CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT05710328.

e13036 Background: In January 2023, the FDA approved elacestrant for ESR1-mutated, ER+/HER2- MBC based on a companion diagnostic cell free (cf)DNA test (Guardant Health). In this study, we analyze the trends of liquid biopsy utilization at Mayo Clinic (MC) over a 3 year period to understand the impact of this drug approval on testing patterns and identify emergent alterations in patients (pts) with MBC. Methods: We extracted clinically performed Guardant 360 and Guardant 360 CDx ordered at MC sites in Rochester (MN), Florida (FL), Arizona (AZ), and across 9 additional Mayo Clinic Health System (MCHS) sites. Pts with MBC were identified using the EMR and analyzing visit diagnosis codes and staging information. Shifts in testing patterns were analyzed over a 3 year period from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2023. Data was collected on the number of tests, serial testing, frequency of pathogenic mutations, and emergent mutations in ESR1 and PIK3CA. Chi-square test was used to compare the categorical values. Results: Between 2021-2023, 2,741 pts with MBC were seen across all sites. A total of 408 cfDNA tests were performed in 370 unique patients with MBC. Most pts (90%) had 1 test performed. The proportion of pts with MBC tested was 85/1350 (6.3%) in 2021, 77/1495 (5.2%) in 2022, and 208/1558 (13.4%) in 2023. The increased proportion of pts tested in 2023 was statistically significant compared to prior years (p<0.0001), while no difference was observed between 2021 and 2022 (p 0.19). Testing patterns varied by site, with FL ordering the highest number of tests, followed by MN and AZ. Of the 34 providers practicing during the entire period seeing more than 10 MBC pts, the number of providers ordering Guardant testing increased from 15/34 (2021) and 14/34 (2022) to 20/34 (2023), though not statistically significant (p 0.15). Of the 41% with EMR-documented staging available, testing was highest in the ER+/HER2- (81.3%) subtype, followed by TNBC (13.6%) and then HER2+ (5.2%). The most commonly identified mutations identified in the first testing were PIK3CA (41.1%), TP53 (40.5%), ESR1 (30.5%), and ATM (13.2%). D538G (8.0%), Y537N (4.4%), and Y537S (3.5%) were frequent emergent mutations seen in ESR1. Conclusions: We observed an increase in cfDNA testing at the start of 2023 which aligns with the FDA approval of elacestrant. We observed variation by site and individual providers that warrants further exploration to improve cfDNA testing in MBC pts at Mayo Clinic.

1112 Background: T-DXd is a targeted therapy shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who progressed on prior HER2 targeted therapies, or in the “HER2-low” population as presented at ASCO 2022. It is given every 3 weeks and costs about $9,500 per cycle. Little is known about treatment courses for patients on T-DXd and the potential financial toxicity (FT) of treatment including unmet essential needs. Methods: Retrospective review identified all patients with MBC treated with T-DXd from 6/2022 to 8/2023 at a comprehensive cancer center. Cross-sectional patient surveys assessed FT (via validated COST tool), ability to meet essential needs, payment concerns, and quality of life (QOL). Logistic regression assessed factors associated with unmet needs. A cohort of patients with MBC who did NOT receive T-DXd but completed a FT survey during the study period were identified for comparison. Results: 429 patients with MBC received T-DXd during the study period with a median of 7 cycles (IQR 3-12), and median length on treatment of 4 months (IQR 1.5-8). 164 (38% of the full cohort) completed a FT assessment after receiving at least one T-DXd cycle. Mean age at assessment was 56.9 years (SD 10.9); 72% identified as non-Hispanic White (NHW). Mean FT score was 19.2 (SD 10.8) (scale 0-44, lower scores indicate worse FT). 68% had COST <26 diagnostic of FT. Mean QOL score was 6.3 [(SD 2.0) 0 “as bad as it can be” - 10 “as good as it can be]. QOL was correlated with FT score (r=0.48, p<0.001). 21% of those who complete FT assessment had used at least some of their savings to pay for cancer treatment (5% had used all); 5% did not have savings to begin with. 23% took on new loans or borrowed money. Unmet essential needs were identified for: housing (15%), transportation (15%), food (11%), and repairs to home (10%). 11% reported they did not have enough monthly income for medications. On adjusted analysis including age, race/ethnicity, and FT status, those aged 46-65 years (OR 3.94, 95% CI 1.34-11.53, p=0.012), non-NHW (OR 4.54, 95% CI 1.86-11.08, p=0.001), and those with FT (OR 11.52, 95% CI 3.90-34.07, p<0.001) were more likely to have an unmet essential need. Of those who screened positive for FT, 50% accepted referral for financial assistance. 440 patients with MBC completed a FT assessment but did NOT receive T-DXd. There was no difference in FT (COST: 19.9 vs. 19.2, p=0.492) or unmet needs (36% vs. 37%, p=0.850). Conclusions: After ASCO 2022, hundreds of patients with MBC received T-DXd at a large cancer center; however, most did not stay on treatment for long. Patients with MBC had significant FT, although this is not unique to treatment with T-DXd. This underscores the need to study and intervene upon FT across all MBC populations given negative influence on QOL and unmet essential needs identified. Additionally, improving the referral process is essential, as only half of those with identified needs accepted referral for assistance.

