Groshen, Susan

Abstract Background: There is a significant variation in disease incidence and outcomes among Multiple Myeloma (MM) patients (pts) from different ethnic backgrounds. Currently, there is a paucity of data regarding the influence of demographics and ethnicity on behavioral patterns of pts, their attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge about MM and its treatment, which could in turn affect outcomes. We conducted a questionnaire-based study to examine behavioral patterns of MM pts, especially focusing on ethnic minorities and how this may impact patient awareness and symptom complex related to the disease and its treatment. Methods: Apaper-basedquestionnaire consisting of 61 questions encompassing four broad categories was provided to participating pts at the University of Southern California Medical Centers. These included demographics, disease/treatment related quality of life (QoL), satisfaction regarding treatment, and satisfaction regarding treating physician/healthcare staff. Information on clinical characteristics and MM-related treatment was collected through an IRB-approved protocol. Pts were stratified by age, gender, and ethnicity (Hispanics vs. Non-Hispanics). Any missing patient responses were withdrawn from the final analysis of that question. Categorical and continuous variables were compared among groups using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively. All statistical analysis utilized SAS software (v9.3) with a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Results: A total of 89 pts (males: 40, females: 49) from March 2012 to October 2013 responded to the questionnaire of the 100 pts that were consented (81%). Median age was 59 (range: 23-81) years and 43 (48%) pts were Hispanic while 46 (52%) were Non-Hispanic. Baseline clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1A. As compared to Non-Hispanics, Hispanic pts were less likely to have completed college (70% vs. 30%, p<0.001), attend myeloma support groups (90% vs. 10%, p=0.026), feel they had sufficient disease/treatment-related information (72% vs. 22.5%, p<0.001). Hispanic pts were more likely to report being unemployed/without any income (57.5% vs. 9%, p<0.001), have 3-4 people living in the house (57.5% vs. 26 %, p=0.009), feeling ill (43% vs. 21%, p=0.029), have concern about deterioration in clinical condition (66% vs. 41%, p=0.022), and inability to work due to symptoms from MM or its treatment (38.6% vs. 11.9%, p=0.005) when compared to Non-Hispanics. With respect to MM treatment, Hispanic pts were less likely to report that side effects were as expected (34% vs. 57%, p=0.036) and believe that treating staff worked towards the same goal (88% vs. 100%, p=0.020) as them. Hispanic pts also reported a lower level of satisfaction with their doctor /treatment staff, as compared to Non-Hispanic pts and this difference was statistically significant as shown in Table 1B. Using gender as the stratification factor, we noted that female pts were more likely to report lack of energy (p=0.037), pain (p=0.010), satisfaction with discussion on emotional health (p=0.012) as compared to males. With age as the stratification factor, patients < 60 years of age were less likely to report expected effectiveness from treatment (p=0.031), satisfaction regarding appropriateness of treatment (p=0.008) or explanation of test results by their doctor (p=0.036), and were more likely to worry about deterioration in their condition (p=0.014). We did not find a statistically significant association between age, gender, or ethnicity and response to initial myeloma treatment. Conclusions: We found a significant association between MM patient ethnicity and the pts responses to questions pertaining to their QoL, satisfaction with treatment and treating physician. This difference in disease/treatment related knowledge and attitudes may be related to socio-cultural and behavioral patterns and may contribute to factors such as treatment compliance, effectiveness and symptom complex burden amongst others, that can impact outcomes among ethnic subgroups of MM pts. Efforts to mitigate these differences should focus on improving methods of patient education, spread more awareness among ethnic minorities, integration of psychosocial care into cancer therapy and promoting health psychology research. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: As a single agent, rituximab produces an overall response rate (ORR) of 20-50% in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL). Acquired resistance occurs, however, partially due to defective host immune effector mechanisms. Efforts to augment immune function have included combining rituximab with immune modulators such as IL-2, IL-12, interferonand lenalidomide. These efforts have resulted in improved efficacy of rituximab. Ipilimumab is a human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) specific for the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4, CD152) expressed on activated T cells. CTLA-4 is a negative regulator of T-cell responses. Ipilimumab augments the immune response by disrupting the interaction of CTLA-4 with its ligands, B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86). We therefore hypothesize that ipilimumab will augment the efficacy of rituximab. This phase I with an expansion cohort was designed to assess the safety of this combined therapy. Methods: Patients ≥ 18 years old with r/r CD20+ NHL, measurable disease, KPS ≥ 70%, neutrophils ≥ 1000, platelets ≥ 50,000 and adequate kidney and liver function were eligible. In this phase I with an expansion cohort, after establishing the recommended Phase II dose (RP2D), study patients would be randomized to differing treatment schedules of rituximab and ipilimumab. For induction in phase I, rituximab was given every week for four weeks and ipilimumab was administered every 3 weeks for 4 doses. Primary endpoints included toxicity and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD)/RP2D during the first 7 weeks of induction of ipilimumab (2 doses) when given in combination with rituximab (4 doses, 375mg/m2 per dose). Secondary end points included immune response, ORR and progression free survival (PFS). In the phase I component, a standard 3+3 design was used to determine the MTD/RP2D. After the RP2D was established, 20 more patients would be randomized to one of two schedules: Arm A - ipilimumab on Day 1 together with the first dose of rituximab, or Arm B - ipilimumab on Day 15 together with the third rituximab dose. After induction in both the Phase I and the expansion cohorts, ipilimumab and rituximab were given every 12 weeks (+/- 1 week) on the same day for 1 year. Results: As of August 1 2015, 21 patients have been enrolled (1SLL, 9FL, 6DLCL, 1MCL, 4 indeterminate): 15 are evaluable for toxicity assessment at 7 weeks. The median age was 62 (32-71) and the median number of prior regimens was 2 (1-6). The RP2D of ipilimumab when given with rituximab (375 mg/m2) was 3 mg/kg, which was the highest dose tested. The most common grade 1-2 AEs (>20%) were:anemia (33%); diarrhea (20%); constipation (27%); nausea/vomiting (33%); fatigue (40%); anorexia (33%); low albumin (53%); hypocalcemia (33%); hyponatremia (27%). The most common grade 3-4 AEs (≥ 5%) were: anemia (20%); diarrhea (13%); leukopenia (13%); and hyponatremia (27%). There were no study related deaths. Twelve patients remain on treatment, 6 came off due to progression, 2 due to toxicity, and there was one death (unrelated). Conclusion: The RP2D of ipilimumab when given in combination with rituximab is 3 mg/kg. This dose is safe and moderately well tolerated. Enrollment continues in the expansion cohort to assess efficacy and the ability of ipilimumab to augment the rituximab-mediated immune response. Disclosures Off Label Use: Ipilimumab to augment rituxan in treating lymphoma. Chen:Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

