Le‐Rademacher, Jennifer

Abstract Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; with median duration of ibrutinib treatment of 32 months, 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 which has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. Study Design and Methods A041702 (NCT03737981) is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the national clinical trials network (NCTN). Eligible patients are those patients with CLL or SLL age 70 or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy. Patients with del17p on FISH must be age 65 or older. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab are allowed. Patients must have intermediate or high risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm 3 unless due to marrow involvement and plt ≥ 30,000/mm 3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness which is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially pre-registered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), stratified upon Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue until third quarter 2022, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Disclosures Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone: Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between self‐identified race and overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and response to therapy among patients enrolled in the randomized Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 trial.MethodsPatients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were enrolled in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial were identified by race. On the basis of covariates (treatment arm, KRAS status, sex, age, and body mass index), each Black patient was exact matched with a White patient. The association between race and OS and PFS was examined using a marginal Cox proportional hazard model for matched pairs. The interaction between KRAS status and race was tested in the model. The association between race and response to therapy and adverse events were examined using a marginal logistic regression model.ResultsIn total, 392 patients were matched and included in the final data set. No difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73‐1.16), PFS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78‐1.20), or response to therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65‐1.52) was observed between Black and White patients. Patients with KRAS mutant status (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.67), a performance statusscore of 1 (reference, a performance status of 0; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.88), or ≥3 metastatic sites (reference, 1 metastatic site; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.22‐2.28) experienced worse OS. Black patients experienced lower rates and risk of grade ≥3 fatigue (6.6% vs 13.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.91) but were equally likely to be treated with a dose reduction (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.72‐1.65).ConclusionsNo difference in OS, PFS, or response to therapy was observed between Black patients and White patients in an equal treatment setting of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized controlled trial.Lay Summary Despite improvements in screening and treatment, studies have demonstrated worse outcomes in Black patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in cancer‐specific outcomes among Black and White patients receiving equivalent treatment on the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized clinical trial. In this study, there was no difference in overall survival, progression‐free survival, or response to therapy between Black and White patients treated on a clinical trial. These findings suggest that access to care and differences in treatment may be responsible for racial disparities in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

12090 Background: Clinical guidelines recommend altering chemotherapy treatment by decreasing, delaying, or discontinuing dosing in patients (pts) experiencing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). There are few data available on clinical use of treatment alteration including the severity of CIPN at the time of alteration. Our objective was to investigate the incidence of oxaliplatin treatment alterations and CIPN severity at that time. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of pts with colon cancer scheduled to receive oxaliplatin-containing combination chemotherapy on the N08CB trial of intravenous calcium and magnesium for prevention of CIPN. Dose alterations were not mandated by the N08CB protocol. Clinicians assessed CIPN using NCI-CTCAE V.4.0; pts used the sensory subscale of the EORTC-QLQ Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (CIPN8). Pts were classified as 1) completed oxaliplatin treatment without alteration, 2) dose reduction or delay due to CIPN, 3) discontinuation due to CIPN, 4) discontinuation due to other AE, or 5) discontinuation for another reason. Comparisons focused primarily on pts with alteration due to CIPN (groups 2 and/or 3) compared with pts completing treatment without alteration (group 1) using chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: In this analysis of 350 N08CB pts, 135 (39%) completed oxaliplatin without treatment alteration, 70 (20%) had a dose reduction (n=66) or delay (n=4) due to CIPN and 35 (10%) discontinued early due to CIPN. Pts who experienced alterations due to CIPN were younger (p=0.0249) and more likely to be female (p=0.008). Clinician-assessed CIPN severity was greater in pts at the time of dose reduction or delay compared with CIPN severity at the end of treatment in pts with no alteration (p<0.0001). Pt-assessed CIPN severity was not different in pts who completed treatment without alteration compared to pts who had a dose reduction or delay (p=0.88) or a discontinuation (p=0.37). CIPN8 scores at cycle 4 were higher (worse) in pts who eventually had any alteration (i.e., reduction, delay, or discontinuation) compared to pts who completed treatment without any alteration (median CIPN8 11.5 vs. 7.7, p=0.023). Conclusions: Treatment alterations due to CIPN are relatively common in pts receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin for colon cancer and are associated with clinician-assessed but not pt-reported CIPN severity. Rapid CIPN8 increases early in treatment are indicative of increased likelihood of a future oxaliplatin treatment alteration, indicating a potential use of early monitoring and intervention. Support: UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT01099449 (NCCTG N08CB).

PURPOSE New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, “I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious.” Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, “I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all.” A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, “Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on.” CONCLUSION High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.

PURPOSE This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODs Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.

Abstract Background: Clinical guidelines recommend altering chemotherapy treatment by decreasing, delaying, or discontinuing dosing in patients who are experiencing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. There are few data available on the clinical use of treatment alteration including the severity of CIPN at the time of treatment alteration. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of patients receiving oxaliplatin on the NCCTG N08CB trial. Neuropathy severity was assessed at each cycle by clinicians and patients. Patients were classified as 1) completed treatment without alteration, 2) dose reduction or delay due to neuropathy, 3) discontinuation due to neuropathy, or discontinuation for other toxicity (4), or another reason (5). Comparisons focused primarily on patients with alteration due to neuropathy (groups 2 and/or 3) compared with patients who completed treatment without alteration (group 1). Results: In 350 participants, 135 (39%) completed treatment without alteration, 70 (20%) had a dose reduction or delay due to neuropathy, and 35 (10%) discontinued early due to neuropathy. Clinician-assessed neuropathy severity was greater in patients at the time of dose reduction or delay compared with severity at the end of treatment in patients without alteration (p<0.0001). Patient-reported neuropathy severity at cycle 4 was worse in patients who had an alteration as compared with patients who completed treatment without alteration (p=0.017). Conclusions: Treatment alterations due to neuropathy are common in patients receiving oxaliplatin for colon cancer and are associated with clinician-assessed neuropathy severity. Rapid increases in patient-reported neuropathy severity indicate a potential need for monitoring and intervention.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially permanent adverse effect of chemotherapeutic agents including taxanes such as paclitaxel and platinum-based compounds such as oxaliplatin and carboplatin. Previous studies have suggested that genetics may impact the risk of CIPN. We conducted genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for CIPN in two independent populations who had completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-CIPN20 assessments (a CIPN-specific 20-item questionnaire which includes three scales that evaluate sensory, autonomic, and motor symptoms). The study population N08Cx included 692 participants from three clinical trials (North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N08C1, N08CA, and N08CB) who had been treated with paclitaxel, paclitaxel plus carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint for the GWAS was the change from pre-chemotherapy CIPN20 sensory score to the worse score over the following 18 weeks. Study population The Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR) consisted of 381 Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry enrollees who had been treated with taxane or platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for the GWAS assessed was the earliest CIPN20 sensory score available after the completion of chemotherapy. In multivariate model analyses, chemotherapy regimen (p = 3.0 × 10−8) and genetic ancestry (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with CIPN in the N08Cx population. Only age (p = 0.0004) was significantly associated with CIPN in the MCBDR population. The SNP most associated with CIPN was rs56360211 near PDE6C (p =7.92 × 10−8) in N08Cx and rs113807868 near TMEM150C in the MCBDR (p = 1.27 × 10−8). Due to a lack of replication, we cannot conclude that we identified any genetic predictors of CIPN.

Abstract Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.