Purpose Treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) remain limited. We previously reported central nervous system (CNS) activity for neratinib and neratinib-capecitabine. Preclinical data suggest that neratinib may overcome resistance to ado-trastuzumab-emtansine (T-DM1) when given in combination. In TBCRC 022’s cohort 4, we examined the efficacy of neratinib plus T-DM1 in patients with HER2-positive BCBM. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, phase II study, patients with measurable HER2-positive BCBM received neratinib 160 mg daily plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days in three parallel-enrolling cohorts (cohort 4A—previously untreated BCBM, cohorts 4B and 4C— BCBM progressing after local CNS-directed therapy without [4B] and with [4C] prior exposure to T-DM1). Cycle 1 diarrheal prophylaxis was required. The primary endpoint was the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) by cohort. Overall survival (OS) and toxicity were also assessed. Results Between 2018-2021, 6, 17, and 21 patients enrolled to cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C. Enrollment was stopped prematurely for slow accrual. The CNS objective response rate in cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C was 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3-77.7%), 35.3% (95% CI: 14.2-61.7%), and 28.6% (95% CI: 11.3-52.2%), respectively; 38.1-50% experienced stable disease for ≥6 months or response. Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 toxicity (22.7%). Median OS was 30.2 months (cohort 4A; 95% CI: 21.9, not reached [NR]), 23.3 months (cohort 4B; 95% CI: 17.6, NR), and 20.9 months (cohort 4C; 95% CI: 14.9, NR). Conclusion We observed Intracranial activity for neratinib plus T-DM1, including those with prior T-DM1 exposure, suggesting synergistic effects with neratinib. Our data provide additional evidence for neratinib-based combinations in patients with HER2-positive BCBM, even those who are heavily pre-treated.

Background: Treatment options for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBMs) remain limited. We previously reported central nervous system (CNS) activity for neratinib and neratinibecapecitabine. Preclinical data suggest that neratinib may overcome resistance to ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) when given in combination. In Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 022's cohort 4, we examined the efficacy of neratinib plus T-DM1 in patients with HER2-positive BCBM. Patients and methods: In this multicenter, phase II study, patients with measurable HER2-positive BCBM received neratinib 160 mg daily plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days in three parallel-enrolling cohorts [cohort 4A- previously untreated BCBM, cohorts 4B and 4C-BCBM progressing after local CNS-directed therapy without (4B) and with (4C) prior exposure to T-DM1]. Cycle 1 diarrheal prophylaxis was required. The primary endpoint was the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) by cohort. The overall survival (OS) and toxicity were also assessed. Results: Between 2018 and 2021, 6, 17, and 21 patients enrolled in cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C. Enrollment was stopped prematurely for slow accrual. The CNS objective response rate in cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C was 33.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3% to 77.7%], 35.3% (95% CI 14.2% to 61.7%), and 28.6% (95% CI 11.3% to 52.2%), respectively; 38.1%50% experienced stable disease for > 6 months or response. Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 toxicity (22.7%). The median OS was 30.2 [cohort 4A; 95% CI 21.9-not reached (NR)], 23.3 (cohort 4B; 95% CI 17.6-NR), and 20.9 (cohort 4C; 95% CI 14.9-NR) months. Conclusions: We observed intracranial activity for neratinib plus T-DM1, including those with prior T-DM1 exposure, suggesting synergistic effects with neratinib. Our data provide additional evidence for neratinib-based combinations in patients with HER2-positive BCBM, even those who are heavily pretreated.

