Citations

11011 Background: Beyond KRAS status, there are no validated markers for anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC. While expression of genes within the EGF signaling axis has been reported to correlate with benefit, most reports used data from non-randomized trials which cannot distinguish between general prognostic markers and markers that predict for benefit from C. CALGB 80203 was a 238-patient (pt), 4-arm, randomized phase II study of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI +/- C in mCRC pts. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor samples from CALGB 80203 were analyzed for gene expression of HER family ligands, receptors and regulators. Methods: FFPE tumor samples from consenting pts were analyzed for AREG, BTC, CD73, DUSP4, EGF, EGFR, EPGN, EREG, HB-EGF, HER2, HER3, HER4, PHLDA1 and TGFa by RT-qPCR. Interaction between baseline gene expression levels and treatment (C) with respect to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was modeled using a multiplicative Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline tumor tissue was available from 103 pts; 55% of tumors were KRAS wild type (WT). Two prognostic markers were identified; higher tumor mRNA levels of HER2 (HR=0.64, p=0.002) and EREG (HR=0.89, p=0.016) were associated with longer PFS across all pts. Potential predictive markers of benefit for C were identified. In KRAS WT tumors, lower HER3 expression was associated with longer OS from C treatment while higher HER3 expression was associated with shorter OS from C treatment (chemo + C: HR=1.15; chemo only: HR=0.48, interaction p=0.029). No association was observed for HER3 and outcome in KRAS mutant (MT) tumors. Interestingly, higher CD73 expression was associated with longer PFS in C-treated pts in both KRASWT (chemo + C: HR=0.91; chemo only: HR=1.57, interaction p=0.026) and MT tumors (chemo + C: HR=0.80; chemo only: HR=1.29, p=0.025). Conclusions: In one of the first reports using data from a randomized study, gene expression of HER3 and CD73 were identified as potential predictive markers for C. These data implicate not only HER axis signaling but also immune modulation as potential mechanisms of C action and sensitivity, and warrant confirmation in other large randomized trials.

3533 Background: PFS has previously been established as a surrogate for OS based on IPD from first-line mCRC trials conducted before 1999. As mCRC treatment (trt) has advanced in the last decade and OS has increased from 1 to 2 years, this surrogacy required re-examination. Methods: IPD from 16,762 pts, median age 62, 62% male, 53% ECOG PS 0 were available from 22 1st line mCRC studies conducted from 1997-2006; 12 tested targeted (anti-angiogenic and/or anti-EGFR) regimens. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated at patient-, trt-arm-, and trial-levels using correlation (corr.) coefficients and R2 (closer to 1 the better) from weighted least square (WLS) regression of arm-specific survival rates and trial-specific hazard ratios (HRs), estimated using Cox and Copula bivariate models. The concordance of significance (CoS) of the treatment effects (TEs) on both endpoints was calculated. Results: 44% pts received a targeted regimen. Median PFS was 8 and OS was18 months. The corr. between PFS and OS was modest at all three levels with low CoS in TE comparisons (see Table). Analyses limited to trials testing targeted trts, non-strategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy. Conclusions: In modern mCRC trials, where survival post-first progression exceeds time to first progression, PFS TEs do not reliably predict TEs on OS. Nonetheless, until alternative endpoints of clinical benefit can be validated, PFS remains a relevant primary endpoint for 1st line mCRC trials, as our data demonstrate that the ability for any agent to produce an OS benefit from a single line of therapy is challenging. [Table: see text]

3520 Background: EOTR has been suggested as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mCRC and allows early assessment of treatment efficacy, facilitating adaptive trial design. We assessed at the individual patient level, the correlation between EOTR (complete or partial response) at 6, 8 and 12 weeks (wk), OS and progression free survival (PFS) in pts with mCRC treated with 1stline chemotherapy with or without a targeted agent as a first step in a surrogacy demonstration. Methods: IPD from 13,949 pts enrolled on 15 randomized Phase III trials in 1st line mCRC were used; 8 trials included targeted (anti-angiogenic and anti-EGFR) agents. EOTR prognostic value was assessed by landmark analyses using Cox models stratified by treatment assignment. P-values <0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of 13,949 pts, 11,987 had sufficient response data to be included in the analysis. Median OS was 21.7 months (mo) in pts with an EOTR vs. 16.5 mo without EOTR at 6 wk (p<.0001, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.70, c statistic [c] 0.55). HRs were similar whether pts were treated with targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80, x 0.54) or non-targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.69, x 0.55). Median PFS was 8.4 mo in pts with EOTR at 6 wk vs. 7.0 mo in pts without EOTR (p<.0001, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). EOTR at 8 and 12 wks were also significantly associated with longer OS and PFS. The prognostic value of EOTR at 6, 8 and 12 wks remained significant (p<0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, performance statusand location of metastatic disease (lung or liver). Overall tumor response (to 26 wk) however provided superior OS prediction (p<.0001, HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.47-0.56, CS 0.61) vs. EOTR. Conclusions: Early response measured at 6, 8 or 12 wk after starting 1st line treatment was a strong and independent predictor of both OS and PFS in patient with mCRC and warrants further consideration as a potential endpoint for future trials, particularly randomized phase II trials.

