Ou, Fang‐Shu

174 Background: Docetaxel (D) and cabazitaxel (C) are standard chemotherapies for mCRPC. A reliable biomarker predictive of resistance to D or C is yet to be identified. We aimed to assess the association between genetic amplification of the multidrug resistance transporter ABCB1 (ABCB1 amp) and primary resistance (RES) to D or C for mCRPC, using cfDNA. Methods: A cohort (A) of 136 patients (pts) with at least 1 plasma sample drawn and stored within 1 year prior to starting D for mCRPC (2002-2014) and a cohort (B) of 42 pts with at least 1 plasma sample from within 1 year prior to starting C for mCRPC (2010-2016) were identified from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) at 0.1x coverage, termed ultra-low pass WGS (ULP-WGS), was performed on cfDNA extracted from the selected samples (1000μL/subject) and sequencing data were analyzed using a tool called ichorCNA to identify cases with sufficient tumor DNA content (>7%) for accurate detection of copy number alterations (CNAs) including ABCB1 amp. Primary objective was the association between ABCB1 amp and RES to D or C. RES was defined as lack of response (no PSA50 decline or radiologic response per RECIST criteria 1.1, within 4 months from treatment start). Odds ratio (OR) was used to compare odds of RES to D or C for pts with ABCB1 amp and P-values were calculated by Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of the selected 178 pts, 66 had tumor fraction >7%: 45 pts in cohort A and 21 in cohort B. No significant association was noted between ABCB1 amp and RES to D (P=0.7123; OR=1.600) or C (P=1.000; OR=1.0606). RES was observed in 26 pts (57.8%) of cohort A and 18 (85.7%) of cohort B. ABCB1 amp was found in 9 pts (20%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.6) in group A and 6 of them (66%) had RES to D. ABCB1 amp rate among D-resistant men was 23.1% (95% CI, 9.0-43.7). In group B, 2 pts (9.5%; 95% CI, 1.2-30.4) had ABCB1 amp and both of them had RES to C. ABCB1 rate among C-resistant pts was 11.1% (95% CI, 1.4-34.7). Conclusions: In this study, ABCB1 amp using cfDNA did not show statistically significant correlation with RES to D or C for pts with mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amp in a suite of putative biomarkers and larger sample size may aid drawing definitive conclusions.

167 Background: Previous studies have reported high TILs are a favorable prognostic factor in stage II CC. However, whether the impact of TILs on overall survival (OS) differs among pts who did or did not receive ADJ is still to be determined. We assessed the prognostic value of CD3+ TILs in pts with stage II CC according to whether they received ADJ or not (no-ADJ). Methods: Pts treated with curative surgery for stage II CC (2002-2013) were identified through the Santa Maria alle Scotte Hospital database. CD3+ TILs at the invasive front, center of tumor, and stroma, were determined by immunohistochemistry and manually quantified as the rate of TILs/total tissue areas. High TILs (H-TILs) was defined as > 20%. Pts were classified as high or low TILs (L-TILs) and ADJ or no-ADJ. Cox models were used to assess OS with hazard ratio estimates (95% CI). Results: Of the 678 pts included (356 deaths), 137 (20%) received ADJ while 541 (80%) did not. ADJ comprised fluoropyrimidine +/- oxaliplatin. Median follow-up was 8.5 years. The distributions of the 4 groups were: 16% (L-TIL/ADJ), 64% (L-TIL/no-ADJ), 5% (H-TIL/ADJ), 15% (H-TIL/no-ADJ). Compared to H-TILs/no-ADJ, ADJ pts had a significantly longer OS (P < .0001) regardless of the TILS rate while L-TILs/no ADJ had significantly shorter OS and higher risk of death (HR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06-1.88; P < .0001) [See table]. On multivariable analysis, adjusting for perforation, obstruction, T-stage, grade, < 12 lymph nodes resected, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, the adverse prognostic impact of L-TILs (vs H-TILs) in no-ADJ pts was confirmed (HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.02, 1.82; P = .0373). Conclusions: Low CD3+ TILs rate was independently associated with shorter OS in stage II CC pts who did not receive ADJ, but was not prognostic among pts who had ADJ. These data suggest a potentially different impact of TILs in chemo-treated vs -untreated stage II CC which could affect clinical decision making. [Table: see text]

102 Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory mCRC; it is unknown if the addition of bevacizumab would improve outcomes. We studied the efficacy and safety of CBI compared with CI in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype, irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, pts with RAS wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy who failed at least 1 irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimen and received bevacizumab in at least 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose), cetuximab 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg vs CI every 2 wks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models stratified by number of prior lines of therapy and bevacizumab receipt in immediate prior line were performed. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). The study was closed early in January 2018 for reasons related to accrual and funding after enrollment of 36 out of a planned 60 pts. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2017, 36 pts were randomized (19 to CBI, 17 to CI). 34 pts (94%) were treated with 2 or more prior chemotherapy regimens. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 vs 5.5 mo for CBI and CI arms, respectively (log-rank P =0.76; multivariable HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 vs 10.2 mo for CBI and CI (log-rank P= 0.04; multivariable HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 37% for CBI vs 12% for CI ( P =0.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of pts receiving CBI vs 35% for CI ( P =0.46). Conclusions: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there were non-significant increases in PFS and ORR and a statistically significant 9.5 mo increase in median OS in favor of CBI compared to CI. Further investigation of CBI for treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02292758.

