Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-a public-private partnership to improve clinical trials-launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocols research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.

New approaches to drug development are critically needed to lessen the time, cost, and resources necessary to identify and optimize active agents. Strategies to accelerate drug development include testing drugs earlier in the disease process, such as the neoadjuvant setting. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued guidance designed to accelerate drug approval through the use of neoadjuvant studies in which the surrogate short-term endpoint, pathologic response, can be used to identify active agents and shorten the time to approval of both efficacious drugs and biomarkers identifying patients most likely to respond. However, this approach has unique challenges. In particular, issues of patient safety are paramount, given the exposure of potentially curable patients to investigational agents with limited safety experience. Key components to safe drug development in the neoadjuvant setting include defining a study population at sufficiently poor prognosis with standard therapy to justify exposure to investigational agents, defining the extent and adequacy of safety data from phase I, detecting potentially harmful interactions between investigational and standard therapies, improving study designs, such as adaptive strategies, that limit patient exposure to ineffective agents, and intensifying safety monitoring in the course of the trial. The I-SPY2 trial is an example of a phase II neoadjuvant trial of novel agents for breast cancer in which these issues have been addressed, both in the design and conduct of the trial. These adaptations of phase II design enable acceleration of drug development by reducing time and cost to screen novel therapies for activity without compromising safety.

PURPOSE: Disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) expressing epithelial markers in the bone marrow are associated with recurrence and death, but little is known about risk factors predicting their occurrence. We detected EPCAM+/CD45- cells in bone marrow from early stage breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the I-SPY 2 Trial and examined clinicopathologic factors and outcomes. METHODS: Patients who signed consent for SURMOUNT, a sub-study of the I-SPY 2 Trial (NCT01042379), had bone marrow collected after NAC at the time of surgery. EPCAM+CD45- cells in 4 mLs of bone marrow aspirate were enumerated using immunomagnetic enrichment/flow cytometry (IE/FC). Patients with > 4.16 EPCAM+CD45- cells per mL of bone marrow were classified as DTC-positive. Tumor response was assessed using the residual cancer burden (RCB), a standardized approach to quantitate the extent of residual invasive cancer present in the breast and the axillary lymph nodes after NAC. Association of DTC-positivity with clinicopathologic variables and survival was examined. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were enrolled, 51 of whom had successful EPCAM+CD45- cell enumeration. Twenty-four of 51 (47.1%) were DTC-positive. The DTC-positivity rate was similar across receptor subtypes, but DTC-positive patients were significantly younger (p = 0.0239) and had larger pretreatment tumors compared to DTC-negative patients (p = 0.0319). Twenty of 51 (39.2%) achieved a pathologic complete response (pCR). While DTC-positivity was not associated with achieving pCR, it was significantly associated with higher RCB class (RCB-II/III, 62.5% vs. RCB-0/I; 33.3%; Chi-squared p = 0.0373). No significant correlation was observed between DTC-positivity and distant recurrence-free survival (p = 0.38, median follow-up = 3.2 years). CONCLUSION: DTC-positivity at surgery after NAC was higher in younger patients, those with larger tumors, and those with residual disease at surgery.

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer is based mostly on HR/HER2 and gene expression-based immune, DNA repair deficiency, and luminal signatures. We extend this description via functional protein pathway activation mapping using pre-treatment, quantitative expression data from 139 proteins/phosphoproteins from 736 patients across 8 treatment arms of the I-SPY 2 Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01042379). We identify predictive fit-for-purpose, mechanism-of-action-based signatures and individual predictive protein biomarker candidates by evaluating associations with pathologic complete response. Elevated levels of cyclin D1, estrogen receptor alpha, and androgen receptor S650 associate with non-response and are biomarkers for global resistance. We uncover protein/phosphoprotein-based signatures that can be utilized both for molecularly rationalized therapeutic selection and for response prediction. We introduce a dichotomous HER2 activation response predictive signature for stratifying triple-negative breast cancer patients to either HER2 or immune checkpoint therapy response as a model for how protein activation signatures provide a different lens to view the molecular landscape of breast cancer and synergize with transcriptomic-defined signatures.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may improve early-stage breast cancer treatment via non-invasive tumor burden assessment. To investigate subtype-specific differences in the clinical significance and biology of ctDNA shedding, we perform serial personalized ctDNA analysis in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in the I-SPY2 trial. ctDNA positivity rates before, during, and after NAC are higher in TNBC than in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Early clearance of ctDNA 3 weeks after treatment initiation predicts a favorable response to NAC in TNBC only. Whereas ctDNA positivity associates with reduced distant recurrence-free survival in both subtypes. Conversely, ctDNA negativity after NAC correlates with improved outcomes, even in patients with extensive residual cancer. Pretreatment tumor mRNA profiling reveals associations between ctDNA shedding and cell cycle and immune-associated signaling. On the basis of these findings, the I-SPY2 trial will prospectively test ctDNA for utility in redirecting therapy to improve response and prognosis.

