Kuzma, Charles

Abstract Background: Metformin may impact tumorigenesis directly, through effects on AMP kinase, and indirectly, through reduction in circulating growth factors such as insulin. To examine the potential preventive effects of metformin, we analyzed MD, a known risk factor for breast cancer, in participants enrolled in the NCIC MA.32 trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects of 5 years of metformin on invasive disease-free survival in women with early breast cancer. The primary aim of this companion to MA.32 (Alliance A211201) was to examine the effects of 1 year of metformin vs placebo on MD in women treated for estrogen receptor negative (ER-) breast cancer. Methods: Eligible women were enrolled on MA.32, had ER- breast cancer, had >25% MD at baseline, and had an unaffected contralateral breast. MD was calculated on the contralateral breast using Cumulus software and analyzed at baseline, 1 and 2 years. The aim was to achieve a sample size of 274 (137 per arm), which would have at least 85% power to detect a 4% difference between study arms, i.e., 5% change from baseline to one year of treatment for metformin vs. 1% for placebo, using a two-sided two-sample t-test at a significance level of 5%. The current study was activated in the United States on 8/22/2012. Enrollment was halted on 10/13/2017 with 177 participants enrolled. Results: 146 women were evaluable (66 on metformin and 80 on placebo). The mean age of evaluable women was 53.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.4), 88.4% were white, 31.5% had a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2, 99.3% of participants received chemotherapy. The proportions of white women and HER2+ participants in the metformin group were higher compared to placebo ([white 92.4% vs. 85.0%] and [HER2+ 21.2% vs. 11.3%], respectively). The mean MD at baseline was 22.7% (SD 14.1%) for the group as a whole (24.5% (SD 14.5%) for the metformin group and 21.2% (SD 13.6%) for the placebo group. This is lower than the eligibility criteria (>25%MD), due to difference in methods of calculation of MD (BIRADs for eligibility and Cumulus for study analysis). At 1 year, MD decreased by 0.7% (SD 7.6%) in the metformin group and 0.2% (SD 7.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.58). At 2 years, MD decreased by 0.7% (SD 8.0%) in the metformin group and 0.8% (SD 7.1%) in the placebo group (p=0.60). Conclusions: In a cohort of women with early ER- breast cancer, there was no significant difference in the change in MD in women treated with metformin vs. placebo. There was a non-significant trend toward decreased MD while on metformin after 1 year of treatment. The arms were well balanced, though with more white and HER2+ participants in the metformin arm. The sample size for this study was about half of what was intended thus limiting power to detect a significant difference. Additional limitations include low mean MD, which may have limited our ability to detect the benefit in those at the highest risk, and further, the Cumulus method of MD determination can be imprecise. Interestingly, trends toward decreased MD with metformin were seen in Alliance A211102, and it might be reasonable to consider further study of metformin in a select population (highest MD or atypical hyperplasia). Support: UG1CA189823, U10CA180863, CCS 707213; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT01666171. Citation Format: M. Wood, M. I. Elsaid, L. J. Grimm, H. Liu, C. Oswold, C. S. Kuzma, I. Bedrosian, J. Ligibel, P. J. Goodwin. Change in mammographic density (MD) with metformin use: Alliance A211201, A companion study to NCIC study MA.32 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-01-30.