AbstractTrial InformationClick here to access other published clinical trials.Lessons LearnedTrifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy.BackgroundPatients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC.MethodsPatients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity.ResultsOf 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%–53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2–5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4–11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted.ConclusionFTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

With the launch of the National Cancer Institute’s Precision Medicine Initiative in 2015, there has been a shift to trial designs that tailor health care solutions to individual patients by using a screening platform and by moving away from the one-trial/one-biomarker-at-a-time approach. To make precision medicine a reality, it is critical to identify and validate potential biomarkers to help select patients who will truly benefit from a targeted therapy. In this article, we discuss five trial designs: enrichment, umbrella, basket, subgroup, and window of opportunity. For each trial design, we describe the design characteristics, use ongoing or completed trials as case studies, provide any recent advances to the trial design, and discuss advantages and disadvantages of each design.

Abstract Background Diabetes is a prognostic factor for some malignancies, but its association with outcome in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is less clear. Methods This cohort study was nested within a randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab and/or cetuximab for advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients were enrolled at 508 community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network. The primary exposure was physician-documented diabetes at the time of enrollment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Tests of statistical significance were two-sided. Results Among 2326 patients, 378 (16.3%) had diabetes. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. We observed 1973 OS events and 2173 PFS events. The median time to an OS event was 22.7 months among those with diabetes and 27.1 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.44; P &lt; .001). The median time to a PFS event was 9.7 months among those with diabetes and 10.8 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; P = .02). Patients with diabetes were more likely to experience no less than grade 3 hypertension (8.1% vs 4.4%; P = .054) but were not more likely to experience other adverse events, including neuropathy. Conclusions Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality and tumor progression in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients with diabetes tolerate first-line treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies similarly to patients without diabetes.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with DLBCL who receive first-line anthracycline based immunochemotherapy and remain in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes with overall survival (OS) in one study that was comparable to the age and sex matched general population in cohorts from the US and France (Maurer et al, JCO 2014). To evaluate whether these findings are robust and generalizable, we assessed OS stratified by progression-free survival at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from pts with DLBCL enrolled in 14 multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the SEAL consortium. Methods: Central data alignment was performed by the SEAL statistics and data center. All enrolled patients treated with rituximab-containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy as part of initial induction therapy were included in this analysis using an intent-to-treat approach. PFS was defined as time from initiation of first-line therapy to progression or death. PFS24 was defined as being alive and progression-free 24 months (731 days) after initiation of therapy. Overall survival from PFS24 was defined as time from achieving PFS24 until death due to any cause. OS was compared to each patient's age-, sex-, and country- matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMR). Country-level population rate tables were obtained from www.mortality.org where available. A per-study average rate table was used when country information was unavailable. OS beyond 9 years from treatment initiation was only available the time of analysis from two trials (13% of cohort) and thus follow-up from PFS24 was restricted to the first 7 years after PFS24 for this analysis. Results: Fourteen studies with 7975 patients were included in the SEAL database. 5853 (73%) received rituximab as part of induction therapy and used in this analysis. Median age was 62 years (range 18-92) with 56% >60 years, 54% were male, 57% had elevated LDH, 63% had stage III/IV disease, 13% had ECOG PS 2-4, and IPI was 0-1 in 36%, 2 in 25%, 3 in 23%, and 4-5 in 16%. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 (23%) had disease progression, 1489 patients (25%) had died, and 5101 patients were evaluable for PFS24. 1423 (28%) of evaluable patients failed to achieve PFS24. These patients had poor outcomes after progression with median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1), 5-year OS of 19%, and SMR of 32.1 (95% CI: 30.0-34.4). Outcome was excellent (median unreached) in the 3678 patients who were progression-free at 24 months, with subsequent OS after achieving PFS24 approaching the age and sex matched general population (Figure). The observed vs. expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% vs. 94.4%, 87.6% vs. 89.5%, and 80.0% vs. 83.7%, respectively, the SMR was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09-1.37). In subset analyses examining pts achieving PFS24, adverse prognostic characteristics at baseline (elevated LDH, advanced stage, ECOG PS 2-4, high IPI) were associated with greater decrement in OS from the general population based expected survival (Table). Conclusions: PFS24 from the start of initial therapy stratifies DLBCL pts into populations with distinct outcomes. DLBCL pts treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunotherapy on large randomized clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from start of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for at least 7 years after achieving PFS24. Further follow-up time will be needed to assess any long-term impact of late relapse and survivorship issues in this population. