Foster, Jared C.

We previously reported initial results of the pivotal phase II trial of atezolizumab for patients with alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03141684 ). Here, we report on three additional years of observation. Fifty-three patients with ASPS received atezolizumab. Median duration of response increased to 37.0 months. Objective response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) remained essentially as previously reported (35.8% [95% CI, 23.1 to 50.2] and 20.8 months [IQR, 7.6-not reached], respectively). ASPSCR1::TFE3 fusion type was determined for 47/53 patients; ORR and mPFS were higher among the 41 patients expressing type 1 (43.9% [95% CI, 28.5 to 60.2] and 28.3 months [IQR, 9.2-not reached], respectively) than the six patients expressing type 2 (0% [95% CI, 0 to 45.9] and 7.5 months [IQR, 3.9-not reached], respectively, PFS HR, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.2]). Eleven patients chose a per-protocol drug holiday (range, 3.5-26.4 months) after ≥2 years of treatment; two experienced disease progression during the holiday. Nine eligible patients elected to receive bevacizumab plus atezolizumab after progressing on monotherapy; ORR was 0% and mPFS was 18.5 months (IQR, 7.9-21.1) in this small cohort. Long-term results support using atezolizumab to treat ASPS, even for several years; a drug holiday with careful monitoring may be an option for some patients.

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007 and updated in 2021 (STEEP 2.0), provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer (BC) end points. STEEP 2.0 identified a need to separately address end points for neoadjuvant clinical trials. The multidisciplinary NeoSTEEP working group of experts was convened to critically evaluate and align neoadjuvant BC trial end points. METHODS The NeoSTEEP working group concentrated on neoadjuvant systemic therapy end points in clinical trials with efficacy outcomes—both pathologic and time-to-event survival end points—particularly for registrational intent. Special considerations for subtypes and therapeutic approaches, imaging, nodal staging at surgery, bilateral and multifocal diseases, correlative tissue collection, and US Food and Drug Administration regulatory considerations were contemplated. RESULTS The working group recommends a preferred definition of pathologic complete response (pCR) as the absence of residual invasive cancer in the complete resected breast specimen and all sampled regional lymph nodes (ypT0/Tis ypN0 per AJCC staging). Residual cancer burden should be a secondary end point to facilitate future assessment of its utility. Alternative end points are needed for hormone receptor–positive disease. Time-to-event survival end point definitions should pay particular attention to the measurement starting point. Trials should include end points originating at random assignment (event-free survival and overall survival) to capture presurgery progression and deaths as events. Secondary end points adapted from STEEP 2.0, which are defined from starting at curative-intent surgery, may also be appropriate. Specification and standardization of biopsy protocols, imaging, and pathologic nodal evaluation are also crucial. CONCLUSION End points in addition to pCR should be selected on the basis of clinical and biologic aspects of the tumor and the therapeutic agent investigated. Consistent prespecified definitions and interventions are paramount for clinically meaningful trial results and cross-trial comparison.

AbstractAlthough adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute–funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs.As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.

PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

Abstract Background: Contemporary approaches to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) incorporate chemo-immunotherapy, biologic combinations, and immune modulating agents; toxicities in elderly pts (³65 years) receiving these therapies are not well studied. Further, clinical and biologic factors predicting these toxicities in pts receiving biologic therapy remain undefined. Methods: We reviewed data on NHL and/or CLL pts treated prospectively on 14 studies by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2004-2014 (Table 1). Toxicity was assessed per the NCI CTCAE at the time of trial enrollment, and the probabilities of experiencing grade 3 and grade 4 hematologic (hem) and non-hematologic (non-hem) toxicities were modeled as a function of age (³65 years vs. < 65), time on study, treatment (biologics only vs. biologic + chemotherapy), gender, race, LDH, performance status (PS), stage, and an age-by-treatment interaction using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1199 pts (409 age ³ 65; 790 age < 65; 736=CLL and 463=NHL) were included. Among these patients, 493 received only biologic therapy (166 age ³ 65; 327 age < 65; 104 CLL; 389 NHL), and 706 received biologic + chemotherapy (243 age ³ 65; 463 age < 65; 632 CLL; 74 NHL). Among CLL pts (259 pts ³ 65), the effect of age on the probability of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity differed by treatment type (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.047). Specifically, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) (age ³ 65 vs. < 65) for pts receiving only biologic therapy was 3.075 (95% CI: 1,15-8.25), and that for pts receiving biologic + chemotherapy was 1.044 (95% CI: 0.69 - 1.57). Similar results were seen in CLL pts for grade 4 heme toxicities (age-by-treatment interaction p = 0.033; biologic OR 6.937, 95% CI: 1.76-27.35; biologic + chemo OR 1.484, 95% CI: 1.04-2.13). No such interactions were found in CLL pts for grade 3 and 4 non-hem toxicities; however, older pts had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 non-hem toxicity than younger pts (adjusted OR 1.40; p = 0.047; 95% CI: 1.004-1.96). No age group differences were found in CLL pts for grade 4 non-hem toxicity. Similar analyses were performed for NHL pts (150 pts ³ 65), but no significant age group differences were found. Among CLL pts, women had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 3 heme toxicity than men (OR 2.01; p = 0.0007); no difference in grade 3 non-hem or any grade 4 toxicity was noted. Non-Caucasian CLL pts had higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 non-hem toxicity than Caucasians (OR 2.892; p = 0.0029), but no other toxicity differences were found. Worse PS was associated with increased toxicities (OR 1.871; p = 0.0009: grade 3 heme; OR 1.647; p = 0.0025: grade 3 non-hem; OR 1.410; p = 0.0448: grade 4 heme, and OR 1.931; p = 0.0252: grade 4 non-hem). CLL pts with advanced stage disease had higher odds of experiencing a heme toxicity (grade 3: OR 1.95; p = 0.0007, grade 4: OR 1.451; p = 0.0329), but no stage associations were found for non-hem toxicities. Among NHL pts, men had significantly higher odds of experiencing a grade 4 hematologic toxicity than women (OR 4.351; p = 0.0169), but no other toxicity differences were found. An increase in LDH was associated with significantly higher odds of experiencing grade 3 non-hem and grade 4 heme toxicities (grade 3 non-heme: OR 1.633; p = 0.021, grade 4 heme: OR 2.039, p = 0.0182), but no such effect was found for grade 3 heme or grade 4 non-hem. Worse PS was associated with higher odds of experiencing grade 3 toxicities (heme: OR 2.025; p = 0.0344, non-hem: OR 2.458; p = 0.0013), but no such differences were found for grade 4 toxicities. No significant stage or race effects were found in NHL patients. Conclusion: In pts ³65 years who have CLL or NHL, we identified several clinical and disease-related factors as potential predictors of developing grade 3 and/or 4 heme and non-hem toxicities (Table 2). A prognostic model is being constructed to predict toxicities in these under-studied pts to guide management and monitoring. Further, the impact of these toxicities on outcomes is being analyzed and will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Hurria: Celgene: Other: Research; Optum Health Care SOlutions: Consultancy, Other: Conference panel, research; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Carevive: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Research; GTx, Inc: Consultancy. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Cheson:Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nabhan:Infinity: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Cardinal Health: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding.

