Gaur, Rakesh

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low‐intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML.MethodsThis randomized, open‐label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1‐hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1‐hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109/L and ≥10 × 109/L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1‐year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796).ResultsBetween October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017).ConclusionsThe regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109/L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral registry-based analyses suggested a survival advantage for married versus single patients with pancreatic cancer. The mechanisms underlying the association of marital status and survival are likely multiple and complex and, therefore, may be obscured in analyses generated from large population-based databases. The goal of this research was to characterize this potential association of marital status with outcomes in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who underwent combined modality adjuvant therapy on a prospective clinical trial.Materials and MethodsThis is an ancillary analysis of 367 patients with known marital status treated on NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model.ResultsOf 367 patients, 271 (74%) were married or partnered and 96 (26%) were single. Married or partnered patients were more likely to be male. There was no association between marital status and overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) on univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 and 1.01, respectively) or multivariate analyses (HR, 1.05 and 0.98, respectively). Married or partnered male patients did not have improved survival compared with female or single patients.ConclusionAncillary analysis of data from NRG Oncology/RTOG 97-04 demonstrated no association between marital and/or partner status and OS or DFS in patients with resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy followed by concurrent external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00003216.

Abstract Background: The few therapies available to treat higher-risk MDS and CMML have limited impact on outcome. We previously reported initial results of S1117, which compared overall response rates (ORRs) of azacitidine (AZA) monotherapy to AZA combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), or the immunomodulator lenalidomide (LEN)( ASH 2014 LBA-5). We now report updated response data and overall survival (OS), subgroup analyses, impact of cytogenetics, and effect of treatment center volume/centers of excellence on outcome. Methods: This randomized, Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) enrolled higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts ≥5%) and CMML adult patients (pts) with <20% blasts from 3/12-6/14 to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Pts continued treatment until treatment failure, defined as disease progression, relapse, significant or unresolved toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for grade ≥3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. Cytogenetic risk groups were defined per IPSS-R. The primary endpoint was improvement in ORR, by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). OS was from study entry. MDS Centers of Excellence (MCE) were defined per MDS Foundation; center volume was defined as low (1-4 pts enrolled) or high (5-17 pts). Results: Of 277 pts, 92 received AZA, 93 AZA+LEN, and 92 AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics, previously reported, were similar across arms. Pts received a median of 22 weeks of therapy and were followed for a median of 10 months (range: 0-30). Non-protocol defined dose modification and protocol discontinuation due to toxicity occurred more frequently in combination arms vs. AZA (p=.0014 and p=.018, respectively). Responses are now assessable in all pts (Table 1). ORR was statistically similar for combination arms vs. AZA, with a trend for longer response duration (p=.083) for combinations. Within HI, AZA+LEN pts had higher HI-n than AZA pts (16% vs. 5%, p=.031). ORR for CMML pts was significantly higher for LEN+AZA vs. AZA (63% vs. 29%, p=.04), with a trend for longer response duration for combinations (p=.06); no differences in ORR were seen for therapy-related MDS, IPSS subgroups, or transfusion-dependent pts. Allogeneic transplantation rates were similar. Median OS (Figure) for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 15:18 (p=.38):17 (p=.17) months; p=.19 for combination arms vs. AZA. Median OS after failure was 7:9 (p=.6):9 (p=.05) months; p=.15 for combination arms after failure vs. AZA. For pts on therapy >6 months, there was a trend (p=.08) for higher ORR for AZA+LEN vs. AZA, though response duration was similar; median OS was 18:21 (p=.44 vs. AZA):21 months (p=.45 vs. AZA). Cytogenetic risk category distribution and ORR was similar across arms. OS (compared to Very Good/Good) was worse for Poor (HR 2.07, p=.022) and Very poor (HR 4.41, p<.001), without significant modification by treatment arm (Table 2). Compared to pts without identified cytogenetic abnormalities (abn), ORR across arms was better for pts with Chr 5 abn (OR 2.38, p=.004); OS was better for normal (HR .42, p<.001) and worse for Chr 5 abn (HR 3.1, p<.001), -7 (HR 2.69, p<.001), and 17p (HR 2.61, p<.001). While small numbers prevented definitive conclusions for treatment arm effect, combinations trended towards improving OS in Normal and Chr 5 abn only. The outcome of all pts and pts on discrete study arms treated at MCE (n=75) or high volume (n=138) sites were similar to non-MCE or low-volume sites for ORR, non-protocol defined dose modifications, dose adjustment in first 4 cycles, time to off-protocol (HR 1.2, p=.21 and HR .94, p=.64), and OS (HR .81, p=.3 and HR .77, p=.12). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR and OS was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to combination arms, while for CMML pts, ORR was significantly higher with AZA+LEN. For cytogenetic subgroups, OS was worse for Chr 5 abn, -7, and 17p, and may be improved by combinations in normal or Chr 5 abn. MCE or treatment at a high volume site did not impact these effects or outcomes. Figure 1. Responses Figure 1. Responses Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 2. Cytogenetics Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. List:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Odenike:Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Buckstein:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fang:Affymetrix: Research Funding. Attar:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Erba:Ariad: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees ; Ariad: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees; Jannsen (J&J): Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committees.