The many improvements in breast cancer therapy in recent years have so lowered rates of recurrence that it is now difficult or impossible to conduct adequately powered adjuvant clinical trials. Given the many new drugs and potential synergistic combinations, the neoadjuvant approach has been used to test benefit of drug combinations in clinical trials of primary breast cancer. A recent FDA-led meta-analysis showed that pathologic complete response (pCR) predicts disease-free survival (DFS) within patients who have specific breast cancer subtypes. This meta-analysis motivated the FDA's draft guidance for using pCR as a surrogate endpoint in accelerated drug approval. Using pCR as a registration endpoint was challenged at ASCO 2014 Annual Meeting with the presentation of ALTTO, an adjuvant trial in HER2-positive breast cancer that showed a nonsignificant reduction in DFS hazard rate for adding lapatinib, a HER-family tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to trastuzumab and chemotherapy. This conclusion seemed to be inconsistent with the results of NeoALTTO, a neoadjuvant trial that found a statistical improvement in pCR rate for the identical lapatinib-containing regimen. We address differences in the two trials that may account for discordant conclusions. However, we use the FDA meta-analysis to show that there is no discordance at all between the observed pCR difference in NeoALTTO and the observed HR in ALTTO. This underscores the importance of appropriately modeling the two endpoints when designing clinical trials. The I-SPY 2/3 neoadjuvant trials exemplify this approach.

The combination of PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and PARP inhibitor olaparib added to standard paclitaxel neoadjuvant chemotherapy (durvalumab/olaparib/paclitaxel [DOP]) was investigated in the phase II I-SPY2 trial of stage II/III HER2-negative breast cancer. Seventy-three participants were randomized to DOP and 299 to standard of care (paclitaxel) control. DOP increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in all HER2-negative (20%-37%), hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative (14%-28%), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (27%-47%). In HR-positive/HER2-negative cancers, MammaPrint ultra-high (MP2) cases benefited selectively from DOP (pCR 64% versus 22%), no benefit was seen in MP1 cancers (pCR 9% versus 10%). Overall, 12.3% of patients in the DOP arm experienced immune-related grade 3 adverse events versus 1.3% in control. Gene expression signatures associated with immune response were positively associated with pCR in both arms, while a mast cell signature was associated with non-pCR. DOP has superior efficacy over standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer, particularly in a highly sensitive subset of high-risk HR-positive/HER2-negative patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/s41523-018-0074-6.].

Background

The heterogeneity of breast cancer makes identifying effective therapies challenging. The I-SPY 2 trial, a multicenter, adaptive phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk clinical stage II or III breast cancer, evaluated multiple new agents added to standard chemotherapy to assess the effects on rates of pathological complete response (i.e., absence of residual cancer in the breast or lymph nodes at the time of surgery).

Methods

We used adaptive randomization to compare standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor neratinib with control. Eligible women were categorized according to eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, hormone-receptor status, and risk according to a 70-gene profile. Neratinib was evaluated against control with regard to 10 biomarker signatures (prospectively defined combinations of subtypes). The primary end point was pathological complete response. Volume changes on serial magnetic resonance imaging were used to assess the likelihood of such a response in each patient. Adaptive assignment to experimental groups within each disease subtype was based on Bayesian probabilities of the superiority of the treatment over control. Enrollment in the experimental group was stopped when the 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a confirmatory phase 3 trial of neoadjuvant therapy reached a prespecified threshold for any biomarker signature ("graduation"). Enrollment was stopped for futility if the probability fell to below 10% for every biomarker signature.

Results

Neratinib reached the prespecified efficacy threshold with regard to the HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative signature. Among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative cancer, the mean estimated rate of pathological complete response was 56% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 37 to 73%) among 115 patients in the neratinib group, as compared with 33% among 78 controls (95% PI, 11 to 54%). The final predictive probability of success in phase 3 testing was 79%.

Conclusions

Neratinib added to standard therapy was highly likely to result in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard chemotherapy with trastuzumab among patients with HER2-positive, hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer. (Funded by QuantumLeap Healthcare Collaborative and others; I-SPY 2 TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01042379.).

Advances in the surgical management of the axilla in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially those with node positive disease at diagnosis, have led to changes in practice and more judicious use of axillary lymph node dissection that may minimize morbidity from surgery. However, there is still significant confusion about how to optimally manage the axilla, resulting in variation among practices. From the viewpoint of drug development, assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy remains paramount and appropriate assessment of residual disease-the primary endpoint of many drug therapy trials in the neoadjuvant setting-is critical. Therefore decreasing the variability, especially in a multicenter clinical trial setting, and establishing a minimum standard to ensure consistency in clinical trial data, without mandating axillary lymph node dissection, for all patients is necessary. The key elements which include proper staging and identification of nodal involvement at diagnosis, and appropriately targeted management of the axilla at the time of surgical resection are presented. The following protocols have been adopted as standard procedure by the I-SPY2 trial for management of axilla in patients with node positive disease, and present a framework for prospective clinical trials and practice.