e21545 Background: A nocebo is an inert substance that causes adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the favorably positive (placebo) effects of an inert substance, few studies have examined negative (nocebo) effects, particularly in older patients who sometimes experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. Methods: This study focused on placebo/nocebo-exposed patients who participated in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 97-24-51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z9001, with the goal of reporting comparative, age-based adverse event rates. Results: Among the 446 patients who received placebo/nocebo exclusively, 161 were 65 years of age or older at the time of respective trial entry; 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients 65 years of age or older and those younger: rate ratio (99% confidence intervals (CI): 1.01 (0.47, 2.02) with similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom-driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and trial resulted in no significant age-based rate differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70. Conclusions: A nocebo effect appears to occur irrespective of age. This observation suggests that adverse events should be taken no less seriously in older than in younger cancer patients and that education to manage patients’ expectations from cancer therapy might improve tolerability. [Table: see text]

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.

BACKGROUND A nocebo is an inert substance associated with adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the positive (placebo) effects of such inert substances, few have examined negative (nocebo) adverse event profiles, particularly in older patients who have higher morbidity and can experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. METHODS This study focused on placebo/nocebo‐exposed patients who participated in 2 double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Therapy Group trial NCCTG 97‐24‐51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z9001, with the goal of reporting the comparative, age‐based adverse event rates, as reported during the conduct of these trials. RESULTS Among the 446 patients who received only placebo/nocebo and who were the focus of the current report, 161 were aged ≥65 years at the time of respective trial entry, and 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥65 years and younger patients (rate ratio, 1.01; 99% confidence interval, 0.47‐2.02), and the findings were similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom‐driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and individual trial resulted in no significant age‐based differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70 years. CONCLUSIONS Adverse events are equally common in older and younger cancer patients who are exposed to nocebo and thus require the same degree of clinical consideration regardless of age. Cancer 2017;123:4193–4198. © 2017 American Cancer Society .

Purpose Despite increasing awareness of accrual challenges, it is unknown if accrual of older patients to breast cancer treatment trials is improving. Methods We examined accrual of older patients to Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology systemic therapy breast cancer trials during 1985-2012 and compared disease characteristics and reasons for therapy cessation for older (age ≥ 65 years and ≥ 70 years) versus younger (age < 65 years and < 70 years) participants. To examine accrual trends, we modeled age as a function of time, using logistic regression. Results Overall, 17% of study participants were ≥ 65 years of age. Approximately 15%, 24%, and 24% of participants in adjuvant, neoadjuvant, and metastatic trials were age ≥ 65 years, and 7%, 15%, and 13% were age ≥ 70 years, respectively. The odds of a patient age ≥ 65 years enrolling significantly increased over time for adjuvant trials (odds ratio [OR] per year, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.05) but decreased significantly for neoadjuvant and metastatic trials (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.67 and OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.00). Similar trends were seen for those age ≥ 70 years but these were statistically significant for adjuvant and neoadjuvant trials only (OR, 1.05, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.07; and OR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.62). In general, those age ≥ 65 years ( v those < 65 years) in adjuvant studies had a higher mean number of lymph nodes involved and more hormone receptor-negative tumors, although tumor sizes were similar. Early protocol treatment cessation was also more frequent in those age ≥ 65 years (50%) versus < 65 years (35.9%) across trials. Conclusion Older patients with breast cancer remain largely underrepresented in cooperative group therapeutic trials. We observed some improvement in accrual to adjuvant trials but worsening of accrual for neoadjuvant/metastatic trials. Novel strategies to increase accrual of older patients are critical to meaningfully change the evidence base for this growing patient population.