Mahoney, Michelle R.

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.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials’ primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.

11562 Background: Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a heterogeneous malignancy of connective tissue. Although mTOR is implicated in STS pathogenesis, clinical activity from mTORC1 inhibitors is modest. M, a potent selective mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor, was more effective in STS preclinical models than inhibitors of mTORC1, IGF1R and mTORC1+IGF1R, owing to more complete suppression of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and abrogation of feedback AKT activation. P, an oral multikinase inhibitor, is approved for non-adipocytic STS and often used after progression (PD) on chemotherapy. In phase 1, the RP2D of M was 30 mg weekly. A091304 was to evaluate M as a novel targeted therapy for STS. Methods: In A091304, pts were randomized 1:1 to M 30 mg weekly or P 800 mg daily. Eligibility required Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≤ 1, progression on ≥ 1 prior chemotherapy and specific STS subtypes (cohort 1: UPS; 2: LMS; 3: MPNST, SS). Crossover to M was allowed after PD on P. 1° endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Assuming median PFS of P was 4.6 months (mo), 98 pts yielded 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 favoring M [1-sided test, alpha = 0.15] and including 1 planned futility analysis. 2° endpoints were response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 4 mo and safety. After 4 of the first 12 pts randomized to P experienced ≥ grade (gr) 3 toxicity, the study was amended to begin at P 400 mg, allowing titration to 800 per investigator discretion. Results: After protocol amendment, 114 pt underwent randomization (M: 56, P: 58), and 111 initiated treatment. Median PFS was 2 mo for M and 2.1 mo for P (HR = 1.47; 1-sided 85% upper confidence boundary = 1.85), with 2 partial responses in each arm. CBR was 5.4% for M and 13.8% for P. Median OS was 10.7 mo for M and 13.9 mo for P (HR = 1.41; 95% CI 0.80-2.49). 26/43 pt with PD on P crossed over to M. Median PFS after crossover was 1.8 mo (95% CI 1.5-3.5). Gr 3 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 36% on M and 41% on P; gr 4 toxicity was rare. AEs were consistent with known effects of M and P. Conclusions: P at 400 mg daily (allowing escalation to 800 mg per investigator discretion) demonstrated a shorter PFS as compared prior randomized studies with P. Despite this, M failed to demonstrate superior clinical activity as compared to P at the interim analysis. Further work will examine activity within histology-specific cohorts and evaluate available tissue samples for evidence of pharmacodynamic activity. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA233324 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT02601209 .

11511 Background: In the open-label multicenter phase II study, A091401, nivolumab (N) and nivolumab+ipilimumab (N+I) demonstrated a confirmed response rate (RR) of 5% and 16%, respectively in patients (pts) with advanced sarcoma (D’Angelo SP et al Lancet Oncology 2018). Responses occurred in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), myxofibrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, sarcoma not otherwise specified and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Here, we report efficacy of N and N+I, in each of 3 expansion cohorts [gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), UPS and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS)]. Methods: Pts refractory to ≥ 1 regimen(s) were randomized (non-comparative) to receive either N [N (3 mg/kg q2W)] or N+I [N (3 mg/kg Q3W x4, then Q2W) plus I (3 mg/kg q3W x4)]. The primary endpoint was 6 month confirmed RR (RECIST v1.1). For UPS and DDLS, 2 confirmed responses in the 1st 12 evaluable pts was needed (85% power, 1-sided alpha=0.15, 5 v 25% RR). For GIST, a confirmed response in the 1st 9 evaluable pts expanded enrollment to 24 (80% power, 1-sided alpha=0.10, 5 v 20% RR). Other endpoints: adverse events (AEs, TRAEs), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS), and correlatives. Results: See table. Clinical trial information: NCT02500797 . Conclusions: Neither N or N+I lead to confirmed responses in GIST. In DDLS and UPS, the primary response endpoint was met with N+I but not with N alone (RR 14% for N+I vs. 7% and 8% for N alone). For the GIST cohort TRAE was higher with N+I, holding enrollment as required per protocol. There remains a pressing need to determine genomic and clinical biomarkers of response, resistance and toxicity. Correlative analyses (whole exome sequencing, multiplex IHC and RNAseq) are in progress. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02500797. [Table: see text]