TPS1122 Background: Treatment options for patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic BC have improved with the development of novel targeted therapies including trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), an ADC directed against HER2 with a cytotoxic topoisomerase I inhibitor as a payload. Currently, there are limited treatment options for pts with HER2+ or HER2-low metastatic BC that has progressed on T-DXd. BB-1701 is an ADC consisting of a monoclonal antibody targeting HER2 with eribulin (microtubule inhibitor) as a payload that is capable of exerting a bystander effect. A first-in-human dose-finding Study 101 of BB-1701 is ongoing. Here we describe Study 205, an open label, multicenter, phase 2 study of BB-1701 in pts with HER2+ or HER2-low unresectable or metastatic BC who have disease progression after treatment with T-DXd. Methods: Study 205 (NCT06188559) includes dose-optimization and dose-expansion parts for BB-1701. Eligible pts must have histologically confirmed HER2+ or HER2-low, unresectable or metastatic BC, with measurable disease per RECIST v1.1. Prior treatment must include 1–3 prior chemotherapy-based regimens for unresectable or metastatic BC, including T-DXd. The primary objectives of the dose-optimization part include determining the recommended dose (RD) and evaluating safety and tolerability of BB-1701. The RD will be assessed by randomly assigning ~50 pts into 1 of 3 dosing cohorts (1.6 mg/kg on day 1 Q3W, 0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 Q3W, and 1.2 mg/kg on day 1 Q3W; IV) in a 2:2:1 ratio. Randomization will be stratified by HER2 status (HER2+ vs. HER2-low) documented prior to T-DXd treatment. The dose-expansion part will enroll ~85 pts at RD; the primary objective includes evaluating the efficacy of BB-1701 at the RD. In both study parts, secondary objectives include assessment of additional efficacy measures (i.e., duration of response [DOR], progression free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], disease control rate [DCR], clinical benefit rate [CBR], and time to response [TTR]), and pharmacokinetics. Efficacy endpoints will be assessed per RECIST v1.1 by the investigator during the dose-optimization part or by Blinded Independent Central Review during the dose-expansion part. Safety assessments will consist of recording, monitoring, and grading of adverse events (AEs) based on CTCAE v5.0, AEs of special interest, and serious AEs. In both study parts, exploratory objectives will include evaluation of biomarkers of response to BB-1701 and BB-1701 immunogenicity; other efficacy measures (i.e., PFS on the next line of therapy) and population pharmacokinetics will be analyzed in the dose-expansion part only. Pt enrollment is currently open. Clinical trial information: NCT06188559 .

Background: Acquired ESR1 mutations in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (mBC) drive treatment resistance and tumor progression; new treatment strategies are needed. Lasofoxifene, a next-generation, oral, endocrine therapy and tissue-specific ER antagonist, provided preclinical antitumor activity, alone or combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) in ESR1-mutated mBC.Patients and methods: In the open-label, phase II, ELAINE 2 trial (NCT04432454), women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) mBC who progressed on prior therapies (including CDK4/6i) received lasofoxifene 5 mg/day and abemaciclib 150 mg b.i.d until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and objective response rate (ORR).Results: Twenty-nine women (median age 60 years) participated; all but one were previously treated with a CDK4/6i (median duration 2 years). The lasofoxifeneeabemaciclib combination was well tolerated with primarily grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), most commonly diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting. One patient (with no prior CDK4/6i) discontinued treatment due to grade 2 diarrhea. No deaths occurred during the study. Median PFS was 56.0 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.9 weeks-not estimable; w13 months]; PFS rates at 6, 12, and 18 months were 76.1%, 56.1%, and 38.8%, respectively. CBR at 24 weeks was 65.5% (95% CI 47.3% to 80.1%). In 18 patients with measurable lesions, ORR was 55.6% (95% CI 33.7% to 75.4%). ESR1-mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) allele fraction decreased from baseline to week 4 in 21/26 (80.8%) patients.Conclusions: Lasofoxifene plus abemaciclib had an acceptable safety profile, was well tolerated, and exhibited meaningful antitumor activity in women with ESR1-mutated, ER+/HER2- mBC after disease progression on prior CDK4/6i. Observed decreases in ESR1-mutant ctDNA with lasofoxifene concordant with clinical response suggest target engagement. If the ELAINE 2 findings are confirmed in the initiated, phase III, ELAINE 3 trial, these data could be practice-changing and help address a critical unmet need.

