Buckner, Jan C.

Abstract BACKGROUND Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 9802 was a phase III trial for patients with centrally confirmed LGG (WHO grade II). Participants ³ 40 years or those with neurosurgeon defined less than gross total resection (GTR) were randomized to radiotherapy (RT) +/- PCV. In a separate cohort, adults age < 40 years with neurosurgeon defined GTR were observed by MRI every 6 months without adjuvant therapy. At last report, outcome for the observation cohort was immature with median follow-up of only 4.4 years. Here, we present mature outcomes for the observation arm. METHODS Eligible adults (as above) were observed by MRI every 6 months. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and estimated hazard ratios to characterize the prognostic variables. RESULTS There were 111 eligible patients (median age 30; median KPS = 100). Median follow-up was 16.1 years with 71 (64%) alive at the last follow-up. 79 patients (71%) had progressed with median PFS of 6.9 years. 5, 10, and 15 year-PFS and OS rates were 54%, 39%, 28% and 94%, 77%, and 65%. 1p19q status was codeleted in 32%, IDH1/2 mutant in 78% and MGMT promoter methylated in 39% of tested cases. Multivariate Cox analyses showed that preoperative tumor size ³ 4 cm (HR = 2.43 for PFS, p = 0.001; HR = 2.58 for death, p = 0.016) and residual disease on imaging ³ 1 cm (HR = 2.97 for PFS, P < 0.001; HR = 2.02 for death, p = 0.05) were associated with worse outcomes. Analyses based on molecular results will be presented. CONCLUSION A subset of low-grade gliomas can be observed after the initial resection based on younger age, smaller tumor size, and no residual disease on neuroimaging. This can likely be further refined by prognostic molecular markers. Patients with the most favorable prognostic factors can avoid or delay the acute and long-term side effects of RT and chemotherapy for several years.

Importance Long-term outcomes of radiotherapy are important in understanding the risks and benefits of therapies for patients with brain metastases. Objective To determine how the use of postoperative whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is associated with quality of life (QOL), cognitive function, and intracranial tumor control in long-term survivors with 1 to 4 brain metastases. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary analysis of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial included 48 institutions in the US and Canada. Adult patients with 1 resected brain metastases but limited to those with 1 to 4 brain metastasis were eligible. Unresected metastases were treated with SRS. Long-term survivors were defined as evaluable patients who lived longer than 1 year from randomization. Patients were recruited between July 2011 and December 2015, and data were first analyzed in February 2017. For the present study, intracranial tumor control, cognitive deterioration, QOL, and cognitive outcomes were measured in evaluable patients who were alive at 12 months from randomization and reanalyzed in June 2017. Interventions Stereotactic radiosurgery or WBRT. Main Outcomes and Measures Intracranial tumor control, toxic effects, cognitive deterioration, and QOL. Results Fifty-four patients (27 SRS arm, 27 WBRT arm; female to male ratio, 65% vs 35%) were included for analysis with a median follow-up of 23.8 months. Cognitive deterioration was less frequent with SRS (37%-60%) compared with WBRT (75%-91%) at all time points. More patients declined by 2 or more standard deviations (SDs) in 1 or more cognitive tests for WBRT compared with SRS at 3, 6, and 9 months (70% vs 22%, 46% vs 19%, and 50% vs 20%, respectively). A 2 SD decline in at least 2 cognitive tests was associated with worse 12-month QOL in emotional well-being, functional well-being, general, additional concerns, and total scores. Overall QOL and functional independence favored SRS alone for categorical change at all time points. Total intracranial control for SRS alone vs WBRT at 12 months was 40.7% vs 81.5% (difference, −40.7; 95% CI, −68.1% to −13.4%), respectively. Data were first analyzed in February 2017. Conclusions and Relevance The use of SRS alone compared with WBRT resulted in less cognitive deterioration among long-term survivors. The association of late cognitive deterioration with WBRT was clinically meaningful. A significant decline in cognition (2 SD) was associated with overall QOL. However, intracranial tumor control was improved with WBRT. This study provides detailed insight into cognitive function over time in this patient population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01372774 ; ALLIANCE/CCTG: N107C/CEC.3 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology/Canadian Cancer Trials Group)

Abstract Background Glioblastoma (GBM) has poor prognosis despite aggressive treatment. Dendritic cell (DC) vaccines are promising, but widespread clinical use has not been achieved, possibly reflecting manufacturing issues of antigen choice and DC potency. We previously optimized vaccine manufacture utilizing allogeneic human GBM tumor cell lysate and potent, mature autologous DCs. Here, we report a phase I study using this optimized DC vaccine in combination with standard therapy. Methods Following surgical resection and radiation with concurrent temozolomide (TMZ), newly diagnosed adult GBM patients received intradermal DC vaccines plus TMZ. Primary endpoints were safety and feasibility. Immune and treatment responses were recorded. Results Twenty-one patients were enrolled in this study. One progressed between leukapheresis and vaccine manufacture. Twenty patients received treatment per protocol. Vaccine doses (≥15) were generated following a single leukapheresis for each patient. No dose-limiting vaccine toxicities were encountered. One patient had symptomatic, histologically proven pseudoprogression. Median progression-free survival was 9.7 months. Median overall survival was 19 months. Overall survival was 25% at 2 years and 10% at 4 years. One patient remains progression-free 5 years after enrollment. Specific CD8 T-cell responses for the tumor-associated antigen gp100 were seen post-vaccination. Patients entered the trial with a leukocyte deficit compared to healthy donors which partly normalized over the course of therapy. Conclusions This vaccine platform is safe and highly feasible in combination with standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients. Imaging, histological, survival, and immunological data suggest a positive biological response to therapy that warrants further investigation.

