Citations

Abstract Background. We previously reported an alternative ESR1 somatic gain-of-function chromosomal translocation event in a patient presenting with aggressive, endocrine therapy resistant estrogen receptor (ER) positive disease, producing an in-frame fusion gene consisting of N-terminal ESR1 and the C-terminus of the Hippo pathway coactivator YAP1 (ESR1-YAP1). We recently identified another ESR1 fusion through RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) in advanced stage ER+ disease from a chest wall recurrence in a male patient that was refractory to multiple lines of treatment. Two examples of fusions discovered in primary breast cancer samples include ESR1 fused in-frame to C-terminal sequences from NOP2 (ESR1-NOP2), identified in a resistant cohort from a RNA-seq screen focused on 81 primary breast cancers from aromatase inhibitor clinical trials, and a second ESR1 fusion, fused in-frame to the entire coding sequence of POLH (ESR1-POLH), that was identified from RNA-seq analysis of 728 Cancer Genome Atlas breast samples. This current study extends our previous characterization of ESR1-YAP1 by comparing functional and pharmacological properties of these three additional ESR1 gene fusion events of both early stage and advanced breast cancers. Methods. In vitro and in vivo experiments were conducted to test ESR1 fusions to induce therapeutic resistance, and metastasis. The transcriptional and binding properties of each fusion was also examined. Pharmacological inhibition with Palbociclib, a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, was utilized to assess drug sensitivity in ESR1 fusion containing breast cancer cells and in a patient derived xenograft (PDX) model expressing ESR1-YAP1 (WHIM18). Results. The YAP1 and PCDH11x fusions conferred estrogen-independent and fulvestrant-resistant growth. Immunohistochemistry revealed significantly higher numbers of ER+ cells in lungs of mice xenografted with T47D cells expressing the YAP1 and PCDH11x fusions compared to YFP control, NOP2 and POLH fusions. Results from ChIP-seq and microarray studies suggest that these two fusions promote proliferation and metastasis through genomic action by binding estrogen response elements (ERE) and subsequent gene activation. We thereby define these fusions as “canonical” fusions compared to “non-canonical” NOP2 and POLH fusions, which demonstrated dramatically decreased genomic binding ability. The non-canonical fusions induced genes associated with basal-like breast cancer and promoted HER2, EGFR, and MAPK gene expression signatures in contrast to genes associated with cell cycle/proliferation induced by canonical fusions. The proliferative ability of canonical fusion-containing ER+ cells was inhibited by Palbociclib in a dose-dependent manner. In vivo WHIM18 tumors in mice fed with Palbociclib-containing chow demonstrated significantly reduced tumor volume, growth rate, and weight compared to tumors in mice on control chow. Conclusions. In-frame ERE activating canonical fusions occur in end-stage drug resistant advanced breast cancer and can be added to ESR1 point mutations as a class of recurrent somatic mutation that may cause acquired resistance. Growth induced by these fusions can be antagonized by Palbociclib and is potentially clinically helpful. Citation Format: Lei JT, Shao J, Zhang J, Iglesia M, Cao J, Chan DW, He X, Kosaka Y, Schmidt C, Matsunuma R, Haricharan S, Crowder R, Hoog J, Phommaly C, Goncalves R, Ramalho S, Lai W-C, Hampton O, Rogers A, Tobias E, Parikh P, Davies S, Ma C, Suman V, Hunt K, Watson M, Hoadley KA, Thompson A, Chen X, Perou CM, Creighton CJ, Maher C, Ellis MJ. Recurrent functionally diverse in-frame ESR1 gene fusions drive endocrine resistance in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-03.

463 Background: The genomic assessment of cancer has been revolutionized by next-generation sequencing and is increasingly being applied in the clinic to guide therapeutic decision-making. Time to reporting of results, specimen quantity, and analyte quality have constrained initial clinical applications to gene panels and whole exome based strategies. Methods: Patients underwent surgical resection, excisional or core biopsies, or bone marrow biopsy. Samples were analyzed by whole genome or exome sequencing and RNA sequencing, bioinformatics analysis, and therapeutic target prioritization by a multi-disciplinary Clinical Genomics Board. All prioritized targets were CLIA validated using Sanger sequencing, RT-qPCR, FISH, or IHC as appropriate. Treatment was delivered using off-label FDA approved drugs, clinical trials, or single patient INDs. Results: We have enrolled 40 patients with advanced, treatment-refractory cancers of whom sequencing data is available on 33. The initial 6 patients were evaluated in a non-CLIA pilot phase and 27 in the CLIA enabled phase. Upon availability of the initial report, identified targets of putative therapeutic relevance were then prioritized by the CGB in 22/27 patients (81%) for subsequent CLIA validation. Eleven patients have been treated with genomically selected therapy with partial response in 3/10 assessed patients. A testicular cancer patient had aberrations in two testes specific genes, a copy number gain in TSSK6 and a novel gene fusion between thyroid hormone receptor associated protein 3 (THRAP3) and Tektin 2 (TEKT2). Additionally, a case of papillary renal cell carcinoma had an amplification of YAP1 and a previously unreported P287T mutation in CCND1, suggesting potential benefit with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Treatment is ongoing and results will be reported. Conclusions: Integrated whole genome analysis in a CLIA setting is feasible. Integration of SNV, copy number and transcriptional data may allow for selection of putative driver genes to enhance targeted therapy decisions. Barriers for future broader implementation include the need for reduced time from biopsy to report and availability of therapies.

