Meyers, Jeffrey P.

3520 Background: EOTR has been suggested as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mCRC and allows early assessment of treatment efficacy, facilitating adaptive trial design. We assessed at the individual patient level, the correlation between EOTR (complete or partial response) at 6, 8 and 12 weeks (wk), OS and progression free survival (PFS) in pts with mCRC treated with 1stline chemotherapy with or without a targeted agent as a first step in a surrogacy demonstration. Methods: IPD from 13,949 pts enrolled on 15 randomized Phase III trials in 1st line mCRC were used; 8 trials included targeted (anti-angiogenic and anti-EGFR) agents. EOTR prognostic value was assessed by landmark analyses using Cox models stratified by treatment assignment. P-values <0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of 13,949 pts, 11,987 had sufficient response data to be included in the analysis. Median OS was 21.7 months (mo) in pts with an EOTR vs. 16.5 mo without EOTR at 6 wk (p<.0001, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.70, c statistic [c] 0.55). HRs were similar whether pts were treated with targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80, x 0.54) or non-targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.69, x 0.55). Median PFS was 8.4 mo in pts with EOTR at 6 wk vs. 7.0 mo in pts without EOTR (p<.0001, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). EOTR at 8 and 12 wks were also significantly associated with longer OS and PFS. The prognostic value of EOTR at 6, 8 and 12 wks remained significant (p<0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, performance statusand location of metastatic disease (lung or liver). Overall tumor response (to 26 wk) however provided superior OS prediction (p<.0001, HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.47-0.56, CS 0.61) vs. EOTR. Conclusions: Early response measured at 6, 8 or 12 wk after starting 1st line treatment was a strong and independent predictor of both OS and PFS in patient with mCRC and warrants further consideration as a potential endpoint for future trials, particularly randomized phase II trials.

7555 Background: In a retrospective exploratory analysis of E4599, patients (pts) > 70 yo had a higher frequency of and more severe toxicities without apparent survival benefit from the addition of B to C+paclitaxel. We hypothesized that in this pt population, B will have better safety and efficacy profile when used in combination with C+P. Methods: Pts >/= 70 yo with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV (TNM 6th ed) nonsquamous NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, measurable disease and adequate organ function were eligible. C at AUC 6, P at 500 mg/m2 and B at 15 mg/kg were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles followed by maintenance P+B in patients with CR, PR or SD. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The treatment would be considered promising based on a single arm one-stage binomial design if 34 or more successes out of 55 patients were observed. This design had an exact significance level of 0.05 at 93% power to detect a true success rate of at least 70%. Polymorphisms in VEGFA, FPGS, GGH, SLC19A1 and TYMS in germline DNA were correlated with treatment outcome. Results: 58 eligible pts were enrolled; 29 males/29 females. Median age was 75. Median treatment cycles received was 6. Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE) were reported in 49 (85%) pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. The most common grade 3/4 AEs(regardless of attribution) were hypertension (10%), fatigue (28%), dehydration (9%), neutropenia (43%) and thrombocytopenia (21%). There were 3 (5%) grade 3/4 hemorrhagic events. 8 (14%) had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (5%) had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3/4 ischemic/thromboembolic events occurred in 6 pts (10%). Thirty-four out of the first 54 (63%, 95% CI: 48.7-75.7%) evaluable pts met the primary endpoint (4 pts were lost to follow-up prior to 6 months). The confirmed ORR was 37.9% (95% CI: 25.5-51.6%). Median time to treatment failure was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.9-6.4). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.9-11.7), median OS was 13.7 months (95% CI: 9.4-15.7). Results of SNP analysis will be presented. Conclusions: C+P+B followed by maintenance P+B is an active and tolerable first-line regimen for elderly patients with good PS.

PURPOSE The microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually regarded as a single biologic entity, given the absence of comparative analyses regarding prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon cancers were randomly assigned to FOLFOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab in 2 large adjuvant phase III trials (N = 5,577). Among patients with MSI and KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumors, the prognostic and predictive impacts of sporadic versus familial dMMR cancers and BRAF V600E mutational status were determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment arm, adjusting for age, sex, tumor grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pT/pN stage, and primary tumor location. RESULTS Among patients with MSI status with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (n = 354), 255 (72%) had sporadic ( BRAF mutation and/or MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) had familial tumors ( BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1 or loss of MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 protein expression). A large proportion of dMMR sporadic tumors were mutated for BRAF (n = 200). In patients treated with FOLFOX, DFS did not differ statistically by dMMR mechanism, whereas in patients treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab, those with sporadic tumors had worse DFS than those with familial cancers (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.08; P = .04). Considering the predictive utility, the interaction between treatment and dMMR mechanism was significant ( P = .03). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend toward a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in patients with BRAF-mutant but not BRAF WT tumors. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to adjuvant FOLFOX was associated with shorter DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR colon cancer. Additional studies are needed to validate these results in metastatic disease.