5023 Background: Skeletal-related events (SREs) drive morbidity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In the ALSYMPCA study, Radium-223 (Ra223) was found to palliate pain in addition to prolonging survival and reducing SREs. Earlier onset of pain relief was noted when zoledronic acid (ZA) was administered within 24-48 hours of samarium; we evaluated whether the timing of bone supportive therapy (BST) affected pain palliation fromRa223. Methods: We identified patients who received Ra223 at University of Southern California or Mayo Clinic Arizona. Data extracted: Ra223 administration dates, pain scores, pain medications, ZA or denosumab administration dates, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels, prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, and concurrent prostate cancer therapy. Patients were evaluable for pain response if they had at least 2 pain scores documented before and after Ra223 with pain medication use data. Pain response was defined as > 2 point decrease in pain on a 10 point scale; flare was defined as > 2 point increase followed by return to baseline or lower. Results: Of 65 patients, 20 had baseline pain score > 0 and 34 were evaluable. Median #doses Ra223 was 5 (range 2-6). 18 patients received concurrent abiraterone (abi) or enzalutamide (enza), 16 did not. Pain response occurred in 6/6 (100%) patients who received BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 dose and 4/8 (50%) patients who did not receive BST. Pain flare occurred in 6/21 patients (29%) without BST and 2/13 (15%) with BST. 6/10 (60%) patients with pain response had ALP decline but there was no consistent pattern of ALP changes in patients with flare. 8/8 patients with pain response had no PSA decline (6 increased, 2 stable). 6/12 (50%) and 2/22 (9%) patients on abi/enza had pain response and flare respectively, and 4/8 (50%) and 6/19 (32%) patients without concurrent abi/enza had response/flare. Conclusions: BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 may be associated with increased likelihood of pain palliation and may prevent pain flare. PSA/ALP changes do not predict pain response. Concurrent use of abi/enza does not increase the likelihood of pain response and may decrease the likelihood of flare.

