Joyce O'Shaughnessy M.D.

O’Shaughnessy, J., A. DeMichele, C. X. Ma, P. Richards, D. A. Yardley, G. S. Wright, K. Kalinsky, R. Steis, S. Diab, G. Kennealey, R. Geschwindt, W. Jiang and H. S. Rugo (2018). “A randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of ruxolitinib or placebo in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and elevated C-reactive protein, a marker of systemic inflammation.” Breast Cancer Res Treat. Apr 19. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

PURPOSE: The Janus-associated kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway is a key regulator of inflammatory signaling, associated with tumorigenesis, cell survival, and progression. This randomized phase 2 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the addition of ruxolitinib, a JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor, to capecitabine in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and high systemic inflammation (modified Glasgow Prognostic Score [mGPS] >/= 1). METHODS: Patients with 2 or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced or metastatic disease or hormone receptor-positive patients with disease progression on prior hormonal therapies were randomized 1:1 to 21-day cycles of ruxolitinib (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73) plus capecitabine. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. For ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine, median OS was 11.2 months versus 10.9 months (log-rank test P = 0.762); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months versus 2.5 months (log-rank test P = 0.151); and overall response rate (ORR) was 28.9% versus 13.7% (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test P = 0.024), respectively. A more favorable change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was observed with ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine. Both regimens were generally tolerable. A higher incidence of grade 3/4 anemia (25.4% vs 5.6%) and a lower incidence of grade 3/4 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (1.4% vs 12.7%) occurred with ruxolitinib plus capecitabine versus placebo plus capecitabine. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ruxolitinib to capecitabine for patients with advanced breast cancer and high systemic inflammation was generally tolerable; ORR was numerically greater, a more favorable change in HRQoL was observed, but neither OS nor PFS was improved compared with placebo plus capecitabine.

Traina, T. A., K. Miller, D. A. Yardley, J. Eakle, L. S. Schwartzberg, J. O’Shaughnessy, W. Gradishar, P. Schmid, E. Winer, C. Kelly, R. Nanda, A. Gucalp, A. Awada, L. Garcia-Estevez, M. E. Trudeau, J. Steinberg, H. Uppal, I. C. Tudor, A. Peterson and J. Cortes (2018). “Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Androgen Receptor-Expressing Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.” J Clin Oncol 36(9): 884-890.

Full text of this article.

Purpose Studies suggest that a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have tumors that express the androgen receptor (AR) and may benefit from an AR inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of enzalutamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic AR-positive TNBC. Patients and Methods Tumors were tested for AR with an immunohistochemistry assay optimized for breast cancer; nuclear AR staining > 0% was considered positive. Patients received enzalutamide 160 mg once per day until disease progression. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included CBR at 24 weeks, progression-free survival, and safety. End points were analyzed in all enrolled patients (the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with one or more postbaseline assessment whose tumor expressed >/= 10% nuclear AR (the evaluable subgroup). Results Of 118 patients enrolled, 78 were evaluable. CBR at 16 weeks was 25% (95% CI, 17% to 33%) in the ITT population and 33% (95% CI, 23% to 45%) in the evaluable subgroup. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.7 months) in the ITT population and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1 months) in the evaluable subgroup. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 months to not yet reached) in the ITT population and 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 months to not yet reached) in the evaluable subgroup. Fatigue was the only treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event with an incidence of > 2%. Conclusion Enzalutamide demonstrated clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with advanced AR-positive TNBC. Adverse events related to enzalutamide were consistent with its known safety profile. This study supports additional development of enzalutamide in advanced TNBC.