87 Background: The increasing demand for specialist palliative care (PC) in cancer care requires an available and responsive clinical workforce. But as the volume of work expands, PC providers face an increased risk of burnout, characterized by depersonalization and work-related emotional exhaustion. The prevalence and predictors of burnout among PC providers is poorly understood. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider, registered nurses, chaplains) completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) via electronic survey in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. The MBI determine burnout severity across two domains, Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and Depersonalization (DP). Severity is reported as “low”, “moderate”, or “high”; “high” is consistent with burnout. Demographic and work-related variables associated with burnout in other studies were determined via stepwise logistic regression. Results: We received surveys from 1,241 clinicians. We estimated a response rate of 30%. 68% of respondents were physicians. Most respondents were over age 50 (57%), female (65%), were married or partnered (82%) and had worked in the field for less than 10 years (67%). 42% took overnight call regularly, 30% reported working 50 hours per week or more, and 57% had at least 4 colleagues. Regarding burnout, 24% reported high DP, 59% reported high EE, and 62% of reported high burnout symptoms on either EE or DP scales. In logistic regression, younger physicians, those working more than 50 hours per work, and those with fewer colleagues within their practice were at greatest risk of burnout (p<0.02). Conclusions: PC clinicians report a burnout rate of 62%. Even with the limitations of our methods and potentially biased sampling, this prevalence is remarkable and higher than data reported in medical oncology (45%). Burnout severity is associated with working in isolation and working longer hours. Further studies on how burnout affects sustainability of the PC workforce are needed, especially since this workforce is so critical to the provision of high quality cancer care.

CRA9003 Background: Gq/11 mutations are early oncogenic events in UM resulting in MAPK pathway activation. We demonstrated decreased viability in UM cell lines harboring Gq/11 mut with sel, a small molecule inhibitor of MEK1/2 (Ambrosini, CCR 2012). Methods: We conducted a 16 center randomized phase II study of hyd-sulfate sel 75 mg BID vs TMZ 150 mg/m2 daily for 5 days in 28-day cycles (or DTIC 1000 mg/m2 q21 days) for patients (pts) with metastatic UM with a Q209 Gq/11 mut who have not received prior TMZ/DTIC. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR). Select pts underwent tumor biopsies at baseline and after 14 (+/- 3 days) of sel. Our statistical plan required ≥80 pts randomized and ≥68 events to detect a PFS hazard ratio of 0.6 (p=0.1). Randomization was stratified by mut (Gq vs G11), M stage and number of prior therapies (tx). Tumor assessment occurred every 4 weeks (wks) for 8 wks and then every 8 wks using RECIST 1.1. Pts receiving TMZ who progressed could receive sel (TMZ→sel). Results: 80 pts were randomized. Sel (n=39): median age 66 (range 32-86), 54% male, 54% G11 mut, median ECOG PS 0 (range 0-1), 97% M1c, median prior tx 0 (range 0-2). TMZ (n=41): median age 60 (range 34-81), 63% male, 58% G11 mut, median ECOG PS 0 (range 0-1), 93% M1c, median prior tx 0 (range 0-2). 11/39 (28%) pts on sel experienced grade (gr) 3 toxicity (tox) manageable with dose modification (5 CPK elevation, 3 LFT elevation, 1 rash, 1 lymphopenia, 1 edema). 1/41 (2%) pt on TMZ experienced gr 3 tox (neutropenia). No gr 4/5 tox occurred. 28 pts on sel underwent paired tumor biopsies with inhibition of pERK and cyclinD1 observed by Western blot at day 14. At interim analysis (9/25/12), 55 pts were evaluable with 45 progression events and 16 deaths. Sel (n=27): median PFS 16 wks (95% CI 8-30.9), RR 11%, median OS 11.8 months (95% CI 4.8-not reached). TMZ (n=28): median PFS 4 wks (95% CI 3.7-15), RR 0%, median OS 4.7 months (95% CI 4.3-14.3). TMZ→sel (n=25): median PFS 8.1 wks (95% CI 7-15), RR 0%. Conclusions: Sel is the first drug to ever show improved clinical activity in UM relative to TMZ. Sustained target inhibition is observed with sel. Final results will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT01143402.

