Back to Authors

Behr, Spencer C.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9400-0543

Mayo Clinic

University of California, San Francisco

Citations 5

Randomized Phase II Trial of Pazopanib Versus Placebo in Patients With Advanced Extrapancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (Alliance A021202)
Bergsland, Emily K. , Geyer, Susan, Asmis, Timothy R., Behr, Spencer C. , Kuebler, J. Philip , Kumthekar, Priya , Mazza, Gina L. , Maitland, Michael L. , Niedzwiecki, Donna , Nixon, Andrew B. , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A. , Schwartz, Lawrence H. , Mazza, Gina L , Strosberg, Jonathan R , Venook, Alan P , O'Reilly, Eileen M , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A , Nixon, Andrew B , Niedzwiecki, Donna , Schwartz, Lawrence H , Kuebler, Philip , Strosberg, Jonathan , Venook, Alan P. , O’Reilly, Eileen M.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 3, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 29 | Pages: 3170-3183

10.1200/jco-24-02644 Get It

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.
Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib for advanced gastrointestinal (GI) neuroendocrine tumors (NET) after progression on prior therapy: Subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CABINET trial (Alliance A021602).
Geyer, Susan, Knopp, Michael V. , Behr, Spencer C. , Shergill, Ardaman , Wolin, Edward M. , Tawfik, Bernard , Raj, Nitya , Shaheen, Shagufta , Vijayvergia, Namrata , Dasari, Arvind , Strosberg, Jonathan , Zemla, Tyler , Pulsipher, Sydney , Acoba, Jared David , Hálfdánarson, Þorvarður R. , Konda, Bhavana , Trikalinos, Nikolaos A. , O’Reilly, Eileen M. , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A. , Chan, Jennifer Ai-wen

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 27, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 666-666

10.1200/jco.2025.43.4_suppl.666 Get It

666 Background: In the phase 3 CABINET trial (NCT03375320), cabozantinib (CABO) significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients with advanced, previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic NET (epNET) [HR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.25-0.59, P<0.0001)] and pancreatic NET (pNET) [HR 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P<0.0001)] (Chan et al., NEJM, 2024). In this analysis, we focus on outcomes of patients with epNET arising in the GI tract. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. The epNET cohort included patients with tumors arising in the GI tract (not including pancreas), lung, unknown primary, and other rare primary sites. In this subgroup analysis of the epNET cohort, patients with GI NET were included. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) prior to registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate, overall survival, safety. Results: 116 of the 203 patients in the epNET cohort had GI NET (CABO, n=70; PB, n=46). Median age was 66 yrs; females: 46%; G1/G2/G3/unknown grade: 35%/57%/6%/2%. ECOG performance status: 0/1-2: 43%/57%. White race: 86%. The most common primary tumor locations were ileum/cecum (54%), small intestine with location not specified (20%); non-cecum colon or rectum (11%), stomach (4%); duodenum (3%); jejunum and nonspecified midgut site (3% each). Prior systemic therapies included somatostatin analogs (SSA) (100%), everolimus (59%); Lu-177 dotatate (77%); temozolomide +/- capecitabine (16%). In patients with GI NET, CABO was associated with improved PFS by BICR compared to PB (stratified HR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.88, 1-sided stratified log-rank P=0.007). Median PFS with cabozantinib was 8.5 mo (95% CI, 6.0-16.7) compared to 5.6 mo (95% CI, 3.9-11.0) with PB. CABO demonstrated potential benefit in patients with midgut GI NET and across clinical factors including grade, functional status related to hormone secretion, concurrent SSA use, and prior therapy with Lu-177 dotatate or everolimus. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to therapy with CABO included hypertension (19%), diarrhea (13%), fatigue (10%). Conclusions: CABO is associated with improvement in PFS compared to PB in patients with advanced GI NET. Potential benefit was observed across clinical factors including grade, functional status, concurrent SSA, and prior treatment. The safety profile for CABO in patients with GI NET is consistent with that previously reported. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology), U10CA180888 (SWOG); Exelixis; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .
Efficacy of Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX vs mFOLFIRINOX Plus Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Borderline Resectable Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas
Katz, Matthew H. G. , Shi, Qian , Meyers, Jeff, Herman, Joseph M. , Chuong, Michael D. , Wolpin, Brian M. , Marsh, Robert , Schwartz, Larry, Behr, Spencer C. , Frankel, Wendy L. , Collisson, Eric A. , Leenstra, James L. , Vaccaro, Gina M. , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A. , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A , Shi, Qian , Katz, Matthew H G , Ahmad, Syed Ameen , Schwartz, Larry, Williams, Terence M. , Venook, Alan P. , O’Reilly, Eileen M.