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Amgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merrimack: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Roche France: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Merli:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Flowers:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background OSis the gold standard primary efficacy endpoint for evaluating treatment strategies for DLBCL. Because current standard of care first-line regimens with rituximab plus chemotherapy produce median OS > 8 years, an endpoint assessed earlier would accelerate the evaluation of new therapies and potentially allow patients (pts) to more rapidly benefit from study results. The SEAL group formally evaluated PFS as a surrogate endpoint for OS in first-line therapy for DLBCL. Methods Through a systematic literature search and input from lymphoma experts on the SEAL committee, we identified multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated active treatment and enrolled at least 100 pts with previously untreated DLBCL or aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma by WHO/REAL classification, published after January 1, 1995. Studies which enrolled only early stage (I or II) pts and studies that could not provide individual pt data (IPD) were excluded from surrogacy analysis. Potential surrogate candidates for OS included: 1) PFS, defined as the time from initiation of induction treatment to progressive disease, relapse or death due to any cause, and 2) PFS rate at 24 months after initiation of induction treatment (PFS24). These endpoints were derived consistently for all studies based on IPD. Surrogacy was evaluated by the correlation between surrogate candidates and OS. Pt-level correlation was measured by the rank correlation coefficient (ρ) and global odds ratio for PFS and PFS24, respectively, estimated by the Copula model. Trial-level correlation was evaluated by the correlation between trial-specific treatment effects on surrogate candidates and OS with two commonly used trial-level R2s: R2WLS (Sargent et al JCO 2005) and R2Copula (Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc C 2001 and Burzykowski et al J R Stat Soc A 2004). For the R2 measures, a value closer to 1 indicates a stronger correlation. We pre-specified that if either trial-level R2 was >=0.80 and its 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded 0.60, the candidate would meet criteria for surrogacy. Results Thirteen of 14 studies collected to date in the SEAL database met all inclusion criteria. IPD for 7507 pts (median age 63 years, 54% male, 46% ECOG performance status 0, 8% IPI 0, 50% IPI 1-2, 64% stage III/IV, median follow-up time of 52 months) were analyzed. Among 13 studies, one tested maintenance treatment only and two tested both induction and maintenance regimens. One study included four treatment arms. Thus at the trial level, 17 two-arm comparisons were formed: 14 comparisons comparing induction regimens and 3 comparing maintenance; 15 comparisons involved rituximab. Longer PFS was highly correlated with longer OS at the pt level (ρ= 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86), as was PFS24 (Global odds ratio = 61.1, 95% CI 52.6-69.6). The Table shows trial-level correlations, and the Figure shows trial-level association between estimated treatment effects (log(HR) [hazard ratio]) on PFS and OS. The trial-level correlation between PFS and OS was strong and met the pre-specified surrogacy criteria, with R2WLS of 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-0.94) and R2Copula of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99). Sensitivity analyses including only comparisons including rituximab or only induction regimens showed consistent results. The overall trial-level correlation between PFS24 and OS was reduced slightly, with R2WLS of 0.77 (95% CI 0.49-0.92) and R2Copula of 0.78 (95% CI 0.59-0.96). Performance of PFS24 was improved when restricting analysis to only including induction studies (see table). Conclusion This large IPD pooled-analysis demonstrates that PFS duration met the pre-specified criteria as a robust surrogate endpoint for OS, and can be considered as a surrogate endpoint for OS for frontline DLBCL trials evaluating immunochemotherapy. The earlier endpoint of PFS24 showed promise as a potential surrogate and further validation is warranted. Figure Figure. Disclosures Shi: Mayo Clinic: Employment. Flowers:Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Cunningham:Merrimack: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding. Pfreundschuh:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaeger:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Haioun:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ghesquieres:Mundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche France: Research Funding. Merli:Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Herbrecht:Cell Therapeutics, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flament:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fu:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coiffier:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Limited data exist to describe the clinical features and outcomes for elderly pts with FL. The FLASH group performed a prospectively planned pooled analysis of IPD from first-line RCTs and examined associations between age (<= 70 vs. > 70 years), clinical characteristics and FL outcomes. Methods: We identified 18 randomized controlled multicenter clinical trials in the FLASH database which enrolled elderly pts (> 70 yrs). From these 18 studies, 5922 previously untreated FL pts were included for this analysis. Complete response (CR) at 24 and 30 months were defined as whether the pt achieved and remains in CR at 24 months and 30 months after initiation of induction treatment. PFS24 is defined as proportion of pts progression-free and alive at 24 months post-randomization. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from randomization to the date of progression (censoring for death without progression) and date of death due to any cause, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to the date of progression or death, due to any cause, whichever comes first. Non-lymphoma death was defined as death without prior progression. Early disease outcomes, i.e. CR24, CR30, and PFS24 were primary outcomes; secondary outcomes were TTP, OS, and PFS. For time-to-event outcomes, Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for univariate estimation and comparison; stratified Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for multivariable analyses. Cumulative incidence methods were used to model PFS while treating disease progression as the primary event of interest and non-lymphoma death as a competing risk. For binary outcomes, multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between age groups and outcomes. Variable adjusted in the regression models are FLIPI score without the age component, ECOG performance status (>= 2 vs < 2), and rituximab use. Results: Among 5922 previously untreated FL pts from 18 RCTs, 63% (n = 3728) were <= 60, 28% (n = 1652) 61-70, and 9% (n = 542) > 70 yrs. Pts age > 70 (vs. <= 70) more commonly had elevated LDH (42% vs 36%, p = 0.02), hemoglobin < 12 g/dL (27% vs 19%, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS >= 2 (8.8% vs 5.0%, p = 0.0004), and elevated β2-microglobulin (68% vs 49%, p < 0.001), less often had > 4 lymph nodes involved (54% vs 65%, p < 0.001), and had similar FLIPI scores without age component (p = 0.17). There were no significant differences between groups in: Ann Arbor stage (94% vs 95% stage III/IV) or rituximab use (62% vs 58%). Median survival follow-up was 5.6 yrs. Pts > 70 yrs did not differ from pts <= 70 in rates of CR24 (27% vs 30%, p=0.32), CR30 (29% vs 31%, p=0.55) or PFS24 (63% vs. 67%, p=0.10). Median TTP was 3.8 and 4.0 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.23, p=0.20). With a median OS of 14.6 years for all pts, median OS was 7.4 and 15.7 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=2.35, 95% CI=2.03-2.73, p<0.001). PFS was statistically significantly different but clinically similar at median 3.1 and 3.8 years for pts > 70 and <= 70, respectively (HR=1.26, 95% CI =1.12-1.41, p<0.001). Further investigation showed the difference in PFS was due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death in pts > 70 with no difference in disease progression (Figure). In regression models, adjusting for rituximab use, ECOG PS >= 2, and FLIPI score without the age component, age > 70 was a significant predictor of OS and PFS (due to higher incidence of non-lymphoma death), but not PFS24, CR24 or CR30 (Table). Conclusions: FL pts > 70 yrs treated on trials have similar early disease outcomes to younger patients. There is no disease-specific outcome difference between age groups. Age alone should not disqualify patients from standard treatments or RCTs. Disclosures Flowers: Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; NIH: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; ECOG: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ou:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Shi:Mayo Clinic: Employment. Hochster:Genentech: Consultancy, Other: Consultancy fees for advisory boards for GI cancer and bevacizumab with amounts within Yale University de minims guidelines. Brice:Roche: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Hiddemann:Roche: Other: Grants; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Other: Grants. Marcus:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jansen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Baxalta: Consultancy; Gilead: Honoraria. Herold:Gilead: Other: Personal fees from member advisory board; Celgene: Honoraria; Genentech: Other: Grants; Roche: Honoraria, Other: Grants. De Bedout:Celgene: Employment. Nielsen:Hoffmann-La Roche: Employment. Morschhauser:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Rummel:Mundipharma GmbH: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Roche Pharma AG: Other: Personal fees, Research Funding. Vitolo:Gilead: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Takeda: Other: Honoraria for lectures; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Honoraria for lectures. Salles:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Sargent:Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Previous studies have suggested that higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels are associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk and improved survival. However, the influence of vitamin D status on disease progression and patient survival remains largely unknown for patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: We prospectively collected blood samples in 1,041 patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer participating in a randomized phase III clinical trial of first-line chemotherapy plus biologic therapy. We examined the association of baseline plasma 25(OH)D levels with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for prognostic factors and confounders. Results: At study entry, 63% of patients were vitamin D deficient (&lt;20 ng/mL) and 31% were vitamin D insufficient (20–&lt;30 ng/mL). Higher 25(OH)D levels were associated with an improvement in OS and PFS (Ptrend = 0.0009 and 0.03, respectively). Compared with patients in the bottom quintile of 25(OH)D (≤10.8 ng/mL), those in the top quintile (≥24.1 ng/mL) had a multivariable-adjusted HR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53–0.83) for OS and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–1.00) for PFS. The improved survival associated with higher 25(OH)D levels was consistent across patient subgroups of prognostic patient and tumor characteristics. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, higher plasma 25(OH)D levels were associated with improved OS and PFS. Clinical trials assessing the benefit of vitamin D supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer are warranted.