McMurray, Ryan P.

Abstract Globally, gastric adenocarcinoma is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality and a major cancer disparity in the United States. Chemoprevention strategies are lacking for high-risk individuals with gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC). Curcumin, the principal curcuminoid in turmeric, exerts immunomodulatory effects in the epithelium and against Helicobacter pylori, and studies suggest chemoprevention potential. We conducted a double-blind, phase IIa randomized controlled trial in high-risk populations in Puerto Rico and Honduras. We investigated the utility of a bioavailable formulation of curcumin (Meriva) among individuals with H. pylori–negative GPMC, specifically, multifocal atrophic gastritis (MAG) or gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM). Patients were 1:1 randomized to 1,000 mg Meriva daily or placebo for a 6-month intervention with endoscopy at baseline and 6 months. Outcomes included assessment of epithelial cytokine and chemokine levels, histology, and DNA damage as assessed by γ-H2AX phosphorylation IHC. Of the 110 subjects screened, 50 participants were randomized, and 48 completed the trial. A significant reduction in gastric mucosal IL1β levels from baseline in the gastric body, the primary endpoint, was observed in the Meriva group (P = 0.032). Changes in epithelial IL8, TNFα, and inducible protein 10 levels and gastric mucosal histology and DNA damage (secondary endpoints) were similar between arms. Curcumin (Meriva) was safe, well-tolerated, and showed potential as a curcuminoid chemoprevention agent in H. pylori–negative patients with GPMC. A potential reduction in gastric inflammation as measured by gastric mucosal IL1β levels was observed. Further studies are warranted, including studies in H. pylori–positive individuals, based upon the curcuminoid direct effects on H. pylori. Prevention Relevance: Gastric adenocarcinoma is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Chemoprevention candidates for GPMCs are limited. This randomized phase IIa trial evaluated a bioavailable curcumin formulation in high-risk individuals with MAG and GIM. The results support further study of curcuminoids for gastric cancer risk reduction. See related Spotlight, p. 387 See related article by Morgan et al., p. 391

Abstract Purpose: To assess whether MUC1 peptide vaccine produces an immune response and prevents subsequent colon adenoma formation. Patients and Methods: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in individuals age 40 to 70 with diagnosis of an advanced adenoma ≤1 year from randomization. Vaccine was administered at 0, 2, and 10 weeks with a booster injection at week 53. Adenoma recurrence was assessed ≥1 year from randomization. The primary endpoint was vaccine immunogenicity at 12 weeks defined by anti-MUC1 ratio ≥2.0. Results: Fifty-three participants received the MUC1 vaccine and 50 placebo. Thirteen of 52 (25%) MUC1 vaccine recipients had a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG (range, 2.9–17.3) at week 12 versus 0/50 placebo recipients (one-sided Fisher exact P < 0.0001). Of 13 responders at week 12, 11 (84.6%) responded to a booster injection at week 52 with a ≥2-fold increase in MUC1 IgG measured at week 55. Recurrent adenoma was observed in 31 of 47 (66.0%) in the placebo group versus 27 of 48 (56.3%) in the MUC1 group [adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60–1.14; P = 0.25]. Adenoma recurrence occurred in 3/11 (27.3%) immune responders at week 12 and week 55 (aRR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15–1.11; P = 0.08 compared with placebo). There was no difference in serious adverse events. Conclusions: An immune response was observed only in vaccine recipients. Adenoma recurrence was not different than placebo, but a 38% absolute reduction in adenoma recurrence compared with placebo was observed in participants who had an immune response at week 12 and with the booster injection.

