Zhao, Fengmin

PURPOSE EA1181 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04266249 ) is a single-arm trial evaluating neoadjuvant taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP) in patients with clinical stage II/IIIa human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer. This report focuses on the secondary end points of pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and associated factors. The primary end point—3-year recurrence-free survival among patients achieving a pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0)—will be reported when data mature. METHODS Patients received four cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) with either once per week paclitaxel (12 weeks) or docetaxel (every 3 weeks for four cycles), followed by surgery. Clinicopathologic characteristics were assessed in all patients. The HER2DX pCR score was determined using diagnostic biopsy samples in a representative subset. Logistic regression models identified factors associated with pCR. RESULTS A total of 2,175 patients were enrolled (781 HER2+/estrogen receptor‑negative [ER–]; 1,394 HER2+/ER+). Of 2,141 patients who initiated THP, the overall pCR rate was 43.8%: 63.7% in HER2+/ER– and 32.4% in HER2+/ER+ tumors. Higher pCR rates were observed in tumors that were ER-negative or low ER expressing, progesterone receptor-negative or low expressing, HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+, and in patients treated with once per week paclitaxel. T3 disease was associated with a lower pCR rate in HER2+/ER– tumors; otherwise, tumor (T) and nodal (N) stage did not significantly affect pCR. Among 569 patients assessed for HER2DX pCR scores, a high score was independently associated with higher pCR rates, after adjustment for clinicopathologic variables. CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant THP achieved pCR in nearly two-thirds of patients with HER2+/ER– and one third with HER2+/ER+ breast cancer. Low hormone receptor expression, HER2 IHC 3+ status, once per week paclitaxel use, and a high HER2DX pCR score were independent predictors of pCR. These findings should help optimize risk stratification and treatment personalization for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

603 Background: Accurate prediction of pathologic complete response (pCR) after preoperative therapy for HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer can help triage patients to immediate surgery vs additional preoperative therapy. Pre-surgery (i.e., after neoadjuvant therapy) imaging studies may help estimate the likelihood of pCR. In EA1181, patients (pts) with stage II-IIIA HER2+ breast cancer received four cycles of preoperative taxane, trastuzumab, and pertuzumab (THP×4). Pre-surgery imaging was required, though the specific imaging modality was not mandated. Here, we report the accuracy of pre-surgery breast MRI to predict pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0). Methods: Among 2,141 pts treated with THPx4, 1,378 had pre-surgery breast MRI and were representative of the overall cohort, although T3 tumors were more common (16% vs 9%). MRI reports were available for 1,351 pts; all reports were centrally reviewed and classified as radiologic complete response (rCR; no residual tumor enhancement and normalization of lymph nodes, if applicable) or radiologic residual disease (rRD). Reports with indeterminate radiologic response were independently reviewed by two study radiologists blinded to pathology outcomes. Among pts with rCR who had pathologic residual disease (pRD), we also assessed the extent of residual disease by residual cancer burden (RCB) score. Among pts with rRD who had a pCR, we determined the proportion who only had residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Results: See Table. Conclusions: After neoadjuvant therapy, preoperative MRI accurately predicted pCR in 86% of patients with HER2+/ER− disease and may help identify patients who can proceed directly to surgery. MRI is insufficient to predict pCR for pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, as only 55% with complete response on MRI had a pCR at surgery. A pre-surgery MRI that indicated residual disease was accurate in 80% of pts with HER2+/ER+ disease, but in only 45% of pts with HER2+/ER- cancer. Accurately predicting residual disease after THPx4 allows for consideration of additional therapy that may increase the chance of pCR. Combining imaging like MRI with other biomarkers, such as tissue-based markers or circulating tumor DNA, may improve prediction of pCR and facilitate personalization of treatment decisions in HER2+ breast cancer. All pts with pre-surgery MRI (n=1351)pCR rate overall in this cohort = 47% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 70.6% (341/483) 29.4%(142/483) 78% had RCB1 rRD 34%(295/868) 21% of 295 had DCIS only 66.01% (573/868) ER- (n=589)*Overall pCR rate in ER- subset = 68% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 86.1% (205/238) 13.9% (33/238) 85% had RCB1 rRD 55.3% (194/351) 19% of 194 had only DCIS 44.7% (157/351) ER+ (n= 762)*Overall pCR rate in ER+ subset = 31% MRI result Pathology pCR pRD rCR 55.5% (136/245) 44.5% (109/245) 76% had RCB1 rRD 19.5% (101/517) 26% of 101 had only DCIS 80.5% (416/517)

