Schneider, Bryan P.

Abstract VEGF blockade does not uniformly result in clinical benefit. We evaluated safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), antitumor efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers including pharmacogenomics and pharmacokinetics with sorafenib, bevacizumab, and paclitaxel in patients with refractory cancers. The study had a “3 + 3” design, using paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 every week for 3 weeks, in every 4 week cycles, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and sorafenib 200 or 400 mg twice a day, 5 or 7 days/week (5/7, 7/7). The MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-seven patients enrolled in 3 cohorts: sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7, 200 mg twice a day 7/7, and 400 mg twice a day 5/7. DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia >7 days (cohort 1, 1), grade 3 hypertension (cohort 2, 1), grade 3 hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR; cohort 3, 2). MTD was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 7/7. Six DLTs occurred in cohort 2 expansion: grade 3 HFSR (2), grade 2 HFSR with sorafenib delay >7 days (2), grade 4 cerebrovascular accident (1), grade 3 neutropenia >7 days (1). RP2D was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7. Most patients (62%) dose reduced sorafenib to 200 mg daily 5/7 after a median 3 (range, 2–17) cycles. Response rates were 48% overall (27) and 64% for ovarian cancers (14). VEGF-A-1154AA and -7TT recessive homozygous genotypes conferred worse overall survival versus alternative genotypes (7 vs. 22 months). Intermittent, low-dose sorafenib (200 mg twice a day 5/7) combined with bevacizumab and paclitaxel was tolerable and had high antitumor efficacy in patients with refractory cancer (NCT00572078).

PURPOSE To update the ASCO guideline on the recommended prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies. RESULTS The search strategy identified 257 new references, which led to a full-text review of 87 manuscripts. A total of 3 systematic reviews, 2 with meta-analyses, and 28 primary trials for prevention of CIPN in addition to 14 primary trials related to treatment of established CIPN, are included in this update. RECOMMENDATIONS The identified data reconfirmed that no agents are recommended for the prevention of CIPN. The use of acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of CIPN in patients with cancer should be discouraged. Furthermore, clinicians should assess the appropriateness of dose delaying, dose reduction, substitutions, or stopping chemotherapy in patients who develop intolerable neuropathy and/or functional impairment. Duloxetine is the only agent that has appropriate evidence to support its use for patients with established painful CIPN. Nonetheless, the amount of benefit from duloxetine is limited. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Abstract Background: CRA is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and long-term menopausal symptoms. Therefore, it is important to assess and report the rate of CRA when we study a new neoadjuvant treatment regimen. In the Adjuvant Paclitaxel and Tratuzumab (APT) trial, we found that CRA rate associated with adjuvant TH (12 weeks of paclitaxel and a year of trastuzumab) for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer was lower than historically seen with cyclophosphamide-based regimens. The ATEMPT trial allowed a direct comparison of the CRA rate associated with TDM1 and TH. Methods: The ATEMPT trial randomized patients (pts) with Stage I HER2+ breast cancer 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (w) x17 vs. T 80 mg/m2 IV with H qw x 12 (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg q3w x 13). Participants who reported that they were premenopausal at enrollment were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6-12 months throughout a 36 month follow-up period. For this analysis, CRA was defined as report of no menstruation within the prior six months on a survey completed 18 months after enrollment. Results: Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 497 began protocol therapy, 130 (26%) were premenopausal at enrollment and answered baseline menstrual questions, 42 of these 130 were excluded from the current analyses because they did not complete the 18-month survey, and 7 of the remaining 88 had received gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist before 18 months, leaving 81 for analysis. None had undergone hysterectomy or oophorectomy. Median age was 44 (range 23-53) among the TH patients (n=20), and 46 (range 34-54) among the T-DM1 patients (n=61). On the 18-month survey, 45% of women treated with TH reported at least one one episode of menses during the prior 6 months compared to 75% of women in the T-DM1 arm (p=0.011). Among those ≤ 40 years old, 50% of TH patients and 100% of T-DM1 patients reported menstruation at that timepoint. Please see Table for additional data in subgroups. Conclusions: In this relatively small sample, CRA at 18 months was less common after adjuvant T-DM1 than after TH (though even with TH, nearly half of women did menstruate after chemotherapy, even in the subset aged 41+). This will be reassuring to young patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who seek to maintain ovarian function. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding and to assess a possible differential impact of these drugs on subgroups based on age, endocrine therapy, and body mass index. Additional research should also focus on menopausal symptoms and actual fertility after receipt of T-DM1. Menstruation in 61 T-DM1 arm patients with informative surveys at 18 monthsMenstruation in 20 TH arm patients with informative surveys at 18 monthsAge at study entry95% CI95% CI≤4012/12 (100%)74-100%4/8 (50%)16-84%41+34/49 (69%)55-82%5/12 (42%)15-72%BMI<3040/52 (77%)63-87%6/16 (38%)15-65%30+6/9 (67%)30-93%3/4 (75%)19-99%Endocrine therapy currentlyYes27/39 (69%)52-83%2/12 (17%)2-48%No19/22 (86%)65-97%7/9 (78%)40-97% Citation Format: Kathryn J. Ruddy, Lorenzo Trippa, Jiani Hu, William T. Barry, Chau T. Dang, Denise A. Yardley, Steven J. Isakoff, Vincente V. Valero, Meredith G. Faggen, Therese M. Mulvey, Ron Bose, Douglas J. Weckstein, Antonio C. Wolff, Katherine E. Reeder-Hayes, Hope S. Rugo, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Dan S. Zuckerman, Lowell L. Hart, Vijayakrishna K. Gadi, Michael Constantine, Kit L. Cheng, Frederick M. Briccetti, Bryan P. Schneider, A. Merrill Garrett, P. Kelly Marcom, Kathy S. Albain, Patricia A. DeFusco, Nadine M. Tung, Blair M. Ardman, Rita Nanda, Rachel C. Jankowitz, Michelle K. DeMeo, Harold J. Burstein, Eric P. Winer, Ian E. Krop, Ann H. Partridge, Sara M. Tolaney. Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) after adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab (TH) (TBCRC033: ATEMPT trial) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-02.

