Chapman, Judy‐Anne W.

567 Background: We proposed adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated ER and PgR to improve inter-laboratory comparability of biomarker results and therapeutic management of breast cancer. Methods: We utilized CCTG MA.27 (NCT00066573), an adjuvant phase III trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ tumours. IHC ER and PgR HSCORE and % positivity (%+) were centrally assessed by machine image quantitation, and each statistically standardized to mean of 0, standard deviation of 1 following Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER; for PgR, 1.) natural logarithm (0.1 added to 0 HSCOREs and 0 %+), 2.) square root. The primary endpoint was STEEP distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at the longest trial follow-up of median 4.1 years; a secondary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Survival was described with Kaplan-Meier plots and tested with the univariate Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic. We examined cut-points at standard deviations about mean of 0 (<-1; (-1,0]; (0,1]; >1) and explored single cut-points. Cox multivariate regressions were adjusted for age, T and N stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion, treatment, and baseline patient demographics; 2-sided Wald tests had nominal significance if p<0.05. Results: Of the 7576 women accrued, 3048 women had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2900 (95%) for ER; 2726 (89%) for PgR. Statistically standardized HSCORE and %+ units differentiated both univariate DDFS and EFS; DDFS was significantly different by ER levels (p<0.001) and PgR levels (p<0.001). In multivariable assessments, ER HSCORE and %+ were not significantly associated (p=0.52-0.88) with the DDFS primary endpoint in models with PgR, while higher PgR HSCORE and %+ had significantly better DDFS (p=.001, in all instances) in models with ER. Conclusions: DDFS was superior for patients with higher ER and PgR standardized units compared with those with HSCOREs and %+ <-1. The adjunctive statistical standardization of ER and PgR performed here is similar to that mandated for clinical practice by the World Health Organization for BMD. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Adjuvant breast cancer therapy is informed by whether a tumour is positive or negative for the biomarkers ER, PgR, and HER2, often without regard to level of positivity. Quantitation has been proposed to improve therapeutic management. Adjunctive statistical standardization has been proposed to improve inter-laboratory comparability of biomarkers results. Methods: This primary report utilized adjunctive statistical standardization of machine-quantitated image analysis biomarker assessments. CCTG MA.27 (NCT00066573) is an adjuvant phase III trial of exemestane versus anastrozole in postmenopausal women with ER+ and/or PgR+ tumours. IHC ER, PgR, and HER2 were centrally assessed, with FISH (HER2;HER2/CEP17) determinations for equivocal IHC HER2. HSCOREs were statistically standardized to a mean of 0, standard deviation of 1 following Box-Cox variance stabilization transformations of square for ER and natural logarithm for PgR (0.1 was added to 0 HSCOREs). The primary endpoint was STEEP distant disease-free survival (DDFS) at the longest trial follow-up of median 4.1 years. Survival was described with Kaplan-Meier plots. The univariate Wilcoxon (Peto-Prentice) test statistic was used with usual designation of negative/positive (0; &gt;0), and standardized cut-points at standard deviations about mean of 0(&lt;-1; (-1,0]; (0,1]; &gt;1). Cox multivariate regressions adjusted for age, T and N stage, grade, lymphovascular invasion, treatment, and baseline patient demographics, utilized likelihood ratio tests. Nominal significance was p=0.05. Results: Of the 7576 women accrued, 3048 had machine-quantitated image analysis results: 2900 (95%) for ER; 2726 (89%) for PgR. Only 8 women were ASCO/CAP ER- (HSCORE 0); PgR HSCORE was 0 for 533. Statistically standardized units differentiated DDFS ER levels (p&lt; 0.001) and PgR levels (p&lt; 0.001). In adjusted multivariate analyses, higher ER HSCORE was associated with better DDFS (p=0.05) with