Qin, Rui

We assessed the efficacy and safety of combining bevacizumab with temsirolimus in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. This NCI-sponsored multicenter, open-label, phase II study (NCT01010126) enrolled patients with advanced, recurrent, or metastatic extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients were treated with temsirolimus and bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Temsirolimus 25 mg was administered i.v. on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle. Discontinuation of temsirolimus or bevacizumab did not require discontinuation of the other agent. The primary endpoints were objective response rate and 6-month progression-free survival rate. Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in this study, and 54 were evaluated for efficacy and adverse events. While median progression-free survival was 7.1 months, the median duration of treatment with temsirolimus was 3.9 months and that with bevacizumab was 3.5 months. The objective response rate of combination therapy was 2%, and 6-month progression-free survival was 48%. The most frequently reported grade 3–4 adverse events included fatigue (13%), hypertension (13%), and bleeding (13%). Close to 54% of the patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events, refusal of further treatment, or treatment delays. Three deaths occurred in the study, of which two were due to treatment-related bowel perforations. Given the minimal efficacy and increased toxicity seen with the combination of bevacizumab and temsirolimus, we do not recommend the use of this regimen in patients with advanced extra-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

9628 Background: As multiple treatments have been studied for the management of hot flashes in randomized, controlled trials, hot flash placebo responses have been quite variable across trials. Based on observations of trial reports, it was hypothesized that the magnitude of placebo effect might correlate with the number of baseline hot flashes in different studies. The current project examines the effect of the baseline hot flash frequency required for study participation and also the actual number of baseline hot flashes observed as these individually relate to the eventual reductions of hot flash frequency observed in patients receiving placebos. Methods: Data were collected from placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized trials, identified by a PubMed search, which reported hot flash frequency at baseline, 4–6 weeks and 12 weeks. Trials were excluded if they had less than 20 participants completing the placebo arm. Data gathered, in each study, included the number of hot flashes required to enroll in the study, the average hot flash number during the baseline period, and the hot flash changes in the placebo arms of each study (percent reduction from the baseline period). A simple statistical analysis was conducted in a descriptive fashion since standard deviation was not available in many trials. Scatter plots and Pearson's correlation coefficients demonstrated the relationships between the placebo hot flash percent reduction from baseline and both the minimum required number of hot flashes at baseline, and the mean number of hot flashes at baseline. Results: 45 trials with 49 placebo arms were included in this analysis. A significant positive correlation was seen between the number of hot flashes required to enroll in a study and the percent reduction of hot flashes from baseline at 4–6 weeks (Rho = 0.481, p = 0.003). There was also a significant positive correlation between the number of hot flashes at baseline and the percent reduction of hot flashes from baseline at 4–6 weeks (Rho = 0.481, p= 0.002) and at 12 weeks (Rho = 0.573, p= 0.003). Conclusions: These data support that higher baseline hot flash enrollment requirements and also higher baseline hot flash frequencies are associated with an increased placebo response. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9587 Background: CIPN is characterized by adjectives not covered directly by most common measures of pain and functional limitations. Possible descriptors include numbness, tingling and shooting/burning pain. A prospective neuropathy treatment trial provided data to explore the relationship between self-reported aspects of this symptom. Methods: Baseline EORTC QLQ CIPN20 data and NCI CTCAE V3.0 (CTC)neuropathy grade (I-IV) were provided for all patients on trial. Spearman correlation coefficients and Kappa's coefficients of agreement were calculated between individual items and subscales of the CIPN20 as well as the CTC neuropathy scale. Simple regression models were applied to examine the association between the sensory symptoms and motor function in the fingers/hands (F/H). 200 patients provided 80% power to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.20 with a 5% Type I error. Results: A majority of patients reported “quite a bit” to “very much” numbness (57%) or tingling (62%) in F/H compared to “a little” or “not at all” (numbness (43%), tingling (38%)) by the CIPN20. In contrast, only 13% of the participants had grade III/IV neuropathy determined by the CTC scale. Fewer patients reported the higher two levels of CIPN20-measured shooting/burning pain in F/H (20% “quite a bit” to “very much”). Numbness and tingling were highly correlated (kappa=0.56), while neither were in high agreement with shooting/burning pain (kappa= 0.05 (tingling) and 0.14 (numbness)). The CIPN20 sensory and motor subscales were significantly associated with each other (p<.0001) but were not or only weakly associated with the CTC. Specifically, tingling, numbness, and shooting/burning pain were not associated with the CTC (R=0.16, 0.18 and 0 .11, respectively). Using the CIPN20, all three sensations; numbness, tingling and shooting or burning pain were strongly associated with motor function. Conclusions: The most common moderate to severe CIPN symptoms were numbness and tingling with shooting/burning pain being less common. Shooting/ burning pain appears to be a separate symptom experience from numbness and tingling. The CTC neuropathy grading scale appears to be less sensitive than the CIPN20 in picking up sensory symptoms. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9531 Background: Chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a prevalent dose limiting toxicity for several important cancer treatment agents. CIPN can impair function and cause distress. There are no proven pharmacologic treatments for established CIPN currently. This double blind randomized placebo controlled trial evaluated a compounded topical gel for this problem. The novelty of this treatment is that it might incorporate several agents with different mechanisms of action to provide relief locally without negative systemic effects. Methods: Patients with CIPN (rated ≥4 out of 10) for at least one month, related to previous and/or concurrent exposure to neurotoxic agents, were randomized to baclofen 10 mg, amitriptyline HCL 40 mg and ketamine 20 mg in a pluronic lecithin organogel (BAK-PLO) vs placebo (PLO) to determine its effect on numbness, tingling, pain, and motor function. Exclusion criteria included other causes and/or current treatment for peripheral neuropathy. The primary endpoint was the baseline adjusted sensory subscale of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20, at 4 weeks. Results: Between February and May 2008, 208 patients were enrolled onto this trial. Four week data are shown in the table below, higher numbers being better. The percentage of patients that had improvements of at least 10, on a 100 point scale, in the motor subscale was statistically significantly higher in the BAK-PLO arm, p=.04. There were no unwanted toxicities associated with the BAK-PLO that were significantly different from placebo and no evidence of CNS or systemic toxicity. Conclusions: Topical treatment with BAK-PLO appears to moderately improve symptoms of CIPN. This topical gel was well tolerated without systemic side effects. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