Abstract Background: Smoking is the most common etiology for lung cancer and smoking cessation does not eliminate the risk. An emerging area of interest for risk reduction is immunoprevention. MUC1 glycoprotein is aberrantly expressed in adenocarcinomas, including lung cancer and their premalignant lesions. MUC1 vaccine in the premalignant or high-risk setting may be effective in halting neoplastic development and progression. Trial design: Through the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN), we conducted a two-center pilot trial to evaluate immunogenicity of the MUC1 vaccine (assessed at 12 weeks), and safety (assessed at up to 24 weeks) in current and former heavy smokers. 87 participants were screened in order to have at least 40 evaluable for baseline and 12-week immunogenicity assessments. Smoking history of ≥30 pack-years and either current (still smoking or quit < 1 year prior to pre-registration) or former smoker (quit 1-15 years prior to pre-registration); ages 55-80 years; ECOG performance status ≤1; CT scan of the chest done ≤ 6 months prior to pre-registration showing either negative findings (no nodules) or solid or part-solid nodules < 6 mm in size (consistent with < 1% probability of malignancy, Lung-RADs Version 1.0). Exclusion criteria were standard for lung cancer screening. Methods: MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant (Hiltonol) vaccine was given at week 0, 2 and 10. Blood was collected for safety tests and immune assays pre and 2 weeks post each vaccine, and at week 24. Anti-MUC1 IgG titer was evaluated by ELISA. Based on previous studies of this vaccine, 40 evaluable participants would provide 96% power to detect immune response rate of 15% versus 40%, using a 2-sided test of proportions with type I error rate of 0.05. PBMC were assayed for the presence of regulatory T cells (Treg) and myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) (secondary endpoint). Circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines and hsCRP were evaluated using commercially available tests (exploratory endpoint). AEs and toxicities were monitored for up to 24 weeks from the first vaccine. Results: 87 individuals were screened and 50 registered. 45 completed the study, 26 current and 19 former smokers (time since last smoked: average 7.8 years; 11 months -13 years). The vaccine was well-tolerated with injection site reactions being the most common AE. Immune response to the vaccine was lower than expected, with 2 current and 2 former smokers developing anti-MUC1 IgG titers ≥2 fold higher at week 12 over baseline (10%). We found high circulating levels of MDSCs in PBMC of both current and former smokers and very low or no serum cytokines. Conclusions: A preventative vaccine trial was feasible in individuals at high risk for lung cancer. However, we discovered a high level of immune suppression, previously documented only in advanced lung cancer. Mitigating the development of lung cancer in heavy smokers through vaccine administration may be limited by related immunosuppression. Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Julie Ward, Tami Krpata, Samantha Fatis, John McKolanis, Jia Xue, Pamela Beatty, Camille Jacqueline, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, Anne Holland, Liz S. Ambulay, Nathan Foster, Ryan McMurray, Carrie Strand, Andres M. Salazar, Lisa Bengtson, Eva Szabo, Paul Limburg, Malgorzata Wojtowicz, David E. Midthun, Arjun Pennathur. A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Precision Prevention, Early Detection, and Interception of Cancer; 2022 Nov 17-19; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2023;16(1 Suppl): Abstract nr PR002.

Importance Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) are at markedly increased risk for duodenal adenomas and cancer. Combination sulindac and erlotinib was previously shown to reduce duodenal polyp burden but was associated with a relatively high adverse event (AE) rate. Objective: To evaluate if a once weekly dosing schedule for erlotinib intervention improves the AE profile, while still providing efficacy with respect to reduced polyp burden, in participants with FAP. Design, setting and participants: Single-arm trial, enrolling 46 participants with FAP, conducted from October 2017 to September 2019 in eight academic cancer centres. Exposures Participants self-administered 350 mg of erlotinib by mouth, one time per week for 6 months. Main outcomes and measures: Duodenal polyp burden (sum of polyp diameters) was assessed in the proximal duodenum by esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed at baseline and 6 months, with mean per cent change defined as the primary efficacy outcome of interest. Rate of grade 2–3 AEs was evaluated as a co-primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included changes in total duodenal polyp count, along with changes in lower gastrointestinal (GI) polyp burden and count (for participants examined by optional lower endoscopy). Results Forty-six participants (mean age, 44.1 years (range, 18–68); women, 22 (48%)) were enrolled; 42 participants completed 6 months of intervention and were included in the per-protocol analysis. Duodenal polyp burden was significantly reduced after 6 months of weekly erlotinib intervention, with a mean per cent change of −29.6% (95% CI, −39.6% to −19.7%; p<0.0001). Similar results were observed in subgroup analyses defined by participants with advanced duodenal polyposis (Spigelman 3) at baseline (mean, −27%; 95% CI, −38.7% to −15.2%; p<0.0001). Post-intervention Spigelman stage was downstaged in 12% of the participants. Lower GI polyp number was also decreased after 6 months of intervention (median, −30.8%; IQR, −47.4% to 0.0%; p=0.0256). Grade 2 or 3 AEs were reported in 71.7% of subjects, with only two experiencing grade 3 toxicity at least possibly related to intervention. Conclusion In this single-arm, multi-centre trial of participants with FAP, erlotinib one time per week resulted in markedly lower duodenal polyp burden, and modestly reduced lower GI polyp burden, after 6 months of intervention. While AEs were still reported by nearly three-quarters of all participants, these events were generally lower grade and well-tolerated. These findings support further investigation of erlotinib as an effective, acceptable cancer preventive agent for FAP-associated GI polyposis. Trial registration number NCT02961374 .