Abstract Purpose: There are limited prospective data on the efficacy, tolerability, and functional impact of treatments for older and frail adults with HER2+ early breast cancer. We report the first-ever, US-based adjuvant trial dedicated to this population. Methods: We conducted a single arm, phase II, multicenter, investigator-initiated study of adjuvant ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients aged 60 and older with stage I-III HER2+ breast cancer who either declined standard adjuvant therapy or were deemed by their physician not to be candidates for standard treatment for any reason. Protocol therapy included postoperative administration of T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg) every 21 days for one year (17 cycles). The primary endpoint was 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with a 2-sided 90% confidence interval. Secondary endpoints presented here are toxicity and 3-year iDFS, invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS), and overall survival (OS). All survival analyses were evaluated using Kaplan Meier methods and began at the time of C1D1 of T-DM1. Results: ATOP enrolled 111 evaluable patients during 2015-2020; median follow-up is 4.9 years (IQR 4.2-5.5). The median age was 71 (range 60-88); 50.4% were aged >70 and 11.7% were aged >80. Overall, 69.4% had stage I, 26.1% had stage II, and 4.5% had stage III disease; 70.3% had hormone receptor-positive tumors. The 5-year iDFS = 84.2% (90% CI 77.1-92.0%). The 3-year iDFS = 91.2% (90% CI 85.9%, 96.9%) and iBCFS = 94.1% (90% CI 89.7-98.8%) (see Table for event details); 3-year OS = 96.1% (90% CI 92.4-99.9%). In total, there were 3 distant recurrences and 2 breast cancer-related deaths. Overall, 82% reported grade 2+ toxicity during treatment; the most common grade 2+ events were fatigue (30.6%) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (19.8%). The most frequent grade 3 events were liver function abnormality, anemia, decreased neutrophil count, and neuropathy (<5% for each); one patient (0.9%) had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Sixty-five (58.6%) completed all 17 cycles of protocol therapy; 27 (24.3%) completed 10-16 cycles, and 19 (17.1%) completed 1-9 cycles. Reasons for early treatment discontinuation in the remaining 41.4% included toxicity (28.8%), patient withdrawal (6.3%), other (3.6%), disease progression (0.9%), death on study (0.9%, deemed unrelated to treatment), and other complicating disease (0.9%). Conclusions: The ATOP trial demonstrated a favorable 5-year iDFS and manageable toxicity among older adults with early stage HER2+ breast cancer. Although iDFS was numerically worse than historical controls (i.e., 5-year iDFS in the ‘ATEMPT’ trial by Tolaney et al. J Clin Oncol, 2024 was 97% [95% 95.2-98.7]), ATOP’s participants had higher-risk cancers, advanced age, and more competing non-breast cancer events. Future endpoints will include in-depth analyses of patient-reported outcomes, biomarkers of aging, and longitudinal functional status. Citation Format: R. A. Freedman, H. Heiling, K. J. Ruddy, L. Rogak, M. Sedrak, A. Dueck, H. Liu, A. Fraettarelli, S. Atanasov, M. DeMeo, P. Lange, A. Perilla Glen, S. Sinclair, D. Dillon, J. Mortimer, M. Fenton, J. Walsh, L. Spring, H. Muss, N. Sinclair, E. Hamilton, C. Dang, S. Giordano, M. Faggen, S. Lo, C. Kuzma, S. Lemke, P. Stella, R. Mowat, M. Wilkinson, J. Rauch, N. Tayob, E. Winer. Adjuvant Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) for Older Patients with HER2+ Breast Cancer - Results from the ATOP Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-11-04.

Abstract A041202 (NCT01886872) is a phase 3 study comparing bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) with ibrutinib and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) in previously untreated older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior progression-free survival (PFS) and rituximab did not add additional benefits. Here we present an updated analysis. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the median PFS was 44 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38-54) for BR and not yet reached in either ibrutinib-containing arm. The 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76%, and 76% for BR, ibrutinib, and IR, respectively. The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over chemoimmunotherapy was consistent across subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV). No significant interaction effects were observed between the treatment arm and del(11q), the complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, a greater difference in PFS was observed among the patients with TP53 abnormalities. There was no difference in the overall survival. Notable adverse events with ibrutinib included atrial fibrillation (afib) and hypertension. Afib was observed in 11 patients (pts) on BR (3%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (18%). All-grade hypertension was observed in 95 pts on BR (27%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (55%). These data show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS compared with BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. These benefits were observed across subgroups, including high-risk groups. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there was no inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature observed in CLL. These data continue to demonstrate the efficacy of ibrutinib in treatment-naïve CLL.

Abstract Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p<0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p<0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p<0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p<0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