Abstract Background: Higher-risk MDS and CMML comprise a spectrum of disorders associated with cytopenias, high risk of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and truncated survival. Initial treatment with a hypomethylating agent such as azacitidine (AZA) is considered standard of care. Whether addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (VOR), which acts synergistically with AZA to reactivate epigenetically silenced genes, or addition of lenalidomide (LEN), which impacts the bone marrow microenvironment, improves response rates compared to AZA monotherapy is unknown. Methods: This Phase II study (ClinTrials.gov # NCT01522976) randomized higher-risk MDS (International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Int-2 or High and/or bone marrow blasts >5%) and CMML patients (pts) with <20% blasts to receive AZA (75 mg/m2/d on d1-7 of a 28d cycle), AZA + LEN (10 mg/d on d1-21), or AZA + VOR (300 mg BID on d3-9). Eligibility criteria included: >18 years (yrs), no previous allogeneic transplant, no prior treatment with any of the study drugs, and adequate organ function; therapy-related (t)MDS was allowed. Pts continued treatment until disease progression, relapse, unacceptable toxicity, or lack of response. Dose reductions occurred for unresolved grade >3 adverse events (per NCI CTCAE) or delayed count recovery. The primary endpoint was improvement in overall response rate (ORR), by intention to treat and reviewed centrally, of one of the combination arms vs. AZA monotherapy per 2006 International Working Group MDS response criteria (complete response (CR) + partial response (PR) + hematologic improvement (HI)). Relapse-free survival (RFS) was from time of response. The study had 81% power to detect a 20% improvement in ORR from 35% to 55%. Results: Of 282 pts enrolled from 3/12–6/14, 276 are included in analyses (6 ineligible pts excluded): 92 on the AZA arm, 93 on AZA+LEN, and 91 on AZA+VOR. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced across arms (Table). Pts received a median of 23 weeks of therapy: 25 of AZA; 24 of AZA+LEN; and 20 of AZA+VOR and were followed for a median of 9 months (range: 0-26). Numbers of pts with notable adverse events >grade 3 for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR included febrile neutropenia (10:13:13); gastrointestinal disorders (4:11:23); infections (2:3:3); and rash (2:12:1). Responses were assessable in 260 pts (94%). ORR for the entire cohort was 33%: 19% CR, 1% PR, and 13% HI, with a median RFS of 7 months. ORR was similar across study arms: 36% for AZA, 37% for AZA+LEN (p=1.0 vs. AZA), and 22% for AZA+VOR (p=.07 vs. AZA). CR/PR/HI rates across arms were also similar: 23%/0%/13% for AZA; 18%/1%/17% for AZA+LEN (CR p=.47 vs. AZA); and 14%/1%/7% for AZA+VOR (CR p=.18 vs. AZA); rates of bone marrow exams to assess response were 76%, 67%, and 73%, respectively. HI-P/HI-E/HI-N rates were 21%/15%/5% for AZA, 26%/14%/15% for AZA+LEN, and 12%/8%/4% for AZA+VOR. HI-N rates were higher in AZA+LEN vs. AZA (p=.05) but otherwise were similar across arms. Median time to best response across arms was 15 weeks in AZA, 16 weeks in AZA+LEN, and 16 weeks in AZA+VOR. ORR did not vary significantly across arms in subgroup analyses for tMDS, baseline red blood cell (RBC) transfusion dependence, and by IPSS risk group. ORR for CMML pts for AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR was 33%:53%(p=.15 vs. AZA):12%(p=.41 vs. AZA). Allogeneic transplantation rates were: 7 pts on AZA, 6 on AZA+LEN, and 9 on AZA+VOR. For AZA:AZA+LEN:AZA+VOR, median RFS was: 6:8:11 months (log-rank p=.3 for combination arms vs. AZA, Figure); and for pts on therapy >6 months, it was 7:7.5:13 months (log-rank p=.11 for AZA+VOR, .74 for AZA+LEN vs. AZA). Conclusions: In higher-risk MDS pts, ORR was similar for AZA monotherapy compared to AZA-containing combination arms, though some subgroups may have benefitted from combination therapy. Differences in types of response may have resulted from differential rates of follow-up bone marrow assessments. While a non-significant signal of a DFS advantage for combination therapy was observed, longer-term outcome data are being assessed. Table Table. Figure Figure. Disclosures Sekeres: Boehringer-Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: lenalidomide, vorinostat for higher-risk MDS. List:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Attar:Celgene: Consultancy. Erba:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.

