Goodman, Karyn A.

Importance Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is an increasingly used treatment strategy for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Little research has been conducted on cancer care delivery during NT, and the standards for optimal delivery of NT have not been defined. Objective To develop consensus best practices for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used a modified Delphi approach consisting of 2 rounds of voting, and a series of virtual conferences (from October to December 2023) to reach expert consensus on candidate best practice statements generated from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary panel was formed including 47 North American experts from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, gastroenterology, integrative oncology, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, cancer care delivery research, and nutrition as well as patient and caregiver stakeholders. Main Outcome and Measures Statements that reached 75% agreement or greater were included in final consensus statements. Results Of the 47 participating panel members, 27 (57.64%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (8.2) years. Physicians reported completing training a mean (SD) 14.6 (8.6) years prior and seeing a mean (SD) 110.6 (38.4) patients with PDAC annually; 35 (77.7%) were in academic practice. Final consensus was reached on 82 best practices for delivering NT. Of these, 38 statements focused on pre-NT practices, including diagnosis and staging (n = 15), evaluation and optimization (n = 20), and decision-making (n = 3); 29 statements defined best practices during NT, including initiation (n = 3), delivery of therapy (n = 8), restaging practices (n = 12), and management of complications during NT (n = 6); and 15 best practices were identified to guide treatment post-NT, focusing on surgery (n = 7), pathology (n = 4), and follow-up (n = 3). Conclusions Using a modified Delphi consensus technique, best practice guidelines were developed focusing on the optimal standards for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Given the prognostic importance of completing multimodality therapy, efforts to standardize and optimize the delivery of NT represent an immediate opportunity to decrease care variation and improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. Future research should focus on validating and implementing best practice standards into clinical practice.

283 Background: The randomized phase II CALGB 80803 trial evaluated use of PET imaging for early assessment of induction chemotherapy (iCT) responsiveness to tailor therapy for patients with esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas (EC) undergoing trimodality therapy. The primary endpoint of improving pathologic complete response rates using PET-adapted therapy was met. A companion QOL study aimed to characterize patients’ experience through iCT, chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery (S). Methods: Between 11/2011 and 5/2015, 241 eligible patients were randomized to an iCT regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP), followed by PET scan then CRT, either continuing on the same CT for PET-responders (PET-R) or crossing over to the alternative CT for PET-nonresponders (PET-NR). We prospectively collected QOL domains and symptoms at baseline (T1), after iCT (T2), after CRT (T3), and 3- (T4) and 6- months (T5) after S using the EORTC QLQ-C30, The Esophageal Cancer subscale (EORTC OES18), FACT Neurotoxicity Scale (FACT-NTX), and 6 questions from the PRO-CTCAE. QOL scores were compared between iCT groups and between PET-R and PET-NR at each time point using mixed models. The association of QOL scores at enrollment with overall survival (OS) was tested using Cox regression. Results: 189 patients enrolled on the QOL sub-study, 92 received induction FOLFOX and 97 induction CP. Of those, 110 were PET-R and 79 were PET-NR. 97.9% went on to CRT, and 83.6% underwent S. Global QOL and symptoms statistically significantly worsened from T1 to T2 in 14 of 25 domains, and remained significantly worsened from T1 at: T3 for 19 of 25 domains, T4 for 17 of 25 domains, and T5 for 6 of 25 domains. Changes from T1 significantly favored iFOLFOX (vs iCP) for ability to eat (at T3 and T4), GI symptoms (at T3 and T4), and talking (at T5). Changes from T1 significantly favored iCP (vs iFOLFOX) for neuropathy (at T2, T3, and T4) and coughing (at T5). Proportion of patients reporting worsened PRO-CTCAE scores did not differ between PET-R or PET-NR groups . Multiple QOL domains and symptoms were associated with OS including role functioning, global health status/QOL, appetite loss, pain, dysphagia, and ability to eat (all p<0.002). Conclusions: QOL was impacted most by CRT but returned to baseline 6 months after surgery for most domains. Observed symptom differences did not consistently favor one iCT regimen. Early interventions such as nutritional support and prehabilitation should be studied to improve QOL and OS. Clinical trial information: NCT01333033 .

LBA2 Background: Radiation with sensitizing fluoropyrimidine (5FUCRT) is a standard curative intent treatment for LARC. It improves disease-free survival (DFS) by decreasing pelvic recurrence but has short- and long-term toxicity. The PROSPECT trial compares FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT (intervention) to 5FUCRT (control) for neoadjuvant treatment prior to TME for LARC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had cT2N+, cT3N-, cT3N+ rectal cancers deemed appropriate for neoadjuvant therapy prior to low anterior resection with TME. Pts with distal, T4 tumors, threatened radial margins or > 4 enlarged lymph nodes were ineligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 without blinding. Pts in the control group received 5FUCRT with 5040 cGy over 5.5 weeks with either capecitabine or 5FU. Pts in the intervention group had 6 cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by restaging. If tumor regression was > 20%, then TME was performed without radiation; if < 20%, 5FUCRT was given before TME. DFS was the 1°outcome, defined as time from randomization to any recurrence or death, analyzed in the per-protocol population. One interim analysis was conducted with α spending = 0.001. Noninferiority (NI) of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 90.2% confidence interval (CI) of the DFS hazard ratio did not exceed 1.29 (NI margin). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (CR), and toxicity. Results: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1194, pts were randomized and 1128 initiated protocol-assigned treatment. Median age was 57, 34.5% were women and 61.9% had clinically positive nodes. 53 of 585 pts in the intervention group (9%) received preop 5FUCRT. DFS was analyzed after 227 events and median follow-up of 58 months. Conclusions: FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT is non-inferior to 5FUCRT for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC prior to low anterior resection with TME. Patients and physicians have alternative strategies for management of LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01515787 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE To evaluate the use of early assessment of chemotherapy responsiveness by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to tailor therapy in patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy. RESULTS Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached. CONCLUSION Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the medical management and surveillance of metastatic and unresectable pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma held on October 2 and 3, 2019. The panelists consisted of endocrinologists, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, nephrologists, pathologists, and radiation oncologists. The panelists performed a literature review on a series of questions regarding the medical management of metastatic and unresectable pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma as well as questions regarding surveillance after resection. The panelists voted on controversial topics, and final recommendations were sent to all panel members for final approval.