Importance:Combination therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i: palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) and endocrine therapy (ET) has been a major advance for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+), ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative (ERBB2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Observations:Randomized phase 3 studies demonstrated that the addition of CDK4/6i reduced the hazard risk of disease progression by approximately half compared with hormonal monotherapy (an aromatase inhibitor, tamoxifen, or fulvestrant) in the first-line (1L) and/or second-line (2L) setting. Hence, the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved 3 CDK4/6i, in both 1L and 2L settings. However, differences among the CDK4/6i regarding mechanisms of action, adverse effect profiles, and overall survival (OS) are emerging. Both abemaciclib and ribociclib have demonstrated efficacy in high-risk HR+ early breast cancer. While ET with or without CDK4/6i is accepted as standard treatment for persons with advanced HR+ ERBB2- metastatic breast cancer, several key issues remain. First, why are there discordances in OS in the metastatic setting and efficacy differences in the adjuvant setting? Additionally, apart from HR status, there are few biomarkers predictive of response to CDK4/6i plus ET, and these are not used routinely. Despite the clear OS advantage noted in the 1L and 2L metastatic setting with some CDK4/6i, a subset of patients with highly endocrine-sensitive disease do well with ET alone. Therefore, an unanswered question is whether some patients can postpone CDK4/6i until the 2L setting, particularly if financial toxicity is a concern. Finally, given the lack of endocrine responsiveness following progression on some CDK4/6i, strategies to optimally sequence treatment are needed. Conclusions and Relevance:Future research should focus on defining the role of each CDK4/6i in HR+ breast cancer and developing a biomarker-directed integration of these agents.

1057 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET), particularly aromatase inhibitors (AIs), for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer can lead to acquired ESR1 mutations ( mESR1) driving endocrine resistance and tumor progression. Treatments for mBC with mESR1 are limited, especially after progression on ET/cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) combinations. In ELAINE 2, LAS, a next-generation ET (breast ER antagonist) plus Abema had a median progression-free survival (PFS) of ~13 mos, objective response rate (ORR) of 33%, and 24-wk clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 62% with a favorable safety profile in patients with resistant mESR1 mBC (Damodaran S, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:16 suppl 1022). Here, we report ELAINE 2 data with longer patient follow up (Jan 31, 2023). Methods: In this open-label, phase 2, single-arm study, 29 women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that progressed on prior ET took oral LAS 5 mg/day and Abema 150 mg BID until disease progression/toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability; secondary included PFS, CBR, and ORR. Data were summarized descriptively with no formal hypothesis testing. Results: Patients (median age 60 yrs) had received a median of 2 prior therapy lines for mBC; all but one had prior CDK4/6i exposure and 14 (48%) had prior chemotherapy for mBC. LAS/Abema was well tolerated with primarily grade 1/2 treatment-emergent adverse events (most commonly diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting). One treatment withdrawal occurred due to grade 2 diarrhea. No deaths occurred. LAS dose was not reduced; Abema dose was reduced to 100 mg BID in 6 (21%) patients. Median PFS was 56.0 wks (~13 mos) and CBR 65.5% (95% CI, 47.3‒80.1). Median overall survival was not estimable. In 18 patients with measurable lesions, ORR was 55.6% (95% CI, 33.7‒75.4), with median time to response of 5.7 mos and median duration of response of 6.4 mos. Seventy-six percent, 56%, and 39% of patients were progression free at 6, 12, and 18 mos, respectively. Three (10%) patients had scan-identified venous thromboembolic events, with one symptomatic pulmonary embolism and one symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. In 26 patients with evaluable baseline and wk 4 ctDNA, ESR1 mutant allele fraction decreased from baseline to wk 4 in 81% of patients and was not detected in 54%. Conclusions: With longer ELAINE 2 follow up, LAS/Abema continues to be well tolerated with clinically meaningful efficacy in women with mESR1, ER+/HER2- mBC that had progressed on ET and CDK4/6is. Decreases in mESR1 ctDNA suggest effective target engagement of LAS. The PFS (median ~13 mos) and ORR (56%) with LAS/Abema are promising and a confirmatory phase 3 study (ELAINE 3) will begin in 2023. If ELAINE 2 results are confirmed, the combination of LAS and Abema would address a critical unmet need, providing a practice changing option for treating mESR1 breast cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04432454 .