5039 Background: Combined mTOR and VEGF blockade is a potentially promising and rational strategy for the treatment of advanced RCC. We previously reported the phase I safety and efficacy results of CCI 779 (C) +bevacizumab (B) n RTKI naïve stage IV RCC patients (pts) (J Clin Oncol. 2007;25[18S Suppl]:5034). We now report the interim results of the phase 2 study of C+B in RTKI refractory RCC patients. Methods: Design: Open label, phase I/II study of C+B in advanced RCC pts. Patients with measurable stage IV RCC with a component of clear/conventional cell type, performance status 0–2 and good organ function were eligible. Up to two prior treatment regimens were allowed (at least one prior RTKI). Phase II dose was C = 25 mg IV weekly and B = 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks repeated in 4 week cycles. The primary objective of the phase II portion was to assess the proportion of patients who were progression-free 6 months after study entry. Secondary objectives were assessment of response rates and toxicity. Accrual goal = 40 pts. Results: Thirty-five pts have been enrolled into the phase 2 portion to date with 4 pts ineligible. Twenty-five pts are evaluable for response assessment and 29 pts are evaluable for toxicity. Baseline characteristics (N: 35): M/F: 28/7; Number of met. sites: 1/2/3+: 15/9/11; prior nephrectomy: 31; Number of prior therapies: 1 = 29; 2 = 2. Most common (>5%) Gr 3–4 AEs (N = 29) included fatigue (6), hypercholesterolemia (2), hypertriglyceridemia (2), anorexia (2), rash (2), and anemia (2). Responses were: PR/SD/PD = 4 (16%)/18 (72%)/3 (12%). Median number of cycles administered was 4. Six month progression free rates will mature by may 2009. Conclusions: C+B combination at the recommended phase 2 doses is feasible and well tolerated. Clinical benefit rates (PR/SD) in RTKI refractory RCC patients (88%) are encouraging. Data on 6 month progression-free rates are expected to mature in 4/09. Updated data on safety, response rates, and 6-month progression free rates will be presented on all evaluable patients. Correlative studies on available plasma, serum and tumor samples for angiogenic and molecular biomarkers are underway. Supported by N01-CM62205, R21 CA 119545–02, and Commonwealth Foundation. [Table: see text]

