Ramanathan, Rajesh

6587 Background: Increasing numbers of clinical trials include optional or mandatory pharmaco-dynamic and -kinetic assays. Since little is known about patients’ (pts) perceived willingness to undergo specific tests and the number of tests pts would tolerate on a single trial, this study was conducted. Secondary purposes included correlating test number and type with demographics, prior test experience, coverage, and inconvenience. Methods: Exploratory correlative study using a multi-item self-report questionnaire to measure pts willingness (0–10 scale, 0 = not willing, 10 = very willing) to undergo imaging (e.g., MRI, ECHO), invasive (e.g., tumor, skin biopsies [bx]) and less invasive tests (e.g., blood, urine). 61 pts (22 female, 39 male) with advanced malignancies participating in phase I or II trials at one institution were enrolled from June 2008-December 2008. Descriptive and non-parametric statistics were used. Results: Statistically significant (p < 0.01) inverse relationships were found between the number of imaging studies (e.g., CT, ECHO), tests required (e.g., tumor, skin bx, blood draws) and pts reported willingness to undergo these tests. Pts were least willing to undergo tumor bx (median 5.5, interquartile range [IQR] 3.5–10), skin bx (6.8, 3.1–10), and unexpectedly MRIs (8, 4–10) (all p < 0.01). Surprisingly, inconvenience and prior negative experiences for the more invasive tests (e.g., skin bx) did not negatively affect willingness to undergo these tests in the future as opposed to most imaging studies. College-educated were more willing to undergo tests than non-college educated. Few pts were unwilling to undergo tests/procedures at all, if mandatory for enrollment. Conclusions: Results provide improved understanding of pts willingness to undergo trial requirements and suggest that adequate explanation (e.g., MRI) and test rationale may affect willingness to undergo tests. Findings can be used to improve study design and consent procedures to minimize patient discomfort and inconvenience. The overall willingness of advanced stage cancer pts to undergo study specific tests/procedures is high. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4627 Background: E4201 compared radiation and gemcitabine (RT+Gem) versus Gem alone in LAPC. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary objectives included: objective response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and QOL. We previously reported that RT+Gem was associated with improved overall survival compared with Gem alone [median survival time, 11 months and 9.2 months, respectively; p=0.034], without impact in RR or PFS. (ASCO 2008, abstract # 4506). We now report on QOL as measured by the Hep subscale from the FACT-Hepatobiliary [FACT-Hep] between both arms. Methods: Eligible patients had LAPC adenocarcinoma, PS <2, without prior therapy. They were randomized to Arm A: Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/week x 3, every 4 weeks, 7 cycles), or Arm B: RT (50.4Gy/28 fractions) plus Gem (600 mg/m2/weekly x 6) followed by 5 cycles of Gem alone (1,000 mg/m2/weekly x 3 every 4 wks). The FACT-Hep was administered at baseline (before starting induction), 6 weeks (immediately after completing induction), week 16 (Arm A) or week 15 (Arm B) mid-consolidation, and at 9 months. Results: From April, 2003 to December, 2005, 74 patients were enrolled, 71 were eligible [37 Arm A; 34 Arm B]. Grade ≥3 was reported in 80% and 82.4% in ARM A and B, respectively (p=1.00). Grade IV toxicities, mainly gastrointestinal and hematologic, were more common in ARM B (41.2% vs 5.7%, p=<0.0001). QOL compliance declined over time, most commonly attributable to either patients or staff choosing not to complete or administer the instrument due to declining health (96%, 69%, 60%, and 40% at baseline, week 6, 15/16 weeks and 9 months, respectively). Within Arm B, QoL scores dropped significantly from baseline to 6 weeks. By week 15, QoL scores for patients on Arm B rebounded to levels similar to baseline. Two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests failed to suggest differences in median FACT-Hep subscale score between treatment arms at any of the four time-points (alpha = 0.10). Conclusions: RT+Gem is associated with an overall survival benefit without apparent long term adverse impact on QOL when compared with Gem alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

3503 Background: The association between race & toxicity or response to systemic chemotherapy is poorly understood. We correlated relevent polymorphisms with toxicity & outcome data in AA & C patients (Pts) enrolled in N9741, a large randomized MCRC trial. Methods: Toxicity, response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), & dose intensity (DI) were examined as a function of race in 1412 Pts enrolled on IFL, both full and reduced dose, FOLFOX, or IROX including 486 Pts with pharmacogenomic data. Accrual by race permitted comparison of C (n=1297) to AA (n=112). Results: C & AA were similar in disease extent, PS, gender, prior adjuvant treatment, and DI at cycles 1, 3, 6, or 12. The impact of race on RR, toxicity & the distribution of four relevent drug metabolism genotypes are in the table . AA had lower RR overall & in each treatment arm. Lower toxicity rates were seen in AA Pts, mainly due to less diarrhea, as measured by both CTC V2 & patient reported outcome data. These relationships were maintained in multivariate models adjusting for arm, age, gender, & PS. In these multivariate models, the odds ratio between RR and race was 1.72 (p=0.012) (29% AA vs 41% C) & for severe toxicity the odds ratio was 1.76 (p=0.006) (34% AA vs 48% C). Overall, race was not a significant predictor of TTP or OS (p > 0.50 for each). The hazard ratio comparing FOLFOX to IFL for C was 0.67 and for AA was 0.55. TTP for FOLFOX was superior to both IFL and IROX for both C & AA. Significant differences in pharmacogenetic variants were observed between C & AA, although the sample size for investigating the three-way combination of Rx, race, & pharmacogenomics is too small (36 AA) to draw definitive conclusions. Conclusions: It appears that AA have less toxicity & a lower RR than C when treated with standard MCRC regimens. Different frequencies of polymorphisms in genes relevent to drug metabolism may help explain these clinical differences. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]