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

11011 Background: Beyond KRAS status, there are no validated markers for anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC. While expression of genes within the EGF signaling axis has been reported to correlate with benefit, most reports used data from non-randomized trials which cannot distinguish between general prognostic markers and markers that predict for benefit from C. CALGB 80203 was a 238-patient (pt), 4-arm, randomized phase II study of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI +/- C in mCRC pts. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from CALGB 80203 were analyzed for gene expression of HER family ligands, receptors and regulators. Methods: FFPE tumor samples from consenting pts were analyzed for AREG, BTC, CD73, DUSP4, EGF, EGFR, EPGN, EREG, HB-EGF, HER2, HER3, HER4, PHLDA1 and TGFa by RT-qPCR. Interaction between baseline gene expression levels and treatment (C) with respect to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was modeled using a multiplicative Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline tumor tissue was available from 103 pts; 55% of tumors were KRAS wild type (WT). Two prognostic markers were identified; higher tumor mRNA levels of HER2 (HR=0.64, p=0.002) and EREG (HR=0.89, p=0.016) were associated with longer PFS across all pts. Potential predictive markers of benefit for C were identified. In KRAS WT tumors, lower HER3 expression was associated with longer OS from C treatment while higher HER3 expression was associated with shorter OS from C treatment (chemo + C: HR=1.15; chemo only: HR=0.48, interaction p=0.029). No association was observed for HER3 and outcome in KRAS mutant (MT) tumors. Interestingly, higher CD73 expression was associated with longer PFS in C-treated pts in both KRASWT (chemo + C: HR=0.91; chemo only: HR=1.57, interaction p=0.026) and MT tumors (chemo + C: HR=0.80; chemo only: HR=1.29, p=0.025). Conclusions: In one of the first reports using data from a randomized study, gene expression of HER3 and CD73 were identified as potential predictive markers for C. These data implicate not only HER axis signaling but also immune modulation as potential mechanisms of C action and sensitivity, and warrant confirmation in other large randomized trials.

3617 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), previous studies suggested potential relationships between certain drug metabolizing (DM) genes (DPYD, ERCC2, GSTP1 and TYMS) and QOL prior to receipt of chemotherapy (Sloan, Plenary Session ASCO 2004). The current study is the first to examine relationships between similar DM genes and QOL in stage III CC pts. Methods: 1,583 CC pts on a randomized adjuvant stage III, phase III trial received FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or either +/- Cetuximab. Genomic DNA and baseline QOL data via linear analogue self assessment (LASA) scales with 4 QOL variables were obtained. 53 DM SNPs were selected for known functional effect within potential regulatory sites. Two-sample t-tests assessed differences in QOL between pts with variants and wild-type status. Differences of at least 10 points on a 0-100 point QOL score were considered clinically significant. Results: 14 relationships between DM genes and QOL were detected at the nominal p < 0.05 level; six of these were related to DPYD, ERCC2, GSTP1 and TYMS. Relationships were also observed at the 0.05 level with polymorphisms of genes DPYS, ERCC1, MGMT, MTHFR, OPRT and UGT1A1 based on unadjusted and adjusted association tests. GSTP1 I105V and OPRT 5’UTR 28 A>G markers differed on fatigue scores (p=0.04, 0.005, respectively). Variants on MTHFR R594Q were associated with higher mental acuity scores (p=0.02). These relationships remained after adjusting for age, gender, race, T stage, PS, disease site, lymph nodes involved, and grade. The robustness of the observed associations varied with the multiple comparison adjustment method. Conclusions: Similar to the earlier study of stage IV CRC, we observed a possible relationship in pts with Stage III CC with regard to DM genes and QOL, although these relationships were more modest than observed in Stage IV pts. These DM genes may be in linkage disequilibrium with other genetic variants that more directly affect behavior and QOL. Further genome wide association studies are needed to clarify these relationships.

