Heying, Erica N.

Abstract Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758

Abstract Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

102 Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory mCRC; it is unknown if the addition of bevacizumab would improve outcomes. We studied the efficacy and safety of CBI compared with CI in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype, irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, pts with RAS wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy who failed at least 1 irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimen and received bevacizumab in at least 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose), cetuximab 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg vs CI every 2 wks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models stratified by number of prior lines of therapy and bevacizumab receipt in immediate prior line were performed. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). The study was closed early in January 2018 for reasons related to accrual and funding after enrollment of 36 out of a planned 60 pts. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2017, 36 pts were randomized (19 to CBI, 17 to CI). 34 pts (94%) were treated with 2 or more prior chemotherapy regimens. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 vs 5.5 mo for CBI and CI arms, respectively (log-rank P =0.76; multivariable HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 vs 10.2 mo for CBI and CI (log-rank P= 0.04; multivariable HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 37% for CBI vs 12% for CI ( P =0.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of pts receiving CBI vs 35% for CI ( P =0.46). Conclusions: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there were non-significant increases in PFS and ORR and a statistically significant 9.5 mo increase in median OS in favor of CBI compared to CI. Further investigation of CBI for treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02292758.

614 Background: A consensus interpretation of the IDEA colon cancer study results suggested that risk categories based on T/N stage grouping be used to guide decision-making for duration (3 vs 6 months) of adjuvant FOLFOX or CapeOX chemotherapy. Given the prognostic potential of immune biomarkers, we examined the immunoscore and individual T and B lymphocyte markers in low and high risk T/N subsets of stage III colon carcinoma patients (N=600) treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Methods: Immunoscore (CD3+, CD8+) and individual T-cell and CD20+ B-cell immunostain densities in central tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) of FFPE sections were quantified by image analysis. A predetermined immunoscore categorization was used [high (2-4) vs low (0-1)]. Individual markers were analyzed by backwards selection wherein CD3+ IM was most robust for prognosis and an optimized cutoff was then determined. Associations with disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for age, T/N stage, sidedness, KRAS/BRAF, and DNA mismatch repair. Results: In low and high risk T/N patient subsets, the immunoscore and CD3+ IM were each significantly discriminant for prognosis. Among low risk (T1-3N1) patients, a high vs low immunoscore was associated with a 91% vs 77% 3-year DFS [HR 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.95, adjusted (adj) P= 0.026]. Among high risk (T4 or N2) patients, a high vs low immunoscore was associated with a 68% vs 54% 3-year DFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.98, Padj= 0.034]. Similarly, a high vs low intratumoral CD3+ density at the invasive margin (IM) was significantly associated with prognosis in low risk [HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21- 0.66), Padj< 0.0003] and in high risk [HR 0.47, 95% CI, 0.27- 0.80), Padj< 0.0028] patient subsets. Conclusions: Immunoscore and CD3+ IM were shown to prognostically stratify FOLFOX-treated patients within both low and high risk T/N subsets. These data underscore limitations of the T/N risk classification for adjuvant treatment decisions in stage III patients, and demonstrate the ability of T-cell markers to enhance prognostication to guide clinical decision-making.

Abstract Purpose: Colorectal cancers with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) are presumed to uniformly have dense lymphocytic infiltration that underlies their favorable prognosis and is critical to their responsiveness to immunotherapy, as compared with MMR-proficient (pMMR) tumors. We examined T-cell densities and their potential heterogeneity in a large cohort of dMMR tumors. Experimental Design: CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell densities were quantified at the invasive margin (IM) and tumor core (CT) in 561 stage III colon cancers (dMMR, n = 278; pMMR, n = 283) from a phase III adjuvant trial (N0147). Their association with overall survival (OS) was determined using multivariable Cox analysis. Results: Although CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell densities in the tumor microenvironment were higher in dMMR versus pMMR tumors overall, intertumoral heterogeneity in densities between tumors was significantly higher by 30% to 88% among dMMR versus pMMR cancers (P &lt; 0.0001 for all four T-cell subtypes [CD3+IM, CD3+CT, CD8+IM, CD8+CT]). A substantial proportion of dMMR tumors (26% to 35% depending on the T-cell subtype) exhibited T-cell densities as low as that in the bottom half of pMMR tumors. All four T-cell subtypes were prognostic in dMMR with CD3+IM being the most strongly prognostic. Low (vs. high) CD3+IM was independently associated with poorer OS among dMMR (HR, 4.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.43–15.87; P = 0.0019) and pMMR tumors (P = 0.0103). Conclusions: Tumor-infiltrating T-cell densities exhibited greater intertumoral heterogeneity among dMMR than pMMR colon cancers, with CD3+IM providing robust stratification of both dMMR and pMMR tumors for prognosis. Potentially, lower T-cell densities among dMMR tumors may contribute to immunotherapy resistance.

