Wanders, J.

1055^ Background: Key properties of QoL instruments in a clinical trial setting are reliability, the ability to detect a change, and content validity. Using data from the Study 301 phase III breast cancer trial, we report here content validity and ability to detect a change for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and breast cancer-specific QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were randomized to 21-day cycles of either eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 given on Days 1 and 8, or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on Days 1-14. QoL questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Objective tumor response was evaluated (complete response [CR]; partial response [PR]; stable disease [SD]; progressive disease [PD]). Univariate and multivariate longitudinal analyses using weighted generalized estimating equations were employed to assess the responsiveness of the QoL scales to objective tumor response. Results: 1,102 patients were randomized (554 eribulin, 548 capecitabine). Global health status (GHS)/QoL scores were low at baseline (55). GHS/QoL scores were highest for patients with CR (70.8), followed by those patients with PR (63.5), SD (60.5), and PD (58.1). Physical functioning followed the same pattern: CR (98.3); PR (79.1); SD (72.8); PD (71.0). Role and social functioning scores were also responsive. Pain increased, while fatigue and body image worsened, with poorer tumor responses. Using the weighted generalized estimating equations, there were improvements in physical (34.78; p<0.01), cognitive (27.29; p<0.01), and social (22.04; p<0.01) functioning, and future perspective 11.47 (p<0.01), in patients who responded (CR and PR) to treatment compared with non-responders. Pain decreased significantly by 28.62 (p<0.01) on a 0-100 scale. Patients who responded also gained appetite and had fewer breast symptoms. Conclusions: These results suggest content validity of the EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires as they correlate with changes in objective tumor assessments. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

1050^ Background: In a phase III trial comparing eribulin (E) vs. capecitabine (C) in pts with locally advanced or MBC, a trend for improved OS was observed but a statistically significant superiority was not demonstrated with E vs. C for OS or PFS. The AE profiles were consistent with known side effects. We now report QoL results from this trial. Methods: Pts received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, or C 1.25 g/m2 BID orally on Days 1-14, of a 21-day cycle. Eligible pts had received prior therapy including an anthracycline and taxane, and were receiving study drug as 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-line therapy for advanced disease. QoL, a secondary objective, was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after starting treatment (or until progressive disease or treatment change), and at unscheduled visits. Longitudinal analyses were carried out using weighted generalized estimating equations adjusted for non-random attrition due to death within 12 months. Model covariates were time (visit), region, and baseline QoL. The primary endpoint was change from baseline for Global Health Status (GHS)/overall QoL; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline for each functional domain, and signs/symptoms. Results: 1,102 pts were randomized (E 554; C 548). GHS/QoL scores were low at baseline for E (56.3) and C (54.7) on a scale of 0 (worse) to 100 (best). GHS/QoL and cognitive functioning improved significantly more in pts receiving E vs. C, (6.5 [p=0.048] and 15.3 [p<0.001], respectively). Emotional functioning improved significantly for pts receiving C vs. E (3.3; p=0.033). Pain was comparable at baseline, and was lower at subsequent visits with both treatments. Patient-reported signs/symptoms in favor of E included nausea and vomiting (E1.9; p=0.043) and diarrhea (-3.7; p=0.001); systemic side effects (5.2; p<0.001) and upset by hair loss (9.3; p=0.023) favored C. Conclusions: GHS/QoL scores improved more in pts receiving E than C. E showed advantages in terms of gastrointestinal effects while C had advantages in relation to hair loss. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

1049^ Background: This phase III study, comparing eribulin versus capecitabine, showed a non-significant trend for superior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.00]; p = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS; HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.93, 1.25]; p = 0.31). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses previously presented showed that patients with triple-negative, ER-negative or HER2-negative disease may have a greater benefit in OS with eribulin compared with capecitabine. Here we present further pre-specified exploratory analyses of OS and PFS. Methods: Patients (eribulin n=554; capecitabine n=548) with locally advanced or MBC had received ≤3 prior chemotherapy regimens (≤2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients were randomized (stratified for geographic region and HER2 status) 1:1 to 21-day cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on days 1-14. Further pre-specified exploratory subgroups included: age; receptor status; number and setting of prior chemotherapy regimen(s); sites of disease; number of organs involved; and time to progression after last chemotherapy. Results: From analyses for OS, patients with only non-visceral disease (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33, 0.80), with >2 organs involved (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), who had progressed >6 months after last chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52, 0.95), or who had received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the metastatic setting (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), appeared to benefit more from treatment with eribulin compared with capecitabine. For OS, in no subgroup was a trend favoring capecitabine seen. Data for other pre-specified subgroups for both OS and PFS will be presented. Conclusions: In addition to patients with triple-, ER-, or HER2-negative disease, further pre-specified exploratory analyses suggest that other patient subgroups may particularly benefit from treatment with eribulin; further studies are warranted to address these hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

