Tap, William D.

175 Background: In 2009, ASCO confirmed that addressing cancer care disparities is critical for the Society and committed to approaches to eliminate such disparities. Yet, gaps remain in identifying the best approaches to do so. It remains unknown which cancer care providers serve patients from “underserved populations'' (defined as individuals who have historically received inadequate health care and health care services), what unmet needs they experience in their cancer care delivery, and how best to engage and support these providers. The objectives of this study were to explore challenges faced by providers serving underserved patients to inform development of a broader online survey and identify solutions that ASCO can implement to better support these providers. Methods: A multi-phase mixed-methods approach was utilized. Phase 1 involved key informant semi-structured interviews with 12 oncology providers caring for adult patients in the US from April to May 2021. Phase 2 involved survey development based on themes identified in Phase 1. The survey assessed: provider needs; processes for eliciting, documenting, and addressing social and economic needs of patients; and how ASCO could best support these providers. Phase 3 involved email distribution of the online survey in May 2022 to 5800 individuals identified through ASCO’s customer database. Eligibility criteria included providing care for adults with cancer in the US and prior consent to receive ASCO survey communications. Results: Of 477 respondents, the majority were ASCO members (88%), in an academic practice (57%), medical oncologists (77%), non-Hispanic (89%) and/or Caucasian/White (67%) and had > 15 years’ clinical experience (57%). A majority (60%) provided ≥25% of their clinical time providing cancer care to underserved populations and routinely engaged with administration to secure resources (61%) and local community organizations to obtain services (42%) for patients. Most (43-77%) indicated that a social worker/case manager was primarily responsible for addressing patient social needs. The majority reported that identification and dissemination of best practices (55%) and development of a return-on-investment business model (60%) would best help address patient needs. Some respondents expressed a desire to collaborate with ASCO on policy reform (32%) and for ASCO to help build or strengthen partnerships with local initiatives (29%). Conclusions: This is the first US-based survey assessing barriers and solutions to delivering cancer care among underserved populations. The findings from this work provide insights about how ASCO can help equip practices to address the social needs of their patients. Further work will be conducted to develop and implement suggested solutions.

11562 Background: Soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is a heterogeneous malignancy of connective tissue. Although mTOR is implicated in STS pathogenesis, clinical activity from mTORC1 inhibitors is modest. M, a potent selective mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor, was more effective in STS preclinical models than inhibitors of mTORC1, IGF1R and mTORC1+IGF1R, owing to more complete suppression of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and abrogation of feedback AKT activation. P, an oral multikinase inhibitor, is approved for non-adipocytic STS and often used after progression (PD) on chemotherapy. In phase 1, the RP2D of M was 30 mg weekly. A091304 was to evaluate M as a novel targeted therapy for STS. Methods: In A091304, pts were randomized 1:1 to M 30 mg weekly or P 800 mg daily. Eligibility required Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≤ 1, progression on ≥ 1 prior chemotherapy and specific STS subtypes (cohort 1: UPS; 2: LMS; 3: MPNST, SS). Crossover to M was allowed after PD on P. 1° endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Assuming median PFS of P was 4.6 months (mo), 98 pts yielded 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 favoring M [1-sided test, alpha = 0.15] and including 1 planned futility analysis. 2° endpoints were response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 4 mo and safety. After 4 of the first 12 pts randomized to P experienced ≥ grade (gr) 3 toxicity, the study was amended to begin at P 400 mg, allowing titration to 800 per investigator discretion. Results: After protocol amendment, 114 pt underwent randomization (M: 56, P: 58), and 111 initiated treatment. Median PFS was 2 mo for M and 2.1 mo for P (HR = 1.47; 1-sided 85% upper confidence boundary = 1.85), with 2 partial responses in each arm. CBR was 5.4% for M and 13.8% for P. Median OS was 10.7 mo for M and 13.9 mo for P (HR = 1.41; 95% CI 0.80-2.49). 26/43 pt with PD on P crossed over to M. Median PFS after crossover was 1.8 mo (95% CI 1.5-3.5). Gr 3 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 36% on M and 41% on P; gr 4 toxicity was rare. AEs were consistent with known effects of M and P. Conclusions: P at 400 mg daily (allowing escalation to 800 mg per investigator discretion) demonstrated a shorter PFS as compared prior randomized studies with P. Despite this, M failed to demonstrate superior clinical activity as compared to P at the interim analysis. Further work will examine activity within histology-specific cohorts and evaluate available tissue samples for evidence of pharmacodynamic activity. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA233324 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT02601209 .