Loibl, S., J. O’Shaughnessy, M. Untch, W. M. Sikov, H. S. Rugo, M. D. McKee, J. Huober, M. Golshan, G. von Minckwitz, D. Maag, D. Sullivan, N. Wolmark, K. McIntyre, J. J. Ponce Lorenzo, O. Metzger Filho, P. Rastogi, W. F. Symmans, X. Liu and C. E. Geyer, Jr. (2018). “Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial.” Lancet Oncol. Feb 28. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Although several randomised trials in patients with triple-negative breast cancer have shown that the addition of carboplatin, with or without poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the likelihood of achieving a pathological complete response, the use of these therapies in this setting has remained controversial. The BrighTNess trial was designed to assess the addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (BrighTNess) across 145 sites in 15 countries. Patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed clinical stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer, who were candidates for potentially curative surgery and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly assigned (2:1:1) by an interactive response technology system via permuted blocks (block size of four) within strata to receive one of three segment 1 regimens: paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly for 12 doses) plus carboplatin (area under the curve 6 mg/mL per min, intravenously every 3 weeks, for four cycles) plus veliparib (50 mg orally, twice a day); paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus veliparib placebo (twice a day); or paclitaxel plus carboplatin placebo (every 3 weeks for four cycles) plus veliparib placebo. Following segment 1, all patients were assigned to segment 2 in which they received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide every 2-3 weeks for four cycles. Randomisation for segment 1 was stratified by germline BRCA mutation status, nodal stage, and planned schedule of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide administration. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response in breast and lymph nodes as determined by site pathologists following completion of neoadjuvant therapy. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These are the first results of an ongoing clinical trial; the data cutoff for the analyses presented was Dec 8, 2016. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02032277. FINDINGS: Between April 4, 2014, and March 18, 2016, 634 patients were randomly assigned: 316 to paclitaxel plus carboplatin plus veliparib, 160 to paclitaxel plus carboplatin, and 158 to paclitaxel alone. The proportion of patients who achieved a pathological complete response was higher in the paclitaxel, carboplatin, and veliparib group than in patients receiving paclitaxel alone (168 [53%] of 316 patients vs 49 [31%] of 158, p<0.0001), but not compared with patients receiving paclitaxel plus carboplatin (92 [58%] of 160 patients, p=0.36). Grade 3 or 4 toxicities, and serious adverse events were more common in patients receiving carboplatin, whereas veliparib did not substantially increase toxicity. The most common grade 3 or 4 events overall were neutropenia (352 [56%] of 628 patients), anaemia (180 [29%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [12%]) through complete treatment, and febrile neutropenia (88 [15%] of 601 patients) during segment 2. The most common serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (80 [13%] of 628 patients) and anaemia (20 [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of veliparib and carboplatin to paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improved the proportion of patients with triple-negative breast cancer who achieved a pathological complete response, the addition of veliparib to carboplatin and paclitaxel did not. Increased toxicities with the addition of carboplatin (with or without veliparib) to paclitaxel were manageable and did not substantially affect treatment delivery of paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Given the consistent results with previous studies, the addition of carboplatin appears to have a favourable risk to benefit profile and might be considered as a potential component of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk, triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Traina, T. A., K. Miller, D. A. Yardley, J. Eakle, L. S. Schwartzberg, J. O’Shaughnessy, W. Gradishar, P. Schmid, E. Winer, C. Kelly, R. Nanda, A. Gucalp, A. Awada, L. Garcia-Estevez, M. E. Trudeau, J. Steinberg, H. Uppal, I. C. Tudor, A. Peterson and J. Cortes (2018). “Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Androgen Receptor-Expressing Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.” J Clin Oncol: Jan 26: JCO2016713495. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Purpose Studies suggest that a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have tumors that express the androgen receptor (AR) and may benefit from an AR inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of enzalutamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic AR-positive TNBC. Patients and Methods Tumors were tested for AR with an immunohistochemistry assay optimized for breast cancer; nuclear AR staining > 0% was considered positive. Patients received enzalutamide 160 mg once per day until disease progression. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included CBR at 24 weeks, progression-free survival, and safety. End points were analyzed in all enrolled patients (the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with one or more postbaseline assessment whose tumor expressed >/= 10% nuclear AR (the evaluable subgroup). Results Of 118 patients enrolled, 78 were evaluable. CBR at 16 weeks was 25% (95% CI, 17% to 33%) in the ITT population and 33% (95% CI, 23% to 45%) in the evaluable subgroup. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.7 months) in the ITT population and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1 months) in the evaluable subgroup. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 months to not yet reached) in the ITT population and 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 months to not yet reached) in the evaluable subgroup. Fatigue was the only treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event with an incidence of > 2%. Conclusion Enzalutamide demonstrated clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with advanced AR-positive TNBC. Adverse events related to enzalutamide were consistent with its known safety profile. This study supports additional development of enzalutamide in advanced TNBC.

Condorelli, R., L. Spring, J. O’Shaughnessy, L. Lacroix, C. Bailleux, V. Scott, J. Dubois, R. J. Nagy, R. B. Lanman, A. J. Iafrate, F. Andre and A. Bardia (2017). “Polyclonal RB1 mutations and acquired resistance to CDK 4/6 inhibitors in patients with metastatic breast cancer.” Ann Oncol.

Full text of this article.

Background: While deregulation of the cyclin D1-CDK4/6-retinoblastoma pathway is common in hormone receptor positive (HR+) breast cancer, Rb is usually intact in HR+ breast cancer, and targeted CDK 4/6 inhibitors that act upstream of Rb, are routinely being utilized in clinical practice. However, factors that can lead to clinical resistance to CDK 4/6 inhibitors are not known. Patients and methods: We identified patients who had pre and post genotyping in tissue and peripheral blood samples after receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Genotyping was performed in tumor tissue or blood collected before start of CDK 4/6 inhibitor and after disease progression on CDK 4/6 inhibitor, covering more than 90% of the coding region in RB1. Results: We identified detectable acquired RB1 mutations in ctDNA after exposure to CDK4/6 inhibitor (palbociclib, palbociclib, ribociclib) for 5,8, and 13 months respectively, in three patients. The RB1 mutations included substitution in donor splicing site of exon 8 of the RB1 gene in patient #1; substitution in donor splicing site of exon 22 of RB1 gene, exon 19 deletion, exon 3 insertion in patient #2; and RB1 exon 16 H483Y mutation in patient #3. None of these RB1 mutations were present in the pre-CDK 4/6 specimen highlighting these molecular alterations, which lead to functional loss of Rb1, likely emerged under selective pressure from the CDK4/6 inhibitor potentially confering therapeutic resistance. Conclusion(s): This is the first clinical report to describe the emergence of somatic RB1 mutations after exposure to palbociclib or ribociclib, in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Further research is needed to validate these findings, identify how these mutations temporally emerge under selective pressure of CDK 4/6 treatment, and develop rational therapeutic strategies.