Parvathaneni, Upendra

6006 Background: IMPT has unique biologic and physical properties compared with IMRT, limits radiation dose beyond the targeted tumor volumes, and is a novel de-intensification strategy for the management of head and neck tumors. This study was designed to compare the outcomes for patients with OPC after chemoradiation therapy (CRT) with IMRT vs IMPT. Methods: This is a multi-center, randomized, phase III non-inferiority OPC trial Stage III/IV (AJCC 7th) squamous cell carcinoma stratified patients by human papillomavirus status, smoking status, and receipt of induction chemotherapy (IC). The primary endpoint was the rate of progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 years, where progression was defined as disease recurrence or death. Under the null hypothesis, H0: r ≥ 1.535 established the margin for non-inferiority of IMPT. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), treatment-related malnutrition, and gastrostomy-tube dependence. Analyses were conducted on intent-to-treat (ITT; n=440), per-protocol (PP; n=296), and as-treated (AT; n=397) populations. Results: Patients (n=440) were randomized to undergo IMRT(n=219) or IMPT (n=221) at 21 institutions. The median age was 61 years and HPV/p16 was positive in 95%. IC was the initial treatment in 13% of patients. All patients were treated with CRT to 70 Gy in 33 fx with bilateral neck treatment, and post-CRT surgical lymph node dissection occurred in 8%. The median follow-up was 3.14 years. In the ITT analysis, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death at 3 y was 0.87 (95%CI 0.56,1.35); p=0.006 and the corresponding HR for death (OS) was 0.63 (95%CI 0.36-1.10) suggesting a protective affect with IMPT. In PP analysis, the PFS HR was 0.85 (95%CI 0.52,1.38); p=0.009 and HR for death (OS) was 0.60 (95%CI 0.32-1.12). In the AT analysis, PFS HR was 0.88 (95%CI 0.56,1.37); p=0.007 and the corresponding HR for death (OS) was 0.70 (95%CI 0.40-1.22). For each analysis above, the null hypothesis was rejected and IMPT was non-inferior to IMRT. PP gastrostomy-tube dependence decreased with IMPT vs. IMRT from 42% to 28% (p=0.019), and more IMPT patients sustained their nutrition with end of treatment weight loss < 5% from baseline: 24% vs 14% (p=0.037). Conclusions: IMPT is non-inferior to IMRT and has emerged as a standard of care CRT approach for OPC that reduces malnutrition and gastrostomy-tube dependence. Clinical trial information: NCT01893307 .

6010 Background: An evolutionary action scoring algorithm (EAp53) based on phylogenetic sequence variations and speciation stratifies head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients bearing TP53 missense mutations as high-risk (high, EAp53≥75), associated with poor outcomes, or low-risk (low), with similar outcomes as TP53 wild-type (wt), and has been validated as a reliable prognostic marker. This study is designed to further validate prior findings that EAp53 is a prognostic marker for locally advanced HNSCC patients, and assess its predictive value for treatment outcomes to adjuvant bio-chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Eighty one resection specimens from patients treated surgically for stage III or IV human papillomavirus-negative (HPV(-)) HNSCC with high-risk pathologic features, who received either Arm 1) radiotherapy(RT)+cetuximab(CTX)+cisplatin or Arm 2) RT+CTX+docetaxel, as adjuvant treatment in a phase II randomized clinical trial (RTOG 0234) underwent TP53 targeted sequencing, and EAp53 scoring. The EAp53 scores were correlated with clinical outcomes. Due to limited sample sizes, patients were combined into 2 EAp53 groups: wt/low and high/other. Results: At median follow-up of 10 years, there was a significant interaction between treatment and EAp53 group for overall survival (OS) (p = 0.008), disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.05) and distant metastasis (DM) (p = 0.004). Within arm 2, high/other showed worse OS [HR 4.69 (1.52-14.50)], DFS [HR 2.69 (1.16-6.21)], and had higher DM [HR 11.71 (1.50-91.68)] than wt/low. Within arm 1, there was no significant difference by EAp53 in OS, DFS and DM. Within the wt/low group, arm 2 had better OS [HR 0.11 (0.03-0.36)], DFS [HR 0.24 (0.09-0.61)], and DM [HR 0.04 (0.01-0.31)] than arm 1 but this was not found in high/other. Conclusions: High/other EAp53 scores were associated with worse survival for patients in arm 2. Arm 2 is associated with better survival than arm 1 for patients with wt/low EAp53. This benefit appears to be largely driven by a reduction in DM. Further validation is required to determine whether EAp53 can be used for personalized post-operative treatment decisions in HPV(-) HNSCC.