Search

PURPOSE: The neutralizing peptibody trebananib prevents angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 from binding with Tie2 receptors, inhibiting angiogenesis and proliferation. Trebananib was combined with paclitaxel±trastuzumab in the I-SPY2 breast cancer trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: I-SPY2, a phase II neoadjuvant trial, adaptively randomizes patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer to one of several experimental therapies or control based on receptor subtypes as defined by hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status and MammaPrint risk (MP1, MP2). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates if/when it achieves 85% Bayesian probability of success in a phase III trial within a given subtype. Patients received weekly paclitaxel (plus trastuzumab if HER2-positive) without (control) or with weekly intravenous trebananib, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and surgery. Pathway-specific biomarkers were assessed for response prediction. RESULTS: There were 134 participants randomized to trebananib and 133 to control. Although trebananib did not graduate in any signature [phase III probabilities: Hazard ratio (HR)-negative (78%), HR-negative/HER2-positive (74%), HR-negative/HER2-negative (77%), and MP2 (79%)], it demonstrated high probability of superior pCR rates over control (92%-99%) among these subtypes. Trebananib improved 3-year event-free survival (HR 0.67), with no significant increase in adverse events. Activation levels of the Tie2 receptor and downstream signaling partners predicted trebananib response in HER2-positive disease; high expression of a CD8 T-cell gene signature predicted response in HR-negative/HER2-negative disease. CONCLUSIONS: The angiopoietin (Ang)/Tie2 axis inhibitor trebananib combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy increased estimated pCR rates across HR-negative and MP2 subtypes, with probabilities of superiority >90%. Further study of Ang/Tie2 receptor axis inhibitors in validated, biomarker-predicted sensitive subtypes is warranted.

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.

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.

HSP90 inhibitors destabilize oncoproteins associated with cell cycle, angiogenesis, RAS-MAPK activity, histone modification, kinases and growth factors. We evaluated the HSP90-inhibitor ganetespib in combination with standard chemotherapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer. I-SPY2 is a multicenter, phase II adaptively randomized neoadjuvant (NAC) clinical trial enrolling patients with stage II-III breast cancer with tumors 2.5 cm or larger on the basis of hormone receptors (HR), HER2 and Mammaprint status. Multiple novel investigational agents plus standard chemotherapy are evaluated in parallel for the primary endpoint of pathologic complete response (pCR). Patients with HER2-negative breast cancer were eligible for randomization to ganetespib from October 2014 to October 2015. Of 233 women included in the final analysis, 140 were randomized to the standard NAC control; 93 were randomized to receive 150 mg/m2 ganetespib every 3 weeks with weekly paclitaxel over 12 weeks, followed by AC. Arms were balanced for hormone receptor status (51-52% HR-positive). Ganetespib did not graduate in any of the biomarker signatures studied before reaching maximum enrollment. Final estimated pCR rates were 26% vs. 18% HER2-negative, 38% vs. 22% HR-negative/HER2-negative, and 15% vs. 14% HR-positive/HER2-negative for ganetespib vs control, respectively. The predicted probability of success in phase 3 testing was 47% HER2-negative, 72% HR-negative/HER2-negative, and 19% HR-positive/HER2-negative. Ganetespib added to standard therapy is unlikely to yield substantially higher pCR rates in HER2-negative breast cancer compared to standard NAC, and neither HSP90 pathway nor replicative stress expression markers predicted response. HSP90 inhibitors remain of limited clinical interest in breast cancer, potentially in other clinical settings such as HER2-positive disease or in combination with anti-PD1 neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer.Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01042379.

Using pre-treatment gene expression, protein/phosphoprotein, and clinical data from the I-SPY2 neoadjuvant platform trial (NCT01042379), we create alternative breast cancer subtypes incorporating tumor biology beyond clinical hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status to better predict drug responses. We assess the predictive performance of mechanism-of-action biomarkers from ∼990 patients treated with 10 regimens targeting diverse biology. We explore >11 subtyping schemas and identify treatment-subtype pairs maximizing the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate over the population. The best performing schemas incorporate Immune, DNA repair, and HER2/Luminal phenotypes. Subsequent treatment allocation increases the overall pCR rate to 63% from 51% using HR/HER2-based treatment selection. pCR gains from reclassification and improved patient selection are highest in HR+ subsets (>15%). As new treatments are introduced, the subtyping schema determines the minimum response needed to show efficacy. This data platform provides an unprecedented resource and supports the usage of response-based subtypes to guide future treatment prioritization.

HER2-targeted therapy dramatically improves outcomes in early breast cancer. Here we report the results of two HER2-targeted combinations in the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 phase 2 adaptive platform trial for early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence: ado-trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab (T-DM1/P) and paclitaxel, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP). Eligible women have >2.5 cm clinical stage II/III HER2+ breast cancer, adaptively randomized to T-DM1/P, THP, or a common control arm of paclitaxel/trastuzumab (TH), followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, then surgery. Both T-DM1/P and THP arms 'graduate' in all subtypes: predicted pCR rates are 63%, 72% and 33% for T-DM1/P (n = 52), THP (n = 45) and TH (n = 31) respectively. Toxicity burden is similar between arms. Degree of HER2 pathway signaling and phosphorylation in pretreatment biopsy specimens are associated with response to both T-DM1/P and THP and can further identify highly responsive HER2+ tumors to HER2-directed therapy. This may help identify patients who can safely de-escalate cytotoxic chemotherapy without compromising excellent outcome.