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

501 Background: EA1181 (NCT04266249) is a single-arm trial of neoadjuvant THP for patients with clinical anatomic stage II/III HER2+ breast cancer; patients with cT4 or cN3 disease were excluded . Assessing the primary endpoint, 3-year recurrence-free survival in patients with a pCR (ypT0/Tis, ypN0), requires longer follow-up. Here, we present results for the secondary objective of pCR rate and its relation to clinicopathologic factors and the HER2DX pCR likelihood score (Reveal Genomics) derived from gene expression and clinical features. Methods: Patients received 4 cycles of trastuzumab and pertuzumab (HP) with weekly paclitaxel (12 weeks) or docetaxel (q3w x 4), followed by surgery. Clinicopathologic features were assessed for all patients and HER2DX pCR score (stratified by ER status) was determined using the diagnostic biopsy in a representative subset of study participants. Results: 2175 patients were enrolled. Median age was 55 years (range 22-88 years); 58% had clinical stage IIA, 33% stage IIB, and 9% stage III. 45% had nodal involvement (mostly cN1). 781 tumors were HER2+/ER- and 1394 HER2+/ER+ (locally tested ). 2141 patients started THP, for whom the pCR rate was 44% overall, 63.7% in HER2+/ER- and 32.4% in HER2+/ER+ tumors. Disease progressed during THP in 16 patients (0.7%). The pCR rate varied inversely to the proportion of cells staining for ER among patients with HER2+/ER+ breast cancer: 1-10%+, 62.5%; 11-69%, 51.6%; ≥70%, 22.5% (p <0.001). The pCR rate was significantly associated with higher grade, especially in HER2+/ER+ disease. T and N stage did not significantly affect pCR rate. Among 569 patients assessed for the HER2DX pCR score, the pCR rate was significantly greater for patients with a higher vs lower score, regardless of ER status (Table). Further correlations and interactions will be presented. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant THP resulted in pCR in nearly two-thirds of pts with clinical stage II/III HER2+/ER- and in one-third with HER2+/ER+ breast cancer. There was no association with clinical stage. Lower ER expression and higher grade were associated with higher pCR rates. The HER2DX pCR score was a significant predictor of pCR, regardless of ER status. Clinical trial information: NCT04266249 . All Participants HER2+/ER- HER2+/ER+ # patients enrolled pCR rate (95% CI) # patients enrolled pCR rate (95% CI) # patients enrolled pCR rate (95% CI) Evaluable Cohort 2141 44%(42-46%) 774 64%(60-67%) 1367 32%(30-35%) HER2DX Cohort 569 48%(44- 52%) 230 69% (63-75%) 339 34%(29-39%) HER2DX pCR-high score 182 (32%) 68%(60-74%) 147 (64%) 70% (62-77%) 36 (11%) 58%(41-74%) HER2DX pCR-medium score 161 (28%) 67% (59- 74%) 70 (30%) 74%(62- 84%) 89 (26%) 61%(50-71%) HER2DX pCR-low score 226 (40%) 19%(14- 25%) 13 (6%) 31%(9-61%) 214 (63%) 18%(13-24%) P-value HER2DX score <0.001 0.010 <0.001

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment‐associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician‐rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment‐related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG‐ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391).MethodsParticipants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI‐16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI‐16 treatment side‐effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t‐tests or the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test.ResultsTwo hundred ninety‐six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI‐16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, −0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05).ConclusionsDespite the similar frequency of clinician‐rated AEs, PROs identified greater on‐treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician‐rated AEs by characterizing patients’ experiences during chemotherapy.

PURPOSE In the United States, the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups have conducted publicly funded oncology research for 50 years. The combined impact of all adult network group trials has never been systematically examined. METHODS We identified randomized, phase III trials from the adult NCTN groups, reported from 1980 onward, with statistically significant findings for ≥ 1 clinical, time-dependent outcomes. In the subset of trials in which the experimental arm improved overall survival, gains in population life-years were estimated by deriving trial-specific hazard functions and hazard ratios to estimate the experimental treatment benefit and then mapping this trial-level benefit onto the US cancer population using registry and life-table data. Scientific impact was based on citation data from Google Scholar. Federal investment costs per life-year gained were estimated. The results were derived through December 31, 2020. RESULTS One hundred sixty-two trials comprised of 108,334 patients were analyzed, representing 29.8% (162/544) of trials conducted. The most common cancers included breast (34), gynecologic (28), and lung (14). The trials were cited 165,336 times (mean, 62.2 citations/trial/year); 87.7% of trials were cited in cancer care guidelines in favor of the recommended treatment. These studies were estimated to have generated 14.2 million (95% CI, 11.5 to 16.5 million) additional life-years to patients with cancer, with projected gains of 24.1 million (95% CI, 19.7 to 28.2 million) life-years by 2030. The federal investment cost per life-year gained through 2020 was $326 in US dollars. CONCLUSION NCTN randomized trials have been widely cited and are routinely included in clinical guidelines. Moreover, their conduct has predicted substantial improvements in overall survival in the United States for patients with oncologic disease, suggesting they have contributed meaningfully to this nation's health. These findings demonstrate the critical role of government-sponsored research in extending the lives of patients with cancer.