211 Background: The current standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer includes chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery. Radiation is usually delivered via a 3D technique. IMRT has been utilized in the treatment of multiple tumors and demonstrated similar efficacy while offering the possibility of decreased toxicity. Methods: Thirty-six patients were treated with IMRT and chemotherapy. Twenty-one patients underwent surgical resection. Eleven underwent open surgery and the remainder underwent minimally invasive surgery. Chemotherapy consisted primarily of 5-FU with oxaliplatin or cisplatin. All but two patients received 50.4 Gy; one patient received 41.4 Gy without surgery and one patient discontinued treatment after 25.2 Gy. Eleven patients required a treatment break during radiotherapy. The median age was 69 (range 46-87). Approximately two-thirds of tumors were adenocarcinomas located in the lower thorax. Two thirds of patients were staged as T3 and had positive lymph nodes. The median tumor size was 5 cm (range 2-13). Results: With a median follow-up of 21.3 months (range 2.4-44.8) and 33.9 months for survivors (range 3.7-44.8), overall survival at 24 months was 55%. The 24 month overall survival was 75% vs 24% for surgical and non-surgical patients, respectively. Seven patients had a complete pathologic response. Twenty-four patients experienced grade 3 or higher acute toxicity and there was one grade 5 toxicity. Acute toxicity was similar between surgery and non-surgery patients. Fourteen patients experienced grade 3 or higher late toxicity; 9 surgery and 5 non-surgery patients. The most frequent late toxicity was grade 3 stricture (21%). On multivariate analysis, advanced age (RR [10 year increase] 2.01, p=0.032) and heart maximum dose >55 Gy (RR 3.73, p=0.011) were associated with decreased survival. Conclusions: Patients who undergo surgery after chemoradiotherapy demonstrate improved survival; however, this may be related to underlying comorbidities that preclude surgery. IMRT appears to be a reasonable treatment option that may reduce complications from radiotherapy. Careful attention should be given to heart dose during treatment planning.

88 Background: There is not yet a consensus on the efficacy and safety of IMRT for the treatment of patients with esophageal carcinomas. We report on our experience with outcomes and toxicity with IMRT for these patients. Methods: Fifty-five patients with esophageal carcinoma were treated with IMRT at our institution from 12/2008 and 12/2014. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy (majority 5-FU with oxaliplatin). Thirty-one (56%) patients underwent surgery. Fifty (91%) received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Seventy-three percent of cases were adenocarcinoma. Regions include mid-thoracic (15%), lower thoracic (64%), and GE junction (22%). Clinical uT-stages were as follows: T1 (2%), T2 (20%), T3 (69%), and T4a (5%). Clinical N-stages were as follows: N0 (33%), N1 (53%), N2 (13%), and N3 (2%). Results: Median follow-up for all patients was 15 months (1.5 - 64.5) and 25.5 months (1.5 - 64.5) for patients who were alive at follow-up (n = 31). Fifty-one (93%) patients completed RT. Of the 31 patients who underwent surgery, 9 (29%) were found to have a complete pathologic response. Site of first recurrence was local (n = 2, 4%), regional (n = 3, 6%), and distant (n = 14, 26%). At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 72% and 58%, freedom from recurrence was 78% and 65%, and freedom from distant recurrence was 78% and 68%. On univariate analysis, improved OS was noted with patients who underwent surgery (RR 0.29) or were cN0 (RR 0.27). Twenty eight patients (51%) experienced > / = CTCAE v.4grade 3 acute toxicity; notable were hematologic (n = 14, 25%), esophagitis (n = 6, 11%), acute coronary event (n = 1, 2%), and post-chemoRT pneumonia (n = 1, 2%). Fifteen patients (31%) experienced > grade 3 late toxicity; notable were esophageal stricture (n = 7, 14%), post-op pneumonia (n = 3, 6%), post-CRT pneumonia (n = 2, 4%), and COPD exacerbation (n = 1, 2%). Conclusions: Patient receiving IMRT with concurrent chemotherapy for esophageal carcinomas have good LC rates, with or without surgery. Majority of patients are able to finish treatment with acceptable rates of late toxicity. Patient who underwent surgery or were cN0 had better OS.

