.98-2.20)], and were maintained at surgery in the chemotherapy group [chemotherapy 2.63; 95 % CI 1.56-4.41), letrozole 0.95 (95 % CI 0.71-1.26)]. An increase in plasma let-7a miRNA was seen at surgery for patients with objective radiological response to chemotherapy. Recruitment and tissue collection endpoints were met; however, a larger trial was deemed unfeasible due to slow accrual. Both regimens were equally efficacious. Dynamic changes were seen in Ki-67 and circulating biomarkers in both groups with increases in cfDNA and let-7a miRNA persisting until surgery for chemotherapy patients.

Background: Optimal endocrine treatment (trt) for post-menopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing on or following a non-steroidal (NS) aromatase inhibitor (AI) is unclear. The EFECT study showed no difference in efficacy between the steroidal antiestrogen fulvestrant (F) & steroidal AI exemestane (E) in this setting (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.82, 1.13; p = 0.65). Pre-clinical data suggest F may be more effective in a low estrogen environment. SoFEA investigated F combined with anastrozole (F+A) in patients (pts) with acquired resistance to previous AI compared with F alone & F alone vs. E. The combination of F+A was no better than F (HR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.83, 1.21; p = 0.98) nor F alone better than E (HR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.79, 1.14; p = 0.56); the lack of added benefit for F+A is consistent with previous 1st-line studies that have assessed this combination versus A alone (FACT & SWOG-S0226). Methods: SoFEA is a multi-center partially blinded randomized phase III study postmenopausal women were allocated to F plus A (F+A n=243), F plus placebo (n = 231) or E (n = 249). Similarly, EFECT is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multi-center phase III trial of F (n = 351) versus E (n = 342) in postmenopausal women (see table). However, given the differences in prior endocrine therapy/responsiveness within SoFEA & EFECT populations, an individual pt meta-analysis combining data from SoFEA & EFECT will be conducted enabling exploration of putative effects within specific pt subgroups to establish evidence in support, or not, of a pt subgroup sensitive to F at the dose used in these trials. Subgroups to be analysed include receptor status, visceral involvement, AI sensitivity, age, NSAI setting & time on NSAI. Results: 723 pts (480 in F & E) were enrolled from 82 UK & 4 South Korean centers (03/2004-04/2010) in SoFEA. 693 pts were enrolled from 138 centers worldwide (08/2003-11/2005) in EFECT. Trt was well tolerated in both trials; serious adverse events were rare. The meta-analysis will be conducted in July 2012 & results presented. Conclusion: Combining individual pt data from SoFEA & EFECT via meta-analysis will provide definitive clinical information on pt's response to F at the dose used in these studies, in particular whether certain pts with acquired resistance to NSAI do experience benefit of use of this antiestrogen as opposed to E. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-14-01.

Introduction: TACT, an investigator-led study in 4162 women with node positive (N+ve) or high risk node negative (N-ve) early breast cancer (EBC), is the largest taxane trial unconfounded by treatment (trt) duration. At principal analysis, with 5 years follow-up (fup), no evidence of improved disease-free survival (DFS) was observed by switching to 4 cycles of docetaxel (D) after 4 cycles of FEC (Ellis, Lancet 2009). Results were provocative in suggesting differential effects according to ER & HER2 status. Longer fup provides opportunity to detect emergence of late trt effects overall & within phenotypic subgroups & explore patterns of recurrence, by tumor characteristics. Patients & methods: TACT recruited women with histologically confirmed completely resected invasive EBC from 104 centers (UK (103), Belgium (1)) between 02/2001 & 07/2003. Centers chose FEC (600/60/600 mg/m2 q3wk × 8) or E-CMF (E 100mg/m2 q3wk × 4 → CMF 100mg/m2 PO d1-14 or 600mg/m2 IV d1&8/40/600 mg/m2 q4wk × 4) as their control, reflecting standard UK practice. Patients (pts) were randomized to FEC-D (FEC q3wk × 4 → D 100 mg/m2 q3wk × 4) or control. 2523 pts were from FEC centers (FEC = 1265: FEC-D = 1258) & 1639 from E-CMF centers (E-CMF = 824; FEC-D = 815). Endocrine therapy was given for 5 years. Few pts received HER2 directed therapy; 589 pts had unknown HER2 status. Median fup is now 97.5 months; this analysis updates DFS & overall survival in the ITT population. It also explores patterns of relapse by phenotypic & clinical characteristics. Analyses of trt effect are stratified by ER status due to issues of non-proportionality of hazard associated with length of fup. Results: DFS events have been reported for 1329 pts (FEC-D=640, Control=689) giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) & 95%CI (stratified by control regimen & ER status) of 0.93 (0.83, 1.03) overall; p = 0.16 in favor of FEC-D & for ER+ve/HER2-ve of 0.99 (0.84, 1.17), for ER+ve/HER2+ve) 0.97 (0.73, 1.30), for ER-ve/HER2+ve 0.74 (0.53, 1.03), & ER-ve/HER2-ve 0.93 (0.73, 1.17). 