Citations

6108 Background: This pilot study evaluated whether providing clinicians with patient(pt) QOL results and symptom management pathways linked to QOL domains at the time of clinical appointment would result in improvement in QOL and treatment (tx) satisfaction. The objective was to obtain preliminary effect size estimates and logistical evidence for design of a larger, definitive trial. Methods: Oncology pts receiving 5-7 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) electronically completed QOL assessments (LASA) at baseline and biweekly prior to seeing clinicians. Was It Worth It (WIWI) and Interpersonal Patient-Provider Relationship (IPPRS) were measured at tx end. Pt endpoints (pro-rated primary endpoint LASA area under the curve (AUC), LASA changes from baseline, and WIWI responses) and clinician endpoints (IPPRS) were compared between the control group (Phase 1: no QOL feedback) and the intervention group (Phase 2: QOL feedback) via Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests. There was 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in average AUC. Results: 148 pts enrolled (79 Phase 1, 69 Phase 2) from 11/28/2008 to 09/20/2011 (sites GI (27%), Lung (22%) and Head and Neck (52%)). 68% received RT and chemo. There were consistently moderate effect sizes observed but no statistically significant differences in any AUC nor end of tx change from baseline scores. 20% fewer pts in phase 2 reported clinical deficits in overall QOL (pain). In pts receiving 7 weeks of RT, end of tx average overall QOL, mental well-being (WB), physical WB and pain severity were significantly better in Phase 2 pts. WIWI results showed 76% found participation worthwhile, 95% would participate again, and 92% would recommend the study to others. No differences between groups were found in communication between clinicians and pts (IPPRS). Conclusions: Preliminary estimates indicate potentially clinically significant improvements of moderate effect size in mental and physical WB and pain severity when clinicians received QOL real time with symptom management pathways. Further study is warranted in larger trial setting.

299 Background: In 2011, ASCO launched a forum for the oncology research community to facilitate and promote the implementation of quality clinical research. The ASCO Research Community Forum (RCF) was created to provide a solution-oriented venue for research sites to address common challenges with conducting clinical trials. It offers in-person and virtual forums and resources to learn and share best practices with peers on a variety of topics, including site quality assessment and improvement, research site operations, and clinical trial access and accrual. Methods: An assessment was performed to measure the ASCO RCF output and to gather information on its potential impact on the cancer community. Results: The ASCO RCF has provided an in-person venue for physicians and research administrators with a steady increase in attendance, from 52 attendees in 2012 to 159 in 2018. Multi-stakeholder meetings and manuscripts have promoted best practices and solutions to address challenges with implementing quality clinical trials. Tools and resources to facilitate best practices and quality improvement at trial sites have been accessed by a range of types of research sites from across the U.S. and internationally. Its web-based library of resources was accessed over 27,000 times in 2018, alone. An online forum was launched in 2019 to provide a new opportunity to connect and impact the research community. Conclusions: The ASCO RCF is a productive and esteemed resource for the cancer research community. In-person and virtual forums, along with practical tools, promote access and accrual to clinical trials by facilitating networking, developing solutions, and providing education and resources. The ASCO RCF impact has extended from community-based oncology practices to larger research networks and academic centers across the U.S. and internationally. Its efforts to promote and facilitate access to quality clinical trials align with the vision and mission of ASCO to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.

Abstract Btz (VELCADE®) is approved for patients (pts) with relapsed MM. This study characterized PK/PD of btz at 2 doses (1.0, 1.3mg/m2) after single- and multiple-dose administration, and evaluated their relationship. 24 pts with relapsed MM and creatinine clearance ≥50mL/min were randomized to btz 1.0 (n=12) or 1.3mg/m2 (n=12) on D 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-D cycle (C). Pts could continue therapy for ≥8 Cs if beneficial. PK/PD samples were drawn at multiple time points on D1 and D11 of C1 and C3 over 48h. Plasma concentrations of btz were similar following administration of 1.0 and 1.3mg/m2; differences in mean plasma Cmax and AUC values were within the degree of intersubject variability (Table). There was a decrease in clearance and an increase in terminal half-life of btz on D11 vs D1 of C1.The volume of distribution of btz suggests extensive peripheral tissue distribution. After single or repeat administration, mean maximum percent inhibition of 20S proteasome activity (vs baseline) in whole blood was 70–84% and 73–83% for the 1.0 and 1.3mg/m2 doses, respectively. The percentage of pts who had >90% inhibition was greater in subsequent doses vs first dose. Reversibility of 20S proteasome inhibition in whole blood was demonstrated. PK/PD modeling revealed an exposure-response relationship, with Emax and EC50 values consistent across study days. These results confirm btz is a potent inhibitor of the 20S proteasome. The efficacy of single-agent btz has been explored and validated in the pivotal phase 2 SUMMIT and phase 3 APEX trials at 1.3mg/m2, and explored in the phase 2 CREST trial at 1.0mg/m2. Complete safety and efficacy data by dose will be presented. Mean±SD PK parameters of btz in plasma 1.0mg/m2 1.3mg/m2 1.0mg/m2 1.3mg/m2 D1/C1 (n=11) D11/C1 (n=12) an=5;bn=11;cn=10;dn=7;en=11;fn=9 Tmax (h) 0.13±0.13 0.11±0.06 0.07±0.03 0.20±0.29 Cmax (ng/mL) 56.7±36.3 112±122 106.2±46.7 88.6±47.6 AUC48h(ng·h/mL) 26.5±12.4 34.6±19.8 82.8±35.9b 82.4±28.6b AUClast (ng·h/mL) 22.6±12.6 31.5±18.6 137±106 122.2±67.4 CL (L/h) 102.1±48.1 111.6±73.6 23.2±17.8 28.0±19.8 Vβ (L) 1976±2498a 2015±2974d 1659±752c 2415±1711 t1/2λz(h) 30.7±44.8a 11.5±12.7d 78.9±50.9c 75.6±49.9 D1/C3 (n=12) D11/C3 (n=12) Tmax (h) 0.12±0.12 0.10±0.05 0.16±0.17 0.10±0.05 Cmax (ng/mL) 66.5±42.6 120.3±70.7 83.9±69.3 114.9±98.3 AUC48h(ng·h/mL) 66.4±24.1 79.4±24.5b 101.6±58.2b 85.2±18.7f AUClast (ng·h/mL) 74.8±35.8 86.0±27.6 227±181 160.7±67.1 CL (L/h) 32.2±19.0 32.1±15.4 15.1±13.9 18.2±9.2 Vβ (L) 1852±951d 2059±1231 3294±2993e 2505±1641 t1/2λz (h) 39.9±14.4d 49.1±34.6 193±169e 108.6±64.8

