Cooney, Matthew M.

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

1504 Background: Trial recruitment that requires specific actionable mutations based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) is challenging. Barriers can include competing studies, physician study awareness, site proximity, mutation incidence, among other concerns. Methods: This study (NCT04432454) opened clinical sites using two methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “Traditional” approach included site selection, IRB and contract approval, and trial activation prior to a patient being identified for enrollment. The second approach used the Tempus “TIME” Trials network that would only open a site after identifying a patient with a mutation of interest and eligible for the trial. Results: The first patient enrolled was on 10/12/20 and the last patient was on 6/24/21. A total of 16 sites (6 Traditional and 10 TIME) participated. All Traditional sites, and none of the TIME sites, were affiliated with major academic institutions. Duration for full CTA execution for Traditional sites averaged 200.5 days (range 142 to 257) and for TIME sites averaged 7.6 days (range 2 to 14). IRB approval time average for Traditional sites was 27.5 days (range 12 to 71) and TIME sites was 3.0 days (range 1 to 12 days). Days from site selection to activation letter for Traditional sites was on average 250.0 days (range 187 to 281) and for TIME sites was 131.6 days (range 22 to 248). Time from study activation to first consent was 33.3 days (range 18 to 58) for Traditional sites and 8.8 days (range 1 to 35) for TIME sites. The first patient on-study was at a TIME site 115 days prior to a Traditional site and the first 7 patients enrolled were at TIME sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients while the TIME sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled all 29 patients in 8 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12 to 18 months. Conclusions: Although the Traditional and TIME programs had different operational models, they both contributed a significant number of patients and reduced the projected enrollment timeline. TIME sites enrolled the initial patients. These results demonstrate that the “Just-in-Time model,” in conjunction with a Traditional model, can reduce projected overall time to enrollment in biomarker-driven studies. [Table: see text]

TPS10099 Background: PDGFRα is a receptor commonly overexpressed in STS. Olaratumab is a fully human IgG1 MAb which specifically binds to human PDGFRα and blocks PDGFR-mediated signaling pathways. Olaratumab demonstrated significant tumor inhibition as a monotherapy and in combination with standard chemotherapy in preclinical human sarcoma xenograft models. A Phase 1b/2 clinical trial for patients with advanced or metastatic STS is currently enrolling patients in 9 sites across the United States; approximately 45 patients have been randomized. Methods: In Phase 1b, patients received olaratumab (15 mg/kg) via intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle and D (75 mg/m²) 1 hour after olaratumab on Day 1. Phase 1b was completed without encountering dose-limiting toxicities; enrollment into Phase 2 has begun. The primary endpoint of the Phase 2 portion is to compare progression-free survival in patients with advanced STS when treated with D plus olaratumab versus D alone. Planned enrollment goal for Phase 2 is 130 patients. Patients are required to be ≥ 18 years old with ECOG 0-2, have appropriate organ function and histologically confirmed, measurable, and advanced STS. There is no restriction on the number of prior therapies. Patients are randomized 1:1 to either D plus olaratumab (Arm A) at same dose/schedule as in Phase 1b or D alone (Arm B). All patients can receive dexrazoxane. Upon completion of 8 cycles, patients in Arm A continue with olaratumab monotherapy. Patients in Arm B who develop disease progression during or after treatment can subsequently receive olaratumab monotherapy. Patients are stratified to treatment arms according to PDGFRα expression (positive vs. negative), number of previous lines of treatment, sarcoma subtype, and ECOG performance status. Response assessment occurs every 6 weeks. Exploratory analyses include biomarkers of olaratumab pharmacodynamic activity including PDGF ligands, PDGFR downstream molecules, VEGF, and changes in vascularity of tumor specimens.

181 Background: To evaluate whether metformin (Met) a widely-used, nontoxic oral antidiabetic drug with putative anticancer properties leads to improvements in prostate cancer (PC) outcomes in the CHAARTED trial. Methods: In the CHAARTED database where metformin use at baseline was recorded prospectively, we identified patients with metastatic PC who underwent either ADT alone or ADT and docetaxel (D) chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the effect of Metformin on outcomes. Results: A total of 788 patients (median age, 63 y) had complete data after randomization. Comparison of ADT+D+Met (n = 39) to ADT+D (n = 357) and ADT+Met (n = 29) to ADT alone (n = 363) revealed similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Cause of death was PC in 13(81%) of ADT+D+Met, 72(85%) ADT+D, 9(82%) ADT+Met and 105(84%) ADT alone groups. See table for PC outcomes and overall survival by metformin use. Cox regression analysis for overall survival stratified by stratification factors at randomization demonstrates Met use was associated with a trend for worse overall survival (HR 1.47 95%CI: [0.95,2.26], p = 0.08) with adjustment for treatment arm and prior local therapy. In contrast, ADT+D use (HR 0.62; 95%CI: [0.47,0.81]) and prior local therapy with surgery or radiation (HR 0.56; 95% CI: [0.38, 0.82]) were associated with improved survival. Conclusions: In this study, baseline metformin did not improve PC outcomes. Partial support and drug supply by Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT00309985. [Table: see text]

