Asmis, Timothy R.

PURPOSE Patients with advanced, well-differentiated extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (epNETs) have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib, an oral multikinase inhibitor with activity against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2 and -3, PDGFR-alpha and-beta, and c-Kit, was tested for efficacy in epNET. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of pazopanib (800 mg once daily) versus placebo in low- to intermediate-grade epNET with radiologic progressive disease (PD) within 12 months of study entry. Previous somatostatin analog (SSA) was required for midgut tumors, and concurrent SSA was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD was confirmed by central review. RESULTS One hundred seventy-one patients (97 pazopanib and 74 placebo) were randomly assigned between September 2013 and October 2015. The majority had a midgut primary site (75%) and previous SSA treatment (93%). About half (49%) of the patients had functional tumors. The median follow-up was 61 months (95% CI, 60 to 63). Median PFS was 11.8 versus 7.6 months in pazopanib versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79]; P < .001); 49 placebo patients crossed over to pazopanib. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. Rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events (regardless of attribution) were higher in pazopanib versus placebo (84% v 47%; P < .001), as were grade 5 death events (8% v 0%, P = .017). CONCLUSION Pazopanib compared with placebo significantly improves PFS in patients with progressive epNET, confirming that the VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in epNET. However, after integrating the associated risks relative to the benefits, further development of pazopanib in this clinical context is not planned.

361 Background: Assessment of tumor response in extrapancreatic NETs with metastases can be very challenging. Previous studies suggest a high degree of discordance between local and central imaging reviews, which has implications for clinical practice and trial design. Methods: Serial images archived from a randomized phase II trial (A021202) of pazopanib vs placebo in progressive non-pancreatic NETs were evaluated by central review, with real-time review conducted at the time of locally interpreted progressive disease (PD). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Discordances between central (Alliance Imaging Core Laboratory) and local (investigator-reported) reviews were assessed. Scan-level and pt-level results across both treatment arms were evaluated. Kappa tests were used to test concordance based on source of review. Results: 151 pts had a total of 724 scans with response adjudication by both local and central RECIST review. Discordance was observed in both directions. Overall, 20% of scans (143/724) had discordant classifications. The most common discordances were: stable disease (SD) on local vs. PD on central review (82/143=57%), and PD on local vs. SD on central review (32/143=22%). On a pt level, 78 of 151 pts (52%) had discordant reviews; 8 had >1 type of discordance. Overall, 30% of pts (N=45) had a determination of PD on central review, but SD or better on local review, potentially resulting in excessive exposure to therapy. In contrast, 20% (N=30) were classified as PD on local read but SD or better on real-time central review (which did not necessarily translate into an abbreviated course of treatment). Cohen’s kappa statistics revealed only moderate concordance between local and central reviewers both at the scan (K=0.48, 95% CI: 0.42 – 0.55) and pt (K=0.41, 95% CI: 0.32 – 0.5) levels, with no significant influence by treatment arm, primary tumor site, tumor functionality, histology, differentiation or primary disease spread. Conclusions: Discordance was observed in both directions, where 30% of pts were potentially kept on study drug too long (based on central read), and 20% would have been taken off study treatment early for local PD were it not for real-time central review. Although this bidirectional discordance did not affect the overall findings of the PFS outcome between arms in the trial, these analyses highlight the high prevalence of discordance, the potential to negatively influence treatment duration in both directions, and the need for more straightforward methods of assessing treatment response in carcinoid. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; NETRF Investigator Award; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.

4005 Background: Patients (pts) with progressive advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors arising outside of the pancreas have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib (PZ) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor with activity against VEGFR-2,-3, PDGFR-α, and β, and c-KIT, with initial data suggesting efficacy in CARC. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of PZ (800 mg/day) versus placebo (PL) in progressive CARC. Key eligibility: low-intermediate grade CARC, radiologic progressive disease (PD) < 12 months (mo), and adequate end-organ function. Prior somatostatin analog (SSA) mandated for midgut tumors. Concurrent SSA allowed if previous PD on SSA documented. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time from randomization to PD by central review or death. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. The trial had 85% power to detect a difference in median PFS of 14 v 9 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64) at one-sided alpha = 0.1. A stratified log-rank test based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) principle was used. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD confirmed by central review. Results: 171 (97 PZ, 74 PL) pts were randomized between 6/2013-10/2015: median age 63; 56% female; 66% small bowel primary; 87% concurrent SSA. Median follow-up of 31 mo; 112 (56 PZ, 56 PL) PFS events observed. 6 pts (4 PZ, 2 PL) remain on initial treatment. Median PFS was 11.6 and 8.5 mo in PZ and PL, respectively (HR = 0.53, 1-sided 90% upper confidence limit [UCL] 0.69, p = 0.0005) which crossed the pre-specified protocol efficacy boundary. 49 PL pts received PZ after PD. Median OS was 41 and 42 mo in PZ and PL, respectively (HR = 1.13, 1-sided 90% UCL 1.51, p = 0.70). RR data will be presented. Notable grade 3+ adverse events were (PZ v. PL %) hypertension (35 v. 8), fatigue (11 v. 4), ALT (10 v. 0), AST (10 v. 0), and diarrhea (7 v. 4). Conclusions: PZ compared to PL was associated with significant improvement in PFS in patients with progressive CARC. The results confirm that VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in CARC. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882 https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.