11511 Background: In the open-label multicenter phase II study, A091401, nivolumab (N) and nivolumab+ipilimumab (N+I) demonstrated a confirmed response rate (RR) of 5% and 16%, respectively in patients (pts) with advanced sarcoma (D’Angelo SP et al Lancet Oncology 2018). Responses occurred in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), myxofibrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, sarcoma not otherwise specified and alveolar soft part sarcoma. Here, we report efficacy of N and N+I, in each of 3 expansion cohorts [gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), UPS and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS)]. Methods: Pts refractory to ≥ 1 regimen(s) were randomized (non-comparative) to receive either N [N (3 mg/kg q2W)] or N+I [N (3 mg/kg Q3W x4, then Q2W) plus I (3 mg/kg q3W x4)]. The primary endpoint was 6 month confirmed RR (RECIST v1.1). For UPS and DDLS, 2 confirmed responses in the 1st 12 evaluable pts was needed (85% power, 1-sided alpha=0.15, 5 v 25% RR). For GIST, a confirmed response in the 1st 9 evaluable pts expanded enrollment to 24 (80% power, 1-sided alpha=0.10, 5 v 20% RR). Other endpoints: adverse events (AEs, TRAEs), progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS), and correlatives. Results: See table. Clinical trial information: NCT02500797 . Conclusions: Neither N or N+I lead to confirmed responses in GIST. In DDLS and UPS, the primary response endpoint was met with N+I but not with N alone (RR 14% for N+I vs. 7% and 8% for N alone). For the GIST cohort TRAE was higher with N+I, holding enrollment as required per protocol. There remains a pressing need to determine genomic and clinical biomarkers of response, resistance and toxicity. Correlative analyses (whole exome sequencing, multiplex IHC and RNAseq) are in progress. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02500797. [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.

10003 Background: Preclinical studies demonstrate synergistic anti-tumor activity by inhibiting mTOR and IGF-1R. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of A12 and TEM in 3 chemo-refractory cohorts: IGF-1R (+) STS (Arm A), IGF-1R (+) bone (Arm B), and IGF-1R (-) bone and STS (Arm C). Methods: An optimal Simon 2 stage design was used for each arm. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks. Based on historical data, a 40% PFS rate was considered promising and a 20% PFS non-promising (type I/ II error, 0.05/0.10). ≥5 PFSs at 12 weeks were required in the first 19 and ≥16 PFSs were required in a total of 54 pts to consider each arm positive. Key eligibility: measurable disease (RECIST 1.1), age ≥18, 1- 4 priors, ECOG status 0-1. A12 (6 mg/kg) and TEM (25 mg) were administered IV weekly. Pre and post treatment tumor biopsies and plasma for IGF-1 and IGFBP3 were obtained. 20 Sarcoma Centers participated. Results: Starting in 02/2010, 383 pts were tested for IGF-1R by immunohistochemistry (IHC; 54% +) and 171 were treated: mean age 47 (range: 18-80), mean # priors 2.2 (range: 1-4). Grade 3/4 toxicities ≥10%: lymphopenia (12%), mucositis (10%). By intent to treat (ITT) analysis, each arm of the study achieved its primary 12 week PFS end-point (≥16 PFSs): Arm A: 18/56 (32%), Arm B: 19/50 (38%) (4 too early), Arm C: 27/63 (43%). The one-sided 95% CI for 12-week PFS is (0.22, 1), (0.27, 1), and (0.32, 1), respectively. By ITT the median PFS (95% CI) in weeks for each arm is 6.3 (5.9, 12.0), 11.0 (8.0, 18.0) and 11.6 (9.0, 17.9), respectively, and for chondro (n=18), Ewing’s (n=24), and osteo (n=23) only it is 22.6 (5.7, 40.9), 10.4 (5.7, 17.9) and 6.0 (6.0, 18.0), respectively. Westerns on 32 matched pair tumor biopsies indicate inhibition of IGF-1R, pAKT and pS6. Of biopsies on 7 IGF-1R (-) IHC pts (Arm C), 5 were IGF-1R (+) by western. Plasma biomarkers did not correlate with PFS. Conclusions: A12 and TEM met its primary end-point of improved PFS in pts with metastatic sarcoma. This effect was independent of IGF-1R status by IHC. These results support further clinical development of this combination in bone and STS.

TPS10594 Background: Approximately 13,000 cases of soft tissue and bone are diagnosed annually in the US. Despite primary surgery many patients develop recurrent disease. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and new agents are needed. Gene array studies have shown Aurora Kinase A (AURKA) commonly overexpressed. Inhibition of AURKA by shRNA or by a specific AURKA inhibitor blocks in vitro proliferation of multiple sarcoma subtypes. MLN8237 (alisertib) is a novel and oral, ATP-competitive, selective small-molecule inhibitor of AURKA. We hypothesize that alisertib will be an effective treatment for advanced/metastatic sarcoma. Methods: This CTEP-sponsored, investigator-initiated, multi-center phase II study uses alisertib in patients with advanced/metastatic sarcoma and is conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A091102). Patients must have adequate performance status, organ function, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Patients are enrolled in one of five cohorts, depending on histology: 1) liposarcoma, 2) leiomyosarcoma, 3) undifferentiated sarcoma, 4) malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor, or 5) other. Patients are treated with alisertib 50mg PO BID d1-d7 every 21 days until either progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is objective overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Translational objectives include correlation of ORR, PFS and OS with baseline and post-treatment markers of AURKA inhibition in tumor biopsies and baseline and post-treatment [F-18] FLT-PET scans. A Simon two-stage design is used for each of the 5 cohorts and one confirmed response in the first 9 patients expands enrollment in that cohort to 24. Enrollment began in December 2012. As of January 2013, 14 pts have been enrolled. Funded by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Clinical trial information: NCT01653028.

