Ortuzar, Waldo Feliu

LBA8003 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

677 Background: Napabucasin a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor in clinical development, suppresses cancer stemness by targeting Stat3-driven gene transcription. Preclinically, potent and broad-spectrum anti-cancer activity was observed in vitro and in vivo, alone and in combination with other agents. In a phase 1 study, napabucasin monotherapy was well tolerated with encouraging signs of anti-tumor activity at the RP2D of 500 mg BID. Methods: The current open-label, multi-center study includes phase II expansion in pts with refractory, K- Raswt mCRC to confirm safety and anti-tumor activity of napabucasin administered orally at 480mg BID in combination with panitumumab (6mg/kg bi-weekly). Results: 72 pts were enrolled, 48 pts were evaluable by RECIST of which 7 (15%) and 41 (85%) had 2 or >3 prior treatment lines, respectively. Of the 48 evaluable pts, 64.6% (31/48) were previously treated with an anti-EGFR agent. No new adverse events (AEs) were observed and most common AEs included grade 1/2 diarrhea, nausea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting. Among 48 pts enrolled who received RECIST evaluation, Disease Control Rate (DCR) was observed in 25 pts (52.1%) of which 3 pts achieved PR (6%) and 22 pts achieved SD (45%). Among 31 pts previously treated with anti-EGFR therapy, DCR was observed in 15 pts (48%) compared with DCR of 59% observed in 10 out of 17 anti-EGFR naïve pts receiving a scan. Conclusions: This phase II study confirmed that napabucasin can be safely combined with panitumumab at full dose and shows encouraging anti-tumor activity in pts with K- Ras wt mCRC, regardless of prior anti-EGFR exposure, suggesting that napabucasin may sensitize pts to repeat anti-EGFR therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01776307. [Table: see text]

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.