Citations

TPS482 Background: Two combination chemotherapy regimens have emerged as standard of care options for first-line treatment of mPAC: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Nal-IRI (MM-398) is a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan. In a randomized phase 3 study (NAPOLI-1), of patients with mPAC who had been previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy, nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV demonstrated its safety and significant clinical activity, increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) relative to 5-FU/LV. The goal of this current study is to determine the preliminary safety and efficacy of nal-IRI+ + 5-FU/LV with or without oxaliplatin as compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with mPAC. Methods: This open-label, phase 2 comparative study will be conducted in two parts. Part 1 is a safety run-in of a nal-IRI+5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen. The safety run-in will enroll small cohorts of patients following a traditional 3 + 3 dose escalation design to confirm the target dose of oxaliplatin (n = ~6-18). The primary objective of Part 1 is the safety and tolerability of nal-IRI + 5FU/LV + oxaliplatin. Part 2 is a randomized, efficacy study of a nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen (Arm 1), the nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV combination that previously demonstrated efficacy in the NAPOLI-1 trial (Arm 2), versus a nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine control arm (Arm 3) (n = ~156-168). The primary objective of Part 2 is to assess the efficacy of nal-IRI-containing regimens in first-line mPAC patients compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine using the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks as the primary endpoint. Secondary of part 1 is a PK study and Part 2 secondary endpoints will include OS, PFS, objective response rate (per RECIST, v1.1), decrease in CA19-9 levels and quality of life assessments. Clinical trial information: NCT02551991.

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.

653 Background: Next-generation sequencing often reveals potentially actionable molecular alterations; however, data on approved targeted therapies in non-indicated tumors are limited. MyPathway (NCT02091141) evaluates agents targeting the HER2, EGFR, BRAF, or Hedgehog (Hh) pathways in tumors for which these therapies are not currently indicated. Here, we present early response data for patients with GI tumors. Methods: Eligible patients had metastatic tumors with potentially actionable genomic alterations, identified by a CLIA-certified lab, and progression on standard therapy. Based on the identified alteration, patients received standard doses of trastuzumab + pertuzumab (HER2), erlotinib (EGFR), vemurafenib (BRAF), or vismodegib (Hh). Response was evaluated by the investigator using RECIST v1.1. Results: As of Aug 21, 2015, 96 patients had enrolled, 36 of whom (38%) had GI tumors with the following alterations: HER2 (n=28 [22 amplifications, 5 activating mutations, 1 both]), BRAF (n=4), Hh (n=2 [2 PTCH-1 mutations]), and EGFR (n=2). Patients had a median of 4 (range, 1–8) prior lines of therapy. Tumor types and interim best response data are shown below. Among all evaluable patients with GI tumors (n=26), 5 have had a PR to targeted therapy (duration 3–10+ months). Conclusions: Targetable molecular alterations were found in a variety of GI tumors, resulting in clinical benefit from targeted treatments that would not have otherwise been realized. These early results support this molecular testing strategy. Accrual to the trial continues; based on activity observed, the HER2-positive colorectal cancer cohort will be expanded to ≥30 patients. Additional data will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT02091141. [Table: see text]

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.

175 Background: Inactivity is common in breast cancer survivors and has been linked to poor outcomes. Few trials have tested physical activity (PA) interventions in young women with breast cancer, who may face unique PA barriers due to demands of jobs and young families. Methods: Young and Strong was a cluster-randomized study evaluating the effect of education interventions for young breast cancer survivors.Sites were randomized 1:1 to a young women’s intervention (YWI), focused on fertility and other issues facing young women, or to a physical activity intervention (PAI). At PAI sites, providers were instructed to discuss PA with patients, and participants were given materials to encourage PA. PA was measured with the modified Godin Leisure Score Index at baseline, and 3, 6, and 12 months. Medical records were reviewed to assess provider attention to PA. Changes in weekly min of PA were compared between the PAI and YWI groups using general estimating equations to evaluate clustered binary and Gaussian data. Results: 467 patients enrolled between 7/12 -12/13 across 54 sites. Median age at dx was 40yrs (range 22-45). At baseline, participants were moderately active. PA increased in both groups over time (Table); there was no significant difference in PA between groups at any time (all p > 0.1). Provider attention to PA was documented in 74% of participants on PAI and 61% on YWI (p = 0.15), and correlated with PA at 12 months (median 100 min/wk of PA in participants with provider attention to PA vs. 60 min/wk in those without, p = 0.016). Participants who reported reading all or most the PAI materials reported higher levels of PA vs. those who read less (78% vs. 64%, p = 0.05) Conclusions: Young breast cancer survivors assigned to a PA intervention did not increase PA more than those assigned to an intervention focused on young women’s issues. However, the higher levels of PA among women who engaged with the PAI materials and those whose oncology providers addressed PA suggests the importance of enhancing patient and provider engagement with healthy lifestyle information and recommendations. Clinical trial information: NCT01647607. [Table: see text]

