Belani, Chandra P.

3021 Background: 17DMAG is a water-soluble analog of 17-allylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17AAG), the first geldanamycin compound to enter clinical trials. 17DMAG causes oncoprotein degradation by binding to heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) & has greater in-vitro activity than 17AAG. In animals treated with 17DMAG, liver toxicity is dose-limiting. The objectives of this first-in-human study are to: establish the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); recommend a phase 2 dose; & characterize the PK & PD of 17DMAG. Methods: Using a modified accelerated schema, escalating doses of 17DMAG are given IV over 1 h daily x 5 (schedule A) or daily x 3 (schedule B) every 3 weeks. Plasma 17DMAG concentrations during cycle 1 are quantitated by LC/MS. HSP70 & ILK levels in peripheral mononuclear cells are measured by western blot at baseline & 24 h on d 1. Results: 37 pts have been enrolled. On schedule A, dose levels are 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12 & 16 mg/m2/d (n = 20). On schedule B, the starting dose was 2.5 mg/m2/d. Based on safety information from schedule A, subsequent schedule B dose levels were 14, 19, 25 & 34 mg/m2/d (n = 17). One DLT was noted in schedule A (16 mg/m2) & consisted of reversible liver enzyme elevation. End-of-infusion (EOI) 17DMAG concentrations (33–2074 ng/ml) & AUC0–24 (200–5200 ng/ml x h) increase linearly with dose. Interpatient PK variability was substantial, with CV% of 16–59%. The daily administration schedule precluded precise definition of 17DMAG t1/2 & clearance, but estimates of t1/2 & clearance ranged from 10.8 to 77 h & 19–160 ml/min/m2, respectively. Between 0 & 24 h, 20.5 ± 8.6% (range 4–43.8%) of the administered dose was excreted in urine. HSP70 increased between 0.2 & 3.7 fold above baseline in PBMCs at 24 h at 12, 16, & 25 mg/m2. There is an indication of ILK degradation in 3 of 4 patients evaluated at 25 mg/m2. Conclusions: 17DMAG is well tolerated at current dose levels & maximal tolerated dose has not been reached. 17DMAG plasma PK are linear over the doses delivered to date, & there is evidence of a target effect as manifested by↑HSP70 & ↓ILK. Support: U01CA099168–01, U01CA62502, U01CA69912, R01CA90390 & NIH/NCCR/GCRC grants #5M01 RR 00056 & M01 RR00080 No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Abstract 1710 Poster Board I-736 Introduction Treatment regimens for cancer are typically based on cytotoxic chemotherapy, which is poorly tolerated. There is an unmet medical need for new therapies that retain efficacy, but combine this with an improved safety and tolerability profile. Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, approved in the United States for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients who have progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease on or following 2 systemic therapies. Vorinostat is also being investigated as a treatment for various other solid and hematologic malignancies, in which HDACs are further implicated as key regulators of transcription. Herein we present an overview of the safety and tolerability profile of vorinostat, gathered from prior clinical experience. Methods Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events (AEs), QTc interval data and incidence of thromboembolic events (TEE), were collated from patients who received vorinostat, administered as monotherapy or in combination therapy for solid or hematologic malignancies. Results (adverse events) In Phase I and II clinical trials, 498 patients who received vorinostat were analyzed. A total of 341 patients received vorinostat monotherapy (107 with CTCL, 105 other hematologic malignancies, 129 solid tumors) and the most common drug-related AEs in this group were: fatigue (61.9%), nausea (55.7%), diarrhea (49.3%), anorexia (48.1%), and vomiting (32.8%); Grade 3/4 AEs included fatigue (12.0%) and thrombocytopenia (10.6%), and 3 drug-related deaths (ischemic stroke, tumor hemorrhage, unspecified) occurred. Thirty-eight patients (11.1%) discontinued due to drug-related AEs, 71 patients (20.8%) required dose modifications, and 1 patient (0.3%) discontinued due to Grade 2 chest pain. The remaining 157 patients received vorinostat combination therapy (with pemetrexed/cisplatin for advanced cancer [n=46], bortezomib for multiple myeloma [n=34], bexarotene for CTCL [n=23], and erlotinib [n=30], gemcitabine/platin [n=21] or carboplatin/paclitaxel [n=3] for non-small-cell lung cancer). The most common drug-related AEs in this group were: nausea (48.4%), diarrhea (40.8%), fatigue (34.4%), and vomiting (31.2%); the most common Grade 3/4 AE was fatigue (13.4%), and 1 drug-related death (hemoptysis) occurred. Thirty-one patients (19.7%) discontinued due to drug-related AEs and 27 patients (17.2%) required dose modifications. Results (QTcF interval) A trial of 24 patients with advanced cancer was undertaken for rigorous assessment of QTcF interval. In this trial, a single supratherapeutic 800 mg dose of vorinostat did not prolong QTcF interval (monitored over 24 hours). The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the placebo-adjusted mean change-from-baseline of vorinostat was <10 msec at every timepoint, no patient had a QTcF change-from-baseline value >30 msec, and 1 patient had