Crane, Christopher H.

1 Background: To determine whether changing chemotherapy (CT) during pre-op chemoradiation (CRT) based on response to induction CT by 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose PET imaging can lead to improved pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients (pts) with resectable esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas. Methods: 257 eligible pts were enrolled, underwent baseline PET scan, and were randomized to one of 2 induction CT arms: Modified FOLFOX-6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, 5-FU), days 1, 15, 29 or Carboplatin/Paclitaxel (CP), days 1, 8, 22, 29. Repeat PET was performed days 36-42; change in max standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET non-responders (≤35% decrease in SUV – PET-NR) crossed over to alternative CT regimen during CRT (50.4Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (>35% decrease in SUV – PET-R) continued on same CT during CRT. Pts underwent surgery 6 wks post-CRT. Pts evaluable if had surgery, disease progression (PD), death due to disease, were unresectable or had adverse event (AE). Primary endpoint was pCR in PET-NR who crossed over to alternative CT (expected 5% under H0 to 20% under Ha). Results: Pre-audit PET response data after induction CT and pCR rates after CRT and surgery are shown in the table. For PET-NR who crossed over to alternative CT during CRT, pCR was 15.6%; 95% CI (0.08, 0.26). Conclusions: Efficacy criteria were met for an improvement in pCR rates among pts who were PET-NR after induction CT and received alternative CT during CRT for esophageal and GEJ adenoca. Pts receiving induction and concurrent CP had an unexpectedly low pCR. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882 Clinical trial information: NCT01333033. [Table: see text]

347 Background: 9,704 was the first phase 3 pancreatic cancer trial to validate the prognostic value of postresection CA19-9 for overall survival (OS), with values > 90/180 associated with worse OS. All pts received adjuvant gemcitabine or 5-FU and chemo-radiotherapy (RT). This analysis evaluates patterns of disease failure. Methods: SMS was negative, positive, or unknown. CA19-9 was analyzed at cut points 90, 180 and continuously. LRF and DF were estimated by cumulative incidence and Gray’s test compared. Cox hazard models were used for multivariate analyses (MVA) and included treatment, tumor site, size and nodal status. To adjust for multiple comparisons a p-value < 0.01 is statistically significant and 0.01 to < 0.05 a trend. Results: 538 pts accrued, with 451 eligible and analyzable for SMS and 385 for CA19-9. For CA19-9, 132 (34%) were Lewis Antigen negative (no CA19-9 expression), 200 (52%) < 90 and 220 (57%) < 180. 188 (42%) had negative margins, 152 (34%) positive and 111 (25%) unknown (i.e., no margin comment in path report; shown to have outcomes similar to negative margin pts). Pts with CA19-9 ≥ 180 were more likely to have tumors ≥ 3 cm and pts with positive SMS more likely to have KPS 60 - 80, T3/T4, or N1 disease. On univariate analysis (UVA) CA19-9 cut at 90 was associated with significant increases in both LRF (trend) and DF; in the gemcitabine arm this was seen in DF, not in LRF; in the 5-FU arm it was seen in both. Results were similar at the 180 cut point and continuously. SMS on UVA was not associated with increase in LRF/DF; see Table. On MVA, CA19-9 > 90 was significantly associated with LRF and DF; positive SMS showed only a trend for DF. Conclusions: Postresection CA19-9 has significant association with both LRF and DF not seen with SMS. These findings support continued use of RT in trials and consideration of dose intensification among pts with elevated postresection CA19-9. Grants: NCI U10, CA21661, CA37422, CA180868, CA180822. Clinical trial information: 0000000. [Table: see text]

