PURPOSE: Predictive biomarkers to identify patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer who may benefit from targeted therapy alone are required. We hypothesized that early measurements of tumor maximum standardized uptake value corrected for lean body mass (SULmax) on 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) would predict pathologic complete response (pCR) to pertuzumab and trastuzumab (PT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II or III, estrogen receptor-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer received four cycles of neoadjuvant PT. 18F-labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography was performed at baseline and 15 days after PT initiation (C1D15). Eighty evaluable patients were required to test the null hypothesis that the area under the curve of percent change in SULmax by C1D15 predicting pCR is ≤ 0.65, with a one-sided type I error rate of 10%. RESULTS: Eighty-eight women were enrolled (83 evaluable), and 85% (75 of 88) completed all four cycles of PT. pCR after PT alone was 22%. Receiver operator characteristic analysis of percent change in SULmax by C1D15 yielded an area under the curve of 0.72 (80% CI, 0.64 to 0.80; one-sided P = .12), which did not reject the null hypothesis. However, between patients who obtained pCR and who did not, a significant difference in median percent reduction in SULmax by C1D15 was observed (63.8% v 41.8%; P = .004) and SULmax reduction ≥ 40% was more prevalent (83% v 52%; P = .03; positive predictive value, 31%). Participants not obtaining a 40% reduction in SULmax by C1D15 were unlikely to obtain pCR (negative predictive value, 91%). CONCLUSION: Although the primary objective was not met, early changes in SULmax predict response to PT in estrogen receptor-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Once optimized, this quantitative imaging strategy may facilitate tailoring of therapy in this setting.

The phase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) in prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSIs). The U.S. expanded-access program (EAP; NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP at 4 institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included OS, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (RR) of at least 50%, and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, outcome data, and toxicity between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using t testing of proportions and survival analyses. Results: In total, 117 patients with mCRPC who received [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 were eligible and included in this analysis. Patients enrolled in the EAP were more heavily pretreated with ARSI (≥2 ARSI regimens: 70% vs. 46%; P < 0.001) and had worse performance status at baseline (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≥ 2: 19% vs. 7%; P < 0.001) than VISION patients. EAP and VISION patients had similar levels of grade 3 or higher anemia (18% vs. 13%; P = 0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs. 8%; P = 0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs. 3%; P = 0.85) and similar PSA RRs (42% vs. 46%; P = 0.50) and OS (median: 15.1 vs. 15.3 mo; P > 0.05). Conclusion: Patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC who received [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 within the EAP were later in their disease trajectory than VISION patients. Patients enrolled in the EAP achieved similar PSA RRs and OS and had a safety profile similar to that of the VISION trial patients.

e17061 Background: ThePhase 3 VISION trial demonstrated that [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged overall survival (OS) in metastatic-castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients who progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy and androgen receptor-signaling inhibitors (ARSi). The expanded access program (EAP) (NCT04825652) was opened to provide access to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for eligible patients until regulatory approval was obtained. The VISION trial required strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, which may not represent the patient population encountered in clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting within the EAP and compare the results with those from the VISION trial. Methods: Patients enrolled in the EAP between May 2021 and March 2022 at four institutions in the United States with available toxicity and outcome data were included. Outcome measures included overall survival (OS), ≥50% PSA decline rates (PSA-RR), and incidences of toxicity according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. Differences in baseline characteristics, toxicity, and PSA-RR between the EAP and VISION were evaluated using a t-test of proportions. Results: 117 patients with mCRPC were eligible and included. Patients enrolled in the EAP were similarly pretreated with taxane-based chemotherapy regimens (>1 taxane: 47% vs 40%; p=0.16) and more heavily pretreated with ARSi (>1 ARSi: 70% vs 46%; p<0.001). EAP patients had similar levels of ≥3 grade anemia (18% vs 13%; p=0.15), thrombocytopenia (13% vs 8%; p=0.13), and neutropenia (3% vs 3%; p=0.85) and higher levels of ≥3 grade lymphopenia (34% vs 8%; p<0.001). Patients treated within the EAP experienced numerically shorter OS (median OS: 13.7 vs 15.3 months) and similar PSA-RR (40% vs 46%; p=0.29). Median follow-up was numerically shorter in the EAP compared with VISION (14.7 mo vs 20.3 mo). Conclusions: mCRPC patients treated with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in a real-world setting were more heavily pretreated with ARSi, had a similar safety profile, and experienced numerically shorter OS and similar PSA-RR compared with VISION trial patients. A major limitation of this study is that we did not have access to individual patient data from the VISION trial, so we were not able to assess whether differences in OS between VISION and the EAP were statistically significant.