1017 patients have died (FEC-D=500, Control=517); unadjusted HR=0.98 (95%CI: 0.86, 1.10); p = 0.69 with intercurrent deaths (prior to distant relapse) reported for 80 pts (FEC-D=40, Control=40). Annual event rates show different pattern of disease relapse by phenotypic subgroup Graphical representation will further explore these patterns & associated sites of relapse. Discussion: With a median fup of >8 years no clear benefit has emerged for D over standard anthracyclines within the TACT pt group. Differential effects associated with different patterns of relapse remain of interest. TACT precedes use of antiHER2 therapy which is known to have impacted on early relapse risk in HER2+ve pts. The high relapse risk observed for pts with ER-ve/HER2-ve disease remains a current clinical challenge. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-13-03.

Background: The hormonal manipulation 5-Fluoro-uracil Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide (HMFEC) trial was developed at a time of uncertainty around the dose intensity of chemotherapy given to premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer and to the benefits of tailored endocrine therapy in such patients. Patients and methods: HMFEC was a multi-centre, phase III, open label, randomised controlled trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were premenopausal with node positive early breast cancer; significant cardiac disease or uncontrolled hypertension was exclusion criterion. Patients were allocated to receive either eight cycles of FE50C or FE75C (given 3 weekly) with or without hormone manipulation (HM; tamoxifen or luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists according to residual hormone levels at the end of chemotherapy) irrespective of ER status. The primary end-point was disease free survival (DFS). Principal analyses were by intention to treat (ITT); however, to reflect contemporary practice, subgroup analyses according to ER status were also conducted. The mature follow-up now available from this modest sized trial enables presentation of definitive results. Results: Between 1992 and 2000 a total of 785 patients were randomised into the HMFEC trial (203 FE50C-HM, 191 FE50C+HM, 198 FE75C-HM, 193 FE75C+HM). At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 245 DFS events have been reported (92 ER-, 153 ER+/unknown). The effects on DFS were not statistically significantly different according to epirubicin dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.06; p = 0.13 FE75C versus FE50C); however, FE75C appeared to induce more alopecia and neutropenia. No statistically significant evidence was observed to support an improvement in DFS in patients allocated HM either overall (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.68-1.13; p = 0.32) or in patients with ER+/unknown disease (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.62-1.17; p = 0.32) although effect sizes are consistent with worthwhile clinical effects. Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in survival between any of the four treatment groups of the trial. Conclusion: Higher doses of epirubicin cause more adverse events in the absence of clear improvement in overall survival. Endocrine therapy with either tamoxifen or goserelin provided no significant added benefit to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this group of patients. Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN98335268 (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background In a previous proof-of-principle study we demonstrated that detection of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the adjuvant setting, after completion of surgery and chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer, was associated with a high risk of early relapse. Here we present longer follow-up of the same series, to define the predictive power of ctDNA analysis for disease free survival, and assess the potential to predict overall survival. Methods We recruited a cohort of 55 women presenting with early stage, primary breast cancer, who were all scheduled to receive neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. The primary tumour was sequenced to identify somatic mutations, identifying at least one mutation in 43 patients. Mutations were tracked with digital PCR to identify ctDNA, in plasma samples taken either at a single post-surgical time point (2-6 weeks post-surgery) or with serial plasma samples taken every 6 months in the adjuvant setting. Results At a median 31.7 months follow-up, 42% (18/43) patients had relapsed. Detection of ctDNA at the single post-surgical time point was associated with poor disease free survival, HR=13.6 95%CI (4.5, 41.2) p Conclusion Detection of ctDNA in the adjuvant setting has a high predictive power for future relapse and death from breast cancer. Therapeutic trials are required to determine whether mutation tracking identifies relapse sufficiently early to allow for further adjuvant therapy. Citation Format: Turner NC, Garcia-Murillas I, Chopra N, Beaney M, Kilburn L, Cutts R, Osin P, Nerurkar A, Schiavon G, Hrebien S, Bliss J, Dowsett M, Smith I. Circulating tumor DNA analysis to predict relapse and overall survival in early breast cancer – Longer follow-up of a proof-of-principle study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-02-01.