PURPOSE There are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies. METHODS The ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data. RESULTS The study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months. CONCLUSION The TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

The current first-line (1L) standard of care (SOC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is trastuzumab (T) plus pertuzumab (P) and a taxane. Despite advances in 1L SOC, most patients (pts) progress during maintenance therapy with T+P. Tucatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved in combination with T and capecitabine for adults with HER2+ MBC, with and without brain metastases (BM). In HER2CLIMB, the addition of tucatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in pts with HER2+ MBC and was well tolerated. Adding tucatinib also reduced the risk of disease progression or death in pts with untreated and/or active BM (Murthy et al. 2020, Curigliano et al. 2021). HER2CLIMB-05 investigates whether adding tucatinib to 1L SOC as maintenance therapy will extend PFS while maintaining quality of life (QOL). HER2CLIMB-05 (NCT05132582) is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study evaluating tucatinib plus T+P as maintenance therapy for HER2+ MBC. Approximately 650 pts will be enrolled. Eligible pts will have advanced HER2+ disease, no progression on 4–8 cycles of prior 1L SOC, ECOG Performance Status of 0 or 1, and no or asymptomatic BM. Exclusion criteria include prior treatment with anti-HER2 and/or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor TKI (prior SOC for early BC is permitted) or inability to undergo contrast magnetic resonance imaging of the brain. Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either tucatinib or placebo twice daily, with T+P once every 21 days. Pts with HR+ disease may receive endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS (key endpoint), time to deterioration of health-related QOL, central nervous system PFS, safety, and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. PFS and OS will be compared using a 2-sided stratified log-rank test between treatment groups. Time-to-event endpoints will be summarized using the Kaplan–Meier method. PK and safety data will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment is ongoing in the US, with additional sites planned. NCT05132582. Seagen Inc. Seagen Inc.

1504 Background: Trial recruitment that requires specific actionable mutations based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) is challenging. Barriers can include competing studies, physician study awareness, site proximity, mutation incidence, among other concerns. Methods: This study (NCT04432454) opened clinical sites using two methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “Traditional” approach included site selection, IRB and contract approval, and trial activation prior to a patient being identified for enrollment. The second approach used the Tempus “TIME” Trials network that would only open a site after identifying a patient with a mutation of interest and eligible for the trial. Results: The first patient enrolled was on 10/12/20 and the last patient was on 6/24/21. A total of 16 sites (6 Traditional and 10 TIME) participated. All Traditional sites, and none of the TIME sites, were affiliated with major academic institutions. Duration for full CTA execution for Traditional sites averaged 200.5 days (range 142 to 257) and for TIME sites averaged 7.6 days (range 2 to 14). IRB approval time average for Traditional sites was 27.5 days (range 12 to 71) and TIME sites was 3.0 days (range 1 to 12 days). Days from site selection to activation letter for Traditional sites was on average 250.0 days (range 187 to 281) and for TIME sites was 131.6 days (range 22 to 248). Time from study activation to first consent was 33.3 days (range 18 to 58) for Traditional sites and 8.8 days (range 1 to 35) for TIME sites. The first patient on-study was at a TIME site 115 days prior to a Traditional site and the first 7 patients enrolled were at TIME sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients while the TIME sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled all 29 patients in 8 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12 to 18 months. Conclusions: Although the Traditional and TIME programs had different operational models, they both contributed a significant number of patients and reduced the projected enrollment timeline. TIME sites enrolled the initial patients. These results demonstrate that the “Just-in-Time model,” in conjunction with a Traditional model, can reduce projected overall time to enrollment in biomarker-driven studies. [Table: see text]

232 Background: Olanzapine has an important role in preventing and treating nausea and vomiting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). This drug, for the last 5 years, has been a component of most major antiemesis guidelines. The aim of the current study was to assess how often olanzapine has been prescribed for patients receiving HEC. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using an OptumLabs de-identified clinical database of medical and pharmacy claims. The database was filtered for patients starting HEC in the interval of 2006 to Q2 of 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and year-by-year antiemetic prescribing patterns, coinciding with cycles 1 and 2 of chemotherapy. Results: A total of 63,154 distinct patients were included. The median age was 58 years (range, 18-88). Over a quarter of the patients identified as Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other. Breast (45.2%) and hematologic (20.8%) cancers were the most common diagnoses. In 2016, olanzapine was prescribed to only 1.4% of patients with cycle 1 of HEC. Prescriptions increased modestly each year, and by 2021, 13.9% of patients received olanzapine with their first cycle of chemotherapy. An additional 5.7% of patients received olanzapine for breakthrough symptoms or enhanced prophylaxis during cycle 2. In 2021, over three-quarters of patients were prescribed antiemetics in a guideline concordant manner, with either an olanzapine-containing quadruplet (12.2%), an NK1 receptor antagonist triplet (64.5%), or an olanzapine triplet (exact number suppressed due to small sample size). Conclusions: The rate of olanzapine prescribing is less than might be expected following its inclusion in major antiemesis guidelines. This finding highlights the challenges of disseminating information and keeping prescribing systems updated with the newest evidence in supportive oncology.