524 Background: Psychosocial distress during radiotherapy (RT) for gastrointestinal tumors is poorly characterized. Since 2012, patients receiving RT in our clinic have been prospectively screened for causes of distress. The results of our screening were reviewed in order to elucidate concerns of GI cancer patients and to delineate patterns within patient reported distress (PRD). Methods: Patients treated with RT at our institution receive a 30 question PRD survey that also includes a linear analog measure of overall distress at the start and during RT. The PRD survey asks patients to rate forms of distress on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the most distressed). The survey also asks patients to rate overall distress according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer on a scale 0 to 10. The reported results were retrospectively reviewed in patients receiving definitive RT for GI cancers from 04/02/2012 to 08/05/2015. Results: PRD surveys were completed by 113 patients, 55 (48.7%) male and 58 (51.3%) female. Median age was 65 years (range 28 to 93). The most common tumor histology was adenocarcinoma, 67 (59.3%). 105 patients (93.0%) received chemotherapy and 66 (58.4%) underwent surgery. Overall, NCCN distress thermometer results ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 4.3. The mean distress scores for the top five complaints ranged from 1.27 to 2.63. Top distresses were “How will I feel during treatment” (2.63), “Fatigue” (2.45), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.35), “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.31), and “Sleep difficulties” (2.31). The least concerning complaints were “Housing during treatment” (1.27), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.30), “Spirituality” (1.33),“Family communication about my illness”(1.37), and “Transportation” (1.38). Conclusions: Patients’ major concerns were aligned with daily quality of life, such as fatigue, pain and insomnia. Highest reported distress was linked with the process of RT and side effects associated with treatment. Medical expenses were also perceived as a burden. Medical providers should identify psychosocial stressors during RT in order to effectively communicate and provide resources to improve quality of life.

54 Background: After diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer survivors do not return to a health-related quality of life (QOL) and function comparable to pre-diagnosis levels as observed in other adult cancer survivors. We hypothesize that inadequate attention has been paid to addressing and improving QOL and function among lung cancer survivors. Our primary goal is to evaluate existing symptoms and QOL deficits among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We are evaluating patterns of QOL deficits (scored 5 or less on the scale from 0 [worst] to 10 [best]) in relation to time of lung cancer diagnosis, treatments, progression and/or recurrence, and health-related conditions. We are collecting and analyzing relevant health care utilization for selected QOL deficits, and identifying availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. The expected outcomes will be new knowledge on patterns of QOL deficits, quality-adjusted life years in relation to the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of needed care and the effectiveness of interventions targeting improvement in QOL and symptoms. Results: In our initial analysis, among 3,707 lung cancer survivors who were diagnosed in 1999 to 2010, post-cancer treatment, and followed through 2011, 39% (1,442) reported deficits in overall QOL, 71% fatigue, 60% dyspnea, 41% being sedentary, 17% low spiritual well-being (SWB), and 10% currently smoking cigarettes. Among the 1,442 lung cancer survivors with a deficit in overall QOL, 97.5% reported severe fatigue or dyspnea, being sedentary or smoking, or having low SWB. In the remaining 36 of the 1,442, 24 had pain, cough, poor appetite, or other symptoms; only 12 (<1%) did not report deficit in any of the measured QOL domains. Analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Based on evidence gained to date, we are developing and testing interventions targeting symptoms and QOL deficits. We expect to gain strong evidence for recommendations in redefining and delivering care and support that are necessary for improving the health and QOL of lung cancer survivors.

75 Background: The focus of palliative radiotherapy (RT) is on improving quality of life (QOL) for patients with serious illnesses by eliminating or decreasing physical symptoms. The importance of assessing distress levels in palliative care patients is recognized due to the relevance of QOL, as treatment is given to provide symptom-relief rather than curative results. We sought to identify the most common causes of patient reported distress during palliative RT. Methods: Retrospective review was performed for patients who received palliative RT from 11/1/2012 to 6/4/2015 for various types of metastatic cancer at our institution. All patients completed a Patient Reported Distress (PRD) questionnaire with 30 specific questions and an overall distress thermometer prior to beginning treatment. The PRD survey quantified 30 areas of current concern ranging in patient-reported values from 1 to 5 in addition to a linear analog measure from 0 to 10 of overall reported distress in the last month. Results: Completed PRD surveys were available for a total of 297 patients, 149 (50.2%) female and 148 (49.8%) male. All patients were undergoing external beam radiation therapy for treatment of metastatic disease. 49 (16%) received chemotherapy and 46 (9%) underwent surgery. Overall distress ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 5.0. The mean distress scores for the top five concerns ranged from 1.4 to 2.7. Top distresses were “Fatigue” (2.7), “Pain that affects daily functioning” (2.6), “How will I feel during treatment” (2.5), “Sleep difficulties” (2.4), and “Out of pocket medical costs” (2.3). Least troubling symptoms were “Transportation” (1.4), “A loved one relying on me for their physical care” (1.5), “My job” (1.5), “Housing during treatment” (1.5), “Spirituality” (1.5), and “Anger” (1.5). Conclusions: Patients demonstrated concern for distress related to interruption of activities of normal life, such as tiredness and insomnia, pain, and overall burdens from treatment. Medical costs were also a major concern. Importantly, housing and transportation were not issues in the current study but could be of concern in other regions. Providers should be aware that patients’ primary concerns may not be directly related to the symptom being palliated.