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is increasingly becoming a key treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. However, a lack of randomised data limits interpretation of results from retrospective and prospective cohort studies. Whilst these studies indicate higher rates of local control with acceptable toxicity the true benefit of adding SBRT to standard therapy remains unclear. Potential therapeutic benefit may also vary between tumour sites (underlying tumour biology, natural disease course). CORE investigates whether the addition of SBRT to standard therapy improves patient outcomes in common primary tumour sites where oligometastatic disease is encountered (prostate, breast, NSCLC).

Background Inhibition of COX-2 has been shown to attenuate the metastatic process in pre-clinical models of human breast cancer (BC). The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of 2 years adjuvant therapy with the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib compared with placebo in HER2-ve primary BC patients. Patients & Methods Patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive celecoxib 400mg once daily or placebo for 2 years. Patients had to have completely resected BC with prior local and systemic adjuvant treatment according to local practice. Concurrent radiotherapy was permitted and hormone receptor +ve patients received endocrine therapy according to local practice. Patients with HER2+ or node negative, T1 and grade 1 disease were excluded. Median age of patients was 55 years (IQR: 49-63). 50% of patients had tumours >2cm; 42% were grade 3; 48% had node +ve disease. According to local assessment 73% were ER/PgR +ve. Primary endpoint was Disease Free Survival (DFS); defined as time from randomisation to date of first event, with events contributing to analysis defined as recurrence (distant/local), new primary BC (ipsilateral/contralateral) and death. Secondary endpoints included Overall Survival (OS), toxicity, cardiovascular mortality and incidence of second primaries. Subgroup analysis by hormone receptor status was pre-planned. Survival endpoints are analysed using Cox-proportional hazards and log-rank tests; restricted mean survival is used where proportional hazards do not hold. Results Between January 2007 and November 2012, 2639 patients were randomised (1763 celecoxib; 876 placebo) from 181 centres across the UK and Germany. At 13th April 2017, median follow up was 60 months (IQR: 48-72) with 428 DFS events reported. Unadjusted survival analysis results are presented below, with hazard ratio 5 year survival estimate (95% CI)Hazard ratio (95% CI)p-valueDFS (all patients) Celecoxib83% (81, 85)1.02 (0.83 – 1.24)0.88Placebo83% (80, 86)1- DFS within ER+ Celecoxib87% (85, 89)0.89 (0.69 – 1.16)0.40Placebo86% (83, 89)1- DFS within ER- Celecoxib72% (68, 76)1.17 (0.85 – 1.61)0.33Placebo75% (69, 80)1- OS (all patients) Celecoxib90% (88, 91)0.97 (0.75 – 1.25)0.81Placebo90% (88, 92)1- The interaction between ER status and treatment was not significant; p=0.36. In the celecoxib and placebo groups there were 17 and 8 deaths respectively in patients who had not relapsed. These were due to cardiac (n=3; 2) and other (n=14; 6) in the celecoxib and placebo groups respectively; none were GI related. In total 304 serious adverse events were observed in 265 patients (186/1763 celecoxib; 79/876 placebo). In the celecoxib and placebo groups respectively these were related to cardiac (n=12; 7), GI (n=9; 2) and other (n=193; 81). Work is ongoing to determine whether a subset of ER+ patients whose primary tumours show the characteristics of a COX-2 signature receive greater benefit from celecoxib. Conclusions There is no benefit of celecoxib in the ITT population. Further exploratory studies focussing on the ER+ subpopulation are ongoing. Celecoxib treatment is not associated with significant toxicity when compared to placebo in this population of BC patients. Citation Format: Coombes RC, Tovey H, Kilburn L, Mansi J, Palmieri C, Bartlett J, Hicks J, Makris A, Evans A, Loibl S, Denkert C, Murray E, Grieve R, Coleman R, Schmidt M, Klare P, Rezai M, Rautenberg B, Klutinus N, Rhein U, Mousa K, Ricardo-Vitorino S, von Minckwitz G, Bliss J. A phase III multicentre double blind randomised trial of celecoxib versus placebo in primary breast cancer patients (REACT – Randomised EuropeAn celecoxib trial) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-03.