PURPOSE Pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) degrades hyaluronan (HA) and, in combination with chemotherapy, prolongs survival in preclinical models. The activity of PEGPH20 with modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) was evaluated in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients had untreated mPC, a performance status of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function. Tumor HA status was not required for eligibility. After a phase Ib dose-finding study of mFOLFIRINOX plus PEGPH20, the phase II open-label study randomly assigned patients (1:1) to the combination arm or to mFOLFIRINOX alone (n = 138). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS PEGPH20 dosages of 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks were more tolerable than twice-weekly dosages used in the phase I study, so 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks was the phase II dosage. An amendment instituted enoxaparin prophylaxis in the PEGPH20 combination arm as a result of increased thromboembolic (TE) events. The planned interim futility analysis when 35 deaths (of 103 analyzable patients) occurred resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 2.07 that favored the control arm, and the study was closed to accrual. The treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity was significantly increased in the PEGPH20 combination arm relative to control (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.1). The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX arm was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 15.7 months) versus 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 9.3 months) in the PEGPH20 combination arm. CONCLUSION Addition of PEGPH20 to mFOLFIRINOX seems to be detrimental in patients unselected for tumor HA status. This combination caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and resulted in decreased treatment duration compared with mFOLFIRINOX alone. The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX control arm (14.4 months) is, to our knowledge, the longest yet reported and can be considered for patients with good PS.

208 Background: PEGPH20 degrades hyaluronan (HA), a major component of the stroma, increases delivery of gemcitabine and prolongs survival in preclinical models. We evaluated the activity of PEGPH20 in combination with mFFOX in mPC , unselected for tumor HA. Methods: Pertinent eligibility: untreated mPC, PS of 0-1 and adequate organ function. Standard FFOX was modified to add prophylactic growth factor support and omit bolus 5FU. Due to increased thromboembolic (TE) events with PEGPH20, an amendment instituted LMWH prophylaxis in the PEGPH20 arm only. Following a dose finding cohort of mFFOX + PEGPH20, the Phase II study randomized patients (1:1) to the combination arm or mFFOX alone (n = 138). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with a null median OS of 10 mo and an alternative of 15 mo (1-sided type 1 error 0.1, 80% power). Results: PEGPH20 at 3 mcg/kg, q2 weeks was more tolerable than twice weekly dosing. The randomized phase II study began May 2015. The planned interim futility analysis when 35 deaths occurred gave a HR of 0.44 favoring the standard arm, thus the study was closed to accrual (March 2017). As of August 22, 2017 (n = 111), the estimated median OS in the mFFOX arm was 15.1 mo (95% CI 10.1-15.7) vs 7.6 mo (95% CI 4.6-9.2) in the PEGPH20 arm. Conclusions: OS in the mFFOX control arm (15.1 mo) is longest yet reported. Addition of PEGPH20 to mFFOX is not recommended for further study and appears to be detrimental (HR = 0.48). The impact of PEGPH20 on OS was unexpected and in contrast to favorable results reported for the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel + PEGPH20 especially in the HA high cohort (Hingorani S et al. A 4008, ASCO 2017). PEGPH20 with mFFOX caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and decreased treatment duration compared to mFFOX alone. Tumor HA content will be analyzed. Funding: NIH/NCI grants CA180888, CA180819; and in part by Halozyme Inc. Clinical trial information: 01959139. [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]