a QTcF interval >450 msec (after both vorinostat and placebo administration). The most common drug-related AE in this trial was nausea. There were no serious clinical or laboratory AEs, no discontinuations due to an AE and no patients experienced a cardiac-related AE. Results (incidence of TEE) A review of vorinostat clinical trials, published literature and post-marketing surveillance reports was conducted by a committee of independent academic experts to determine the incidence of TEE in cancer patients who had received vorinostat. In >1845 patients reviewed through November 3, 2008, 107 patients (<5.8%) reported TEE as a serious AE (SAE), 47 (<2.6%) of which were recorded as being related to vorinostat, and 4/47 (<0.3%) TEE SAEs were fatal. Conclusions In this review, the majority of observed AEs were 'Grade 2, there was no observed prolongation of the QTcF interval, and the incidence of TEE with vorinostat was similar to reported rates of TEE in advanced cancer patients. Vorinostat is generally well tolerated when administered as monotherapy or in a combination regimen in cancer patients. Disclosures Siegel: Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celegne: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rubin:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Iwamoto:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hussein:Celgene: Employment. Belani:Merck: Consultancy. Hardwick:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rizvi:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Background: Patients on systemic therapy for cancer are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its consequences. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized medical and surgical cancer patients, but most VTE occurs in ambulatory cancer patients where risk can be estimated with a validated score. However, the benefit of extended outpatient thromboprophylaxis is uncertain with heparins and has not been tested with direct oral anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers initiating a new systemic regimen and at increased risk for VTE (defined as Khorana score ≥ 2). Enrolled subjects were screened for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and if none found randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo up to day 180. Subjects were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 8 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic lower-extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper- or lower-extremity distal DVT, symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death. ISTH-defined major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded independent committees. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted for intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients) for the up-to-day 180 observation period (primary) and the on-treatment period (supportive). Safety analyses were conducted for on-treatment period only for patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Results: Of 1,080 patients who provided consent, 49 (4.53%) had DVT on baseline screening and another 190 screen-failed due to other reasons. Of 841 randomized patients, 274 (32.6%) had pancreatic cancer; 698 (83%) were white and 428 (50.9%) were male. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 25 of 420 patients (5.95%) and 37 of 421 patients (8.79%) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.09; p=0.101) in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (number needed to treat, NNT=35) in the up-to-day 180 observation period (Figure 1A). Of all patients with VTE, 38.70% experienced events after discontinuing study drug. In a pre-specified analysis of all randomized patients during the on-treatment period, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 of 420 patients (2.62%) and 27 of 421 (6.41%) in rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80, p=0.007) (NNT=26) (Figure 1B). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 (1.98%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (0.99%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49; p=0.265) (number needed to harm, NNH=101). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 2.72% and 1.98% of rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.54 to 3.32; p=0.53) (NNH=135). Adverse events were comparable between groups. For secondary efficacy endpoints, a pre-specified analysis of the composite of primary endpoint with addition of arterial and visceral thromboembolic events in the up-to-day 180 observation period showed significantly fewer events in rivaroxaban versus placebo group (6.90% versus 10.70% respectively; HR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99; p=0.04). All-cause mortality occurred in 20.0% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 23.8% in placebo group (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.62, 1.11; p=0.213). A pre-specified composite of the primary endpoint with all-cause mortality occurred in 23.1% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 29.5% in placebo group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; p=0.03) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE and VTE-related death during the on-treatment period but not during the full study period; over one-third of events