3579 Background: Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) indicate a host immune response that may influence survival. Immunoscore was developed using CD3+ and CD8+density and location in primary CC pts with pooled stages, varying treatment and follow-up. We determined if individual immune markers and/or Immunoscore are prognostic in resected stage III CC pts (N=600). Methods: CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell or CD20+ B lymphocyte density in central tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) was evaluated by immunostaining and quantified by image analysis. Immunoscore was calculated on a scale of I0 to I4 with high densities of CD3+ and CD8+in both CT and IM scored as I4; low densities scored as I0. Associations with disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression adjusting for covariates. Results: Data for CD3+, CD8+ and CD20+ were generated (N=595). Higher density of CD3+ CT, CD3+ IM and CD8+ IM were associated with longer DFS adjusting for covariates (Table). CD3+ IM had the strongest association with DFS, and was stronger in left-sided (HRadj.=0.81, 95% CI, 0.70-0.94, padj.= 0.0049) vs right-sided (HRadj.=0.93, 95% CI, 0.85-1.0 padj.=0.52) tumors (pinteraction=0.039). Higher density of CD3+ IM was associated with older age (p=0.034), T1/2 (p<.0001), N1 (p=0.017), right-sided (p=0.013), high TILs (p=0.0008), and deficient MMR (p=0.0003). Using a prior Immunoscore risk stratification, higher scores were associated with better DFS (HR.=0.62, CI, 0.44-0.87, p=0.006) (Table). Conclusions: Densities of CD3+ and CD8+, especially at IM, are individually prognostic in FOLFOX-treated pts. Association of CD3+IM with prognosis differed by primary CC site. Immunoscore was strongly prognostic, and this result provides validation in a clinical trial cohort. [Table: see text]

3516 Background: Epidemiological data suggest a protective effect of vitamin D on CC risk. However, association of serum vitamin D level with clinical outcome in pts with surgically resected CC remains unknown. We analyzed total circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D)] with clinical outcome in pts with resected stage III CC treated with FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in a phase III trial. Methods: Association of pre-treatment level of plasma 25(OH)D with disease-free survival (DFS) and time-to-recurrence (TTR) was analyzed with 25(OH)D as a continuous variable by a relative risk model with splines and as a binary variable (vitamin D deficient [<30 ng/mL]) using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Overall, 49% (291/600) of pts were vitamin D deficient. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was significantly higher in women vs men (52% vs. 48%, p=0.030) and in blacks vs whites (74% vs. 45%, p=0.0003). The continuous 25(OH)D level and pt sex were associated by the interaction test (pinteraction=0.044). There were no statistically significant associations with DFS/TTR for either continuous 25(OH)D level (DFS, p=0.22; TTR, p=0.26) nor for vitamin D deficiency (DFS, adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj]=1.01, 95% CI, 0.74-1.38; padj=0.94; TTR, HRadj=1.00; CI, 0.72-1.38; padj=0.99. A comparison of the highest vs lowest tertile showed a significant association between the highest 25(OH)D level and better outcomes in men (DFS, HRadj.=0.18, CI, 0.04-0.76, padj=0.020; TTR, HRadj.=0.12, CI, 0.02-0.64, padj=0.014), but not in women (DFS, pinteraction=0.039; TTR, pinteraction=0.033). Conclusions: Nearly one-half of pts in the clinical trial cohort were vitamin D deficient with lowest 25(OH)D levels found in women and blacks. While vitamin D deficiency was not associated with adverse outcome, high levels of vitamin D in men, but not women, were associated with longer survival. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180863, U10CA180888, U10CA077202, CCSRI 021039. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274.