Abstract Background: The Phase III trial (NCT00337103) compared eribulin (E) with capecitabine (C) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-line setting. Median overall survival (OS) was 15.9 and 14.5 months (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77, 1.00; P = 0.056) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.1 and 4.2 months (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93, 1.25; P = 0.30) for E and C, respectively. This analysis compares toxicity and efficacy of E and C in relation to age. Material and methods: In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, the effect of age on the incidence of adverse events (AEs), OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) with E and C were analyzed for two age groups: ≤65 years (E, n = 468; C, n = 491) and &gt;65 years (E, n = 86; C, n = 57). For OS and PFS, analyses were stratified by HER2 and geographic region. Results: With increasing age, the proportion of pts with worse performance status (PS ≥1: 54.5% vs 69.2% for ≤65 and &gt;65 years, respectively), ER+ (47.4% vs 57.3%), and PgR+ MBC (41.3% vs 45.5%) increased, and the proportion with triple-negative MBC decreased (26.6% vs 20.3%). With both treatments, AEs were reported in a higher proportion of pts in the older age group, this becoming more apparent for grade 3+ AEs (E: 64.6% vs 70.2%, and C: 45.0% vs 54.4% for ≤65 and &gt;65 respectively). With E, there was a trend for increased incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (45.0% vs 50.0%) and leukopenia (13.7% vs 22.6%) but, in contrast, decreased peripheral sensory neuropathy (3.9% vs 1.2%) with increasing age. For C, there was a trend for increased palmar-plantar erythrodysethesia syndrome (total: 44.4% vs 50.9%; grade 3/4: 14.1% vs 17.5%), and grade 3/4 fatigue (1.8% vs 7.0%) and diarrhea (4.7% vs 10.5%) with increasing age; emesis and nausea were similar for both age groups. Dose adjustments due to AEs with E were slightly higher in the older age group: withdrawals 7.4% vs 10.7%; dose reductions 31.1% vs 36.9%; and dose delays 30.9% vs 36.9%. With C, there was a trend for an increased incidence of withdrawals (9.2% vs 21.1%) and dose delays (34.2% vs 49.1%) due to AEs with increasing age: the incidence of dose reductions was slightly higher in the older age group (31.3% vs 36.8%). In an unadjusted analysis, a trend for improved OS with E vs C was observed in both subgroups (≤65 years: median 15.8 vs 14.5 months; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78, 1.04; P = 0.16, and &gt;65 years: median 18.4 vs 14.1 months; HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.50, 1.12; P = 0.16). PFS and ORR for E and C were: median PFS: E, 4.0 and 5.4 months; C, 4.2 and 5.9 months; ORR: E, 10.9% and 11.6%; C, 11.6% and 10.5%, in the ≤65 and &gt;65 groups respectively. Conclusions: This exploratory and unadjusted analysis suggests a trend for improved OS with E in both younger and older pts with MBC. With both treatments there was a suggestion that AEs were reported in a higher proportion of pts in the older age group, this becoming more apparent for grade 3+ events. Specifically, these data suggest an increased incidence of grade 3/4 diarrhea, dose delays, and study withdrawal due to AEs in pts treated with C, and potentially suggest that with E there may be less difference between the AE profile in younger vs older pts than with C. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-13-04.

Abstract Background A Phase III trial (Study 301; NCT00337103) in MBC comparing eribulin (E) with capecitabine (C) showed a trend for improved overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88; 95% CI 0.77, 1.00; P = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93, 1.25; P = 0.30) with E. In order to investigate this apparent discordance, post-hoc analyses assessed the effect of PPT and events defining disease progression on OS. Methods Pts with locally advanced or MBC who had received an anthracycline and a taxane (≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens for advanced disease), were randomized to E (554) or C (548). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The impact of PPT on OS was assessed by analysis of exploratory PPT subgroups. Analyses of OS sensitivity censoring at time of PPT, and OS adjusted by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, were performed. The relationship between OS and progression events (appearance of a “new” lesion or metastasis [NM]; increase in size of pre-existing lesions [IPEL]; or other [death, clinical progression, or censored]) was investigated using Cox regression. Results PPT was received by 70% and 62% of E and C pts, respectively. For E pts, there were no significant OS differences by PPT (Table 1). Excluding 56 pts (22 E, 34 C) who received anti-HER2 therapy as PPT from the intent-to-treat OS analysis, OS was longer with E (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.76, 0.99; nominal P = 0.03). OS sensitivity analysis censoring at time of PPT was consistent with the overall study results (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03). Assessment of the overall effect of PPT, adjusting by PPT as a time-dependent covariate in a Cox regression model, showed that OS was longer with E (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75, 0.97; nominal P = 0.02). Progression due to NM or IPEL occurred in 271 and 147 of E pts, and 285 and 129 of C pts, respectively. Median OS was similar between arms in pts with IPEL and longer with E vs C in pts with NM (Table 2). Pts who progressed due to NM were at higher risk of death (HR 2.12; 95% CI 1.84, 2.43; nominal P&lt;0.01). Conclusions Treatment with C or any other PPT after progression on E did not account for the trend in OS benefit with E observed in the primary analysis. Pts who progressed with NM had a worse prognosis than those with IPEL. The appearance of NM was highly correlated with OS, and the apparent discordance between PFS and OS seems to be related to these different progression events. Tab 1: OS by PPT after EPPTAll ptsC as 1stOther than C as 1stC at any timeOther than C at any timeNoneN554221169275115164Median OS, months (95% CI)15.9 (15.2, 17.6)18.3 (15.8, 20.9)19.9 (17.6, 24.0)19.6 (17.6, 21.5)18.0 (15.4, 22.7)7.4 (6.2, 9.1) Tab 2: OS by progression event Progression event NMIPELOther ECECECN271285147129136134Median OS, months (95% CI)15.5 (14.2, 17.5)12.9 (11.3, 14.5)17.4 (14.4, 19.7)17.4 (15.3, 20.9)16.7 (14.8, 24.2)15.5 (11.7, 18.3)HR (95% CI)0.81 (0.68, 0.97)1.13 (0.87, 1.46)0.78 (0.59, 1.03)Nominal P -value0.020.350.08Time to NM or death, months (95% CI)5.8 (5.2, 6.5)5.2 (4.3, 5.9)NANAHR (95% CI)0.90 (0.77, 1.05)NANANominal P-value0.17NANA Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P3-13-03.