Citations

Abstract Background: The pivotal phase 3 ECHELON-1 study demonstrated superior efficacy of brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (A+AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients with previously untreated advanced stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with a 2-year modified progression-free survival (mPFS) of 82.1% in the A+AVD group versus 77.2% in the ABVD group (Hazard Ratio=0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60, 0.98; p=0.04). PN is a known toxicity associated with anti-mitotic agents, including vinblastine and the MMAE component of brentuximab vedotin. In the ECHELON-1 study, the incidence of any-grade PN events was 67% (442 of 662 patients) and 43% (286 of 659 patients) in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively; the incidence of grade ≥3 PN was 11% and 2%, respectively. At the time of the initial analysis, 67% of A+AVD-treated patients had either resolution (43%) or improvement (24%) of PN events. A total of the 92% of ongoing PN events were grade 1 (64%) or grade 2 (29%). Here, we report rates of PN resolution and improvement in patients participating in the ECHELON-1 study after long-term follow-up. Methods: Patients with Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670). Pre-existing PN was an exclusion factor at study entry. Peripheral neuropathy was determined on the basis of a standardized MedDRA query; patients who developed PN were monitored throughout the study and those with ongoing PN at end of treatment were followed for resolution or improvement during the post-treatment follow-up period; follow-up visits were scheduled for every 12 weeks ±1 week until 36 months, then every 6 months until study closure. PN resolution was defined as completely resolved and improvement was defined as improved by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment. Results: At the time of the primary analysis, 51% (226/442) and 61% (174/286) of patients in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively, had resolution or improvement of PN events at EOT. Upon continued follow-up (~10 additional months) for approximately 30 months (range 0-78.5) after end of treatment, 76% (335/442) of patients with PN in the A+AVD arm had either complete resolution (59%, 260/442) or improvement (17%, 75/442) of their PN events compared with 82% (234/286) with either resolution (72%) or improvement (10%) in the ABVD arm. In the A+AVD arm, 90% of ongoing PN cases (n=182) were grade 1/2; grade 1=58% (n=106), grade 2=32% (n=58). Residual grade 3 PN was reported in 9% (n=17) of patients (1 patient with grade 4 PN died before resolution). In the ABVD arm, residual PN (n=81) was grade 1 (65%; n=53), grade 2 (30%; n=24), and grade 3 (5%; n=4). For the subset of patients with PN that had not resolved by end of treatment, the median time to resolution of all PN events from AE start date was 28 weeks for A+AVD and 14 weeks for ABVD, the median time to improvement of PN was 39 weeks for A+AVD and 18.5 weeks for ABVD. Conclusions: After approximately 2.5 years of continued follow-up, PN continues to resolve and improve for patients who were treated with A+AVD or ABVD in the ECHELON-1 study. In both study arms, the majority of ongoing PN cases are grade 1 or grade 2. Further follow-up is ongoing. Disclosures Radford: Celgene: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership. Connors:Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Younes:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Gopal:Aptevo: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Brim: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Teva: Research Funding; Asana: Consultancy. Flinn:Trillium: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Pettengell:CTI: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Purevjal:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Kuruvilla:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Canada: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: The phase 3 ECHELON-1 study assessed frontline brentuximab vedotin administered with doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) vs doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) in patients (pts) with advanced cHL (NCT01712490). The primary endpoint of ECHELON-1, modified PFS (mPFS) per independent review facility (IRF), is defined as (1) progressive disease, (2) death, or (3) subsequent anticancer therapy (chemotherapy [chemo] and/or radiotherapy [RT]) following detection of a non-complete response (non-CR = Deauville score 3-5) at end of frontline therapy. A+AVD was superior to ABVD (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; p=0.035) with 2-year mPFS rates of 82.1% and 77.2%; as previously reported. In pts with newly diagnosed cHL, the aim of frontline therapy is curative. Pts who do not achieve a satisfactory response to frontline therapy may initiate subsequent anticancer therapy prior to response criteria-defined progression. The measurement of traditional PFS becomes confounded, as pts may effectively be rescued from criteria-defined progression by subsequent treatment, resulting in an overestimation of PFS with frontline therapy (Connors et al. Haematologica 2016;101[s5]:22-3[P007]). To further evaluate modified and traditional PFS in the ECHELON-1 study, two sensitivity analyses were conducted. Methods: 1334 pts with Stage III (36%) or IV (64%) cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) on days 1 and 15, for up to six 28-day cycles. In addition to mPFS per IRF, mPFS per investigator (INV) was collected. A sensitivity analysis (mPFS-chemo) was performed in which RT following a non-CR at the completion of frontline therapy was not counted as an event: in this case, mPFS-chemo was defined as (1) progression, (2) death, or (3) receipt of additional anticancer chemo excluding RT for pts who are not in CR