12094 Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy patient-reported outcomes (PRO) item GP5 (“I am bothered by side effects of treatment”) estimates treatment tolerability. We aimed to extend our previous finding that GP5 predicts early aromatase inhibitor (AI) discontinuation (E1Z03, 96% White) in the racially diverse E1Z11 trial cohort. Methods: E1Z11 was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base. Postmenopausal women initiating anastrozole per clinical care for ER+ stage I-III breast cancer with a pain score 0-3/10 and no rheumatologic comorbidities were eligible. Accrual of a racially diverse cohort of 1,000 women, including Black and Asian women, was planned. GP5 was administered prior to initiating anastrozole (trial baseline) and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. GP5 was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) and dichotomized as no/little treatment bother (0/1) or moderate/high treatment bother (2-4), consistent with previous analyses. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model estimated baseline GP5’s association with treatment duration via hazard ratio (HR). Early treatment discontinuation status was defined as treatment duration < 12 months with discontinuation not attributed to disease progression or death (n = 4), consistent with previous analyses. Results: 1,046 women enrolled from 6/2013-10/2018 (640 White, 201 Black, 205 Asian), including 590 (56%) from NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Sites. Approximately 10% (100/987 with GP5 data) reported moderate/high treatment bother prior to initiating anastrozole. Anastrozole discontinuation rate at 1-year was 26.2% overall; it was lower among women with no/little treatment bother (25.7%, GP5 = 0-1) compared to moderate/high treatment bother prior to initiating anastrozole (34.7%, GP5 = 2-4; HR = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.04-2.15, p = 0.027). Subgroup analyses by racial cohort showed a similar predictive effect of GP5 in the White (n = 606, HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.12-2.77, p = 0.014) and Black (n = 184, HR = 1.85, 95% CI: 0.92-3.71, p = 0.079) cohorts, but not in the Asian cohort (n = 197, HR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.10-1.62, p = 0.20). Conclusions: Moderate/high treatment bother prior to starting anastrozole was observed in 10% of patients and associated with a higher risk of early discontinuation, except in Asian patients. Our findings support the presence of a treatment tolerability threshold which can be compromised by pre-treatment burden. Treatment tolerability may also be influenced by cultural and genetic factors, which will be explored in further analysis of genetic and PRO data. Clinical trial information: NCT01824836.

Abstract Background: The ECOG-ACRIN randomized phase 3 clinical trial E1912 established ibrutinib-rituximab (IR) as the standard of care for CLL patients &lt;= 70 years in the frontline setting by improving the progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to previous standard chemo-immunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR) (Shanafelt et al. NEJM 2019). Quality of life (QOL) was an important secondary endpoint on this trial comparing continuous (IR) vs time-limited (FCR) therapy due to the differing profile of treatment-related toxicities over the short and long-term. E1912 patient-reported outcomes (PROs) results are presented here. Methods: Patients enrolled on E1912 completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Leukemia subscale at randomization (baseline), 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomization, and every 6 months for 2 years regardless of disease status. The primary outcome was the 31-item FACT-Leukemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Leu TOI), calculated by summing items from the FACT-G physical wellbeing (PWB), functional well-being (FWB), and leukemia subscales (score range: 0-124). The primary endpoint was defined as the difference in FACT-Leu TOI change scores from randomization to 12 months (at response evaluation) between patients treated with continuous therapy Arm A (IR) vs time-limited therapy Arm B (FCR). Mean change scores from baseline to each time point were calculated using all cases with data at baseline and the corresponding time point. Comparisons between treatment arms were performed using two-sample t tests. Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the trajectories of PRO scores. Results: PRO data was extracted on 3/8/2021. PRO data was provided at baseline and 12 months for 233/354 (65.8%) patients on the IR arm and 118/175 (67.4%) patients on the FCR arm. At enrollment, there were no significant differences in the baseline FACT-Leu TOI scores (mean ± SE) between the two arms: IR (93.27 ± 1.03) vs FCR (92.68 ± 1.38; p=0.73). The FACT-Leu TOI score improved from baseline to 12 months in both arms (Table 1 and Figure 1). The change scores from baseline to 12 months, the primary outcome, were not significantly different between IR (7.59 ± 1.09) vs FCR (8.22 ± 1.44; p=0.73). Change in FACT-Leu TOI from baseline to 3 months was 5.77 ± 0.77 and 4.06 ± 1.18 (p=0.22); and from baseline to 6 months was 6.87 ± 0.87 and 8.01 ± 1.44 (p=0.50) in the IR and FCR arms, respectively. After the first 6 months of treatment, the improvement in FACT-Leu TOI scores was maintained in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in total FACT-Leu TOI score in the continuous therapy (IR) vs time-limited therapy (FCR) arms over the first 36 months post registration. Analysis of FACT subscales showed PWB improved in the IR arm (0.37 ± 0.22) and declined in the FCR arm (-0.92 ± 0.39) from baseline to 3 months (p=0.004 for difference in PWB change between arms) but there was no significant difference between the two arms for change in PWB scores from baseline to 6 and 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two arms for change in FWB and FACT-Leu subscales from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months. Conclusions: QOL improves in CLL patients age 70 and younger when treated in the frontline setting with IR or FCR. The improvement in QOL is maintained during continuous therapy with ibrutinib and there is no significant decline in QOL over time. Given the improvement in PFS and OS with IR over FCR seen in E1912, the results of this QOL analysis support the use of frontline ibrutinib in previously untreated younger CLL patients. Acknowledgement: This study was conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J. O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers: U10CA180794, U10CA180820, UG1CA189863, UG1CA190140, UG1CA232760, UG1CA233180, UG1CA233230, UG1CA233253, UG1CA233277, UG1CA233290, UG1CA233339, UG1CA189859, UG1CA233332. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Coutre: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding. Barr: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mato: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Litzow: Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Tallman: NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Kura: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biosight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Honoraria; UC DAVIS: Honoraria; Northwell Grand Rounds: Honoraria; NYU Grand Rounds: Honoraria; Danbury Hospital Tumor Board: Honoraria; Acute Leukemia Forum: Honoraria; Miami Leukemia Symposium: Honoraria; New Orleans Cancer Symposium: Honoraria; ASH: Honoraria; NCCN: Honoraria. Shanafelt: Genentech, Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Wagner: Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson: Other: Spouse, previously held individual stocks;; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Athenex Inc: Consultancy.