occurred post discontinuation of study drug. The incidence of major bleeding was low. The Khorana risk score cut-off of ≥2 identified cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic events both at baseline (4.53%) and during study (8.79% with additional 1.66% arterial events in placebo group). These results should inform future recommendations regarding thromboprophylaxis in at-risk ambulatory cancer patients. (Funded by Janssen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Khorana: Parexel: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; TriSalus: Other: Personal fees; Halozyme: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; AngioDynamics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; LEO Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Medscape/WebMD: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pharmacyclics: Other: Personal fees; PharmaCyte: Other: Personal fees; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel. Soff:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kakkar:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Europe: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi S.A.: Consultancy; Verseon: Consultancy. Vadhan-Raj:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: received funding from Amag to support clinical trial; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riess:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Other: Travel reimbursement; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wun:Eli Lilly, Inc.: Research Funding; Emmaus, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Streiff:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Other: outcome adjudication committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Liebman:Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): Other: steering committee of the CASSINI trial during the conduct of the study. Belani:Janssen: Consultancy. O'Reilly:3DMed, Agios, AlignMed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, ASLAN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientific, Bridgebio, CARsgen, Celgene, CASI, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Genoscience, Gilead, Halozyme: Consultancy; Hengrui, Incyte, Inovio, Ipsen, Jazz, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LAM, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mina, NewLink Genetics, Novella, Onxeo, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PharmaCyte, Pharmacyclics, Pieris, QED, RedHill, Sanofi, Servier, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Targovax: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Acta Biologica, Agios, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, CASI, Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech, Halozyme, Incyte, Lilly, MabVax, Novartis, OncoQuest, Polaris Puma, QED, and Roche: Research Funding; Tekmira, twoXAR, Vicus, Yakult, and Yiviva: Consultancy. Patel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Burton:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vijapurkar:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Kaul:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Eikelboom:AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, sanofi-aventis, and Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Other: Personnel award. Bauer:Janssen: Consultancy. Kuderer:Celldex: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Myriad Genetics: Consultancy; Halozyme: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lyman:Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy; Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support.

AbstractVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of cancer associated with morbidity, mortality, increased hospitalizations and higher health care costs. Cancer patients at increased risk for VTE can be identified using a validated risk assessment score, and the incidence of VTE can be reduced in high-risk settings using anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban is a potent, oral, direct, factor Xa inhibitor approved for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events, including VTE. CASSINI is a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study comparing rivaroxaban with placebo in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers who are initiating systemic cancer therapy and are at high risk of VTE (Khorana score ≥ 2). Patients with primary brain tumours or those at risk for bleeding are excluded. Approximately 700 patients will be randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or placebo for up to 6 months if there is no evidence of VTE from compression ultrasonography (CU) during screening or from routine care imaging within 30 days prior to randomization. Mandatory CU will also be performed at weeks 8 and 16 (±7 days), and at study end (±3 days). The primary efficacy hypothesis is that anticoagulation with rivaroxaban reduces the composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic, lower-extremity, proximal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT); symptomatic, upper-extremity DVT; symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism; and VTE-related death compared with placebo. The primary safety objective is to assess major bleeding events (Clinical trial information: NCT02555878).