12007 Background: Up to 96% of patients with high grade glioma (HGG) report moderate to severe fatigue. Armodafinil, the R-enantiomer of modafinil, is a psychostimulant with low potential for abuse that has shown potential for improving severe fatigue in HGG patients. Methods: In this phase III double blinded placebo-controlled study, adults with HGG and moderate to severe fatigue, > 4 weeks after completing radiotherapy, were randomized to receive armodafinil daily (150 mg or 250 mg) or placebo for a total of 8 weeks. The primary outcome was efficacy in treating severe fatigue. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of tolerability, neurocognitive function, and quality of life. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Results: A total of 328 patients were enrolled between 6/3/13-3/1/19. There were 103 (150 mg arm), 97 (250 mg arm) and 97 (placebo arm) evaluable patients with primary endpoint data available. The median age was 60 years (20-85) with a median Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) worst fatigue score of 8 (6-10). 60.3% were male, 80.5% received concomitant chemotherapy, and 39.7% were on corticosteroids. The global fatigue score at end of weeks 4 and 8 were lower than at baseline (p<0.0001) and in the 250 mg arm than placebo (p=0.0356) and was higher for corticosteroid users than non-users (p=0.0002). There was no statistically significant difference for clinically meaningful improvement in BFI usual fatigue score from baseline to end of week 8 between the three arms (p=0.9601). Patients reported an improvement in concentration at week 4 from baseline on the 150 mg arm(P=0.0311). There was no statistically significant difference on neurocognitive tests from baseline to end of week 4 (p>0.05) or week 8 (p>0.05) between arms. More patients reported insomnia on the 250 mg arm (p=0.0083). Conclusions: There is no meaningful benefit of the use of armodafinil to reduce moderate to severe fatigue in patients with HGG. In certain cases there may be benefit of armodafinil 150 mg to aid concentration without the risk of insomnia.Support: UG1CA189823;U10CA180868 (NRG). Clinical trial information: NCT01781468 .

Abstract Background: Immunoprevention via targeting antigens aberrantly expressed on colorectal cancers and adenomatous polyps offers the potential for a less invasive prevention strategy than endoscopic surveillance. Specificity of the immune response and long-term memory provide the potential for prolonged protection. Leveraging the infrastructure of the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) consortium, we are conducting a double-blind randomized trial in individuals with a diagnosis of advanced colorectal adenomas within the previous year. We are evaluating MUC1 vaccine with the TLR-3 agonist polyICLC as an adjuvant, for its immunogenicity, ability to elicit immune memory and prevent recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Aims: We previously reported on the vaccine immunogenicity at week 12 (vaccine administered at 0, 2, and 10 weeks) compared to placebo. Here we report the ability of the vaccine to elicit long-term memory by measuring increase in anti-MUC1 antibody levels following a booster administered at one year. Methods: Subjects with endoscopically resected advanced adenoma (defined as ≥1cm, tubululovillous or villous histology, or with high grade dysplasia) were randomized. The primary endpoint was the response to the vaccine at week 12 assessed by monitoring anti-MUC1 IgG antibody titer ratio defined as t12/t0, where t0 was the titer pre-vaccination, and t12 was the titer at week 12. The key secondary endpoint was to assess anti-MUC1 IgG response at week 55 to a booster at week 52 in the vaccine arm compared to placebo. Results: 102 eligible subjects were randomized at 6 centers, 52 received MUC1 vaccine and 50 placebo. The mean age was 59.4±7.0 (range 40-70), 60.8% male, 88.2% white, and 18.6% Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. At 12 weeks the IgG ratio was ≥2.0 in 13/52 (25%) of individuals receiving vaccine (ratio range -0.5-17.3), vs. 0/50 in placebo group (2-sided p=.0001), and was ≥1.5 in 19/52 (36.5%) individuals receiving vaccine compared to 1/50 (2%) in placebo group (P&lt;.0001). To evaluate immune memory, 1-year booster data available for 95 patients (51-MUC1, 44-placebo) were analyzed. 