Nathan M. Shumway

Current Approaches and Challenges in Monitoring Treatment Responses in Breast Cancer

Monitoring response to treatment is a key element in the management of breast cancer that involves several different viewpoints from surgery, radiology, and medical oncology. In the adjuvant setting, appropriate surgical and pathological evaluation guides adjuvant treatment and follow up care focuses on detecting recurrent disease with the intention of improving long term survival. In the neoadjuvant setting, assessing response to chemotherapy prior to surgery to include evaluation for pathologic response can provide prognostic information to help guide follow up care. In the metastatic setting, for those undergoing treatment, it is crucial to determine responders versus non-responders in order to help guide treatment decisions. In this review, we present the current guidelines for monitoring treatment response in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic setting. In addition, we also discuss challenges that are faced in each setting.

AE37: a novel T-cell-eliciting vaccine for breast cancer

Introduction: Immunotherapy, including vaccines targeting the human EGFR2 (HER-2/neu) protein, is an active area of investigation in combatting breast cancer. Several vaccines are currently undergoing clinical trials, most of which are CD8+ T-cell-eliciting vaccines. AE37 is a promising primarily CD4+ T-cell-eliciting HER-2/neu breast cancer vaccine currently in clinical trials. Areas covered: This article reviews preclinical investigations as well as findings from completed and ongoing Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of the AE37 vaccine. Expert opinion: Clinical trials have shown the AE37 vaccine to be safe and capable of generating peptide-specific, durable immune responses. This has been shown in patients with any level of HER-2/neu expression. Early clinical findings suggest there may be benefit to AE37 vaccination in preventing breast cancer recurrence.

Cancer vaccines: should we be targeting patients with less aggressive disease?

There is enthusiasm for using vaccines to stimulate the immune system to treat cancer. In this article, the authors review the evolution of vaccines evaluated in clinical trials, starting with Phase III trials in metastatic disease and progressing to trials in the adjuvant setting. Data from these trials suggest that cancer vaccines may be more effective in patients with lower volume disease, and data from the E75 peptide vaccine trials suggest that vaccines may be most effective in less aggressive disease.

Therapeutic breast cancer vaccines: A new strategy for early-stage disease

Treatment of breast cancer in the adjuvant setting has changed rapidly over the last few years. In addition to improvements in chemotherapy, radiation, hormone manipulation, and surgery, immunotherapy has emerged as an effective adjunct for the treatment of breast cancer. Passive immunotherapeutic agents such as trastuzumab have been widely adopted as the standard of care for HER-2/neu overexpressing breast cancer. Vaccine therapy in the metastatic setting has yet to demonstrate clinical significance in a phase III testing. This may be due to the enhanced immunosuppressive effects demonstrated in the tumor microenvironment. Lack of co-stimulatory molecules, activation of the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), increased T regulatory cells as well as soluble immunosuppressive factors produced by the tumor contribute to the ineffectiveness of vaccine therapy. Based on these observations, there has been a shift towards treating patients with minimal residual disease and a high risk of relapse. In this adjuvant setting, immune mechanisms of tumor evasion are less formidable, and the use of vaccine therapy in these patients may offer a higher chance of clinical benefit. There are several different vaccine approaches, including the use of cell-based vaccines (autologous, allogeneic, or dendritic cell-based), tumor-associated peptide or protein vaccines, DNA vaccines, heat shock proteins, and recombinant technology using viral or bacterial vectors to enhance immunogenicity of vaccine preparations. This review summarizes principles involving vaccine formulation and antigen selection, followed by a brief synopsis of therapeutic vaccines given in the metastatic setting and possible reasons for their lack of efficacy. The current literature regarding vaccine development for the treatment of breast cancer in the adjuvant setting is also reviewed.

Primary analysis of a prospective, randomized, single-blinded phase II trial evaluating the HER2 peptide GP2 vaccine in breast cancer patients to prevent recurrence

GP2 is a HER2-derived, HLA-A2+ restricted peptide. Phase I studies showed GP2 administered with GM-CSF to be safe and immunogenic. Here we report the primary analysis of a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II adjuvant trial conducted to determine the vaccines efficacy. The trial enrolled HLA-A2+, clinically disease-free, node-positive and high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients with tumors expressing HER2 (immunohistochemistry[IHC] 1+-3+). Patients were randomized to GP2+GM-CSF versus GM-CSF alone. Disease-free survival (DFS) was analyzed in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-treatment cohorts; pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed for patients with IHC 3+ or FISH+ disease. The trial enrolled 180 patients; 89 received GP2+GM-CSF and 91 received GM-CSF alone. The groups were well-matched for clinicopathologic characteristics. Toxicities have been minimal. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year DFS rate in the ITT analyses was 88% (95% CI:78-94%) in vaccinated vs. 81% (95% CI:69-89%) (P = 0.43) in control patients after a 34 month median follow-up. In the per-treatment analysis, the estimated 5-year DFS rates were 94% (95% CI:83-98%) and 85% (73-92%) (P = 0.17). In IHC 3+/FISH+ patients, the estimated 5-year DFS rate was 94% (82-98%) in vaccinated patients (n = 51) vs. 89% (71-96%) in control patients (n = 50), (P = 0.86) in the ITT analyses and 100% vs. 89% (71-96%) in vaccinated vs. control patients in the per-treatment analyses (P = 0.08). While the overall ITT analysis did not demonstrate benefit to vaccination, this trial confirmed that the GP2 vaccine is safe and suggests that vaccination may have clinical activity, particularly in patients with HER2 overexpression who received the full vaccine series (ie per-treatment group).

Current Approaches and Challenges in Early Detection of Breast Cancer Recurrence

Early detection of breast cancer recurrence is a key element of follow-up care and surveillance after completion of primary treatment. The goal is to improve survival by detecting and treating recurrent disease while potentially still curable assuming a more effective salvage surgery and treatment. In this review, we present the current guidelines for early detection of recurrent breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Emphasis is placed on the multidisciplinary approach from surgery, medical oncology, and radiology with a discussion of the challenges faced within each setting.

Primary analysis of the prospective, randomized, phase II trial of GP2+GM-CSF vaccine versus GM-CSF alone administered in the adjuvant setting to high-risk breast cancer patients.

134 Background: GP2 is a HER2 derived, HLA-A2+-restricted immunogenic peptide designed to stimulate CD8+T cells to recognize tumor cells with any level of HER2 expression (IHC 1-3+). Accrual to a prospective, randomized, multi-center, phase II trial of the GP2 vaccine for prevention of breast cancer recurrence has completed. Here, the planned primary analysis of disease-free survival (DFS) is presented. METHODS HLA-A2+ node positive or high-risk node negative breast cancer patients (pts) with any level of HER2 expression rendered disease-free by standard of care therapy (to include trastuzumab where appropriate) were randomized to receive GP2+GM-CSF (VG) or GM-CSF (CG) alone. Pts received 6 monthly inoculations (primary vaccine series = PVS) followed by 4 boosters administered every 6 months. The Kaplan Meier method was used for statistical analysis. The intention-to-treat (ITT) population is defined as the entire randomly assigned population. The per-treatment (PT) group excluded pts who recurred during the PVS or developed a second malignancy. A pre-specified subgroup analysis was performed based on HER2 expression level. HER2 overexpression (OE) is defined as IHC 3+or FISH >2.2. RESULTS With 89 VG and 91 CG pts enrolled and vaccinated, there are no differences between groups with respect to age, node positivity, tumor size, grade, ER/PR status, and HER2 expression (p>0.05). The vaccine has been well tolerated with toxicities comparable between the VG and CG. Only one grade 3 local and systemic toxicity reaction has been reported in the VG. At 34 (1-60) month median follow-up, DFS was compared in the ITT (85% VG v 81% CG, p = 0.57) and PT (94% VG v 85% CG, p = 0.17) populations. In OE patients (51 VG and 50 CG) DFS was 94% VG v 89% CG, p = 0.86 (ITT) and 100% VG v 89% CG, p = 0.08 (PT). CONCLUSIONS GP2+GM-CSF is a novel vaccine that is safe and well tolerated. This phase II trial demonstrates potentially greater benefit in pts with HER2 OE tumors, in whom there have been no recurrences in the PT group. This may be due to synergism with trastuzumab therapy, thus justifying a phase III trial evaluating GP2 administered in the adjuvant setting to a HER2 OE population. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00524277.

Future Directions for the Early Detection of Recurrent Breast Cancer

The main goal of follow-up care after breast cancer treatment is the early detection of disease recurrence. In this review, we emphasize the multidisciplinary approach to this continuity of care from surgery, medical oncology, and radiology. Challenges within each setting are briefly addressed as a means of discussion for the future directions of an effective and efficient surveillance plan of post-treatment breast cancer care.

Early efficacy analysis of the AE37 vaccine in patients with HER2 low-expressing and triple-negative breast cancer.

109 Background: Peptide vaccines comprised of HLA class II epitopes, which elicit CD4+ T cell responses, play a critical role in potentiating immune responses. We are conducting a randomized phase II trial of AE37, a hybrid peptide created by the addition of the Ii-Key moiety (LRMK) to the HER2 helper epitope, AE36 (HER2 aa776-790). Here, we present efficacy data focusing on outcomes in patients with low HER2 (IHC 1+ or 2+) expression and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS The trial is enrolling node positive or high risk node negative breast cancer patients with any degree of HER2 expression (IHC 1+, 2+ or 3+ or FISH > 1.2) rendered disease-free following standard of care therapy. Patients are randomized to receive either AE37+GM-CSF or GM-CSF alone in 6 monthly intradermal inoculations followed by booster inoculations administered every 6 months. RESULTS The trial has enrolled 254 patients; 105 in the vaccine group (VG) and 149 in the control group (CG). After a median follow-up of 22.3 months, the disease-free survival (DFS) rate in the VG is 90.3% vs 81.1% in the CG (p=.46), a 49% risk reduction. Evaluating patients with low HER2 expression (IHC 1+ or 2+), there are 53 VG patients and 77 CG patients. The groups are well-matched with respect to the percentage of patients with high grade tumors, tumors > 2cm, the rate of node positivity and ER/PR status (all p>.5). The DFS rate in the VG of low HER2 expressers is 89.8% vs 68.2% in the CG (p=.12), a 68% risk reduction. When limiting analyses to patients with TNBC (ER/PR negative, HER2 1+ or 2+), there are 13 VG patients and 23 CG patients. The groups are again well-matched with the exception of control patients having a larger percentage of tumors > 2 cm (70% vs 31%; p=.02). The DFS rate in the VG of TNBC patients is 83.3% vs 47.6% in the CG (p=.23), a 68% risk reduction. CONCLUSIONS Early analyses suggest clinical benefit to vaccination with AE37, particularly in patients with low HER2-expressing tumors. Importantly, the benefit appears to persist in TNBC patients. Patients will continue to be followed per protocol for 5 years; however, these data suggest that a subsequent phase III trial should evaluate the vaccine in patients with low HER2-expressing disease to include TNBC.

Future Directions for Monitoring Treatment Responses in Breast Cancer

In the prior review, we outlined the current standard of care for monitoring treatment responses in breast cancer and discussed the many challenges associated with these strategies. We described the challenges faced in common clinical settings such as the adjuvant setting, neoadjuvant setting, and the metastatic setting. In this review, we will expand upon future directions meant to overcome several of these current challenges. We will also explore several new and promising methods under investigation to enhance how we monitor treatment responses in breast cancer. Furthermore, we will highlight several new technologies and techniques for monitoring breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant and metastatic setting.