Background Improved survival rates in early breast cancer and the chronic nature of disease relapse result in a large cohort of patients being available for long-term follow-up (LTFUP) in randomised controlled trials. Whilst of recognised scientific value to assess long-term treatment-related sequelae, the volume of this activity can be challenging for trialists and participating sites, and comes at a considerable cost to research funders and the National Health Service (NHS). A National Cancer Research Institute Breast Clinical Studies Group supported project aimed to characterise UK LTFUP data collection procedures in order to propose improvements. Methods Protocols and case report forms for UK non-commercial National Institute for Health Research portfolio early breast cancer randomised controlled trials were reviewed and a questionnaire sent to associated participating NHS sites. Responders were asked to give opinions on issues with follow-up and LTFUP data collection procedures and to suggest potential improvements to practice. Results were used to inform design of a proposed standard LTFUP case report form. Results Thirty-four trials, involving eight Clinical Trials Units were eligible for inclusion in the review. All trials requested follow-up at least annually up to 5 years, with two-thirds requesting LTFUP after that time point. Information relating to efficacy endpoints was captured for all trials via case report forms; however, precise detail on recording of recurrence, second malignancies and death varied. Separately, questionnaires were returned from 66 NHS sites. Main concerns identified included difficulties in identifying all adverse events from hospital notes, volume of work, bureaucratic data management practices in Clinical Trials Units and perceptions of prioritisation of recruitment over follow-up. Conclusion Variation has existed with respect to detail of LTFUP information requested for UK trials. Improved communication, simplification and standardisation of data and associated collection methods are possible without compromising data requirements for efficient and effective trial reporting. Future use of routinely collected data, captured via electronic means, could transform practices and alleviate resource usage. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-379) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. Methods In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). Findings Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4–5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6–5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0–4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83–1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79–1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3–4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). Interpretation After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane. Funding Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Background. ESR1 mutations are selected by prior aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy for advanced breast cancer. We addressed the impact of ESR1 mutations on sensitivity to standard therapies in SoFEA and PALOMA3, two phase III randomised trials that represent the trends in the current therapy for estrogen receptor positive advanced breast cancer. Methods. We assessed plasma DNA ESR1 mutations in the SoFEA trial that compared exemestane with fulvestrant-containing regimens in patients with prior sensitivity to non-steroidal AI, and in the PALOMA3 trial that compared fulvestrant plus placebo with fulvestrant plus palbociclib in patients with progression on prior endocrine therapy. We developed and validated multiplex digital droplet PCR assays to detect ESR1 mutations in circulating free DNA. Plasma had been immediately processed in PALOMA3 but there was a delay of up to 9 days before processing of EDTA samples in the SoFEA trial. Results. In SoFEA we demonstrated that delayed processing of plasma samples had no effect on detection rate of ESR1 mutations (p = 0.71), which were found in 39.1%(63/161) patients. Patients with ESR1 mutations had improved progression free survival (PFS) on fulvestrant compared to exemestane (HR = 0.52, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.92, p = 0.02), while patients with wild type ESR1 had similar PFS on either treatment (HR = 1.07, 95%CI 0.68 to 1.67, p = 0.77). In PALOMA3, ESR1 mutations were found in the plasma of 25.3%(91/360) patients. ESR1 mutations were almost exclusively found in patients with prior AI exposure with or without tamoxifen, and were very rare with prior tamoxifen exposure only (28.9% (90/311) versus 2.0% (1/49) respectively, p endocrine therapy (sensitive to prior endocrine therapy, 29.8% (85/285) versus resistant 8.0% (6/75), p Conclusions. ESR1 mutation analysis in plasma after progression on prior AI therapy has clinical utility in directing choice of further endocrine therapy. Citation Format: Ben O’Leary, Charlotte Fribbens, Lucy Kilburn, Sarah Hrebein, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Matthew Beaney, Massimo Cristofanilli, Fabrice Andre, Sherene Loi, Sibylle Loibl, John Jiang, Cynthia Huang Bartlett, Maria Koehler, Mitch Dowsett, Judith Bliss, Stephen Johnston, Nicholas Turner. ESR1 mutations in circulating tumour DNA predict outcome to endocrine treatment in patients with estrogen receptor positive advanced breast cancer; analysis of 521 patients in the SoFEA and PALOMA3 trials. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-069.

Purpose Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), an investigator-led study in 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early-stage breast cancer has demonstrated clinically important benefits from switching adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane. Now, with longer follow-up, a large number of non–breast cancer–related events have been reported. Exploratory analyses describe breast cancer–free survival (BCFS) and explore incidence and patterns of the different competing events. Patients and Methods Patients who were disease-free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. At this planned analysis, the median follow-up was 91 months. Principal analysis focuses on 4,052 patients with estrogen receptor (ER) –positive and 547 with ER-unknown tumors. Results In all, 930 BCFS events have been reported (exemestane, 423; tamoxifen, 507), giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.92; P = .001) in favor of exemestane in the ER-positive/ER unknown group. Analysis partitioned at 2.5 years after random assignment showed that the on-treatment benefit of switching to exemestane (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.75; P < .001) was not lost post-treatment, but that there was no additional gain once treatment had ceased (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10; P = .60). Improvement in overall survival was demonstrated, with 352 deaths in the exemestane group versus 405 deaths in the tamoxifen group (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; P = .04). Of these, 222 were reported as intercurrent deaths (exemestane, 107; tamoxifen, 115). Conclusion The protective effect of switching to exemestane compared with continuing on tamoxifen on risk of relapse or death was maintained for at least 5 years post-treatment and was associated with a continuing beneficial impact on overall survival.

Background: The ACTION trial was initiated to provide evidence from a randomised trial on the effects of chemotherapy in women aged over 70 years where evidence for risk and benefit are lacking. Methods: This was a randomised, phase III clinical trial for high risk, oestrogen receptor (ER) negative/ER weakly positive early breast cancer. The trial planned to recruit 1000 women aged 70 years and older, randomised to receive 4 cycles of anthracycline chemotherapy or observation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free interval. The trial included a pilot phase to assess the acceptability and feasibility of recruitment. Results: The trial opened at 43 UK centres. Information on number of patients approached was available from 38 centres. Of the 43 eligible patients that were approached, 39 were not randomised due to patients declining entry. After 10 months only 4 patients had been randomised and after discussion with the research funder, the trial was closed and funding terminated. Conclusion: Despite widespread support at several public meetings, input from patient groups including representation on the Trial Management Group, the trial failed to recruit due to the inability to convince patients to accept randomisation. It would therefore seem that randomising the patients to receive chemotherapy vs observation is not a viable design in the current era for this patient population.