Abstract Difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), an inhibitor of polyamine synthesis, was shown to act synergistically with a NSAID for chemoprevention of colorectal neoplasia. We determined the efficacy and safety of DFMO plus aspirin for prevention of colorectal adenomas and regression of rectal aberrant crypt foci (ACF) in patients with prior advanced adenomas or cancer. A double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 104 subjects (age 46–83) randomized (1:1) to receive daily DFMO (500 mg orally) plus aspirin (325 mg) or matched placebos for one year. All polyps were removed at baseline. Adenoma number (primary endpoint) and rectal ACF (index cluster and total) were evaluated at a one year colonoscopy. ACF were identified by chromoendoscopy. Toxicity was monitored, including audiometry. Eighty-seven subjects were evaluable for adenomas or ACF modulation (n = 62). At one year of treatment, adenomas were detected in 16 (38.1%) subjects in the DFMO plus aspirin arm (n = 42) versus 18 (40.9%) in the placebo arm (n = 44; P = 0.790); advanced adenomas were similar (n = 3/arm). DFMO plus aspirin was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the median number of rectal ACF compared with placebo (P = 0.036). Total rectal ACF burden was also reduced in the treatment versus the placebo arm relative to baseline (74% vs. 45%, P = 0.020). No increase in adverse events, including ototoxicity, was observed in the treatment versus placebo arms. While adenoma recurrence was not significantly reduced by one year of DFMO plus aspirin, the drug combination significantly reduced rectal ACF number consistent with a chemopreventive effect.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesTo build nomogram incorporating potential prognostic factors for predicting survival outcomes of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) patients after resection of the primary tumor.MethodsData of TGCT patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010‐2016) who underwent resection of the primary tumor were collected. Overall survival (OS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) were analyzed by using Cox regression models, nomogram, Kaplan‐Meier method, and log‐rank test.ResultsWe identified 7272 TGCT patients. Age at diagnosis, histology, tumor size, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, and number of metastases sites were independent prognostic factors and were integrated into nomograms. The nomograms had higher C‐indexes for both OS and CSS compared with the AJCC 7th staging system (0.881 vs 0.831 and 0.895 vs 0.856, respectively). Moreover, the new stratification of risk groups based on the nomograms showed a more significant distinction between Kaplan‐Meier curves for survival outcomes than the AJCC staging system. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection was associated with statistically improved survival probability in the nomogram middle‐risk group in resected TGCT patients.ConclusionThe novel nomogram‐based staging system could provide satisfactory risk stratification and survival prediction ability beyond traditional AJCC staging systems.

3583 Background: The Microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually taken as a single biological entity whereas no data are available concerning prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cases. Methods: Resected KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumor stage III colon cancers (N = 4596) from patients (pts) randomly assigned to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant large phase III trials were prospectively analyzed for MSI status and dMMR mechanism (sporadic vs familial). Stratified Cox models were used to assess prognostic and predictive values of dMMR mechanism by treatment arms, adjusting for age, gender, tumor grade, ECOG PS, pT/pN stage and primary tumor location. Results: Among dMMR patients with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (N = 354), there were 255 (72%) sporadic ( BRAF mutated or WT with MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) familial (loss of MSH2 or MSH6, or loss MLH1 with BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1) cases. A large proportion of dMMR sporadic cases were mutated for BRAF (n = 200; 80%). In pts treated with FOLFOX, the disease-free survival (DFS) was not statistically different by dMMR mechanism, while for pts treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab, the sporadic cases did worse than familial cases (DFS; adjusted (adj) HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02-7.08; P= 0.04). Considering the predictive value, a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in sporadic (DFS; adjHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.79; P= 0.04) but not in familial dMMR pts (interaction P value regarding treatment effect = 0.03). Furthermore, a non-significant trend to a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in BRAF mutant (DFS; adjHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95-2.92; P= 0.07) but not in BRAF WT pts. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX was associated with reduced DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR cases. Further studies including the methylator phenotype (CIMP) analysis are needed to validate these results. Clinical trial information: NCT00265811 and NCT00079274.

Abstract Lessons Learned Dual epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-directed therapy with erlotinib and panitumumab in combination with gemcitabine was superior to gemcitabine and erlotinib, but the clinical relevance is uncertain given the limited role of gemcitabine monotherapy. A significantly longer overall survival was observed in patients receiving the dual EGFR-directed therapy. The dual EGFR-directed therapy resulted in increased toxicity. Background Gemcitabine is active in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The combination of erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, and gemcitabine was shown to modestly prolong overall survival when compared with gemcitabine alone. The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (now part of Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology) trial N064B compared gemcitabine plus erlotinib versus gemcitabine plus combined EGFR inhibition with erlotinib and panitumumab. Methods Eligible patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomized to either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with erlotinib 100 mg p.o. daily (Arm A) or the same combination with the addition of panitumumab 4 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Arm B). The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, the confirmed response rate, and toxicity. Comparison between arms for the primary endpoint was done with a one-sided log-rank test, and a p value less than .20 was considered statistically significant. Response rate comparison was done with Fisher's exact test. All other reported p values are two-sided. Results A total of 92 patients were randomized, 46 to each arm. The median overall survival was 4.2 months in Arm A and 8.3 months in Arm B (hazard ratio, 0.817; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.530–1.260; p = .1792). The progression-free survival was 2.0 months in Arm A and 3.6 months in Arm B (hazard ratio, 0.843; 95% CI, 0.555–1.280; p = .4190). A partial confirmed response was seen in 8.7% of patients on Arm A and 6.5% on Arm B (p = .9999). No patients had a complete response. Grade 3 and higher nonhematologic toxicities were more common in patients on Arm B compared with those on Arm A (82.6% vs. 52.2%; p = .0018). Conclusion Dual EGFR-directed therapy resulted in a significant prolongation of overall survival in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas but was associated with substantially increased toxicities. Dual EGFR-directed therapy in combination with gemcitabine alone cannot be recommended for further study, as single-agent gemcitabine is no longer considered an appropriate therapy for otherwise fit patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.