Loggers, Elizabeth T

11507 Background: Advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Standard-of-care treatments, including trabectedin (Tb) or pazopanib (P), provide median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3-4 months (mo) and objective response rates (ORR) of ~11%. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in a subset of uLMS supports the use of PARP inhibitors combined with DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic activity of olaparib and temozolomide (T+O), and a prior single-arm Phase II study of T+O showed promising efficacy independent of an established biomarker, warranting further investigation in a randomized setting. Methods: Alliance A092104 is a Phase II/III trial evaluating olaparib (200 mg BID) plus temozolomide (75 mg/m² daily, days 1-7, every 21 days) versus investigator’s choice of Tb or P in patients (pts) with advanced uLMS who progressed on ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Stratification factors included ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and prior lines (2 vs. ≥3). The Phase II (Phase III) primary endpoint was PFS (OS), with a planned suspension of accrual at the end of Phase II. A total of 70 evaluable pts (58 PFS events) were needed to detect an improvement in PFS from 4 vs. 8 mo with power of 90% and 1-sided type I error of 10%, with futility assessed after 29 PFS events. Upon meeting the Phase II futility threshold for PFS, the trial was permanently closed. Data were released from the data and safety monitoring board. Pts continue to be followed for outcomes. Results: 74 pts enrolled (Arm 1: T+O, n = 37; Arm 2: investigator’s choice, n = 37 (Tb, 18; P, 13; 6 pts did not start treatment). The arms were balanced for baseline demographics except race, with the T+O arm having a higher proportion of black/African American (29.7% vs. 16.2%). 21 pts remain on treatment. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the T+O arm, with Grade 4 neutropenia (19.5%) and thrombocytopenia (8.3%) both managed by dose reductions. Non-hematologic Grade 3 AEs were higher in the investigator’s choice arm (45.2% vs. 13.9%). No Grade 5 AEs were reported. In the first 70 pts, with a median follow-up of 5.9 mo, and 39 total PFS events, the median PFS was 3.2 mo (95% CI: 2.0-NE) for T+O versus 5.6 mo (95% CI: 2.8-NE) for investigator’s choice (HR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.60-2.17; 1-sided stratified log rank p = 0.50). Within Arm 2, the median PFS for Tb and P were respectively 5.6 (95% CI: 3.1-NE) and 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5-NE) mo. 3 pts in the T+0 arm and 1 patient in the investigator’s choice arm (Tb) had a confirmed partial response. Conclusions: The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS in Phase II. This suggests that a biomarker may be needed before there is further exploration of PARP inhibitor-based regimens in uLMS. Overall survival and analysis of tissue-based biomarkers will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT05432791 .

12011 Background: Patients (pts) with high HCT-Comorbidity Index scores (HCT-CI of ≥3), older age (≥65 years), and/or who are frail per gait speed (<0.8 meters/second) have increased morbidity and mortality after allo-HCT compared to younger and healthier counterparts. We report the phase II analysis (PIIA) and interim phase III primary outcome analysis (PIIIA) of a seamless phase II/III prospective, randomized clinical trial conducted at 11 transplant centers to test new approaches to improve quality of life (QOL) in this population. Methods: Phase II compared specialist-administered supportive and palliative care (SPC), patient-administered management of comorbidities (MC, e.g. physical exercise, stress reduction, etc), both (SPC+MC), and usual care (UC) for change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) QOL scores from baseline to day 90 (D90). Pts deceased prior to D90 were assigned FACT-BMT score=0. The winning phase II arm moved forward versus UC in phase III. Results: PIIA was done after enrolling 35 pts to each of the 4 study arms. Calculating the difference between FACT-BMT scores on D90 minus baseline, excluding missing data, indicated that only SPC resulted in a small improvement in QOL compared to either MC or SPC+MC (Table); hence SPC was the winning phase II arm. The PIIIA was conducted after enrolling 158 SPC pts and 153 UC pts. The SPC and UC arms were well balanced with median age (both 68 years), HCT-CI ≥3 (49% vs 55%), frailty per gait speed (13% vs 12%), female sex (41% vs 34%), non-white race (9.5% vs 11.5%), and Hispanic or unreported ethnicity (7.7% vs 5.7%), respectively. After median follow-up of 362 days, 45 pts had died in each arm. The mean QOL difference between D90 and baseline was 2.83 for SPC and 4.27 for UC (difference of differences, -1.44, 95% CI of difference, -5.03 to 2.14, p=0.43). Fitting a generalized linear model that included baseline, D30, and D90 values and testing the null hypothesis that the slope of scores differs between SPC and UC resulted in p=0.85. Using the Kaplan Meier method, no difference in survival was observed across arms (HR 1.13 [0.75-1.73]). Conclusions: Specialist-administered palliative care showed no meaningful improvement in QOL, nor a survival advantage, compared to usual care in frail, older and comorbid allo-HCT recipients, resulting in the cessation of this Phase II/III trial. Analysis of the whole patient population for primary and secondary outcomes is in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03870750 . Change in FACT-BMT (D90 value minus baseline value) comparing the 4 arms of phase II. Group Mean difference (sd) Median difference (range) SPC (n=28) -2.93 (28.52) 0.25 (-102 to 38.22) CM (n=18) -18.37 (33.80) -9.50 (-98.33 to 11) SPC+CM (n=27) -15.76 (32.69) -7.67 (-90 to 32)