137 Background: Prior work from SWOG 9346 revealed that PSA ≤ 0.2 ng/dL at 7 months (mo) is prognostic for longer OS with ADT alone. We sought to evaluate if this optimal decline remained predictive of better OS when D was added to ADT for initial mHSPC treatment. Methods: We performed a landmark survival analysis at 7 mo using the E3805 database (NCT00309985). Inclusion required at least 7 mo of followup and PSA levels at 7 mo from ADT initiation. Survival was defined from ADT start or randomization to death. SWOG 9346 PSA nadirs of ≤ 0.2, > 0.2-4 and > 4 were used as classifiers. Results: 719 patients were eligible for analysis: 358 treated with ADT plus D and 361 with ADT alone. Median follow-up was 23.1 mo. On multivariable analysis (MVA), achieving a PSA ≤ 0.2 at 7 mo was more likely if the patient received D and had lower volume disease, prior local therapy, and lower baseline PSAs (all p ≤ 0.01). Across all patients, median OS was significantly longer if PSA at 7 mo reached ≤ 0.2 compared to > 4 (p < 0.0001) (Table). On MVA, PSA ≤ 0.2 at 7 mo and low volume disease were prognostic of longer OS (all p < 0.01). On ADT, 28.8% achieved a PSA ≤ 0.2 at 7 mo vs. 45.3% on ADT+D. Patients on ADT alone who achieved a PSA nadir ≤ 0.2 had the best survival. These patients were more likely to have low volume disease (56.7%) compared to the ADT + D pts (46.3%). Conclusions: Achieving PSA ≤ 0.2 at 7 mo remains prognostic for longer OS with ADT for mHSPC, whether administered alone or with D. Adding D to ADT increased the likelihood of a lower PSA and improved survival. Partial support and drug supply by Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT00309985. [Table: see text]

LBA2 Background: Docetaxel (D) improves OS of men with mPrCa who have progressed on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We aimed to assess the benefit of upfront chemohormonal therapy for metastatic PrCa. Methods: 1:1 randomization to ADT alone or ADT + D dosed 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles within 4 month (mos) of starting ADT. Stratification factors: high volume (HV) vs. low volume (LV) disease (HV: visceral metastases and/or 4 or more bone metastases); anti-androgen use beyond 30 days; Age ≥70 vs. < 70 years; ECOG PS 0-1 vs. 2; Prior adjuvant ADT > 12 vs. ≤ 12 mos; FDA approved drug for delaying skeletal related events. Key eligibility criteria: suitable organ and neurological function for D; adjuvant ADT ≤ 24 mos and no progression within 12 mos of adjuvant ADT. OS was the primary endpoint and the study was powered to assess for a 33.3% improvement in median OS (80% power and 1-sided alpha=2.5%). Projected median OS for ADT alone: HV-33 mos; LV-67 mos. Results: 790 men were accrued from 7/28/06 to 11/21/2012: ADT N=393; ADT + D: N=397; balanced for demographic, stratification and disease factors. Median age: 63 years (range: 36 to 91); 98% ECOG PS 0 or 1; 89% Caucasian; 24% prior radiotherapy, 24% prior prostatectomy; HV 64% on ADT and 67% on ADT + D. Data released after 4th interim analysis in Sept 2013 when O’Brien Fleming upper boundary was crossed with 53.1% information. This report reflects 1/16/2014 data with median follow-up of 29 mos with 137 deaths on ADT alone vs. 104 deaths on ADT+D. ADT+D: Grade (G) 3/4 Neutropenic fever: 4%/2%; G3 neuropathy: 1% sensory, 1% motor; 1 death due to treatment (no deaths due to treatment on ADT). Efficacy data is in the table below. After disease progression, 123 pts on ADT alone and 45 pts on ADT + D received docetaxel. Conclusions: ADT + D improves OS over ADT alone in men with HV mPrCa. Longer follow-up is needed for men with LV mPrCa. Clinical trial information: NCT00309985. [Table: see text]