e17538 Background: Adherence to guideline-consistent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis is suboptimal. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of compliance to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis using a computerized physician order entry system at a single tertiary care institution. A nurse survey was also performed to evaluate how oncology practices, within a cooperative group, manage clinician orders for the prevention of CINV. Methods: The electronic medical records of 100 consecutive patients were evaluated. The primary endpoint was the incidence of compliance to provide all aspects of institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis for acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2-4) CINV for patients receiving high, moderate, low, and minimally-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC/MEC/LEC/MinEC). Noncompliance was declared if a recommended antiemetic was not prescribed per the guidelines or if additional antiemetics were prescribed. Descriptive analyses were performed on the convenience sample. Logistic regression was applied to determine the association of potential factors with noncompliance. Results: The incidence of compliance on Days 1-4 was 94%. Half of the noncompliant events occurred on Day 1 alone and involved the omission of pre-chemotherapy prochlorperazine in patients receiving LEC (3 of 6, 50%). There was a high-degree of compliance to institutional guidelines for delayed CINV (97%). Patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide were numerically less likely to receive institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, compared to patients receiving other chemotherapy regimens (OR: 0.24 (0.04, 1.36), p-value: 0.05). No other factors were significantly predictive for compliance. The nurse survey demonstrated significant variability amongst the involved institutions, with regards to antiemetic prescribing practices. Conclusions: Computerized physician order entry is associated with impressive adherence to clinician prescribing practices, according to institutional guideline-directed antiemetic prophylaxis, for preventing acute and delayed CINV.

6587 Background: Recently the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE was developed to augment clinically graded adverse events with information reported directly by patients on clinical trials (Basch, 2009). The validation and potential application of PRO-CTCAE in phase I clinical trials are of great interest as toxicity is the primary endpoint. Methods: Selected PRO-CTCAE items (21 items measuring 12 symptomatic adverse events) corresponding to the major adverse events required to be graded clinically were collected in an ongoing phase I clinical trial of weekly cilengitide and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01276496). PRO-CTCAE was administered in a paper booklet by a clinical research associate prior to treatment on days 1, 8 and 15 of their regular visits. These PRO-CTCAE items were summarized descriptively in comparison to clinician-assessed CTCAE ver 4.0 (NCI, 2009) during the first cycle. As a pilot study to assess feasibility of PRO-CTCAE in phase I trials, PRO-CTCAE was not intended for determination of dose-limiting toxicity. Results: Twelve patients were accrued to two separate doses of cilengitide and paclitaxel. The median age was 56 (range 36—67) and half of patients were female. All patients had an ECOG performance score <= 1. Over 90% of patients had received prior surgery and chemotherapy. All but one patient completed weekly PRO-CTCAE during the first cycle, the only patient refused to complete weeks 2 and 3 did not give a reason. PRO-CTCAE captured most of the symptomatic adverse events reflected in clinician-assessed CTCAE. Some symptomatic adverse events were not reported clinically by CTCAE but were reported by patients by PRO-CTCAE. Overall, PRO-CTCAE items indicated slightly more severe degree of symptoms experienced by patients than those reported in CTCAE. Conclusions: This is the first study that PRO-CTCAE items were integrated within regular study visits in a phase I trial. The administration of PRO-CTCAE has been proved feasible and fruitful, providing consistent and enhanced symptomatic toxicity from the patient point of view. The addition of PRO-CTCAE did not significantly increase patient burden. Clinical trial information: NCT01276496.