after completion of frontline therapy. A second sensitivity analysis of traditional PFS (PFS-traditional), defined as (1) progression or (2) death, was also performed. All analyses were performed per INV as, per protocol, IRF follow up of pts was not conducted after the initiation of subsequent therapy. Results: At 2 years, the rates of mPFS per INV (95% CI) for A+AVD vs ABVD were 81.0% (77.6-83.9%) vs 74.4% (70.7-77.7%), respectively; HR=0.72 (95% CI: 0.573, 0.914; p=0.006). Concordance between IRF and INV mPFS assessments was high among all pts in both arms, at 91%. A total of 123 mPFS events per INV were observed among pts treated with A+AVD, including 73 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 35 who received additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 164 per INV mPFS events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 103 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 39 were additional anticancer therapy following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. Of the 35 (A+AVD) and 39 (ABVD) additional anticancer therapy events, chemo/RT following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy accounted for 11/24 and 17/22 of these events, respectively. For mPFS-chemo, a larger benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD, with a HR=0.687 (95% CI: 0.534, 0.885; p=0.003), was observed. The 2-year mPFS-chemo (95% CI) was estimated as 84.0% (80.9-86.7%) for pts treated with A+AVD vs 77.3% (73.7-80.4%) for pts treated with ABVD. A total of 103 events were observed among pts in the A+AVD arm, including 78 pts with PD, 15 deaths, and 10 who received additional chemo following evidence of a non-CR at the end of frontline therapy, vs 145 events among pts treated with ABVD, of which 106 were PD, 22 were deaths, and 17 were additional chemo following evidence of non-CR at the end of frontline therapy. For PFS-traditional, an advantage in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was also observed: HR=0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91; p=0.006). The 2-year PFS estimate (95% CI) was 84.2% (81.1-86.9%) for A+AVD vs 78.0% (74.4-81.1%) for ABVD. In total, there were 101 PFS events in the A+AVD arm, including 86 pts with PD and 15 deaths; vs 140 PFS events in the ABVD arm, including 118 pts with PD and 22 deaths. Conclusions: Consistent with the primary outcome of ECHELON-1, a benefit in favor of A+AVD vs ABVD was observed independent of the inclusion of additional anticancer RT or chemo as survival events, in addition to progression or death. A traditional PFS assessment including only progression or death events demonstrated that A+AVD resulted in a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to ABVD. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Connors: Lilly: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Younes:J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Curis: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Gallamini:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Ansell:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kim:J&J: Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Celltrion: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Advani:Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Merck: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Celgene: Research Funding; Autolus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Millenium: Research Funding; Agensys: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Participated in an advisory board. Bartlett:KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Straus:Onco Tracker: Consultancy; Roch China: Speakers Bureau; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Employment; JUNO: Consultancy; Medical Crossfire: Speakers Bureau; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; InPractice Elselvier: Consultancy; Millenium (Takeda): Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Sureda:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hutchings:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dlugosz-Danecka:Servier: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Engley:Seattle Genetics: Employment. Fenton:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Liu:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Miao:Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Jolin:Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Employment. Gautam:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited: Employment. Radford:Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequent neoplastic disorder and is a main cause of tumor-related mortality, as many patients progress to stage IV metastatic CRC. Standard care consists of combination chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX). Patients with WT KRAS typing are eligible to receive anti-EGFR therapy combined with chemotherapy. Unfortunately, predicting efficacy of CRC anti-EGFR therapy has remained challenging. Here we uncovered that the EGFR pathway component RasGRP1 acts as a CRC tumor suppressor in the context of aberrant Wnt signaling. We found that RasGRP1 suppresses EGF-driven proliferation of colonic epithelial organoids. Having established that RasGRP1 dosage levels impact biology, we next focused on CRC patients. Mining 5 different data platforms, we establish that RasGRP1 expression levels decrease with CRC progression and predict poor clinical outcome of patients. Last, deletion of 1 or 2 Rasgrp1 alleles made CRC spheroids more susceptible to EGFR inhibition. Retrospective analysis of the CALGB 80203 clinical trial showed that addition of anti-EGFR therapy to chemotherapy significantly improved outcome for CRC patients when tumors expressed low levels of RasGRP1 suppressor. In sum, our data support RasGRP1 as a biomarker in the EGFR pathway that has potential relevance to anti-EGFR therapy for CRC patients.

