Pederson, Levi

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]

AbstractPatients with relapsed aggressive non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are often treated with platinum‐based chemoimmunotherapy regimens in preparation for autologous stem cell transplant. We sought to reduce toxicity and maintain efficacy by using oxaliplatin with rituximab, cytarabine and dexamethasone (ROAD) in a phase II clinical trial in patients who had relapsed after one prior regimen. ROAD was delivered q21 days and consisted of rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV weekly x 4 doses (cycle 1 only); dexamethasone 40 mg PO/IV d2 – 5; oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 IV day 2; cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 IV × two doses on days 2 to 3; and pegfilgrastim 6 mg SC on day 4. Forty‐five eligible patients were accrued between 2006 and 2008. Patient characteristics were a median age of 69 years; 96% had received prior rituximab; 53% were within one year of diagnosis. The median number of cycles received was 2 (range, 1‐6). Forty‐four % received ROAD as an outpatient. The overall response rate was 71% with 27% (12/45) CR and 44% (20/45) PR. Forty‐four % (20/45) of all patients and 69% (18/26) of patients whom responded after 2 cycles proceeded to transplant. Median overall survival was 26 mos (95% CI: 7.3 mos—not reached) and median progression‐free survival was 11 mos (95% CI: 6—104 mos). There was no grade 3/4 nephrotoxicity; the rate of grade 3/4 neuropathy was 4%. Forty‐two percent of all patients and 69% of patients transplanted remain alive at 5 years. ROAD represents an acceptable salvage therapeutic option for patients with relapsed aggressive NHL.

757 Background: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) appear to differ across trials, even when pts receive the same regimen (REG). This analysis aimed to benchmark the clinical outcomes in the 2nd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Individual patient (pt) data was available on 6,462 pts with mCRC enrolled in 7 2ndline clinical trials (8 REGs) in the ARCAD database. Regimens used in at least two trials included FOLFIRI +/- an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), FOLFOX +/- a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi), and irinotecan (IRI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe pt demographics. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences (DIFFs) in PFS and OS, while p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant (SS). Results: 500-1400 pts received each REG (see Table). Median OS and PFS differed by 0.2 to 4.6 months (mo) and 0.8 to 2.5 mo across trials within the same REG. These DIFFs were SS except for PFS in REGs containing FOLFIRI +/- EGFRi. After multivariable adjustment, all DIFFs in OS were attenuated and non-significant. DIFFs in PFS attenuated for most REGs but remained SS for FOLFOX and IRI. Conclusions: After multivariable adjustment, there were no SS DIFFs in outcomes across trials within the same REG, with the exception of PFS in FOLFOX and IRI. The initial observed DIFFs in outcomes could be due to confounding factors and the remaining SS DIFFs in PFS in FOLFOX and IRI may be due to variation in definition of progression across trials. Therefore, caution is warranted when using historical data to design future trials.[Table: see text]

Background/Aims: The use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is a focal point for research and policy. Non-compliance with planned questionnaires and missing data can threaten both internal validity and generalizability. This retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the extent of, and characteristics associated with, missing patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Study characteristics, patient characteristics and adverse events, and reasons for non-compliance were compiled from 14 closed Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, or Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium clinical trials. Compliance rates were calculated for each patient using the number of booklets completed while the patient was on trial divided by the number of booklets the patient was expected to complete. Frequency counts and summary statistics were compiled. Logistic regression techniques were employed. Results: The 1640 included patients had a median age of 58 years and were mostly White (90.8%) and female (73.8%). Compliance rates per study ranged from 84.7% to 97.2%. The primary endpoint of overall compliance rate was 93.1%. A total of 1267 patients were compliant. Those non-compliant were slightly older (mean = 58.6 vs 57.5, p = 0.03) and had different types of cancers (p < 0.01). There were no differences in compliance according to tumor status (p = 0.66), clinical stage (p = 0.81), baseline quality of life (p = 0.42 for ≥8 vs <8 and p = 0.12 for ≥6 vs <6), or maximum adverse event grade incidence (p = 0.33 for grade 2+ incidence and p = 0.36 for grade 3+ incidence). Reasons for non-compliance included patient refusal (N = 136), booklet not administered to patient (N = 199), no clinic visit at the scheduled time for booklet completion (N = 40), and at-home-completed booklet not returned (N = 224). Logistic regression indicates gender (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.01), performance score (p = 0.02), dose delay status (p = 0.01), and incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse event (p = 0.03) were correlates of compliance. Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes have successfully been implemented into Alliance and Mayo Clinic trials with high rates of patient compliance. Further improvement in compliance can be made with staff commitment and education. Patients are typically non-compliant only when the task at hand is burdensome, unclear, or logistically challenging. Existing tracking systems used for the other trial outcomes should be utilized to ensure successful capture of patient-reported outcomes.