JAMA Oncology | July 14, 2022 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1263

10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.2319 Get It

Importance National guidelines endorse treatment with neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the optimal strategy remains unclear. Objective To compare treatment with neoadjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) with or without hypofractionated radiation therapy with historical data and establish standards for therapy in borderline resectable PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter, randomized phase 2 clinical trial conducted from February 2017 to January 2019 among member institutions of National Clinical Trials Network cooperative groups used standardized quality control measures and included 126 patients, of whom 70 (55.6%) were registered to arm 1 (systemic therapy; 54 randomized, 16 following closure of arm 2 at interim analysis) and 56 (44.4%) to arm 2 (systemic therapy and sequential hypofractionated radiotherapy; all randomized before closure). Data were analyzed by the Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center during September 2021. Interventions Arm 1: 8 treatment cycles of mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m 2 ; irinotecan, 180 mg/m 2 ; leucovorin, 400 mg/m 2 ; and infusional fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m 2 ) over 46 hours, administered every 2 weeks. Arm 2: 7 treatment cycles of mFOLFIRINOX followed by stereotactic body radiotherapy (33-40 Gy in 5 fractions) or hypofractionated image-guided radiotherapy (25 Gy in 5 fractions). Patients without disease progression underwent pancreatectomy, which was followed by 4 cycles of treatment with postoperative FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m 2 ; leucovorin, 400 mg/m 2 ; bolus fluorouracil, 400 mg/m 2 ; and infusional fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours). Main Outcomes and Measures Each treatment arm’s 18-month overall survival (OS) rate was compared with a historical control rate of 50%. A planned interim analysis mandated closure of either arm for which 11 or fewer of the first 30 accrued patients underwent margin-negative (R0) resection. Results Of 126 patients, 62 (49%) were women, and the median (range) age was 64 (37-83) years. Among the first 30 evaluable patients enrolled to each arm, 17 patients in arm 1 (57%) and 10 patients in arm 2 (33%) had undergone R0 resection, leading to closure of arm 2 but continuation to full enrollment in arm 1. The 18-month OS rate of evaluable patients was 66.7% (95% CI, 56.1%-79.4%) in arm 1 and 47.3% (95% CI 35.8%-62.5%) in arm 2. The median OS of evaluable patients in arm 1 and arm 2 was 29.8 (95% CI, 21.1-36.6) months and 17.1 (95% CI, 12.8-24.4) months, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that treatment with neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX alone was associated with favorable OS in patients with borderline resectable PDAC compared with mFOLFIRINOX treatment plus hypofractionated radiotherapy; thus, mFOLFIRINOX represents a reference regimen in this setting. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02839343
Alliance A021501: Preoperative mFOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX plus hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) for borderline resectable (BR) adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.
Meyers, Jeffrey P., Choung, Michael, Wolpin, Brian M. , Marsh, Robert , Schwartz, Lawrence H., Behr, Spencer C. , Collisson, Eric A. , Leenstra, James L. , Vaccaro, Gina M. , Katz, Matthew H. G. , Shi, Qian , Herman, Joseph M. , Ahmad, Syed Ameen , Frankel, Wendy L. , Williams, Terence M. , Venook, Alan P. , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A. , O’Reilly, Eileen M.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 22, 2021 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 3_suppl | Pages: 377-377

10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.377 Get It

377 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy has been associated with a median overall survival (OS) of 18 – 23 months (mo) in patients (pts) with BR pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To establish reference regimens to which novel treatments can be compared in future studies, we evaluated neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX with or without RT in BR PDAC in a phase II National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trial. Methods: Pts with ECOG PS 0-1 and BR PDAC confirmed by central real-time radiographic review after pre-registration were randomized to either arm A: 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours), or arm B: 7 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX followed by stereotactic body RT (SBRT, 33-40 Gy in 5 fractions [fx]) or hypofractionated image guided RT (HIGRT, 25 Gy in 5 fx). Pts in either arm without disease progression underwent pancreatectomy, then 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours). The primary endpoint, 18-mo OS rate, of each arm was compared to a historical control of 50%. Planned interim analysis mandated closure of either arm in which <11 of first 30 accrued pts underwent R0 resection. Results: 155 pts pre-registered and 126 pts were enrolled to arm A (N=70; 54 randomized, 16 following closure of arm B) or arm B (N=56; closed at interim analysis, all pts randomized prior to closure). Median age (A: 63y, B: 67y), median CA 19-9 level (A: 171 U/ml, B: 248 U/ml) and ECOG PS (A: 51% PS 0, B: 57% PS 0) of registered pts were similar between arms (p > 0.05). Treatment detailed in Table. The 18-mo OS rate based on Kaplan Meier estimates was 67.9% (95%CI: 54.6 – 78.0) in arm A and 47.3% (95%CI: 33.7 – 59.7) in arm B. Among pts who underwent pancreatectomy, 18-mo OS rate was 93.1% (95%CI: 84.3 – 100) and 78.9% (95%CI: 62.6 – 99.6) in arm A and B, respectively. With median follow-up of 27 and 31 mo, median OS was 31.0 (95%CI: 22.2 – NE) mo and 17.1 (95%CI: 12.8 – 24.4) mo in arm A and B, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX was associated with favorable OS relative to historical data in pts with BL PDAC in this phase II NCTN trial. mFOLFIRINOX with hypofractionated RT did not improve OS compared to historical data. mFOLFIRINOX represents a reference regimen in this setting and a backbone on which to add novel agents. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT02839343. [Table: see text]