552 Background: Bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but carry the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). We used the data collected in the S0307 trial to describe factors associated with provoked and unprovoked ONJ. Methods: In S0307, 6097 patients with Stage I-III breast cancer who had surgery were randomized to receive zoledronic acid (ZA) 4mg IV monthly for 6 months, then every 3 months, clodronate (CL) 1600mg daily, or ibandronate (IB) 50mg daily for three years, with no difference in bone metastases or disease-free survival. Patients completed dental procedures prior to and had a dental exam at enrollment. Pearson’s Chi-squared and Student’s T-test were used to test differences in categorical and continuous variables, respectively; logistic regression was used test independent association. Results: Of 5836 evaluable women, 48 developed ONJ, which was associated with bisphosphonate type (28/2124 (1.26%) for ZA, 8/2185 (0.36%) for CL and 12/1527 (0.77%) for IB (p = 0.002). Median time to onset of ONJ was 24.9 (1.4-66.6) for ZA, 41.2 months (range 33.8-67.4) for CL, 23.9 (2.1-75.3) for IB (p = 0.0447). Infection was present in 21 (43.8%) and absent in 20. ONJ was considered unprovoked in 20 (41.7%) and provoked by dental extraction in 20 (41.7%), periodontal disease in 14 (29.2%), denture trauma in 6 (12.5%), other dental surgery in 3 (6.3%). ONJ was associated with dental calculus (OR 2.03 (95% CI: 1.08-3.81), gingivitis (OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.12-3.98), and periodontal disease (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.45-5.53) that were moderate/severe and > 4mm periodontitis (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.18-4.08). Patients with provoked and unprovoked ONJ had similar amounts of dental disease and lesion location. ONJ was not associated with dentures, plaque, chemotherapy, corticosteroids or renal adverse events. In multivariate analysis (limited by small sample), only bisphosphonate type was associated with ONJ. Conclusions: ONJ prevalence was low, likely due to patients completing dental procedures before enrollment. ZA carried a higher risk of ONJ (though current adjuvant dosing interval recommendations are less frequent), with time to onset similar to IB. Oral CL and IB (not currently available in the United States) are thus likely more appropriate for patients with poor dental health. Clinical trial information: NCT00127205.

Abstract Purpose: Statins may mediate suppression of molecular pathways conferring benefit in cancer. Statins have shown anti-tumor effects in preclinical studies and have been associated with decreased recurrence and improved disease-specific survival. While designed to target cholesterol biosynthesis, statins can also have liver, bone and brain effects. We collected data on statin use in the S0307 adjuvant bisphosphonate trial to test the hypothesis that statin use may decrease risk of recurrence to liver, bone and brain as well as second primary (contralateral) breast cancers, and may act synergistically with bisphosphonates to decrease the risk of recurrence to bone. Patients and Methods: In S0307, 6097 patients diagnosed with Stage I-III breast cancer who had undergone surgery and were receiving adjuvant systemic therapy were randomized to receive zoledronic acid, clodronate, or ibandronate for 3 years. No significant difference was found in disease-free survival (DFS) among the 3 groups, including a sub-analysis of patients > age 55. Statin use was infrequent in younger women in S0307, consequently we analyzed statin use in those > age 55. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine which variables were independently associated with DFS and to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Among women aged ≥ 55 years, 684 (27%) reported taking a statin at baseline and 1,848 did not. Both groups were similar in terms of hormone receptor and HER2 status (p = 0.82). Median age in the statin group was 64.3 versus 61.0 years in the no statin group, mean BMI 31.2 v. 29.5, mean tumor size 2.1cm v. 2.3cm, negative lymph nodes 60% v. 54%, Stage I disease 47% v. 36%, and receipt of chemotherapy 62% v. 71% (all p < 0.01). In the statin group, 122 (17.8%) experienced a DFS event compared to 313 (16.9%) in the no statin group (HR 1.18, CI 0.95-1.46). No difference was observed by statin use in overall recurrence (p=0.28), distant recurrence (p=0.64), or recurrences to the bone (p=0.64), liver (p=0.38) or brain (p=0.65) at initial recurrence. There was no synergy between statin use and specific bisphosphonates. Recurrence and statin useOutcomeGroup 1: On stan at baseline n=684Group 2: No statin at baseline n=1848DFS events122 (17.8%)313 (16.9%)Died without recurrence51 7.5%)97 (5.2%)Recurrence71 (10.4%)216 (11.7%)Contralateral breast cancer9 (1.3%)17 (0.9%)Distant recurrence48 (7%)157 (8.5%)Bone as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)31 (65%)76 (48%)Liver as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)6 (13%)24 (16%)Brain/CNS as 1st site of distant recurrence (% distant recurrence)5 (10%)17 (11%) Conclusions: We found no evidence that statins reduce risk of second primary breast cancers or distant metastases among post-menopausal women with early-stage breast cancer. Despite promising preclinical data, they did not appear to act in synergy with a specific bisphosphonate. Though women in the statin group had less advanced disease at study entry, statin use was not associated with improved DFS. Results are limited by lack of information about type of statin used, adherence, or initiation of statin in control group. Citation Format: Kizub D, Miao J, Stopeck A, Thompson P, Paterson AH, Clemons M, Dees EC, Ingle JN, Falkson CI, Barlow W, Hortobagyi GN, Gralow JR. Statin use, site of recurrence, and survival among post-menopausal women taking bisphosphonates as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (SWOG S0307) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-17-03.

