Abstract PD9-10: BRE12-158: A post-neoadjuvant, randomized phase 2 trial of personalized therapy vs. treatment of physician’s choice for patients with residual triple negative breast cancer
Authors: Bryan P Schneider, Guanglong Jiang, Tarah J Ballinger, Fei Shen, Christopher Chitambar, Rita Nanda, Carla Falkson, Filipa C Lynce, Christopher Gallagher, Claudine Isaacs, Marcelo Blaya, Elisavet Paplomata, Radhika Walling, Karen Daily, Reshma Mahtani, Michael A Thompson, Robert Graham, Maureen E Cooper, Dean C Pavlick, Lee A Albacker, Jeffery Gregg, Jeffery P Solzak, Yu-Hsiang Chen, Casey L Bales, Erica Cantor, Bradley A Hancock, Nawal Kassem, Paul Helft, Bert O'Neil, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sunil Badve, Kathy D Miller, Milan Radovich
Journal: Cancer Research (2022)

Abstract Purpose: Patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have high risk of recurrence with prior data suggesting improved outcomes with capecitabine. Targeted agents have demonstrated activity across multiple cancer types. BRE12-158 was a phase 2, multicenter trial that randomized TNBC patients with residual disease after NAC to genomically-directed therapy vs. treatment of physician choice (TPC). Patients and Methods: From March 2014 to December 2018, 197 patients were enrolled. Residual tumors were sequenced using a next generation sequencing (NGS) test. A molecular tumor board adjudicated all results. Patients were randomized to 4 cycles of genomically-directed therapy (arm A) vs. TPC (arm B). Patients without a target were assigned to arm B. Primary endpoint was 2-year disease free survival (DFS) among randomized patients. Secondary/exploratory endpoints included: distant disease free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity assessment, time-based evolution of therapy, and drug-specific outcomes. Results: 193 patients were randomized or were assigned to arm B. The estimated 2-year DFS was 56.6% (95%CI:0.45-0.70) for arm A vs. 62.4% (95%CI:0.52-0.75) for randomized arm B. No difference was seen in DFS, DDFS, or OS for the entire or randomized populations. There was increased uptake of capecitabine for TPC over time. Patients randomized later had less distant recurrences. ctDNA status remained a significant predictor of outcome with some patients demonstrating clearance with post-neoadjuvant therapy. Conclusion: Genomically directed therapy was not superior to TPC for patients with residual TNBC after NAC. Capecitabine should remain the standard of care; however, the activity of other agents in this setting provides rationale for testing optimal combinations to improve outcomes for this high-risk population. ctDNA should be considered a standard covariate for trials in this setting. Citation Format: Bryan P Schneider, Guanglong Jiang, Tarah J Ballinger, Fei Shen, Christopher Chitambar, Rita Nanda, Carla Falkson, Filipa C Lynce, Christopher Gallagher, Claudine Isaacs, Marcelo Blaya, Elisavet Paplomata, Radhika Walling, Karen Daily, Reshma Mahtani, Michael A Thompson, Robert Graham, Maureen E Cooper, Dean C Pavlick, Lee A Albacker, Jeffery Gregg, Jeffery P Solzak, Yu-Hsiang Chen, Casey L Bales, Erica Cantor, Bradley A Hancock, Nawal Kassem, Paul Helft, Bert O'Neil, Anna Maria Storniolo, Sunil Badve, Kathy D Miller, Milan Radovich. BRE12-158: A post-neoadjuvant, randomized phase 2 trial of personalized therapy vs. treatment of physician’s choice for patients with residual triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD9-10.