e13054 Background: Combination therapy with cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i: palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) and endocrine therapy (ET) has markedly improved treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2-negative (-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) worldwide.However, data is limited on why patients may discontinue CDK4/6i based therapy and how healthcare providers (HCPs) see their role in educating patients (Px) about side effects and supporting compliance. Objective: This study identifies reasons for suboptimal compliance and early discontinuation of CDK4/6i in US HR+ HER2- MBC Px, with a focus on HCPs and Px educational needs related to on-treatment monitoring, side effects and symptom management. Methods: A sequential mixed-methods design was used; 45-minute phone interviews (n=25) informed the development of an online survey (n=193). Both phases included HCPs comprising medical oncologists (ONCs), oncology registered nurses (RNs), nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (NPs/PAs) in community-based settings. Results: Identified areas of improvement for HCPs included: suboptimal competencies were identified: educating Px adequately regarding potential side effects and engaging them to monitor, report, and address them. Among HCPs surveyed, 26%-48% reported suboptimal knowledge of side effects of specific CDK4/6i [Table]. Interviewees noted that educating Px and setting expectations on potential side effects was critical, but 52% of ONCs reported suboptimal skill doing so. A majority of HCPs (68%-91%) expect Px to be able to report all side effects, with half of ONCs considering compliance with medication entirely Pxs’ responsibility, compared with NPs/PAs and RNs at 16-17%. Conclusions: This study identified areas where HCPs can improve their ability to counsel Px and address concerns that may influence a Px’s decision to prematurely discontinue therapy and should be used to inform future professional development initiatives. [Table: see text]

TPS17 Background: Emerging studies suggest that breast cancer, particularly triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), may be sensitive to immunotherapy. However, the response rate of single agent immune checkpoint blockade agent in TNBC is rather low. Previous genomic study in residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed inverse correlations between MEK activation signature and the amount of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in residual disease samples as well as poor outcome. Preclinical study also showed that the combination of MEK inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 antibody in mouse model can eradicate TNBC tumors. Methods: This is a single arm, Phase I/II trial of Pembrolizumab (P) in combination with Binimetinib (B) in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic TNBC. This trial is currently opened for accrual at Mayo Clinic in Florida and Minnesota. Patients with TNBC defined as ER ≤ 10% and PR ≤ 10% who received ≤ 3 prior lines with measurable disease will be enrolled. The primary objective of the Phase I part is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of B in combination with P and for the Phase II part is objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST criteria. The secondary endpoints include ORR by irRECIST, progression free survival, and overall survival. The total sample size is 15-38 patients with 6-12 patients in Phase I with 2 dose levels and 9-26 patients in Phase II. Simon’s Two-Stage Optimal Design is used to test the null hypothesis that this two-drug combination has an ORR of at most 15% vs. the alternative hypothesis that it has an ORR of at least 35%. Patients will receive single agent B for 2 weeks prior to starting P. A mandatory biopsy will be performed before starting B and an optional biopsy will be performed after 2 weeks of B. Tumor tissue will be evaluated for the amount and phenotypes of TILs, PD-L1 expression, and gene expression analysis using PanCancer Immune Profiling Panel, and PDJ amplification. Peripheral blood will be evaluated for circulating immunoregulatory cells, cytokine profiling, circulating tumor cells (CTCs), as well as p-ERK and PD-L1 expression on CTCs. Clinical trial information: NCT03106415.

Breast cancer is the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among women, and there are over 3 million breast cancer survivors living in the USA today. Excellent cure rates with modern therapies are associated with substantial toxicities for many women; it is important that healthcare providers attend to the resulting symptoms and issues to optimize quality of life in this population. In this article, we review management options for potential long-term toxicities in breast cancer survivors, with a particular focus on bone health, fertility preservation, premature menopause, cardiac dysfunction, and cognitive impairment.