Bosl, George J.

4563 Background: We previously reported no difference in favorable response rate (FRR) or PFS for TIP vs BEP. Here we present results of a pre-planned analysis of biomarkers of outcome. Methods: HCG and AFP were drawn on days 1 and 15 of each cycle and rates of decline classified as satisfactory [S] or unsatisfactory [US] by MSK (Motzer JCO 2007) and GETUG (Fizazi Lancet Oncol 2014) methods. IHC for ERCC1, RAD51, PARP1, HER-2, and p-AKT was performed on pre-treatment tumor samples. An H-score (0 – 300) was calculated for each stain (H = stain intensity [0 – 3] x % positive cells [0-100]). H-score and marker decline category were correlated with FRR (PR + CR) and PFS. Patients (pts) who received disease-stabilizing chemotherapy were excluded from marker analyses. Results: Of 91 pts, 80 did not receive disease-stabilizing treatment with 79 having sufficient marker values for analysis by the MSK method and 75 by GETUG. By MSK, 49 had S decline vs 30 US; by GETUG, 34 S vs 41 US. FRR and PFS were improved for pts with S vs US decline by both methods and remained significant by the MSK method when stratified by IGCCCG group (Table). IHC (n=77) quality was adequate in 71 to 73 pts (varied by stain) and was positive (H >0) for PARP in 68/73, ERCC1 in 54/71, RAD51 in 54/73, p-AKT in 5/72, and HER2 in 4/72. Only PARP1 was associated with outcome with worse PFS for the lowest expression tertile (H < 180; p=0.013). Conclusions: PARP1 expression and tumor marker decline rates, particularly by MSK method, were significantly associated with outcome to initial chemotherapy in int/poor risk GCT. Future trials incorporating marker decline into treatment allocation and validating the prognostic effect of PARP1 expression are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01873326. [Table: see text]

364 Background: Flavopiridol + FOLFOX showed activity in refractory GCT pts in a phase I trial (Rathkopf, Clin Cancer Res, 2009). This phase II study assessed the efficacy of this regimen in refractory GCT and the necessity of including 5-FU/LV. Methods: Previously treated pts with progressive GCT were eligible if they had received or were not candidates for high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT). Pts on Arm A received flavopiridol 70mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 85mg/m2. Arm B (flavopiridol + FOLFOX) tested identical doses of flavopiridol and oxaliplatin plus 5-FU (400mg/m2 bolus, then 1800mg/m2 over 48 hours) and LV 400mg/m2. Treatment was every 2 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) by RECIST. An identical Simon 2-stage design was used for each arm to differentiate between a RR ≥40% vs. ≤20%, with arm B opening only if arm A was ineffective. With ≥3 responses among the first 12 pts, another 13 pts would be enrolled with responses in ≥8/25 pts needed to show efficacy. Tumor biopsies pre-, during, and post-treatment were assessed by IHC for p53, p21, and cleaved caspase-3. Results: Of 36 pts (7 arm A, 29 arm B), 33 had nonseminoma. Primary site was testis in 27 and mediastinum in 7; 22 pts had received prior HDCT and 13 had LR (>2 years), including 2 on arm A and 11 on arm B. Arm A closed early after 0/7 pts responded (2 SD). Of 25 evaluable pts on arm B, 6 achieved a PR, 9 had SD, and 10 had PD. Notably, 5/10 evaluable LR pts on Arm B had a PR, including 1 pathologic CR, 1 PR-negative markers who received radiation (RT) to a residual bone metastasis, and 1 PR-positive markers who received RT to a residual nodal mass. These 3 pts remain disease-free ≥19 months (m) post-chemotherapy and ≥17m post-RT or surgery. Median PFS and OS were 2.3m and 7.3m for all pts and 3.2m and 11.2m for arm B pts. There was 1 treatment-related death due to sepsis. Conclusions: Although neither arm met the prespecified endpoint, flavopiridol plus FOLFOX (arm B) was particularly active in LR pts, with a 50% overall RR, including several durable responses. Further study of FOLFOX with or without flavopiridol is warranted in LR pts. Correlative data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT00957905.