119 Background: Radiotherapy (RT) interruptions have a negative impact on outcomes in many epithelial malignancies treated with definitive RT. The purpose of this study was to analyze the impact of RT duration on outcomes in patients (pts) with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Methods: Pts treated with definitive CRT on RTOG trials 8501 and 9405 were included. Separate analyses were performed in pts receiving standard dose (SD-CRT; 50 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) and high dose (HD-CRT; 64.8 Gy + 5FU + cisplatin) CRT. Local (LF) and regional (RF) failure were estimated by the cumulative incidence method. Disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) Cox proportional hazards models were utilized to examine for correlation between RT duration (< vs. ≥ median) with LF, RF, DFS and OS. Results: In the SD-CRT cohort (n=235), 96 pts (41%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3 (IQR 1-6) days. The median RT duration was 39 (IQR 37-43) days. In UVA and MVA, RT duration was not associated with LF, RF, DFS, or OS. Estimated outcome rates are in the table. In the HD-CRT cohort (n=107), 64 pts (60%) had ≥ 1 RT interruption for a median of 3.5 (IQR 2-7.5) days. The median RT duration was 52 (IQR 50-57) days. In UVA, RT duration ≥ 52 days was associated with a 33% reduction in risk of DFS failure (HR=0.66, 95% CI [0.44-0.98], p=0.039) and a 29% reduction in risk of death (HR=0.71, 95% CI [0.48-1.06], p=0.09). When excluding the 25 pts with RT dose < 64.8 Gy, RT duration was not associated with DFS or OS. Conclusions: In pts with esophageal cancer receiving definitive SD-CRT, an association between RT duration and outcomes was not observed. In pts receiving HD-CRT, longer RT duration was associated with improved DFS, which may have been due to a significant number of deaths at RT dose < 64.8 Gy. Supported by NCI U10 grants CA21661, CA180868, CA180822, CA37422. Clinical trial information: NCT00002631. [Table: see text]

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.

Purpose The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the role of radiation therapy with concurrent gemcitabine (GEM) compared with GEM alone in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with localized unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (at 1,000 mg/m 2 /wk for weeks 1 to 6, followed by 1 week rest, then for 3 of 4 weeks) or GEM (600 mg/m 2 /wk for weeks 1 to 5, then 4 weeks later 1,000 mg/m 2 for 3 of 4 weeks) plus radiotherapy (starting on day 1, 1.8 Gy/Fx for total of 50.4 Gy). Measurement of quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Hepatobiliary questionnaire was also performed. Results Of 74 patients entered on trial and randomly assigned to receive GEM alone (arm A; n = 37) or GEM plus radiation (arm B; n = 34), patients in arm B had greater incidence of grades 4 and 5 toxicities (41% v 9%), but grades 3 and 4 toxicities combined were similar (77% in A v 79% in B). No statistical differences were seen in quality of life measurements at 6, 15 to 16, and 36 weeks. The primary end point was survival, which was 9.2 months (95% CI, 7.9 to 11.4 months) and 11.1 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 15.5 months) for arms A and B, respectively (one-sided P = .017 by stratified log-rank test). Conclusion This trial demonstrates improved overall survival with the addition of radiation therapy to GEM in patients with localized unresectable pancreatic cancer, with acceptable toxicity.

Purpose Preoperative therapy for localized gastric cancer has considerable appeal. We hypothesized that, in a cooperative group setting, preoperative chemoradiotherapy would induce a 20% pathologic complete response (pathCR) rate. Combined-modality therapy quality, survival, and safety were secondary end points. Patients and Methods Patients with localized gastric adenocarcinoma were eligible. A negative laparoscopic evaluation was required. Patients received two cycles of induction fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin followed by concurrent radiation and chemotherapy (infusional fluorouracil and weekly paclitaxel). Resection was attempted 5 to 6 weeks after chemoradiotherapy was completed. Quality of therapy was assessed with other end points. Results Twenty institutions participated. Forty-nine patients were entered and 43 were assessable (12% stage IB; 37% stage II; and 52% stage III). The pathCR and R0 resection rates were 26% and 77%, respectively. At 1 year, more patients with pathCR (82%) are living than those with less than pathCR (69%). Grade 4 toxicity occurred in 21% of patients. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery per protocol (including acceptable variations) occurred in 98%, 44%, and 63% of patients, respectively. A D2 dissection was performed in 50% of patients. Of 18 major radiotherapy variations, 17 were due to the lack of inclusion of the L3-4 vertebral interphase as prespecified. Conclusion For localized gastric cancer, preoperative chemoradiotherapy strategy achieved a pathCR rate of more than 20% in a cooperative group setting. The quality of surgery improved (50% with D2 dissection) possibly because surgery was part of this trial. With some refinements, this preoperative chemoradiotherapy strategy is poised for a randomized comparison with postoperative adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with gastric cancer.