10/13 (76.9%) of the week 12 vs. week 0 vaccine responders showed a response at week 52 vs. baseline and 11/13 (84.6%) at week 55 vs. week 52. Using an IgG ratio of 2 (per-protocol), the response rate was 33% for MUC1 vs. 5% for placebo (1-sided p=0.0003). Using a ratio of 1.5 yielded similar results (37% MUC1 vs. 9% Placebo (1-sided p=0.0008). The MUC1 arm had significantly higher IgG at week 52 (1-sided p=0.0294), week 55 (1-sided p=0.0048), and significantly higher week 55 to week 52 IgG ratio values (1-sided p=0.0293). Conclusions: Subjects with a recent history of advanced adenoma receiving a MUC1 vaccine compared with a placebo were significantly more likely to develop an immune response at week 12, confirming the vaccine’s immunogenicity, and to respond again at week 55 to a booster injection on week 52, confirming the vaccine’s ability to elicit immune memory. Follow-up colonoscopy to evaluate the vaccine’s potential to lower adenomatous polyp recurrence rates are in progress. Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Lisa Boardman, Marcia Cruz-Correa, Ajay Bansal, David Kastenberg, Chin Hurr, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, Lynda Dzubinski, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, L.M. Rodriguez, Ellen Richmond, Asad Umar, Eva Szabo, John McKolanis, Ryan McMurray, Nathan Foster, Andres Salazar, Paul Limburg, Robert Schoen. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of preventative MUC1 vaccine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced adenomas: Results from one-year booster [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT236.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Participating in a clinical trial is a personal choice and an individual experience. Several barriers to recruitment of high risk men and women in chemoprevention trials have been documented; however, to our knowledge, there are no existing reports on participant satisfaction in such trials. Therefore, our aim was to describe and evaluate participants’ perception of their experience with participating in chemoprevention trials conducted by CPN by summarizing the 5-item “Was It Worth It” (WIWI) tool for each trial and across the trials, and according to race/ethnicity, sex, age, site, and organ of primary interest. METHODS Because participants who participate in chemoprevention trials tend to be at increased cancer-risk, but otherwise healthy, the WIWI tool can help answer simple questions about participants’ assessment of whether or not participation in such a trial was worthwhile. The WIWI tool was consistently administered at the end of the intervention period in each trial conducted by CPN; since 2003, 7 trials have completed the study intervention period and are included in the results reported here. RESULTS The scientific focus of the 7 trials targeted 5 organs: breast, colorectum, esophageal, hepatobiliary, and lung. Of the 485 participants registered to these 7 trials, 419 (86.4%) were non-Hispanic white, 19 (3.9%) non-Hispanic black, 32 (6.6%) Hispanic, 14 (2.9%) other race/ethnicity, and 1 (0.2%) unknown race/ethnicity; there were 120 (24.7%) females. In total, 446 (92.0%) participants completed the WIWI questionnaire at the end of their respective intervention period. Across the trials, 93% [95% CI] [90.6%, 95.4%] of the participants indicated that participation was worthwhile and 92% [89.5%, 94.5%] reported that they would participate again. Additionally, 414 (92.8%) participants indicated that they would recommend participating in the current research study to others, while 10 (2.3%) indicated that they would not and 22 (4.9%) were uncertain. Furthermore, several participants provided actionable feedback to the question “If there was one thing that could have been done to improve your experience in this research study, what would it be?” Participant feedback on overall changes in quality of life and on their expectations with participation in the trial was positive but more nuanced, varying according to trial and participant composition. CONCLUSION In this dataset of chemoprevention trial participants enrolled through the CPN consortium, highly favorable feedback was evident with respect to the overall study experience, suggesting that the recruitment and retention methods employed are facilitating success. These data can be used to help advance the NCI accrual quality improvement program in developing/enhancing strategies to improve accrual, retention, and adherence as well as enhance participant diversity in subsequent trials. Citation Format: David Zahrieh, Ryan P. McMurray, Nathan R. Foster, Paul J. Limburg, Sumithra J. Mandrekar. Participant satisfaction with cancer chemoprevention clinical trials: The Mayo Clinic Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5092.