TPS10592 Background: Angiosarcomas (ASs) are rare, aggressive, malignant endothelial cell tumors that constitute 1% to 2% of all soft tissue sarcomas with 5-year survival of 35%. Cytotoxic agents have demonstrated response rates of about 15%. Gene-array data from MSKCC has revealed up-regulation of endothelial associated genes, including active members of the angiopoietin system e.g., Tie2 and Angiopoietin 2 (Ang2). Trebananib (AMG386) is a novel agent that targets Ang1 and Ang2. We hypothesize that inhibition of angiopoietin 2 with trebananib will be an effective therapy in patients (pts) with AS. Methods: This CTEP sponsored, investigator initiated, multi-center phase II study uses trebananib, in pts with AS having metastatic/unresectable AS and conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A091103). Pts must have adequate performance status, organ function, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Patients are treated with trebananib 30mg/kg d1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days until either progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is objective overall response rate (ORR) via RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include the evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Translational objectives include correlation of ORR, PFS and OS with i. baseline and post-treatment expression of Ang2 and Tie2 by immunohistochemistry (IHC), ii. serum levels of Ang1 and Ang2, iii. baseline and post-treatment phospho-receptor tyrosine kinase (p-RTK) status of Tie2, VEGFR-2, PI3K, MEK and MAPK, and iv. mutational status of VEGFR-2 and amplification of MYC/FLT4. A Simon Optimal two-stage phase II study design is used and one confirmed response in the first 12 pts expands enrollment to 25. Pre- and post-treatment biopsies will be performed in up to 10 pts treated at MSKCC. Enrollment began in July 2012. As of January 2013, 7 pts have been recruited. Clinicaltrials.gov#: NCT01623869. Funded by the Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology. NIH Grant CA-25224. Clinical trial information: NCT01623869.

PURPOSE:Olaratumab is a human monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody against platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α. We report the nature and frequency of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) with olaratumab in clinical trials and postmarketing reports.METHODS:Data from patients exposed to olaratumab across nine clinical trials were reviewed for IRRs. Blood samples were also analyzed for pre-existing immunoglobulin E anti–galactose-α-1,3-galactose (anti–α-Gal) antibodies.RESULTS:In the clinical trials, IRRs were identified in 70 of 485 patients (14.4%). The most frequent symptoms included flushing, fever or chills, and dyspnea. For 68 of 70 patients (97.1%), the first IRR occurred during the first two cycles of treatment. Grade 3 or worse IRRs were reported in 11 patients (2.3%), all during the first infusion and usually within 15 minutes of the start of the infusion. One IRR-related fatality (0.2%) occurred in a nonpremedicated patient with grade 3 or worse cardiac comorbidities. There was an association between grade 3 or worse IRRs and pre-existing anti–α-Gal antibodies, with a trend toward higher IRR rates in US geographies known to have a higher prevalence of anti–α-Gal antibodies. IRRs in postmarketing reports were consistent in nature and severity with those in the clinical trials.CONCLUSION:Premedication with corticosteroids and antihistamines should occur in all patients before olaratumab infusion, as indicated in labels in the United States and the European Union. Patients receiving olaratumab should be monitored for IRRs in a setting where resuscitation equipment is available for the treatment of IRRs.

Most health care professionals spend a substantial amount of their time at the workplace. Our interactions with team members can define our daily experiences, impact our work performance, and influence our overall job satisfaction. Over the last years, how we interact with colleagues and patients has changed with the introduction of social media, a tenser political climate, and an evolving health care system. In oncology, a team can be composed of medical students, clinicians, and support and administrative staff within a heavy emotional environment where some of our patients are facing the risk of early mortality and most are dealing with the unmeasurable burden of cancer. Many of these factors can increase the risk for professionalism lapses. We discuss common challenges faced in the practice of cancer care, including the generational gap between medical trainees and senior members, gender disparities, and microaggressions. Microaggressions represent verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, and negative slights that insult a target person or group. Microaggressions should not be accepted as the norm in the workplace. It is essential to recognize these negative behaviors and manage them effectively to reduce or even prevent the long-term toxicities that these behaviors can bring to the workplace environment. Ultimately, we must acknowledge that these issues exist and remember that education and collaboration are the pillars of an inclusive workplace. We owe such efforts to our patients who deserve good care, to our partners in the care of patients so that they feel supported and included, and to ourselves.