Mun, Yong

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: 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; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

111 Background: Limited data exist on patient (pt) experience and work productivity (WP) in MBC. VIRGO is a prospective OCS following >1,200 pts with locally advanced or MBC receiving 1st-line hormonal therapy (HT) or chemotherapy (CT) in a real-world setting. We report baseline characteristics of 277 pts from the VIRGO PRO substudy and correlations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms, activities of daily living, and WP. Methods: Symptom severity and interference (M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]), functional status (Activity Level Scale [ALS] from the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) and WP (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire) were assessed. Pts rated their HRQoL during the past week on a scale of 0–10. Results: See table. The five most severe symptoms at baseline were fatigue, decreased sexual interest, disturbed sleep, drowsiness, and emotional distress; these were reported with less severity in the HT cohort (24%-37% vs 42%-59%). Overall MDASI severity and interference correlated with WP measures in the CT (R=0.46 to 0.78) and HT cohorts (0.36 to 0.94). Mean of the 5 most severe symptoms also significantly correlated with WP indices (R=0.47 to 0.66). HRQoL correlated (p<0.05) with all WP measures (R=-0.46 to -0.56) in the CT cohort and with % impairment while working (R=-0.65) and % overall work impairment (R=-0.71) in the HT cohort. In univariate regression analysis, MDASI symptom interference score was the best predictor of reduced WP (R2=0.52 while working; R2=0.48 for non-work activities). Conclusions: MBC pts receiving CT and HT report significant work impairment. Results indicate moderate correlations between WP indices, HRQoL and symptom burden. [Table: see text]

514 Background: Randomized trials and OCSs have demonstrated that BV treatment in 1st-line (1L), in 2L, and across multiple lines is associated with longer survival in patients (pts) with mCRC. This analysis was aimed at comparing the effectiveness of BV after 1st disease progression (PD) between male and female mCRC pts who received 1L BV-containing therapy in a real-world setting. Methods: ARIES is a large, prospective OCS that enrolled pts who received BV and chemotherapy (CT) for 1L mCRC. Post-PD effectiveness was assessed for men and women characterizing BV use by cumulative and dichotomous approaches. The primary analysis treated BV exposure as cumulative BV doses after 1st PD and post-progression overall survival (ppOS) as the time from 1st PD to death. A time-dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative BV exposure on ppOS, while controlling for potential confounders. A dichotomous secondary analysis characterized BV exposure as receipt of CT + BV (BBP) or CT alone (No BBP) within 2 months after PD and ppOS as time from 1st PD + 2 months to death. Results: Among the 1,550 1L mCRC pts enrolled, 1,199 (532 women) had PD. In the primary analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) for ppOS decreased, on average, by 1.2% with each additional BV dose. When stratified by sex, the average risk reduction per BV dose over 15 doses was 1.8% in women and 0.7% in men. In the secondary analysis that included 331 women (BBP, 180; No BBP, 151) and 417 men (BBP, 245, No BBP, 172) who received BV ± CT within 2 months post-PD, the HRs for ppOS with BBP treatment were 0.46 (95% CI, 0.35–0.59) in women and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.41–0.67) in men. Statistical interaction tests for differences in the effectiveness of BV between men and women were negative for primary and secondary analyses (P of 0.58 and 0.77). Protocol-specified adverse events occurred in 17.8% of women and 10.2% of men in the BBP population; this difference was largely related to rates of hypertension (8.3% vs 2.4%, respectively). Conclusions: In ARIES, the effectiveness of BV after first PD was not statistically different between women and men with mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT00388206.

702 Background: Median overall survival (OS) in mCRC has significantly improved over the past 20 yrs, but the observed range of OS in pts remains wide; a large percentage of pts have OS <1 yr or >4 yrs. ARIES was a prospective OCS conducted from 2006–2012 that evaluated outcomes in pts receiving BV + chemotherapy (CT) for mCRC in general clinical practice. The objective of this analysis is to examine clinical characteristics of pts with long vs short OS. Methods: This analysis included 1,417/1,550 first-line (1L) BV-treated mCRC pts who died or had complete follow-up on study. Long OS was defined as OS within the upper quartile of the analysis population (range 42–67 mos); short OS was defined as OS within the lower quartile (range 0.3–12 mos). Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Pt and disease characteristics and treatment patterns were described using summary statistics. Results: Pt and disease characteristics are shown in the Table. Median PFS was 22.3 mos (95% CI, 19.9–23.3) vs. 4.9 mos (95% CI, 4.6–5.4), in the long-OS vs. short-OS groups. More pts with long OS received any second-line (2L) therapy (71% vs. 46%), and were exposed to 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan throughout the course of their disease (53% vs. 32%) compared with pts with short OS. KRAS/BRAF mutation status was not collected. Conclusions: Pts with long OS had better baseline performance status, primary tumors more likely to have been resected, and were more likely to have received 2L CT. Additional analyses of detailed treatment patterns and safety are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00388206. [Table: see text]

535 Background: Prior ARIES analyses showed that BV-treated mCRC patients (pts) receiving chemotherapy (CT)/biologics + BV within 2 months (mo) after 1st progressive disease (PD) had longer post-progression survival (PPS) than pts receiving only CT/biologics. The present analysis evaluated whether this effect of BV was consistent when used with common 2L CT regimens— irinotecan- (iri-) and oxaliplatin- (ox-) based—in mCRC pts exposed to 1L BV in ARIES. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving 1L CT + BV. No tx regimens or assessments were protocol specified. This analysis evaluated 1L BV-treated mCRC pts who had PD, survived ≥2 mo after PD, and received 2L iri- or ox-based tx. PPS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), while adjusting for covariates (eg, 1L time to progression). Results: Of 1550 1L pts in ARIES, 1074 had 1st PD and survived ≥2 mo after PD. Of these 1074, 390 and 114 received 2L iri- and ox-based tx, respectively, ± BV ( table ). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. The incidence of targeted adverse events (TAEs) was as expected and similar between the BV and No BV groups over time. In pts receiving 2L iri- or ox-based CT tx, PPS in BV-treated pts was longer compared to those not on BV. Analyses may be limited by small pt numbers in some groups. Conclusions: Consistent with prior ARIES analyses, the continued use of BV after 1st PD was associated with prolonged PPS regardless of the 2L CT backbone used. [Table: see text]

ABSTRACTPurposeThis analysis from Avastin® Registries: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) examined the association between exposure to bevacizumab after disease progression (PD) and postprogression survival (PPS) in bevacizumab‐exposed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through the application of time‐dependent and time‐fixed analytical methods.MethodsPatients with mCRC who were treated with first‐line bevacizumab and who survived first PD (PD1) were included. A time‐dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative bevacizumab exposure on PPS, while controlling for potential confounders. In addition to support findings from previous studies, a modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT) analysis compared PPS in patients who received bevacizumab beyond disease progression (BBP) with those who did not (No‐BBP).ResultsOf 1550 patients, 1199 survived PD1 and had a median PPS of 13.4 months. Cumulative bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved PPS (p = 0.0040). After adjusting for confounders, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PPS decreased, on average, by 1.2% (range, 1.1–1.3%) with each additional dose of bevacizumab. In the mITT analysis, the median PPS for BBP (n = 438) was 14.4 months vs 10.6 months with for No‐BBP (n = 667). BBP was found to be independently associated with longer PPS in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.97). Protocol‐specified adverse events suspected to be associated with bevacizumab occurred in 13.0% of patients with BBP.ConclusionThis analysis supports the observation that bevacizumab exposure after PD1 is associated with longer PPS in mCRC. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract Background. The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. Methods. The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. Conclusions. In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.