Targeting mTOR and DNA repair pathways in residual triple negative breast cancer post neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Kartik Anand, Tejal Patel, Polly Niravath, Angel Rodriguez, Jorge Darcourt, Anna Belcheva, Toniva Boone, Joe Ensor, Jenny Chang, Kartik Anand, Tejal Patel, Polly Niravath, Angel Rodriguez, Jorge Darcourt, Anna Belcheva, Toniva Boone, Joe Ensor, Jenny Chang

Abstract

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients who do not achieve pathologic complete response post neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a poor prognosis. Alteration in PI3K/mTOR plus DNA repair pathways are some of the major mechanisms of chemotherapy resistance. We designed an open-label phase II clinical trial to evaluate if the combination of everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) plus cisplatin (interferes with DNA function) will improve the rate of pathologic response, as assessed by residual cancer burden (RCB). Twenty-four Stage II/III TNBC patients with residual cancer > 1 cm post neoadjuvant anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients received everolimus daily orally at 10 mg for 12 weeks and cisplatin IV at 20 mg/m2 weekly for 4 cycles (21-day cycle), until definitive surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of RCB-0-I at the surgery. The median age of the whole cohort was 50.1 years, with 66.7% non-Hispanic Caucasians. Of the 24 patients enrolled, 22 were included in the efficacy analysis. Twenty-one patients underwent definitive surgery while one patient developed distant metastasis. Five patients had RCB-I at surgery, a response rate of 23% (5/22). Patients with germline PALB2 mutation or somatic PI3KCA mutation had a pathologic response, achieving RCB-I at the surgery. Three patients had metaplastic histology achieving RCB-I at the surgery. Estimated OS at 1 year was 100% in the RCB-I group vs. 76.5% in others, which was not statistically significant due to the small sample size. Certain cohorts including PALB2 germline mutation carrier and somatic PI3KCA mutations warrant further investigation.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01931163. https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01931163 .

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) OS from the date of first treatment. Estimated OS at 1 year is 81% and 65.5% at 4 years. (B) OS in Responders (RCB-I at surgery) vs non-responders (RCB II-III at surgery). (p = 0.7).

References

    1. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: A population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109:1721–1728. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22618.
    1. Dent R, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–4434. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045.
    1. Carey LA, et al. The triple negative paradox: Primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–2334. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109.
    1. Liedtke C, et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:1275–1281. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147.
    1. Lehmann BD, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J. Clin. Investig. 2011;121:2750–2767. doi: 10.1172/JCI45014.
    1. Tutt AN, et al. Exploiting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells in the design of new therapeutic strategies for cancer. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2005;70:139–148. doi: 10.1101/sqb.2005.70.012.
    1. Silver DP, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;28:1145–1153. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.4725.
    1. Balko JM, et al. Molecular profiling of the residual disease of triple-negative breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies actionable therapeutic targets. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:232–245. doi: 10.1158/-13-0286.
    1. Symmans WF, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017;35:1049–1060. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010.
    1. Rahman N, et al. PALB2, which encodes a BRCA2-interacting protein, is a breast cancer susceptibility gene. Nat. Genet. 2007;39:165–167. doi: 10.1038/ng1959.
    1. Antoniou AC, et al. Breast-cancer risk in families with mutations in PALB2. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:497–506. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1400382.
    1. Cybulski C, et al. Clinical outcomes in women with breast cancer and a PALB2 mutation: A prospective cohort analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:638–644. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70142-7.
    1. Isaac, D., Karapetyan, L. & Tamkus, D. Association of germline PALB2 mutation and response to platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: A case series. 1–5, 10.1200/po.17.00258 (2018).
    1. Binder, KAR, Mick, R, O’Hara, M et al. A phase II, single arm study of maintenance rucaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive advanced pancreatic cancer and a pathogenic germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2 or PALB2. Cancer Res.79(Suppl. 13), CT234 (2019).
    1. O’Reilly EM, et al. Randomized, multicenter, phase II trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without veliparib in patients with pancreas adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA/PALB2 mutation. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020;38:1378–1388. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02931.
    1. Jovanovic B, et al. A randomized phase II neoadjuvant study of cisplatin, paclitaxel with or without everolimus in patients with stage II/III triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Responses and long-term outcome correlated with increased frequency of DNA damage response gene mutations, tnbc subtype, AR status, and Ki67. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017;23:4035–4045. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-3055.
    1. Masuda N, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;376:2147–2159. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612645.
    1. Rayson D, Adjei A, Suman VJ, Wold L, Ingle J. Metaplastic breast cancer: Prognosis and response to systemic therapy. Ann. Oncol. 1999;10:413–419. doi: 10.1023/A:1008329910362.
    1. Symmans WF, et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007;25:4414–4422. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6823.
    1. Facchini F, Pettener D. Chemical and physical methods in dating human skeletal remains. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1977;47:65–70. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330470112.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel