Predicting nodal burden after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with circulating tumor (ct)DNA for surgical planning: Results from the I-SPY2 trial.
Abstract
504 Background: Axillary surgery in breast cancer is used for staging and therapeutic purposes, but axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) confers high risk of complications including lymphedema. Accordingly, trials have focused on right-sizing axillary surgery, with options ranging from complete omission of surgery, sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery, targeted axillary dissection (TAD), or ALND. Identifying a biomarker to reliably predict nodal burden would facilitate accurate selection of surgical management. We evaluated whether the presence or absence of ctDNA in the blood pre and post NAC is associated with residual nodal burden. Methods: I-SPY2 is a prospective, multicenter NAC trial for patients with clinical stage II-III high-risk breast cancer. Patients are randomized to novel NAC agents, with pathologic complete response being the primary endpoint. As part of the trial, serial ctDNA is assessed with a highly sensitive tumor-informed assay using up to 16 patient-specific tumor mutations (Signatera) at baseline, 3 weeks, 12 weeks, and post-NAC. We determined whether ctDNA positivity or negativity post-NAC, and the change in ctDNA status baseline/post-NAC (-/-, -/+, +/+, +/-) are associated with ypN category (N0, N1, N2). Results: ctDNA status was available post-NAC in 495 patients and change in ctDNA status from baseline was available in 493. At baseline, ctDNA was detected in 160/220 (72.3%) cN0 patients and 227/273 (83.2%) cN+ patients (p=0.006). Post-NAC, ctDNA was detected in 11/220 (5%) cN0 patients and 34/273 (12.5%) cN+ patients (p=0.004). While baseline ctDNA status was not associated with ypN category, there was a significant association between post-NAC ctDNA status and ypN category. For ctDNA + patients post-NAC, 33.3% were ypN0, 31.1% were ypN1, and 35.6% were ypN2 at surgery; in contrast, for ctDNA - patients post-NAC, 67.1% were ypN0, 23.1% were ypN1, and 9.8% were ypN2 (p<0.0001). Dynamic ctDNA changes were also associated with ypN category, with significantly more ypN0 patients among ctDNA -/- or ctDNA +/- cases, and more ypN2 patients in those who did not clear ctDNA (+/+) (p=0.0001, Table). Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate a significant relationship between ctDNA and ypN category, which has important surgical implications. CtDNA negativity was associated with low likelihood of ypN2 disease, making these patients excellent candidates for SLN surgery or TAD. Ongoing analyses will incorporate receptor subtype and timing of clearance of ctDNA. CtDNA in breast cancer may help tailor surgical management of the axilla, potentially reducing patient morbidity without compromising prognostic information. ctDNA baseline/post-NAC ypN0 (n=317) ypN1 (n=116) ypN2 (n=60) ctDNA -/- (n=105) 72.4% 19.1% 8.6% ctDNA -/+ (n=1) 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% ctDNA +/+ (n=44) 34.1% 29.6% 36.4% ctDNA +/- (n=343) 65.9% 23.9% 10.2%
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Rita Mukhtar
Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Katrina Dimitroff
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Christina Yau
Laura van t Veer
Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Jo Chien
University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Gillian L. Hirst
Lamorna Brown Swigart
University of California, San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA
Angela DeMichele
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia
Douglas Yee
Hope S. Rugo
City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA
Rebecca Arielle Shatsky
University of California, San Diego Medical Center, La Jolla, CA
Claudine Isaacs
Kamran A. Ahmed
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL
Julia C. Tchou
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
Henry Mark Kuerer
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Chantal Reyna
Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Candice A. Sauder
University of California, Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA
Laura Esserman
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
Judy Caroline Boughey
Mayo Clinic Rochester, Rochester, MN
Mark Jesus M. Magbanua