Abstract Background Patients with glioblastoma (GBM) have a poor prognosis and limited effective treatment options. Bevacizumab has been approved for treatment of recurrent GBM, but there is questionable survival benefit. Based on preclinical and early clinical data indicating that CD105 upregulation may represent a mechanism of resistance to bevacizumab, we hypothesized that combining bevacizumab with the anti-CD105 antibody TRC105 may improve efficacy in recurrent GBM. Methods Phase I dose-escalation/comparative randomized phase II trial in patients with GBM. During phase I, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was determined. In phase II, patients were randomized 1:1 to TRC105 and bevacizumab or bevacizumab monotherapy. Patients received TRC105 (10 mg/kg) weekly and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. Efficacy, as assessed by progression-free survival (PFS), was the primary endpoint; safety, quality of life, and correlative outcomes were also evaluated. Results In total, 15 patients were enrolled in phase I and 101 in phase II; 52 patients were randomized to TRC105 with bevacizumab and 49 to bevacizumab monotherapy. The MTD was determined to be 10 mg/kg TRC105 weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. An increased occurrence of grade ≥3 adverse events was seen in the combination arm, including higher incidences of anemia. Median PFS was similar in both treatment arms: 2.9 months for combination versus 3.2 months for bevacizumab monotherapy (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.75–1.78, P = .51). Quality of life scores were similar for both treatment arms. Conclusions TRC105 in combination with bevacizumab was well tolerated in patients with recurrent GBM, but no difference in efficacy was observed compared to bevacizumab monotherapy.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Abstract BACKGROUND PCV+RT substantially prolongs survival in AO patients, but long-term CF and QOL implications are unclear. We compared CF and QOL by treatment arm in RTOG 9402 participants and evaluated the impact that baseline characteristics had on CF, QOL, and survival. METHODS CF and QOL were evaluated using the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Brain-Quality of Life (B-QOL) scale at baseline and annually. Scores were analyzed between treatment arms at each time point for patients with ≥ 10 years of follow-up data. Shared parameter models evaluated MMSE and B-QOL scores and survival for all patients. RESULTS 42/148 (28.4%) participants in PCV+RT and 20/143 (14%) in RT alone arms survived ≥ 10 years. 35/42 and 39/42 (PCV+RT) and 18/20 and 17/20 (RT) participants completed baseline B-QOL and MMSE assessments, respectively. B-QOL scores did not differ between treatment groups at any time-point. Among 16 patients (10 PCV+RT, 6 RT) who completed year 10 MMSE evaluations, mean MMSE score at 10 years was higher in the RT arm (29.83 [95% CI 22.1, 30.0] vs. 26.50 [95% CI 29.4, 30.0], P= 0.04). Change in MMSE and B-QOL scores from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups at any time. In shared parameter models including all patients with baseline assessments, MMSE and B-QOL scores decreased over time (MMSE P= 0.0189, B-QOL P= 0.0005), but this did not differ by treatment group (MMSE P= 0.5727, B-QOL P= 0.3592). Younger age and higher KPS predicted better scores (MMSE P < 0.0001, P = 0.0002; B-QOL P = 0.0043, P = 0.0007). PCV+RT predicted better survival in both models. CONCLUSIONS PCV+RT improves survival in AO. Shared parameter models show decrease in MMSE and B-QOL over time. However, relative to RT alone, the addition of PCV did not impact change in CF and QOL over time.

e13603 Background: Over half of Americans report favoring access to experimental treatments even if they have yet to be proven either safe or effective, yet only 3-5% are enrolled in clinical trials and a fraction of a percent in expanded access. The Expanded Access (EA) program (aka “compassionate use”) and Right-to-Try (RTT) are parallel federal mechanisms that offer qualifying patients access to off-trial experimental treatments. Our study aimed to capture the views and experiences of oncologists on obtaining eligible medicine using the FDA’s EA and is the first to report findings on physician attitudes toward RTT. Methods: We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis of oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the U.S. Participants were purposely selected to have experience with EA. Results: Oncologists’ considerations for offering EA options to patients were based on a sound scientific rationale, reasonable risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation. Although oncologists’ experience positively correlated with level of ease in navigating EA, most remained largely unfamiliar with RTT. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT with patients and none had obtained an experimental therapeutic under this pathway. When informed about RTT, oncologists articulated 3 sets of concerns including limited safety and oversight, unclear structure and lack of requirements to collect and report data, and the potential for inflating patient expectations. Published work by others have shown that patients desire experimental options to be offered and report that physicians do not always offer experimental medicine taking into account factors, such as, reimbursement. Given that oncologists may factor in variables such as patient motivation, and potentially affordability or health literacy, when considering whether experimental medicine is appropriate to offer their patient, there may be a need to develop a conversation aid so that clinically relevant options are presented to patients equitably and patient choice is enhanced. Conclusions: Further research to better understand patient perspectives and potential discordant views between patients and oncologists is needed in order to design shared decision-making tools to inform oncologists about off-trial preapproval pathways and help both oncologists and patients navigate the thorny issues of experimental oncology.