weak evidence of an association (p=0.11) for standardized HSCORE, and no significant association (respectively, p=0.28, p=0.54) in models with PgR. Higher PgR was associated with better DDFS (p=0.001) in all multivariate assessments, including those with ER. Conclusions: DDFS was superior for patients with higher ER and PgR standardized units compared with those with HSCOREs &lt;-1. Adjunctive statistical standardization, similar to that mandated for clinical practice by the World Health Organization for BMD, should improve inter-laboratory comparability of biomarker results for similar patient populations. Biomarker N DDFS DDFS 5-year (%) 95% CI ER total 2900 ER &lt;-1 506 86 (82, 91) ER (-1, 0] 934 94 (92, 96) ER ( 0, 1] 919 94 (92, 96) ER &gt;1 541 96 (93, 98) PgR total 2726 PgR &lt;-1 734 89 (86, 92) PgR (-1, 0] 439 92 (89, 95) PgR ( 0, 1] 967 95 (93, 96) PgR &gt;1.0 586 98 (97,100) Citation Format: Judy-Anne Chapman, Jane Bayani, Sandip SenGupta, John MS Bartlett, Tammy Piper, Mary Anne Quintayo, Shakeel Virk, Paul Goss, James Ingle, Matthew Ellis, George Sledge Jr, George Budd, Manuela Rabaglio, Rafat Ansari, Richard Tozer, David D'Souza, Haji Chalchal, Silvana Spadafora, Vered Stearns, Edith A. Perez, Karen Gelmon, Timothy Whelan, Catherine Elliott, Lois Shepherd, Bingshu Chen, Karen Taylor. Adjunctive statistical standardization of quantitated machine image analysis of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors: CCTG MA.27 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-27-10.

Abstract Introduction: The NCIC CTG previously reported the results of a dose-finding trial testing the combination of Melphalan (M) and Lenalidomide (L) in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who were ineligible for stem cell transplantation because of older age and/or comorbidity (White, Blood2007; 110: 63a). Using a 28-day schedule, M (dose indicated as mg/m2/day given on days 1–4) and L (dose indicated in mg/day given on days 1–21) was associated with excess toxicity with the regimens M9L10, M4L15 and M6L10. We concluded that phase II testing of M5L10 was warranted and now report the results of this testing. Methods: Previously untreated symptomatic and consenting patients with tissue-confirmed plasmacytosis and a measurable M-protein were eligible provided that they had acceptable hematologic and biochemical laboratory parameters and no precluding comorbidities. Planned treatment consisted of M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21, given every 28 days for 12 cycles. As our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF, primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M occurring within the first 3 treatment cycles. Responses to treatment were classified using 1998 EBMT criteria and assessed after 2 and 6 cycles of therapy. Results: The intended sample size was 41 patients; 35 patients (1 ineligible) were enrolled before the study was closed due to observing a frequency of DLTs that surpassed predefined boundaries. Of the 34 eligible patients, median age was 73.4 yrs and ISS was stage I = 13, stage II = 11 and stage III = 10. Prior to study closure, 27 patients were evaluable for DLT; 7 (26%) did not experience a DLT. Among the remaining 20 (74%) patients, non-hematologic (N=2) and hematologic (N=18) DLTs requiring dose attenuations were seen within the first 3 treatment cycles; the H-DLTs included severe or prolonged neutropenia (N=11), thrombocytopenia (N=2) or both (N=5). One fatal serious adverse event was observed, this was due to a stroke. The other non-hematologic DLT was a cranial nerve III palsy which subsequently resolved. Responses after 2 cycles were evaluable in 21 patients and included partial response (PR) = 11, minimal response = 6, no change = 2 and progressive disease (PD) = 2. For those patients without PD after 2 cycles, responses after 6 cycles were evaluable in 8 and included PR = 6, stable response = 1 and PD = 1. Conclusion: Although M + L is an active combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. Without the routine use of GCSF, the doses used in the MY.11 study were not tolerable. Inability to use planned doses may have compromised the efficacy of the combination.