3516 Background: A previous report noted that patients (pts) in the phase III study of IFL ± BV who received BV had significantly longer PFS and OS regardless of whether or not they responded according to RECIST criteria (Mass et al, ASCO 2005). It is unclear if this phenomenon is specific to the addition of a biologic to chemotherapy (CT) or a more general benefit from improved therapy since it has been suggested that stable as well as responding disease is beneficial for pts. We repeated the analysis of Mass et al on pts enrolled in N9741, a study which established the superiority of FOLFOX over IFL and contained no biologic compound. Methods: For this retrospective analysis, pts were defined as ‘responders‘ or ‘nonresponders‘ according to whether criteria for complete or partial response (by RECIST -AVF2107g or WHO criteria -N9741) were either achieved (responders) or not achieved (nonresponders). PFS and OS were estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves; hazard ratios (HR) for progression and death in each subgroup were estimated by Cox regression. Results: In both trials, response was associated with superior outcome. However, statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed in both responders and non-responders treated with either IFL + BV or FOLFOX versus IFL, and the magnitude of improvement was similar regardless of response ( Table ). Conclusions: Analysis of two large recent mCRC phase III trials clearly demonstrate that pts who do not achieve a response according to traditional criteria still have significant benefit from the superior regimen, with a similar magnitude of benefit for responders and non-responders, regardless if the regimen called for CT alone or included the antiangiogenic biologic BV. These data support the conclusion that PFS and the percentage of pts experiencing tumor control may more accurately reflect pt benefit than does response rate in phase III trials in mCRC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

AbstractPrevious transcriptome‐wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome‐wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype‐specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta‐analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER−). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER− subtypes, using a case‐only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER– breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS‐significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast‐cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS‐significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER− breast cancer.

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.

Abstract Purpose: GOG-0218, a double-blind placebo-controlled phase III trial, compared carboplatin and paclitaxel with placebo, bevacizumab followed by placebo, or bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Results demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS), but no overall survival (OS) benefit with bevacizumab. Blood samples were collected for biomarker analyses. Experimental Design: Plasma samples were analyzed via multiplex ELISA technology for seven prespecified biomarkers [IL6, Ang-2, osteopontin (OPN), stromal cell–derived factor-1 (SDF-1), VEGF-D, IL6 receptor (IL6R), and GP130]. The predictive value of each biomarker with respect to PFS and OS was assessed using a protein marker by treatment interaction term within the framework of a Cox proportional hazards model. Prognostic markers were identified using Cox models adjusted for baseline covariates. Results: Baseline samples were available from 751 patients. According to our prespecified analysis plan, IL6 was predictive of a therapeutic advantage with bevacizumab for PFS (P = 0.007) and OS (P = 0.003). IL6 and OPN were found to be negative prognostic markers for both PFS and OS (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with high median IL6 levels (dichotomized at the median) treated with bevacizumab had longer PFS (14.2 vs. 8.7 months) and OS (39.6 vs. 33.1 months) compared with placebo. Conclusions: The inflammatory cytokine IL6 may be predictive of therapeutic benefit from bevacizumab when combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Aligning with results observed in patients with renal cancer treated with antiangiogenic therapies, it appears plasma IL6 may also define those patients with EOC more or less likely to benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy.

Background Thromboprophylaxis is routinely used with lenalidomide‐based regimens in multiple myeloma because of a substantial risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, little is known about the incidence of VTE with contemporary lenalidomide‐based regimens. The objective of the current study was to estimate the incidence of VTE despite thromboprophylaxis with currently used lenalidomide‐based regimens in patients with myeloma. Methods The Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from study inception to January 2019 for keywords to cover the following concepts: “lenalidomide,” “venous thromboembolism,” and “multiple myeloma.” Phase 1, 2, and 3 clinical trials evaluating lenalidomide‐based regimens with thromboprophylaxis were included. The pooled incidence rate of VTE was estimated using a random‐effects model. Results The search generated 1372 citations, with 51 clinical trials and 9069 patients included for analysis. The most common thromboprophylaxis agents were aspirin, low‐molecular‐weight heparin or warfarin, administered either per risk‐stratification or at investigators' discretion. The pooled incidence of VTE in trials of patients who had newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory myeloma was 6.2% (95% CI, 5.4%‐7.1%) over median treatment durations ranging from 2 to 34 cycles, which translated into 1.2 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles (95% CI, 0.9‐1.7 VTE events per 100 patient‐cycles). Among contemporary regimens, the risk of VTE was low with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone (0.2 [95% CI, 0.1‐0.6] events/100 patient‐cycles) and lenalidomide maintenance (0.0 [95% CI, 0.0‐0.7] events per 100 patient‐cycles). VTE risk was higher with combined lenalidomide and low‐dose dexamethasone plus proteasome inhibitors (1.3 [95% CI, 0.7‐2.3] events per 100 patient‐cycles). Conclusions Despite adequate thromboprophylaxis, lenalidomide‐based regimens have a substantial risk of VTE in controlled clinical trial settings. Further studies are needed on new thromboprophylaxis strategies with regimens that have a high VTE risk.

The use of a differential quantitative blood culture technique (Isolator) to diagnose intravascular-device-related bacteremia (IDRB) was studied prospectively. During septic episodes in 44 patients, blood was obtained simultaneously through the suspected infected device and from a peripheral venipuncture. The blood samples were processed by the Isolator technique, which enables easy quantification of microorganisms. The cannula was removed, and its tip was cultured semiquantitatively. Of the 52 cannulas studied, 15 were the cause of IDRB, but only 7 of these showed a significantly higher bacterial count in blood obtained through the device compared with peripheral blood. The bacterial count was higher in blood drawn through the device than in peripheral blood in four of six cases that did not fulfill the definition of IDRB. Some blood cultures obtained through the device were positive despite negative cultures of peripheral blood and cannula tips (six cannulas). Quantitative blood cultures were not useful in diagnosing IDRB in this study.

Abstract This manuscript is the result of the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus conference on the surgical management of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors from July 19 to 20, 2018. The group reviewed a series of questions of specific interest to surgeons taking care of patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, and for each, the available literature was reviewed. What follows are these reviews for each question followed by recommendations of the panel.