Purpose The Docetaxel Epirubicin Adjuvant (DEVA) trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of incorporating docetaxel after epirubicin to create a sequential anthracycline-taxane regimen in early breast cancer. Patients and Methods After complete tumor excision, postmenopausal women with node-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to either epirubicin 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks for six cycles (EPI × 6) or three cycles of epirubicin 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 4 weeks followed by three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (EPI-DOC). A subset of patients also participated in a quality of life (QOL) study. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results From 1997 to 2005, 803 patients entered DEVA (EPI × 6, n = 397; EPI-DOC, n = 406). At a median follow-up of 64.7 months (interquartile range, 45.2 to 84.4 months), 198 DFS events had been reported (EPI × 6, n = 114; EPI-DOC, n = 84). The 5-year DFS rates were 72.7% (95% CI, 68.0% to 77.3%) for epirubicin alone and 79.5% (95% CI, 75.2% to 83.8%) for epirubicin followed by docetaxel; evidence of improvement in DFS was observed with EPI-DOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.91; P = .008). One hundred twenty-seven patients have died (EPI × 6, n = 75; EPI-DOC, n = 52); a reduction in deaths was observed with EPI-DOC (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.94; P = .02). The 5-year overall survival rates were 81.8% (95% CI, 77.7% to 85.9%) for epirubicin and 88.9% (95% CI, 85.5% to 92.2%) for epirubicin followed by docetaxel. Assessment of toxicity and QOL showed that EPI-DOC was associated with greater toxicity but with no difference in QOL between arms during follow-up. Conclusion These results suggest, within a relatively small trial, that substitution of docetaxel for epirubicin for the last three cycles of chemotherapy results in improved outcome in postmenopausal women with node-positive, early breast cancer compared with six cycles of epirubicin monotherapy.

The adjuvant use of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer is associated with adverse effects on bone health. We previously reported a decline in bone mineral density (BMD) following the switch from tamoxifen to exemestane in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES). Here we report effects of endocrine treatment withdrawal on BMD, bone turnover markers (BTM) and fracture rates. 4, 724 patients took part in IES, and 206 patients were included in a bone sub-study. BMD and BTM were assessed pre-randomization, during and after the end of treatment (EOT). To evaluate treatment withdrawal effects, 12- and 24-month post EOT BMD results are available for 122 and 126 patients, respectively. Similar patient numbers had BTM measured post EOT. Following treatment withdrawal, the differences in BMD observed between the two endocrine strategies were partially reversed. At 24 months from EOT, spine BMD increased by 1.53% (95%CI 0.63-2.43 ; p = 0.001) after stopping exemestane and fell by 1.93% (95%CI -2.91 to 0.95 ; p = 0.0002) following tamoxifen withdrawal. A similar pattern of changes was observed at the hip. At 2 years post EOT, BMD changes from baseline were similar with both treatment strategies. Corresponding inverse changes in BTM were seen, with an increase following tamoxifen withdrawal and a reduction after exemestane. A higher number of fractures occurred during exemestane treatment, but fracture rates were similar after treatment withdrawal. With the switch strategy used in IES, the on treatment adverse bone effects of exemestane are reversed. Ongoing monitoring of BMD is therefore not routinely required

Tamoxifen preserves bone in postmenopausal women, but non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors accelerate bone loss and increase fracture risk. We aimed to study the effect on bone health in a subgroup of women included in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), a large randomised trial that compared the switch to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane with continuation of tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer.Results were analysed from 206 evaluable patients from the IES, in which postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected unilateral breast cancer (that was oestrogen-receptor positive or of unknown status), who were disease-free after 2-3 years of treatment with tamoxifen were randomised to continue oral tamoxifen 20 mg/day or switch to oral exemestane 25 mg/day to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint was change in bone-mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover were also analysed in this substudy, and the incidence of fractures in the entire study reported. The IES is registered on the Current Controlled Trials website .Within 6 months of switching to exemestane, BMD was lowered by 0.051 g/cm(3) (2.7%; 95% CI 2.0-3.4; p0.0001) at the lumbar spine and 0.025 g/cm(3) (1.4%; 0.8-1.9; p0.0001) at the hip compared with baseline. BMD decreases were only 1.0% (0.4-1.7; p=0.002) and 0.8% (0.3-1.4; p=0.003) in year 2 at the lumbar spine and hip, respectively. No patient with BMD in the normal range at trial entry developed osteoporosis. Bone resorption and formation markers increased at all time points in women receiving exemestane (p0.001). With a median follow-up in all IES participants (n=4274) of 58 months, 162 (7%) and 115 (5%) patients in the exemestane and tamoxifen groups, respectively, had fractures (odds ratio 1.45 [1.13-1.87]; p=0.003).These results indicate that the increase in survival shown previously with the IES switch strategy is achieved at the expense of some detriment to skeletal health, so the risk-benefit ratio to women needs to be individually assessed.