e20004 Background: IB is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that showed superior progression-free survival compared with BR in CLL patients (pts) 65 years or older in a randomized phase 3 trial (Woyach et al, NEJM 2018). Pts receiving IB had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) and hypertension (HTN); BR pts had higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Differences in treatment duration for BR (6 cycles) and IB (until progression) complicated adverse event (AE) comparisons. Here we use an exploratory approach to compare toxicity burden between arms and provide assessment of AFIB, HTN and infections (INF). Methods: AEs were reported for each of cycles 1-6 and then every 3 cycles until progression or nonprotocol CLL therapy. Only grade (gr) 3-4 AEs were reported thereafter until death. A simple global AE score was calculated for each pt by summing grades of all gr 1-4 AEs and dividing by the number of cycles over which AEs were submitted. Results: 537 pts began therapy (176 BR, 361 IB). 68% on BR completed all 6 cycles. At a median follow-up of 38 months, 64% remained on IB. Treatment discontinuation for AE occurred in 10% and 14% of BR and IB pts. Overall, median AE score was 1.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-3.3) and 3.8 (IQR 2.3-5.9) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). For cycles 1-6, median AE score was 6.2 (IQR 3.8-9.0) and 4.8 (IQR 3.0-7.2) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). In the IB arm, median AE score post 6 cycles decreased significantly to 3.4 (IQR 1.9-5.6) (p < 0.01). Gr 3 or higher cumulative rates of AFIB, HTN, and INF over time appear in the table. 100 pts (26/176 BR, 74/361 IB) had 137 severe INF (39% respiratory: 16 BR, 37 IB; 25% skin: 3 BR, 31 IB; 12% GU: 3 BR, 13 IB; 25% other: 12 BR, 22 IB). There were 7 gr 5 INF (3 BR, 4 IB), none confirmed fungal. Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates for AE. Overall toxicity burden was significantly higher for IB, although IB toxicity burden decreased after 6 cycles. Toxicity burden was significantly higher in cycles 1-6 for pts receiving BR. Risk of severe AFIB, HTN, and INF is highest in the first year of IB. A simple AE score provides valuable information, especially when evaluating regimens of varying length. Clinical trial information: NCT01886872 . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01886872. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Currently, low molecular weight heparin is the guideline endorsed treatment of patients with cancer associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). While apixaban is approved for the treatment of acute VTE, there are limited data supporting its use in cancer patients. Methods: Patients with cancer associated acute VTE were randomly assigned to receive either apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin (200 IU/kg for 1 month followed by 150 IU/kg once daily) for 6 months. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included VTE recurrence and a composite of major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Results: Of the 300 patients who underwent randomization, 287 were included in the primary analysis. Of these, metastatic disease was present in 65.5% of subjects and 74% were receiving concurrent systemic cancer therapy. Colorectal, lung, pancreas, and breast cancers were the four most prevalent cancer types. Major bleeding occurred in 0 of the 142 patients (0%) in the apixaban group as compared with 3 of the 145 patients (2.1%) in the dalteparin group (p=0.9956). Recurrent VTE occurred in 5 patients (3.4%) in the apixaban group and 20 patients (14.1%) in the dalteparin group (difference in risk -10.7 percentage points) with a Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.26, (95% CI, 0.09 - 0.80, p = 0.0182). Major plus clinically relevant non-major bleeding were similar at 9% for both groups. There were no mortality differences comparing apixaban (15.9%) and dalteparin (10.6%) groups at 6 months (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 - 2.35). Monthly quality of life surveys favored apixaban therapy for many measures including: concern for excess bruising, stress, irritation, burden of delivery, and overall satisfaction with anticoagulant therapy (p<0.05). Monthly bruising questionnaire favored apixaban at each interval (p<0.002). Conclusions: Oral apixaban therapy was associated with very low rates of bleeding and significantly lower VTE recurrence with superior quality of life outcome measures compared to parenteral dalteparin in the treatment of cancer associated VTE. These data support the clinical utility of apixaban for the acute treatment of VTE in this patient population. Table. Table. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

591 Background: Both Cb and Bev demonstrate activity when combined with standard chemotherapy in TNBC. CALGB 40603 is a 2x2 randomized trial that previously demonstrated that adding Cb to NACT significantly increased pathologic complete responses in the breast/axilla (pCR), while adding Bev did not (Sikov, JCO 2015). Here we report 5-year LTOs and assess factors that influenced them. Methods: 443 patients with clinical stage II-III previously untreated TNBC received 12 weeks of paclitaxel (wP) +/- Cb then dose-dense AC, +/- Bev before surgery. The primary endpoint was pCR. Analyses of LTOs (event-free survival (EFS), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS)), impact of residual cancer burden and other variables were secondary. Results: Median follow-up was 5.7 years (y); 5y EFS was 70.9% (95% CI; 66.7%-75.4%), DRFI 76.3% (72.3%-80.5%) and OS 76.9% (72.9%-81.2%). Pretreatment clinical stage and achieving pCR correlated with LTOs, while age, race, subtype (basal-like vs. not) and tumor grade did not. Among pCR 5y EFS was 86.4% vs. 57.5% for non-pCR (HR 0.28, 0.19-0.43), OS was 88.7% vs 66.5% (HR = 0.28, 0.17-0.44). This relationship was similar in all trial arms. Any residual disease conferred poorer outcome; compared with pCR/Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) 0, EFS HRs were 2.29 (1.32-3.97), 3.01 (1.90-4.74), and 9.67 (5.66-16.51) for RCBI, II and III, respectively. There were no improvements in LTOs with Cb (EFS HR 0.99, 0.70-1.40) or Bev (EFS HR 0.91, 0.64-1.29). In an exploratory analysis, receipt of ≥11 doses of wP was associated with better EFS (HR 1.92, 1.33-2.77); this was particularly notable in Cb-treated arms. Conclusions: As expected, regardless of treatment arm pCR was associated with markedly better LTOs, and pts with any residual disease had significantly worse outcomes. The addition of Cb or Bev to standard NACT for TNBC did not improve LTOs in this trial, although it should be noted that the trial was not powered for this endpoint. Omission of chemotherapy doses may result in poorer outcomes, especially among Cb-treated pts, which may warrant further evaluation. Support: U10CA180821; U10CA180882; Genentech; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; NCT00861705 Clinical trial information: NCT00861705.