Abstract Introduction. The NCIC CTG is conducting phase II testing to establish the tolerability and estimate the efficacy of combining lenalidomide (L) + melphalan (M) over multiple cycles for previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. We report the data from the preliminary safety phase of this trial. Methods. The MY.11 trial was initially designed as a randomized phase II test of M 9 mg/m2 given on days 1–4 (M9) plus either L 10 mg (L10) or 20 mg given on days 1–21 of a 28 day cycle. Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF was not included, but use of G-CSF for established neutropenia was permitted; our intent was to determine dose levels that could be given independently of G-CSF. A dose attenuation schedule was developed for neutropenia and/or thrombocytopenia that was severe and occurred during the administration of L or was persistent and caused a delay in the next treatment cycle. A hematologic dose limiting toxicity (H-DLT) was defined as the need for 2 dose attenuations of L or 1 dose attenuation of M. Prior to the randomized phase of the trial, a safety run-in phase testing M9+L10 in 6 patients was planned; closure of this arm was to occur if, during the first 3 treatment cycles, there were ≥ 3 H-DLTs or any non-hematologic serious adverse event (SAE) judged to be treatment related. Four of the planned 6 patients were entered; during their first 3 treatment cycles, each experienced a H-DLT and one died from sepsis. The study was therefore amended with the intent to conduct a randomized phase II test of M 4 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 15 mg days 1–21 (M4L15) and M 6 mg/m2 days 1–4 plus L 10 mg days 1–21 (M6L10). Prior to the randomized phase of testing, each regimen was tested in non-randomized safety run-ins that included 6 patients per arm. The same parameters as above for study arm closure were applied. If the M6L10 arm was closed, the trial would proceed to test M 5 mg/m2 days 1–4 and L 10 mg days 1–21 (M5L10). Results. Six patients were enrolled to M4L15: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 4 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia and one other patient experienced an SAE related to hallucinations and multiple constitutional complaints. This arm was therefore closed to accrual. Six patients were enrolled to M6L10: during their first 3 treatment cycles, 3 patients experienced H-DLTs related to severe or persistent grade 3–4 neutropenia. One of these patients was hospitalized with pulmonary edema and another with febrile neutropenia. This arm was therefore closed and the MY.11 trial amended to proceed as a single-arm phase II testing M5L10. Conclusion. Although M + L holds promise as an effective combination for previously untreated myeloma patients, the regimen is associated with considerable myelosuppression. The efficacy of the combination when given at tolerable doses remains to be established.

564 Background: Our group previously examined if baseline patient/tumor characteristics, or prior treatment affected cause of death in MA.17, a placebo controlled extended adjuvant trial of the aromatase inhibitor (AI) letrozole. We now examine factor effects on all cause mortality in MA.27. Methods: MA.27 was an adjuvant phase III superiority trial of 5 yrs of exemestane vs anastrozole, in ER+ postmenopausal breast cancer accrued between 2003 and 2008; event free survival was similar. We examined by intention-to-treat, the multivariate time-to-breast cancer-specific (BrCa), cardiovascular (Cardio), and other causes (OT) of death with log-normal survival analysis adjusted by treatment and stratification factors (lymph node status, adjuvant chemotherapy, celecoxib, aspirin, and trastuzumab). We tested whether factors were associated with 1) all cause mortality, and if so, 2) cause-specific mortality. We also fit step-wise forward cause-specific adjusted models. Results: 7,576 women (median age 64.1 years; 5417 (71.5%) <70 yrs and 2159 (28.5%) >70 yrs) were enrolled and followed for a median of 4.1 yrs. The 432 deaths comprised: 187 (43.3%) BrCa, 66 (15.3%) Cardiovascular, and 179 (41.4%) OT MA.27 therapy was not associated with mortality (p=0.84). Five baseline factors were differentially associated with cause of death. Older age was associated with greater BrCa (p=0.03), Cardio (p<0.001), and OT (p<0.001) mortality. Pre-existing cardiovascular history led to worse Cardio mortality (p<0.001). Worse ECOG performance status led to worse OT death (p<0.001). T1 tumors were associated with less BrCa mortality (p<0.001). PgR+ tumors were also associated with less BrCa mortality (p<0.001). There were fewer BrCa deaths with Node –ve disease (p<0.001), ER+ tumors (p=0.001) and without adjuvant chemotherapy (p=0.005); there was worse Cardio mortality (p=0.01) with receipt of trastuzumab; worse OT (p=0.03) for non-whites, and without adjuvant radiotherapy (p=0.003). Conclusions: 56.7% of deaths in MA.27 patients were non-breast cancer related. We showed baseline patient and tumor characteristics, and prior treatment differentially affected cause of death. Clinical trial information: NCT00066573.