4032 Background: PNET has long had few effective therapies other than chemotherapy. Placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF/PDGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). However, objective response rates (RR) with these agents are still <10%. Preclinical studies suggest enhanced anti-tumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor TEM (25 mg IV q week) and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody BEV (10 mg/kg IV q 2 weeks) in patients (pts) with well or moderately differentiated PNET and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Co primary endpoints were RR and 6-month PFS. Planned enrollment was 50 patients, with interim analysis for futility after the first 25 evaluable pts. Pts had no prior mTOR or VEGF targeted agents, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Continued octreotide was allowed, but not required. Prior interferon, embolization, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens were allowed. Results: 55 pts were eligible for response assessment. Confirmed PR was documented in 20 of 55 patients (37%). 44 of 55 (80%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. Of 49 pts evaluable for this endpoint, 12 month PFS is 49%. 15 patients remain on therapy. For evaluable patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to therapy were hypertension (18%), hyperglycemia (13%), fatigue (11%). leukopenia (9%), headache (9%), proteinuria (7%), and hypokalemia (7%). Conclusions: The combination of TEM/BEV has substantial activity in a multi-center phase II trial with RR of 37%, well in excess of single targeted agents in PNET. 6-month PFS was a notable 80% in a population of patients with RECIST criteria progression within 7 months of study entry. Phase III trials of combined VEGF/mTOR inhibition in PNET should be pursued. Clinical trial information: NCT01010126.

3501 Background: Cumulative neurotoxicity commonly leads to early discontinuation of oxaliplatin-based therapy. In a relatively small, prematurely-discontinued, randomized study, IV CaMg was associated with reduced oxaliplatin-induced sNT (Grothey, JCO, 2011). N08CB was designed to definitively test whether IV CaMg significantly decreases cumulative oxaliplatin-related sNT. Methods: 353 pts with colon cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX were randomized to 3 arms: IV CaMg (1g calcium gluconate, 1g magnesium sulfate) before and after oxaliplatin vs PL before and after vs CaMg before and PL after. The primary endpoint was cumulative sNT repeatedly measured by the sensory subscale of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20. Secondary endpoints, using CTCAE 4.0 and an oxaliplatin specific neurotoxicity scale, were also assessed. Acute neuropathy data were also collected for 5 days following each oxaliplatin dose. The area under the curve (AUC) of the sensory subscale during the treatment cycles was used as summary measures for comparison. The Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were conducted for each treatment versus placebo arm, at 2.5%, adjusting for multiplicity using Bonferroni’s approach. Results: CaMg did not reduce cumulative sNT. Primary and secondary analyses data are summarized in the Table. In addition, there were no significant differences between arms regarding oxaliplatin administered doses or chemotherapy discontinuation rates. Also, there were no substantial differences in acute neuropathy scores or side-effects between study arms. Conclusions: This study does not demonstrate any activity of IV CaMg as a neuroprotectant against oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT01099449. [Table: see text]

TPS1608 Background: Metformin may have growth inhibitory effects on many cancer types including breast cancer. NCIC MA.32 is a randomized placebo-controlled trial examining the effects of 5 years of metformin in women with breast cancer ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01101438 ). This trial offers us the opportunity to explore the effects of metformin on breast cancer biomarkers to gain an understanding of the potential chemo preventive effects of this drug. The primary aim of this companion to MA.32 (Alliance trial # A211201) is to examine the effects of 1 year of metformin vs placebo on breast density for women with Estrogen Receptor negative (ER-) breast cancer. Secondary aims of this study include: evaluation of breast density following 2 years of metformin use, and correlation of density with fasting insulin, glucose and Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA). Exploratory aims include examination of the effects of metformin on second cancer rates. Methods: Eligible women must have been enrolled on MA.32 (North America accrual completed January 23, 2013), have hormone receptor-negative breast cancer, and breast composition on mammography >25% glandular density, have a digital mammogram within 12 months of registration on MA.32 and have an intact, unaffected contralateral breast. Women enrolled on this study must provide menstrual cycle data (if premenopausal) and digital mammograms. All other study related information is gathered through participation in MA.32. Mammographic density will be calculated using Cumulus software (the Boyd method). Our accrual goal is 458 patients (229 per arm) and with an assumption of 20% drop out due to drug intolerance and another 20% due to ineligibility. Therefore, with a sample size of 274 (137 per arm) we will have at least 85% power to detect a 4% difference between study arms, i.e., 5% change from baseline to one year of treatment for metformin vs. 1% for placebo, using the two-sided two-sample t-test at a significance level of 5%. This study was activated in the United States on 8/22/2012 and 15 patients have been accrued to date. This study is sponsored by the NCI and the Alliance for clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01666171.