3514 Background: Activating mutations in the BRAF oncogene (mutBRAF) are associated with deficient MMR (dMMR) in sporadic colon cancers and are mutually exclusive with KRAS mutations (mutKRAS). We evaluated BRAF and KRAS in relation to MMR and disease-free survival (DFS) in stage III pts treated with adjuvant FOLFOX +/-cetuximab; study was amended mid-way to require prospective KRAS testing (Alberts SR, ASCO 2010). Methods: Extracted DNA from archival tumors was analyzed for BRAF exon 15 (V600E) and KRAS exon 2 mutations by allele specific RT-PCR. Tumors with loss of any MMR protein (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6) were categorized as dMMR vs proficient (pMMR). DFS was censored at 4 yrs; median follow-up was 3.1 yrs. Results: Among 2,686 pts, 12% (314/2580) of tumors were dMMR; 28% (716/2579) had mutKRAS, and 14% (346/2515) had mutBRAF of which 43% (150/346) were dMMR. mutBRAF was associated with high grade, proximal site, T3-4, >4 LNs, and dMMR (all p<0.002); mutKRAS with low grade, proximal, <3 LNs, and pMMR (all p<0.02). Among dMMR tumors, mutKRAS was more frequent in distal vs proximal cancers (28% vs. 8%, p=0.0004). Both mutKRAS (HR=1.42, p=0.0001) and mutBRAF (HR=1.34, p=0.02) were associated with worse DFS and remained significant after adjustment for treatment, MMR, grade, site, T stage and LNs. mutBRAF (p=0.003) and mutKRAS (p=0.003) were each prognostic for DFS in pMMR, but not dMMR tumors (KRAS, p=0.79; BRAF, p=0.60). While MMR was not significant univariately, proximal dMMR tumors had favorable DFS [HR 0.8, 95% CI (0.6-1)] and distal dMMR tumors had poor DFS [HR 2 (1.1-3.4)] after adjusting for KRAS, BRAF, grade, T stage and LNs (pinteraction=0.02). pMMR/mutBRAF (p=0.027) and pMMR/mutKRAS (p<0.001) had worse DFS vs pMMR/bothWT. Conclusions: mutBRAF and mutKRAS were significantly associated with worse DFS independent of treatment, covariates, and each other, with the DFS impact restricted to pMMR tumors. Prognostic impact of MMR was dependent upon tumor site after adjusting for covariates. Support: NIH Grant CA 25224, NCI K05CA 142885, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImClone, Sanofi-Aventis, and Pfizer.

TPS10594 Background: Approximately 13,000 cases of soft tissue and bone are diagnosed annually in the US. Despite primary surgery many patients develop recurrent disease. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and new agents are needed. Gene array studies have shown Aurora Kinase A (AURKA) commonly overexpressed. Inhibition of AURKA by shRNA or by a specific AURKA inhibitor blocks in vitro proliferation of multiple sarcoma subtypes. MLN8237 (alisertib) is a novel and oral, ATP-competitive, selective small-molecule inhibitor of AURKA. We hypothesize that alisertib will be an effective treatment for advanced/metastatic sarcoma. Methods: This CTEP-sponsored, investigator-initiated, multi-center phase II study uses alisertib in patients with advanced/metastatic sarcoma and is conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A091102). Patients must have adequate performance status, organ function, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Patients are enrolled in one of five cohorts, depending on histology: 1) liposarcoma, 2) leiomyosarcoma, 3) undifferentiated sarcoma, 4) malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, or 5) other. Patients are treated with alisertib 50mg PO BID d1-d7 every 21 days until either progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is objective overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Translational objectives include correlation of ORR, PFS and OS with baseline and post-treatment markers of AURKA inhibition in tumor biopsies and baseline and post-treatment [F-18] FLT-PET scans. A Simon two-stage design is used for each of the 5 cohorts and one confirmed response in the first 9 patients expands enrollment in that cohort to 24. Enrollment began in December 2012. As of January 2013, 14 pts have been enrolled. Funded by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Clinical trial information: NCT01653028.