Background In the phase 3 MARIANNE trial, trastuzumab emtansine (T‐DM1) with or without pertuzumab showed noninferior progression‐free survival and better tolerability than trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT) for the first‐line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive advanced breast cancer. This article reports the final descriptive overall survival (OS) analysis, updated safety data, and additional patient‐reported outcomes and biomarker analyses. Methods OS was assessed in 1095 patients with HER2‐positive breast cancer and no prior therapy for advanced disease who had been randomized to HT, T‐DM1 plus a placebo (hereafter T‐DM1), or T‐DM1 plus pertuzumab (T‐DM1+pertuzumab). A post hoc exploratory landmark analysis of OS, baseline patient and disease characteristics, and tumor biomarkers in patients with and without an objective tumor response (OR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors within 6.5 months of randomization was conducted. Results The median OS was similar across groups (50.9, 53.7, and 51.8 months for the HT, T‐DM1, and T‐DM1+pertuzumab groups, respectively). Among patients with an OR, the median OS was longer with T‐DM1 (64.4 months) and T‐DM1+pertuzumab (not reached) versus HT (56.3 months). No baseline characteristics or biomarkers were strongly associated with OR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was greater with HT (55.8%) than T‐DM1 (47.1%) or T‐DM1+pertuzumab (48.6%). The median time to clinically meaningful deterioration (a 3‐point or greater change) in neurotoxicity symptoms was shorter with HT (2.1 months) and T‐DM1+pertuzumab (4.2 months) than T‐DM1 (6.2 months). Fewer patients reported alopecia and diarrhea and were bothered by treatment side effects in the T‐DM1 arm. Conclusions These results support T‐DM1 as a first‐line treatment for patients with HER2‐positive metastatic breast cancer who are deemed unsuitable for taxane‐based therapy.

1030 Background: Previous studies have shown that 44-71% of trastuzumab (T)-treated pts develop HER2-specific immunity (Clin Cancer Res 2007, 13:5133; Cancer Res 2016, 76:3702; Breast Cancer Res 2018, 20:52). M is an Fc-engineered mAb that shares similar HER2 binding and antiproliferative activity as T. The Fc region of M has been engineered for increased affinity to the activating FcγRIIIA (CD16A) and lower binding to the inhibitory FcγRIIB (CD32B), attributes that may enhance the mAb’s immune function, such as antigen presentation. Methods: HER2+ cancer pts who progressed on prior therapy received M (0.1-6 mg/kg QW for 3 of every 4 weeks [N = 34]; or 10-18 mg/kg Q3W [N = 32]) in phase 1 trial NCT01148849. PBMC and plasma were collected pre-dose and 50 days post-dose for 46 pts and > 4 years for 3 pts on long-term treatment. Response to HER2 or control antigens (Ag) was assessed by IFNγ ELISpot and antibody (Ab) ELISA. In 14 pts, T-cell antigen receptor (TCR) repertoire was assessed by immunosequencing. Results: Following M treatment, mean frequencies of IFNγ-producing T cells specific for intra- or extracellular fragments of HER2 increased by 2.5 to 6-fold (p < 0.0027, paired t test). Most (95%) of subjects responded to ≥2 of 6 (median = 5) HER2 Ag. Mean HER2-specific Ab concentration increased by 19-54% (p < 0.0001), with all subjects responding to ≥2 (median = 5) of the 6 Ag. A small 1.6-fold increase in IFNγ response to control CMV/EBV/Flu (but not tetanus or cyclin D1) peptides was observed; no increase in Ab response to control Ag was noted. Subsets of HER2-specific T-cell and Ab responses persisted during long-term treatment. Median TCR clonality increased by 54% (p = 0.003), with an average of 125 unique clones expanding, while overall TCR diversity remained unchanged (p = 0.19). Conclusions: Treatment of HER2+ cancer with M was associated with enhanced HER2-specific T-cell and Ab responses together with increased TCR clonality, indicative of a more focused T-cell repertoire. The high frequency of HER2-specific immunity in M-treated patients ( > 95%) is consistent with its enhanced Fc region contributing to linkage of innate and adaptive immune responses.