6 Background: Traditional screening mammography (MG) enables early detection of breast cancer and therefore results in decreased mortality. Mammography, however, is an imperfect tool and limited by an overall sensitivity of 75-85%. Specificity is limited as well resulting in many false-positive examinations and unnecessary follow-up examinations. The recent development of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has made the usage of IV contrast enhancement with mammography a possibility. CEDM is an angiographic technique that uses digital subtraction, which removes the normal mammary gland on images in order to detect breast tumors and visualize their vascularity. The literature is promising with regard to CEDM as studies have found that CEDM achieves increased sensitivity without reductions in specificity in comparison to MG, US and/or MRI. Methods: In this multi-reader study we compared the diagnostic accuracy of CEDM as an adjunct to MG/US in patients with suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4). The study population included 31 patients who were imaged with CEDM prior to their scheduled US or stereotactic-guided biopsy. We compared the relative performance of MG/US alone versus MG/US/CEDM in determining the probability of malignancy. Histology served as the gold standard. Results: See table below. Conclusions: The addition of CEDM to the workup of suspected lesions on MG and/or US preliminarily decreases the number of false-positive MG thereby with potential to reduce cost and unnecessary patient harm. [Table: see text]

LBA7005 Background: The phase III HELIOS study evaluated the first-in-class, oral covalent BTK inhibitor ibrutinib in combination with BR (BR+ibr) vs BR plus placebo (BR+plb) in patients (pts) with previously treated CLL/SLL. The preplanned interim analysis reported here showed that the primary end point was met, upon which the IDMC recommended unblinding the study. Methods: Pts received BR ( ≤ 6 cycles) and were randomized 1:1 to ibr (420 mg daily) or plb. Purine analog refractoriness was a stratification factor. Pts with del17p ( > 20% of cells) were excluded. Primary end point was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) per IRC. Results: 578 pts were randomized (289 per arm); median age 64 yrs; 38% Rai Stage III/IV; median 2 prior therapies. 6 cycles of BR were completed in 83% and 78% of pts in the ibr and plb arms, respectively. At a median follow-up of 17.2 months, IRC-assessed PFS was significantly longer with BR+ibr vs BR+plb (median not reached vs 13.3 months; HR: 0.203, 95% CI: 0.150-0.276, P< 0.0001); PFS results were consistent across high-risk subgroups. ORR and CR/CRi rates were 82.7% vs 67.8% (P< 0.0001) and 10.4% vs 2.8%. Median OS was not reached. 90 pts (31%) in the BR+plb arm with confirmed PD crossed over to receive ibr, as permitted per the protocol. Incidence of most AEs was similar between arms. The most common all-grade AEs with BR+ibr and BR+plb were neutropenia (58.2% vs 54.7%) and nausea (36.9% vs 35.2%); most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (53.7% vs 50.5%) and thrombocytopenia (15.0% each arm). Rates of grade 3/4 atrial fibrillation were 2.8% and 0.7%, and major hemorrhage were 2.1% and 1.7%. Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) was improved with BR+ibr vs BR+plb. Conclusions: The addition of ibr to BR reduced the risk of progression or death by 80% compared with BR+plb. ORR was also significantly improved. Safety of BR+ibr was consistent with the known profiles for BR and ibr. The data further support ibr as an important treatment option for pts with previously treated CLL/SLL. Clinical trial information: EudraCT No. 2012-000600-15; UTN No. U1111-1135-3745.