12102 Background: Allostatic load (AL) conceptualizes the effects of chronic psychosocial adversity on physiologic dysregulation. To date, studies have shown an association between elevated AL and higher disease-specific and overall mortality among cancer patients; however, none have focused on multiple myeloma (MM) patients. We aim to understand the relationship between baseline AL, symptom burden, and mortality among patients enrolled in the E1A11 therapeutic trial in MM. Methods: ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 was a phase III RCT comparing induction with Bortezomib (Arm A) versus Carfilzomib (Arm B) in conjunction with Lenalidomide +Dexamethasone. AL included 7 biomarkers: BMI, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, albumin and creatinine clearance. AL7 was a composite summary score with a point was assigned for each biomarker value in the highest quartile, except for albumin and creatinine clearance, where a point was assigned for values in the lowest quartile. Endpoints included symptom burden at baseline and ̃1 month, non-completion of induction therapy, and overall survival (OS). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM) items assessed patient-reported symptom burden, including fatigue (item HI7), pain (GP4), and bother by side effects of treatment (GP5) on a 5-point Likert scale. Multivariable logistic regressions assessed the effect of AL7 (ranging 0-7) on high-pain, -fatigue, and -bother (QOL score > = 3 vs < 3), and non-completion of induction therapy. The effect of AL7 on OS was assessed using multivariable Cox regression. Regression covariates included study arm, age, sex, race, ECOG performance status, and the target symptom burden score at baseline. Results: The study cohort included 1087 patients. Mean baseline AL7 was 1.8 (±1.4). In adjusted analysis, a unit increase in AL7 was associated with a greater odds of high pain (OR 1.15, 95%CI [1.04-1.27]) and high fatigue (OR 1.19, 95%CI [1.07-1.32]) at baseline, which did not persist at ̃1 month (pain OR 0.96, 95%CI [0.84-1.10]; fatigue OR 1.03, 95%CI [0.91-1.16]). There was no association between AL7 and high side effect bother at baseline (OR 1.06, 95% CI [0.83-1.35]) or at ̃1 month (OR 1.06, 95%CI [0.90-1.24]). There was no association between AL7 and induction non-completion (OR 1.07, 95%CI [0.96-1.18]). Notably, each unit increase in AL7 was associated with higher mortality (HR 1.26, 95%CI [1.14-1.39]). Conclusions: Despite its association with fatigue and pain at baseline, AL7 was not associated with these symptoms at ̃1 month nor induction non-completion. However, elevated baseline AL7 was associated with poorer OS. AL composite score at baseline, which we interpret as a measure of physiological dysregulation associated with adverse social factors, may have implications on clinical outcomes within clinical trials despite presumed equal treatment access.