Abstract BACKGROUND Congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG) represent 1 of the largest groups of metabolic disorders with >130 subtypes identified to date. The majority of CDG subtypes are disorders of N-linked glycosylation, in which carbohydrate residues, namely, N-glycans, are posttranslationally linked to asparagine molecules in peptides. To improve the diagnostic capability for CDG, we developed and validated a plasma N-glycan assay using flow injection–electrospray ionization–quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. METHODS After PNGase F digestion of plasma glycoproteins, N-glycans were linked to a quinolone using a transient amine group at the reducing end, isolated by a hydrophilic interaction chromatography column, and then identified by accurate mass and quantified using a stable isotope-labeled glycopeptide as the internal standard. RESULTS This assay differed from other N-glycan profiling methods because it was free of any contamination from circulating free glycans and was semiquantitative. The low end of the detection range tested was at 63 nmol/L for disialo-biantennary N-glycan. The majority of N-glycans in normal plasma had <1% abundance. Abnormal N-glycan profiles from 19 patients with known diagnoses of 11 different CDG subtypes were generated, some of which had previously been reported to have normal N-linked protein glycosylation by carbohydrate-deficient transferrin analysis. CONCLUSIONS The clinical specificity and sensitivity of N-glycan analysis was much improved with this method. Additional CDGs can be diagnosed that would be missed by carbohydrate-deficient transferrin analysis. The assay provides novel biomarkers with diagnostic and potentially therapeutic significance.

The prevalence of Lynch syndrome (LS) varies significantly in different populations, suggesting that ethnic features might play an important role. We enrolled 3330 consecutive Chinese patients who had surgical resection for newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Universal screening for LS was implemented, including immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, BRAFV600E mutation test and germline sequencing. Among the 3250 eligible patients, MMR protein deficiency (dMMR) was detected in 330 (10.2%) patients. Ninety‐three patients (2.9%) were diagnosed with LS. Nine (9.7%) patients with LS fulfilled Amsterdam criteria II and 76 (81.7%) met the revised Bethesda guidelines. Only 15 (9.7%) patients with absence of MLH1 on IHC had BRAFV600E mutation. One third (33/99) of the MMR gene mutations have not been reported previously. The age of onset indicates risk of LS in patients with dMMR tumors. For patients older than 65 years, only 2 patients (5.7%) fulfilling revised Bethesda guidelines were diagnosed with LS. Selective sequencing of all cases with dMMR diagnosed at or below age 65 years and only of those dMMR cases older than 65 years who fulfill revised Bethesda guidelines results in 8.2% fewer cases requiring germline testing without missing any LS diagnoses. While the prevalence of LS in Chinese patients is similar to that of Western populations, the spectrum of constitutional mutations and frequency of BRAFV600E mutation is different. Patients older than 65 years who do not meet the revised Bethesda guidelines have a low risk of LS, suggesting germline sequencing might not be necessary in this population.

As a follow‐up to genome‐wide association analysis of common variants associated with ovarian carcinoma (cancer), our study considers seven well‐known ovarian cancer risk factors and their interactions with 28 genome‐wide significant common genetic variants. The interaction analyses were based on data from 9971 ovarian cancer cases and 15,566 controls from 17 case–control studies. Likelihood ratio and Wald tests for multiplicative interaction and for relative excess risk due to additive interaction were used. The top multiplicative interaction was noted between oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use (ever vs. never) and rs13255292 (p value = 3.48 × 10−4). Among women with the TT genotype for this variant, the odds ratio for OCP use was 0.53 (95% CI = 0.46–0.60) compared to 0.71 (95%CI = 0.66–0.77) for women with the CC genotype. When stratified by duration of OCP use, women with 1–5 years of OCP use exhibited differential protective benefit across genotypes. However, no interaction on either the multiplicative or additive scale was found to be statistically significant after multiple testing correction. The results suggest that OCP use may offer increased benefit for women who are carriers of the T allele in rs13255292. On the other hand, for women carrying the C allele in this variant, longer (5+ years) use of OCP may reduce the impact of carrying the risk allele of this SNP. Replication of this finding is needed. The study presents a comprehensive analytic framework for conducting gene–environment analysis in ovarian cancer.