PURPOSE: To identify which patients with rhabdomyosarcoma and microscopic residual disease (group II) are likely to not respond to therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred ninety-five patients with group II tumors received chemotherapy and 90% received radiation therapy on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-I to IRS-IV (1972 to 1997). Tumors were subgrouped depending on the presence of microscopic residual disease only (subgroup IIa), resected positive regional lymph nodes, (subgroup IIb), or microscopic residual disease and resected positive regional lymph nodes (subgroup IIc). RESULTS: Overall, the 5-year failure-free survival rate (FFSR) was 73%, and patients with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma treated on IRS-IV fared especially well (5-year FFSR, 93%; n = 90). Five-year FFSRs differed significantly by subgroup (IIa, 75% and n = 506; IIb, 74% and n = 101; IIc, 58% and n = 88; P = .0037) and treatment (IRS-I, 68%; IRS-II, 67%; IRS-III, 75%; IRS-IV, 87%; P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed positive associations between primary site (favorable), histology (embryonal), subgroup IIa or IIb, treatment (IRS-III/IV), and better FFSRs. Patterns of treatment failure revealed local failure to be 8%, regional failure, 4%, and distant failure, 14%. The relapse pattern noted over the course of IRS-I to IRS-IV shows a decrease in the systemic relapse rates, particularly for patients with embryonal histology, suggesting that improvement in FFSRs is primarily a result of improved chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Group II rhabdomyosarcoma has an excellent prognosis with contemporary therapy as used in IRS-III/IV, and those less likely to respond can be identified using prognostic factors: histology, subgroup, and primary site. Patients with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma are generally cured, although patients with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma or undifferentiated sarcoma, particularly subgroup IIc at unfavorable sites, continue to need better therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcome of patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) treated with complete surgical resection and multiagent chemotherapy, with or without local radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred thirty-nine patients with completely resected (ie, group I) RMS were further treated with chemotherapy (vincristine and actinomycin D ± cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Studies (IRS) I to III between 1972 and 1991. Eighty-three patients (19%) also received local RT as a component of initial treatment. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients relapsed (10-year failure-free survival [FFS] 79%, overall survival 89%). Six percent of failure sites were local, 6% were regional, and 7% were distant. Poor prognostic factors were tumor size greater than 5 cm, alveolar or undifferentiated histology, primary tumor sites other than genitourinary, and treatment on IRS-I or II. For patients with embryonal RMS who were treated with RT, there was a trend for improved FFS but no difference in overall survival. On IRS-I and II, patients with alveolar or undifferentiated sarcoma who received RT compared with those who did not receive RT had greater 10-year FFS rates (73% v 44%, respectively; P = .03) and overall survival rates (82% v 52%, respectively; (P = .02). Such patients who received RT on IRS III also benefited more than those who did not receive RT (10-year FFS, 95% v 69%; P = .01; overall survival, 95% v 86%; P = .23). CONCLUSION: Patients with group I embryonal RMS have an excellent prognosis when treated with adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy without RT. Patients with alveolar RMS or undifferentiated sarcoma fare worse; however, FFS and overall survival are substantially improved when RT is added to multiagent chemotherapy (IRS-I and II). The best outcome occurred in IRS-III, when RT was used in conjunction with intensified chemotherapy.

535 Background: Prior ARIES analyses showed that BV-treated mCRC patients (pts) receiving chemotherapy (CT)/biologics + BV within 2 months (mo) after 1st progressive disease (PD) had longer post-progression survival (PPS) than pts receiving only CT/biologics. The present analysis evaluated whether this effect of BV was consistent when used with common 2L CT regimens— irinotecan- (iri-) and oxaliplatin- (ox-) based—in mCRC pts exposed to 1L BV in ARIES. Methods: ARIES enrolled mCRC pts receiving 1L CT + BV. No tx regimens or assessments were protocol specified. This analysis evaluated 1L BV-treated mCRC pts who had PD, survived ≥2 mo after PD, and received 2L iri- or ox-based tx. PPS was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), while adjusting for covariates (eg, 1L time to progression). Results: Of 1550 1L pts in ARIES, 1074 had 1st PD and survived ≥2 mo after PD. Of these 1074, 390 and 114 received 2L iri- and ox-based tx, respectively, ± BV ( table ). Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. The incidence of targeted adverse events (TAEs) was as expected and similar between the BV and No BV groups over time. In pts receiving 2L iri- or ox-based CT tx, PPS in BV-treated pts was longer compared to those not on BV. Analyses may be limited by small pt numbers in some groups. Conclusions: Consistent with prior ARIES analyses, the continued use of BV after 1st PD was associated with prolonged PPS regardless of the 2L CT backbone used. [Table: see text]