Purpose In lung cancer, randomized trials assessing hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy seem to yield conflicting results regarding the effects on overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Lung Cancer Collaborative Group decided to address the role of modified radiotherapy fractionation. Material and Methods We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis in patients with nonmetastatic lung cancer, which included trials comparing modified radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy. Results In non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 10 trials, 2,000 patients), modified fractionation improved OS as compared with conventional schedules (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97; P = .009), resulting in an absolute benefit of 2.5% (8.3% to 10.8%) at 5 years. No evidence of heterogeneity between trials was found. There was no evidence of a benefit on PFS (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03; P = .19). Modified radiotherapy reduced deaths resulting from lung cancer (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = .02), and there was a nonsignificant reduction of non–lung cancer deaths (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.15; P = .33). In small-cell lung cancer (SCLC; two trials, 685 patients), similar results were found: OS, HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.02, P = .08; PFS, HR = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03, P = .11. In both NSCLC and SCLC, the use of modified radiotherapy increased the risk of acute esophageal toxicity (odds ratio [OR] = 2.44 in NSCLC and OR = 2.41 in SCLC; P < .001) but did not have an impact on the risk of other acute toxicities. Conclusion Patients with nonmetastatic NSCLC derived a significant OS benefit from accelerated or hyperfractionated radiotherapy; a similar but nonsignificant trend was observed for SCLC. As expected, there was increased acute esophageal toxicity.

Purpose To define the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of 17-dimethylaminoethylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17DMAG). Methods 17DMAG was given intravenously over 1 hour daily for 5 days (schedule A) or daily for 3 days (schedule B) every 3 weeks. Plasma 17DMAG concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Heat-shock proteins (HSPs) and client proteins were evaluated at baseline and after treatment on day 1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in pre- and post-treatment (24 hours) biopsies done during cycle 1 at the recommended phase II dose (n = 7). Results Fifty-six patients were entered: 26 on schedule A; 30 on schedule B. The recommended phase II doses for schedules A and B were 16 mg/m2 and 25 mg/m2, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities included liver function test elevation (14%), pneumonitis (9%), diarrhea (4%), nausea (4%), fatigue (4%) and thrombocytopenia (4%). There were no objective responses. Four patients had stable disease. 17DMAG half-life was 24 ± 15 hours. 17DMAG area under the curve (range, 0.7 to 14.7 mg/mL × h) increased linearly with dose. The median HSP90, HSP70, and integrin-linked kinase levels were 87.5% (n = 14), 124% (n = 20), and 99.5% (n = 20) of baseline. Changes in HSPs and client proteins in tumor biopsies were not consistent between baseline and 24 hours nor did they change in the same direction as those in PBMCs collected at the time of biopsy. Conclusion The recommended phase II doses of 17DMAG (16 mg/m2 × 5 days or 25 mg/m2 × 3 days, every 3 weeks) are well tolerated and suitable for further evaluation.

Purpose To compare once-daily radiation therapy (qdRT) with hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy (HART) after two cycles of induction chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were treatment naive, and had stage IIIA and B unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and normal organ function. Induction chemotherapy consisted of two cycles of carboplatin area under time-concentration curve 6 mg/mL · min plus paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1. RT consisted of arm 1 (qdRT), 64 Gy (2 Gy/d), versus arm 2 (HART), 57.6 Gy (1.5 Gy tid for 2.5 weeks). A total of 388 patients were needed to detect a 50% increase in median survival from 14 months of qdRT to 21 months of HART; accrual was not achieved and the study closed prematurely. Results Of 141 patients enrolled, 83% were randomly assigned after chemotherapy to qdRT (n = 59) or HART (n = 60). Median survival was 20.3 and 14.9 months for HART and qdRT, respectively (P = .28). Overall response was 25% and 22% for HART and qdRT, respectively (P = .69). Two- and 3-year survival was 44% and 34% for HART, and 24% and 14% for qdRT, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities included esophagitis in 14 v nine patients, and pneumonitis in 0 v 6 patients for HART and qdRT, respectively. Any subsequent trials of the HART regimen must address the issues that led to early closure, including slow accrual, logistics of HART, mucosal toxicity, and the fact that concurrent chemoradiotherapy now seems more effective than sequential treatment. Conclusion After two cycles of induction chemotherapy with carboplatin-paclitaxel, HART is feasible with an acceptable toxicity profile. Although statistical significance was not achieved and the study closed early, there was a positive statistical trend suggesting a survival advantage with the HART regimen.