Abstract Background The federal Right-to-Try (RTT) Act created an alternate regulatory pathway for preapproval access to investigational drugs. A few studies have examined the experiences of physicians with the Food and Drug Administration’s Expanded Access Programs, but to our knowledge, no study has yet to examine their attitudes and experiences toward RTT. Methods This study explored the views of 21 oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the United States using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis. Participants were selected to have experience with Expanded Access Programs. Results Most oncologists had limited familiarity with RTT, and several reported confusion about the legislation, including whether patients have a right to investigational drugs and an obligation for companies to provide them. Although oncologists were interested in decreased regulatory burdens, 3 areas of concern were articulated: lack of safety and oversight, unclear structure and no provision for data collection, and potential heightening of patient expectations. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT, and none formally attempted to obtain the drug through this mechanism. Participants questioned the practicality of RTT legislation and suggested alternative ways to improve access. Conclusions The study provides foundational empirical data underlying challenging ambiguities by experienced oncologists familiar with off-trial use of investigational therapeutics and reaffirms the role of physicians and regulatory bodies in mitigating the risks of investigational drugs. Our findings highlight the need for medical centers to inform oncologists about RTT and other preapproval pathways so that they are able to address questions from patients interested in nontrial investigational drugs.

9609 Background: Patients undergoing treatment for cancer often report problems with their cognitive function (CF), which is an essential component in maintaining Quality of Life (QoL). We conducted a longitudinal study of lung cancer (LC) patients to systematically evaluate changes in QOL including changes in CF, over time. Methods: Between 2005–2008, we followed 1757 primary LC patients who responded to CF questions at least once within 8 years of diagnosis. Overall QoL measured by LCSS and LASA (scores 0–100 from worst to best) were assessed among 1,604 of 1,757 (91%) who completed the questionnaire at one or both of two time periods: short-term (T1-within 3 years of diagnosis) and long-term follow-up (T2-beyond 5 years of diagnosis). Questions rated overall CF and problems in thinking clearly. Results: The median age at the time of LC diagnosis was 68 years in men (n=834) and 65 years in women (n=770), p<0.0001. At T1, the mean score of patients reporting problems with CF was 63.2 (±22.45) vs 74.4 (±20.38) who reported no problems (p<0.0001). At T2, the mean score was 62.2 (±24.18) for patients who reported CF problems and 78.1 (±18.28) who reported no changes with their CF (p<0.0001). At T1, the mean score of patients reporting problems thinking clearly was 66.1 (±21.65) vs 75.6 (±20.21) reporting no problems with their thinking (p<0.0001). At T2, the mean score was 70.4 (±20.95) for patients reporting problems thinking clearly vs 82.6 (±17.76) who reported no problems (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Self-reported QoL of lung cancer survivors showed substantial deficits with their cognitive function. Prospective and objective assessments are needed to determine if cancer treatments are positively associated with cognitive decline, to identify the patients at risk, and to test appropriate interventions. Funding Source: NIH grants: CA 115857, CA 84354, CA 80127 and CA 77118. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9599 Background: We have previously identified overall a single-item measure for baseline quality of life (QOL) as a strong prognostic factor for survival (Tan, ASCO 2008), and that fatigue was an important component of patient QOL (Sloan, 2007). To explore whether patient-reported fatigue was supplemental or redundant to the prognostic information of overall QOL, we performed a patient-level pooled analysis of 43 NCCTG and MCCC oncology clinical trials of the effect of baseline fatigue on OS. Methods: 3,915 patients participating in 43 trials provided data at baseline for fatigue on a single-item 0–100 point scale. OS was tested for association with clinically deficient fatigue (CDF, score 0–50, n=1,497) vs not clinically deficient fatigue (nCDF, score 51–100, n=2,418). Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for the effects of overall QOL, performance score, race, disease site, age and gender. Results: Baseline fatigue was a strong predictor of OS for the entire patient cohort (CDF vs. nCDF: 31.5 mos vs >83.9 mos, p<0.0001). The effect sizes were consistent across different disease sites (GI, esophageal, head and neck, prostate, lung, breast and others). After controlling for covariates, including performance status and overall QOL, baseline fatigue remained a strong prognostic factor in multivariate models (CDF vs. nCDF: HR=1.23, p=0.02). Conclusions: Fatigue is a strong prognostic factor for OS independent of overall QOL and PS in a wide variety of oncology patient populations. Single-item measures of overall QOL and fatigue can help to identify vulnerable subpopulations among cancer patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.