I-SPY2 is an adaptively randomized phase 2 clinical trial evaluating novel agents in combination with standard-of-care paclitaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Ganitumab is a monoclonal antibody designed to bind and inhibit function of the type I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-1R). Ganitumab was tested in combination with metformin and paclitaxel (PGM) followed by AC compared to standard-of-care alone. While pathologic complete response (pCR) rates were numerically higher in the PGM treatment arm for hormone receptor-negative, HER2-negative breast cancer (32% versus 21%), this small increase did not meet I-SPY's prespecified threshold for graduation. PGM was associated with increased hyperglycemia and elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), despite the use of metformin in combination with ganitumab. We evaluated several putative predictive biomarkers of ganitumab response (e.g., IGF-1 ligand score, IGF-1R signature, IGFBP5 expression, baseline HbA1c). None were specific predictors of response to PGM, although several signatures were associated with pCR in both arms. Any further development of anti-IGF-1R therapy will require better control of anti-IGF-1R drug-induced hyperglycemia and the development of more predictive biomarkers.

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.

PurposeThe phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin is a key pathway of survival and therapeutic resistance in breast cancer. We evaluated the pan-Akt inhibitor MK-2206 in combination with standard therapy in patients with high-risk early-stage breast cancer.Patients and methodsI-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase II, open-label, adaptively randomized neoadjuvant platform trial that screens experimental therapies and efficiently identifies potential predictive biomarker signatures. Patients are categorized by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptor (HR), and MammaPrint statuses in a 2 × 2 × 2 layout. Patients within each of these 8 biomarker subtypes are adaptively randomly assigned to one of several experimental therapies, including MK-2206, or control. Therapies are evaluated for 10 biomarker signatures, each of which is a combination of these subtypes. The primary end point is pathologic complete response (pCR). A therapy graduates with one or more of these signatures if and when it has an 85% Bayesian predictive probability of success in a hypothetical phase III trial, adjusting for biomarker covariates. Patients in the current report received standard taxane- and anthracycline-based neoadjuvant therapy without (control) or with oral MK-2206 135 mg/week.ResultsMK-2206 graduated with 94 patients and 57 concurrently randomly assigned controls in 3 graduation signatures: HR-negative/HER2-positive, HR-negative, and HER2-positive. Respective Bayesian mean covariate-adjusted pCR rates and percentage probability that MK-2206 is superior to control were 0.48:0.29 (97%), 0.62:0.36 (99%), and 0.46:0.26 (94%). In exploratory analyses, MK-2206 evinced a numerical improvement in event-free survival in its graduating signatures. The most significant grade 3-4 toxicity was rash (14% maculopapular, 8.6% acneiform).ConclusionThe Akt inhibitor MK-2206 combined with standard neoadjuvant therapy resulted in higher estimated pCR rates in HR-negative and HER2-positive breast cancer. Although MK-2206 is not being further developed at this time, this class of agents remains of clinical interest.

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

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.

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.

BackgroundThe 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsNeratinib 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%.ConclusionsNeratinib 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.).

BackgroundThe genetic and clinical heterogeneity of breast cancer makes the identification of effective therapies challenging. We designed I-SPY 2, a phase 2, multicenter, adaptively randomized trial to screen multiple experimental regimens in combination with standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The goal is to match experimental regimens with responding cancer subtypes. We report results for veliparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with carboplatin.MethodsIn this ongoing trial, women are eligible for participation if they have stage II or III breast cancer with a tumor 2.5 cm or larger in diameter; cancers are categorized into eight biomarker subtypes on the basis of status with regard to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), hormone receptors, and a 70-gene assay. Patients undergo adaptive randomization within each biomarker subtype to receive regimens that have better performance than the standard therapy. Regimens are evaluated within 10 biomarker signatures (i.e., prospectively defined combinations of biomarker subtypes). Veliparib-carboplatin plus standard therapy was considered for HER2-negative tumors and was therefore evaluated in 3 signatures. The primary end point is pathological complete response. Tumor volume changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging during treatment are used to predict whether a patient will have a pathological complete response. Regimens move on from phase 2 if and when they have a high Bayesian predictive probability of success in a subsequent phase 3 neoadjuvant trial within the biomarker signature in which they performed well.ResultsWith regard to triple-negative breast cancer, veliparib-carboplatin had an 88% predicted probability of success in a phase 3 trial. A total of 72 patients were randomly assigned to receive veliparib-carboplatin, and 44 patients were concurrently assigned to receive control therapy; at the completion of chemotherapy, the estimated rates of pathological complete response in the triple-negative population were 51% (95% Bayesian probability interval [PI], 36 to 66%) in the veliparib-carboplatin group versus 26% (95% PI, 9 to 43%) in the control group. The toxicity of veliparib-carboplatin was greater than that of the control.ConclusionsThe process used in our trial showed that veliparib-carboplatin added to standard therapy resulted in higher rates of pathological complete response than standard therapy alone specifically in triple-negative breast cancer. (Funded by the QuantumLeap Healthcare Collaborative and others; I-SPY 2 TRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01042379.).

* Purpose.--To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. Methods.--A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. Recommendations.--The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines. (Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020;144:545-563; doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0904-SA), INTRODUCTION First released in 2010, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing guideline is aimed at improving the [...]

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.

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.

Offers a constructivist perspective in considering strategies for managing student behavior, such as severe behavior problems, in elementary school classrooms which include children with special needs. This approach capitalizes on the social context and group problem solving to teach children how to manage their own behavior. Examples are provided. (Author/DB)