e14555 Background: This study was done to assess the toxicity and efficacy of IMRT for anal cancer in a multi-institutional setting. Methods: Records of 152 total patients (pts) were reviewed retrospectively. Data on disease control and toxicity were collected as well as pt and treatment characteristics. Acute (<6 months) and late (>6 months) severe toxicity (grade >3) were recorded at each institution. Four were excluded for either presence of metastatic disease (2) or stage TX (2). There was data for late toxicity on 120 pts. Results: T stage was T1 in 28, T2 in 79, T3 in 29 and T4 in 12 pts. N stage was N0 in 77, N1 in 40, N2 in 19 and N3 in 12 pts. The median age was 56 yrs and median follow-up was 26.8 months. Cumulative IMRT dose was 51.25 Gy (median) (range: 4.32-61.2 Gy) in a median of 28 fractions (2-34). Chemotherapy was given in all but 2 pts and the most common regimen was 5- fluorouracil plus mitomycin-C. The median total elapsed treatment time was 40 days. Local control at 3 yrs was 87% and was significantly worse for patients with T3-4 disease (79% vs 90% at 3 years; p=0.04). There was no correlation between dose and local control. Regional control, distant control and overall survival were 97%, 91%, and 87% at 3 yrs, respectively. Nodal status was associated with regional and distal control as well as overall survival (p<0.01 for each). The most common acute severe toxicity was hematologic (41%). Severe acute GI, skin or other toxicity was 11%, 20% and 1% respectively. There were two grade 5 toxicities (hematologic and GI). Severe late toxicity was limited to skin (1%) and GI (3%). Conclusions: IMRT resulted in excellent local control in this multi-institutional cohort of pts. Although T stage did predict for worse local control, most pts with T3-4 disease were controlled with IMRT. Nodal status predicts for regional and distal control as well as overall survival. Severe toxicity was acceptable with this technique.

Purpose: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. Methods: Eligibility—within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm—6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm—gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. Results: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, ( P =0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P =0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.

4007 Background: NRG/RTOG 0848 is a 2-step study designed to determine whether erlotinib (E) added to gemcitabine (G) (randomized Ph II) &/or adjuvant radiation with concurrent 5-FU or capecitabine following 6 months of systemic chemotherapy (Ph III), improve survival in patients (pts) with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. The erlotinib results are reported here. Methods: Eligible pts include those with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, pathologic stage T1-T3, N0-1, M0; PS 0-1, & CA19-9 ≤ 180 IU/L. Pts in Arms 1 & 2 received G 1 gm/m2 weekly for 3 weeks in a 28-day cycle for 6 cycles. Pts in Arm 2 also received E 100 mg/day. The primary hypothesis for the E portion was that G+E would increase overall survival (OS) compared to G alone. With a 1-sided alpha of 0.15, 200 OS events provide 80%/90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median OS from 22 to 28.8/30.6 months (mos). OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method & arms compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze treatment effect. Results: 336 pts were randomized from 11/17/2009 to 2/28/2014, with 163 pts evaluable for G and 159 for G+E. Median age was 63 years (39-86). Most pts had pathologic T3 disease (78%) & CA19-9 ≤ 90 (93%). There are 32 pts (20%) with grade 4 adverse events (AEs) & 2 pts (1%) with grade 5 AEs on G and 27 (17%) & 3 (2%) on G+E arm, respectively. There are fewer grade ≥ 3 GI AEs on the G arm (22%) as compared to the G+E arm (28%), and 110 (69.2%) & 93 (59.6%) pts received at least 85% of planned G dose for the G & G+E arms, respectively. 58% of E pts received at least 85% of planned E dose. The median follow-up for alive pts is 42.5 mos (min-max: < 1-75). With 203 deaths, median & 3-yr OS (95% CI) are 29.9 mos (21.7-33.4) & 39% (30, 45) for G and 28.1 mos (20.7-30.9) & 39% (31, 47) for G+E; log-rank p = 0.62. The hazard ratio (95% CI) comparing OS of G+E to G is 1.04 (0.79- 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant E to G did not provide a signal for increased OS in pts with resected pancreatic head cancer compared to G alone. Accrual to the trial is continuing to answer the Ph III radiation question. Clinical trial information: NCT01013649.