9508 Background: Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is associated with infertility and may impact treatment decision-making. We investigated whether anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels before chemotherapy predict likelihood of CRA. Methods: 591 patients enrolled on the quality of life substudy of ECOG5103, which randomized breast cancer patients to doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel: 1) alone; 2) with concurrent bevacizumab; or 3) with prolonged bevacizumab. 144 of the 195 women who reported a period <12 months before enrollment consented to serum collection prior to chemotherapy. AMH was measured in 143 with available serum. Participants self-reported menstrual frequency at 12 and 18 months after enrollment. 12-month CRA was defined as no menses for 6 months before the 12-month survey, and 18-month CRA as no menses for 6 months before the 18-month survey. Fisher’s exact test was used to identify associations with CRA. Results: Of the 143, 16 were excluded due to bilateral oophorectomy or initiation of ovarian function suppression within 12 months, and 2 due to missing data at 12 months. In the remaining 125, median age at enrollment was 45 (range 25-55). 103 (82%) had CRA at 12 months, including 68% of patients </= 45 (43/63) and 97% of patients >45 (60/62). Median pre-chemotherapy AMH was 0.11 (range 0.01-8.63). 12-month CRA was more likely in women who received bevacizumab (p<0.01), were >45 (p<0.01), and had AMH </=0.11 (p<0.01) pre-treatment. Hormonal tx was not associated with 12-month CRA (p=0.63). 100 patients were eligible for 18-month CRA analysis: 81 (81%) had CRA, including 63% of patients </= 45 (33/52) and 100% (48/48) of patients >45. 18-month CRA was more likely in women >45 (p<0.01) and with AMH </=0.11 (p<0.01) pre-treatment. Bevacizumab (p=0.15) and hormonal tx (p=0.07) were not statistically significant predictors of 18-month CRA. Conclusions: Pre-chemotherapy AMH predicts risk of CRA at 12 and 18 months, and is a promising biomarker of ovarian reserve in young breast cancer survivors. Longer studies will be needed to ascertain whether lower pre-treatment AMH is associated with increased risk of later infertility. Clinical trial information: NCT00433511.