Abstract Abstract 39 Three randomized trials have previously reported a progression-free survival (PFS) advantage for patients receiving thalidomide (T) maintenance post ASCT in MM. Two trials reported an overall survival (OS) advantage but the largest trial reported shows no OS advantage and in very high risk MM the use of T was deleterious. Recent trial reports demonstrate a PFS but not yet an OS advantage for patients receiving maintenance lenalidomide. We report results of NCIC CTG MY.10 which compared treatment with T (200 mg daily) and prednisone (50 mg alternate days) (T/P) until progression versus observation alone when used as maintenance therapy following ASCT. Importantly, OS was the 1ry endpoint of this study, 2ry endpoints were PFS, quality of life (QoL), toxicity, and the incidence of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). Eligibility: Patients with MM who had ASCT within 1 year of beginning initial treatment for their disease. Patients were randomized 60–100 days post ASCT and had no other medical condition precluding long term use of T/P. Results: 332 patients were enrolled. Median age was 58 years and the arms were balanced. Patients were stratified by age (<60 or >60), and CR status post transplant. Median follow up is 4 years. Only 14% of patients were in CR post transplant. 111 patients died (50 versus 61 in T/P vs. observation). The median OS was 5 years for observation, and has not yet been reached for T/P, however T/P maintenance therapy did not significantly prolong OS: p = 0.18, HR of maintenance vs. observation 0.77 (95% CI 0.53–1.13). The 4 year survival rate was 68% for T/P and 60% for observation. Age and response to transplant had no significant association with OS (p=0.21), while higher disease stage was associated with shorter OS (p=0.03). The median PFS was 28 months for T/P versus 17 months for observation: p<0.0001, HR of T/P vs. observation 0.56 (95% CI 0.43 – 0.73). The 4 year PFS rate was 32% for T/P treated patients versus 14% for patients on observation. At relapse, treatment by arm (T/P vs observation) included lenalidomide (39 vs 34%), T (13 vs 22%) or bortezomib (50 versus 46%). Non hematologic toxicities were seen in more patients with treatment (Grade 3: 92% T/P vs 49% observation, grade 4: 16% vs 7%). Common toxicities of all grades that were significantly higher in T/P treated patients included hyperglycemia, edema, hypertension, fatigue, Cushingoid appearance, constipation, mouth dryness, dyspepsia, anxiety, memory loss, sensory neuropathy, tremor, blurred vision, depressed consciousness, cataracts, dyspnea and bruising. 7% of patients on maintenance T/P developed a VTE in the absence of prophylaxis versus 0% on observation. NCIC CTG standardized response analysis was use to compare QoL data between the 2 treatment arms. Overall, patients on T/P had worse QoL specifically in physical (p=0.07), role (p=0.08), cognitive (p = 0.01) and global (p=0.06) domains, and worse symptoms with dyspnea (p = 0.0007), constipation (p<0.0001), thirst (p=0.003), swelling in leg (p=0.03), numbness (p=0.02), dry mouth (p<0.0001), and balance problems (p<0.0001). However, patients on T/P reported improvement in appetite (p 0.02), and sleep (p=0.04). Conclusions: T/P maintenance did not improve overall survival, the primary objective of this trial, although a trend in favor of T/P was seen. In contrast, PFS was significantly improved in the T/P arm while toxicity was demonstrably increased and quality of life diminished. Disclosures: Stewart: Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria. Trudel:Celgene: Honoraria. Bahlis:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Meyer:Celgene: Honoraria.