INTRODUCTION While prognostic understanding (PU) is important for all patients (pts) considering hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT), it may be particularly important for older (&gt;65 years), medically infirm, and/or frail pts deciding whether to undergo allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT). This abstract reports on PU and concordance with transplant physician (hereafter MD) PU for pts participating in an ongoing seamless, phase II-III randomized clinical trial (ACE-BMT) comparing 4-arms: a pt-administered comorbidity management intervention (CM), specialist-administered palliative care (PC), a combined arm of CM and PC to standard of care. Here we report preliminary data on the concordance between pt and MD PU on the chance of cure 1-year (yr) post allo-HCT. METHODS Pt PU was compared to MD PU (gold standard) to determine concordance. MD and pt answers were compared on a single validated question asked at enrollment to the study (typically 2 weeks prior to HCT). Both pts and MD's estimated the chance of cure 1 yr after allo-HCT by selecting one of six possible response options: very good (more than 90%), good (75-90%), better than 50% (50-74%), worse than 50% (25-49%), bad (10-24%) or very bad (less than 10%). PU was “concordant” or “accurate” if MD and pt selected the same response option. Pts with discordant PU were labeled “pessimistic” if the pt selected a response option with a lower chance of cure than the MD (and “optimistic” if a higher chance). Response options were further simplified to greater than or less than 50% chance of cure and MD and pt PU were compared again. Descriptive statistics, chi-square for categorical and t-tests for continuous variables were used. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between pt prognostic concordance and pt socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS All pts consented to date were included (n=358), except those who did not answer the prognosis question (n=61). 54.2% (n=194) had HCT-Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) of ≥3, 67.9% (n=243) were older than 65 yrs and 4.5% (n=16) were frail, defined by walk speed &lt;0.8 m/s. Median age was 68 yrs (range 20-80). 39.7% (n=141) were female. 89.9% (n=322) identified as White, 4.2% (n=15) Asian, and 1% each as Black/African American and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. 5.3% (n=19) identified Hispanic. 11.5% (n=44) had high school education or less. 54.1% (n=183) made less than $100,000/yr. 40.1% (n=136) had acute myelogenous leukemia, 25.4% (n=86) had high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome and 10.6% (n=36) had a myeloproliferative cancer. 72.1% (n=245) had matched, 82.5% (n=283) unrelated and 95.0% (n=36) peripheral blood allo-HCT. 9% (n=31) had KPS of 100%, 35% (n=121) KPS 90%, and 47.5% (n=147) KPS 80%. Pts reported having a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of cure 1 yr post allo-HCTL 34.4% (n=123), 30.7% (n=110), 26.0% (n=93), 7.3% (n=26) and 1.7% (n=6), respectively. 91.1% (n=326) of pts felt they had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. MD answers were missing for 159/358 (44.4%) pts. MDs reported pt had a very good, good, better than 50%, worse than 50% and bad/very bad chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT, 3.0% (n=6), 6.5% (n=13), 52.8% (n=105), 35.7% (n=71) and 2% (n=4) respectively. 62.3% (n=124) of MDs felt the pt had a &gt;50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. For the subset of pts with MD prognostic data (n=199), pt's PU was concordant 20.6% (n=41) of the time when compared across all 6 response options. Overall, 71.9% (n=143) of pts erred toward optimism, while 7.5% (n=15) of pts were pessimistic. 60.8% of MD and pts agreed on prognosis when dichotomized to better or worse than 50% chance of being cured 1 yr post allo-HCT. Prognostic concordance was not significantly associated with any pt socio-demographic factors, HCT-CI or KPS via descriptive statistics or regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS In this prospective randomized trial focusing on a population of older, medically infirm, and/or frail pts receiving allo-HCT, pts' PU was not concordant with MD prognosis approximately 80% of the time. While some pts were pessimistic, the majority overestimated the likelihood they would be cured of disease compared to MD estimates. Future studies should investigate the true accuracy of both MD and pt prognosis, as well as how to improve communication about prognosis and pt PU (if inaccurate based on best available information) prior to HCT.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Background Regorafenib is one of several FDA‐approved cancer therapies targeting multiple tyrosine kinases. However, there are few subtype‐specific data regarding kinase inhibitor activity in sarcomas. We report results of a single arm, phase II trial of regorafenib in advanced Ewing family sarcomas. Methods Patients with metastatic Ewing family sarcomas (age ≥ 18, ECOG 0–2, good organ function) who had received at least one line of therapy and experienced progression within 6 months of registration were eligible. Prior kinase inhibitors were not allowed. The initial dose of regorafenib was 160 mg oral days 1–21 of a 28‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was estimating progression‐free rate (PFR) at 8 weeks employing RECIST 1.1. Results Thirty patients (median age, 32 years; 33% women [10 patients]; bone primary, 40%; extraskeletal primary, 60%) enrolled at 14 sites. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities were hypophosphatemia (5 grade 3, 1 grade 4), hypertension (2 grade 3), elevated ALT (2 grade 3). Sixteen patients required dose reductions, most often for hypophosphatemia ( n = 7 reductions in 6 patients); two stopped regorafenib for toxicity. There was one death unrelated to treatment in the 30‐day post‐study period. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 14.8 weeks (95% CI 7.3–15.9); PFR at 8 weeks by Kaplan–Meier analysis was 63% (95% CI 46–81%). The RECIST 1.1 response rate was 10%. Median OS was 53 weeks (95% CI 37–106 weeks). Conclusions Regorafenib has modest activity in the Ewing family sarcomas. Toxicity was similar to that seen in approval studies.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members’ clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.