Biggs, David D.

LBA1000 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Abstract Purpose A few previous studies report a direct relationship between older age and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. This study further evaluated this adverse event's age-based risk. Methods CALGB 40101 investigated adjuvant paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 once per week or 175 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) in patients with breast cancer and served as a platform for the current study that investigated age-based differences in neuropathy. Grade 2 or worse neuropathy, as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4, was the primary endpoint; patients were assessed at baseline, every 6 months for 2 years, and then annually for 15 years. Results Among these 1,881 patients, 230 were 65 years of age or older, 556 were 55–64 years, and 1,095 were younger than 55; 1,226 neuropathy events (commonly grade 1 or 2) were reported in 65% of the cohort. The number of grade 2 or worse events was 63 (27%), 155 (28%), and 266 (24%) within respective age groups (p = .14). In univariate analysis, only motor neuropathy had a higher age-based incidence: 19 (8%), 43 (8%), and 60 (5%), respectively (p = .04); in multivariate analyses, this association was no longer statistically significant. Other endpoints, such as time to onset of neuropathy (time from trial enrollment to neuropathy development) and time to improvement (time from maximal grade sensory neuropathy to a one-category improvement), showed no statistically significant age-based differences. In contrast, obesity was associated with neuropathy, and every 2-week paclitaxel was associated with trends toward neuropathy. Conclusion Although paclitaxel-induced neuropathy is common, older age is not an independent risk factor. Clinical trial identification number. NCT00041119 (CALGB 40101).

LBA1000 Background: The primary aims were to determine whether adjuvant DD AC→PG will be superior to DD AC→P as well as to TAC in DFS and to compare the relative DFS of TAC and DD AC→P. Secondary endpoints include survival and toxicity. Methods: From Nov 3, 2004 to May 3, 2007, 4894 women were randomized; 1630 to TAC (docetaxel [T] 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin [A] 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide [C] 500 mg/m2 q3 wks x 6), 1634 to DD AC→P (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 followed by P 175 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4), and 1630 to DD AC→PG (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 → P 175 mg/m2 + G 2000 mg/m2q2 wks x 4). Primary G-CSF support was required and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were used at investigator discretion. 52% were postmenopausal, 65% had 1 - 3 positive nodes, and 80% had HR+ breast cancer. Log-rank tests were used for pair-wise comparisons of the primary (DFS) and secondary (OS) endpoints among the three treatment arms. Results: With 64 months median follow-up, 5-year DFS in DD AC→PG group was 80.6% compared with 82.2% in DD AC→P group (HR=1.1; p=0.27) and 80.1 % (HR=0.97; p=0.71) in TAC group. 5-year OS was 90.8% in DD AC→PG group as compared with 89.1% (HR=.89; p=0.25) in DD AC→P group and 89.6 % (HR=0.90; p=0.32) in TAC group. HR for DFS and OS of DD AC→P vs. TAC were 0.89 (p=0.14) and 1.01 (p=0.92) respectively. Toxicities for TAC, DD AC→P, DD AC→PG, respectively: febrile neutropenia (Gr 3/4: 9%, 4%, 4% [p<0.001]), sensory neuropathy (Gr 3/4: <1%, 7%, 6% [p<0.001]), diarrhea (Gr 3/4: 8 %, 2%, 2% [p<0.001]). Hgb was <10 in 12%, 26%, 33% with ESA use in 35.2%, 47%, 51.6% and transfusions in 3.7%, 6.3%, 9.4%. Deaths on treatment: N=13, 5, 7 (p=0.2). AML/MDS: N=5, 8, 11. All cycles completed in 91% for TAC and 88% for DD regimens. Conclusions: Addition of G to DD AC→P did not improve outcomes. No significant differences in efficacy endpoints were identified between DD AC→P and TAC, though toxicity profiles differed. Funding: NCI PHS U10-CA-37377, -69974, -12027, -69651 and NCCTG U10-CA25224, with additional funding from Eli Lilly & Company, and Amgen, Inc.