6025 Background: Blinding patients to treatment regimen is an important component of high quality randomized clinical trials although concern exists about how receipt of a placebo will impact participants’ views. In ECOG5103, patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with either placebo (arm A) or bevacizumab (arms B and C) and treatment assignment was unblinded by 24 weeks. We sought to determine if unblinding was associated with differential changes in participants’ views. Methods: The Decision-Making/Quality of Life component (DM-QOL) included all patients enrolling on E5103 between 1/5- 6/8/10. Women were surveyed pretreatment and after unblinding. Wilcoxon rank sum testing was used to examine differences. Results: 572 patients on DM-QOL started protocol therapy; 118 on arm A, 454 on arm B/C; the two groups (arm A vs. B/C) were well balanced. 516 patients participated in pretreatment, 514 in unblinding survey. Pretreatment, 32% reported >moderate chance of recurrence in 5 years, 27% >moderate chance of serious problem from treatment, 99% feeling at least somewhat informed, 98% at least somewhat confident in study participation, most “extremely” confident. Overall, median response scores did not change over time, with no statistically significant differences between the groups in changes in perceptions of: recurrence risk (p=0.45); chances of a serious problem (p=0.12), feeling informed (p=0.99). However, they differed in confidence about study participation (p=0.04): after unblinding, a higher % of placebo-treated patients had increased confidence (38% vs. 25%), and a higher % of bevacizumab-treated patients had decreased confidence (29% vs. 22%), although 44% across all arms had no change. Conclusions: In a placebo-controlled, double-blinded RCT, unblinding did not significantly affect most participants’ views, regardless of receipt of placebo or experimental drug. However, confidence in study participation may have been affected by knowledge of receipt of bevacizumab; publicity surrounding this experimental therapy may have affected results.

6527 Background: Biomarker information can risk stratify patients based on potential for benefits/toxicity from therapy. Ideally, a biomarker will identify those who benefit with limited toxicity. However, the impact of biomarkers is unclear when indicting individuals with greatest benefit are also at increased risk for toxicity. Methods: We surveyed participants at 18 month follow-up in the Decision-Making/Quality of Life (DM-QOL) component of ECOG5103, a RCT where patients were randomized to receive adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer with either placebo or bevacizumab (in 2 schedules). We asked patients for the preferred treatment in two hypothetical scenarios: 1) preference for chemo A or chemo A + B without biomarker information; 2) preference for chemo A or chemo A+B when participants tested positive for a “B-receptor” which increased both the benefit and toxicity of chemo A+B. McNemar’s test was used to examine changes in preferences. Results: 439 patients completed both scenarios on 18-month survey. The Table shows the treatment preferences in each scenario. The positive biomarker information in scenario 2 led 60/439 (14%) participants to switch their preference. The main reason for treatment preference in scenario 2 was greater benefits of chemo A+B (64%), the lower risks with chemo A (20%) and positive biomarker (10%). Among participants who changed preference, those randomized to receive bevacizumab were more likely to switch to chemo A in scenario 2. Conclusions: Information about a positive biomarker, indicating increased benefit and increased risk from additional chemo, did not significantly change participants’ preferred treatment. All participants were involved in a large placebo controlled double blind trial and the majority (70%) preferred the most aggressive course of treatment in both scenarios. Whether patients not enrolled in the trial would be more sensitive to the increased risk information is unclear. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUNDPublished studies have suggested that most patients with early stage breast cancer are willing, for modest survival benefits, to receive 6 months of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5‐fluorouracil, an older regimen that is used infrequently today. We examined preferences regarding the survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of a contemporary chemotherapy regimen.METHODSThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Protocol 5103 was a phase 3 trial that randomized breast cancer patients to receive standard adjuvant doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel with either bevacizumab or placebo. Serial surveys to assess quality of life were administered to patients enrolled between January 1, 2010, and June 8, 2010. Survival benefit needed to justify 6 months of chemotherapy by patients was collected at the 18‐month assessment. A parallel survey was sent to physicians who had enrolled patients in the study.RESULTSOf 519 patients who had not withdrawn at a time point earlier than 18 months, 87.8% responded to this survey. A total of 175 physicians participated. We found considerable variation in patient preferences, particularly for modest survival benefits: for 2 months of benefit, 57% would consider 6 months of chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients would consider 6 months of chemotherapy for 24 months. Race and education were associated with the choices. Physicians who responded were less likely to accept chemotherapy for modest benefit.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients who received contemporary adjuvant chemotherapy in a randomized controlled trial, we found substantial variation in preferences regarding benefits that justified undergoing chemotherapy. Differences between patients' and physicians' choices were also apparent. Eliciting preferences regarding risks and benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy is critical. Cancer 2017;123:2821–28. © 2017 American Cancer Society.