Abstract Purpose: In phase I testing, alisertib tablets with irinotecan and temozolomide showed significant antitumor activity in patients with neuroblastoma. This study sought to confirm activity of this regimen; evaluate an alisertib oral solution; and evaluate biomarkers of clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods: We conducted a two-stage phase II trial of alisertib tablets (60 mg/m2/dose × 7 days), irinotecan (50 mg/m2/dose i.v. × 5 days), and temozolomide (100 mg/m2/dose orally × 5 days) in patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma. The primary endpoint was best objective response. A separate cohort was treated with alisertib at 45 mg/m2 using oral solution instead of tablets. Exploratory analyses sought to identify predictors of toxicity, response, and progression-free survival (PFS) using pooled data from phase I, phase II, and oral solution cohorts. Results: Twenty and 12 eligible patients were treated in the phase II and oral solution cohorts, respectively. Hematologic toxicities were the most common adverse events. In phase II, partial responses were observed in 19 evaluable patients (21%). The estimated PFS at 1 year was 34%. In the oral solution cohort, 3 patients (25%) had first cycle dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Alisertib oral solution at 45 mg/m2 had significantly higher median Cmax and exposure compared with tablets at 60 mg/m2. Higher alisertib trough concentration was associated with first cycle DLT, whereas MYCN amplification was associated with inferior PFS. Conclusions: This combination shows antitumor activity, particularly in patients with MYCN nonamplified tumors. Data on an alisertib oral solution expand the population able to be treated with this agent.

AbstractBackgroundVorinostat combined with retinoids produces additive antitumor effects in preclinical studies of neuroblastoma. Higher systemic exposures of vorinostat than achieved in pediatric phase I trials with continuous daily dosing are necessary for in vivo increased histone acetylation and cytotoxic activity. We conducted a phase I trial in children with relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat on an interrupted schedule, escalating beyond the previously identified pediatric MTD.MethodsIsotretinoin (cis‐13‐retinoic acid) 80 mg/m2/dose was administered by mouth twice daily on days 1–14 in combination with escalating doses of daily vorinostat up to 430 mg/m2/dose (days 1–4; 8–11) in each 28‐day cycle using the standard 3 + 3 design. Vorinostat pharmacokinetic testing and histone acetylation assays were performed.ResultsTwenty‐nine patients with refractory or relapsed neuroblastoma were enrolled and 28 were evaluable for dose escalation decisions. Median number of cycles completed was two (range 1–15); 11 patients received four or more cycles. Three patients experienced cycle 1 dose‐limiting toxicities. A total of 18 patients experienced grade 3/4 toxicities related to study therapy. The maximum intended dose of vorinostat (430 mg/m2/day, days 1–4; 8–11) was tolerable and led to increased histone acetylation in surrogate tissues when compared to lower doses of vorinostat (P = 0.009). No objective responses were seen.ConclusionsIncreased dose vorinostat (430 mg/m2/day) on an interrupted schedule is tolerable in combination with isotretinoin. This dose led to increased vorinostat exposures and demonstrated increased histone acetylation. Prolonged stable disease in patients with minimal residual disease warrants further investigation.

29 Background: Better biomarkers are needed in prostate cancer (PCa) to predict disease recurrence and guide optimal therapy. We investigated whether genes associated with a highly tumorigenic, drug resistant, progenitor cancer phenotype impact PCa biology and clinical outcomes in localized disease. Methods: Genes associated with self-renewal, drug resistance, and tumorigenicity were analyzed by qRT-PCR on PCa mRNA from radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens (+/- disease recurrence). Wilcoxon rank sum two-sample test, multivariable recursive partitioning, and bootstrap internal validation measured and confirmed associations with recurrence. Further validation was conducted in external cohorts and in-silico, as well as in vitro and in vivo using siRNA knockdown and lentiviral overexpression to determined the effect of gene expression on PCa proliferation, invasion and tumor growth. Results: Four candidate genes were differentially expressed in PCa recurrence, and of these, low AXIN2 expression was internally validated. Validation in external cohorts demonstrated low AXIN2 expression was associated with more aggressive prostate cancer and was independently associated with biochemical recurrence (BCR) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) after RP. In vitro, low AXIN2 expression was associated with a cancer stem-like cell-surface signature, and siRNA knockdown of AXIN2 resulted in significantly greater invasiveness. Conversely, ectopic overexpression of AXIN2 significantly reduced cell proliferation and tumor growth in mice. Conclusions: Low AXIN2 expression was associated with PCa recurrence after RP in our test population as well as in external validation cohorts. AXIN2 expression levels in PCa cells significantly impacted invasiveness, proliferation and tumor growth. AXIN2 represents a putative biomarker and potential therapeutic target in early prostate cancer.

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.