Citations

9505 Background: D (BRAF inhibitor) + T (MEK inhibitor) combination therapy is associated with rapid clinical responses and has improved clinical outcomes in pts with BRAFV600–mutant MM, but long-term (˃ 3 y) clinical efficacy and safety data are limited. The longest follow-up to date of a randomized trial evaluating D+T at the approved dose (150 mg BID/2 mg QD [150/2]) was of the phase II study BRF113220 (part C; median, 45.6 mo) in which durable outcomes were achieved in some pts with BRAFV600–mutant MM (3-y OS, 38%). Here, we report updated 5-y landmark analyses to further characterize the impact of D+T in MM. Methods: Pts with BRAFV600–mutant mm enrolled in BRF113220 part C (NCT01072175) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive monotherapy D (150 mg BID), D+T (150 mg BID/1 mg QD), or D+T (150/2). Pts who progressed on D alone could cross over to the D+T 150/2 arm. Pt disposition, pt demographics, and 4- and 5-y efficacy and safety were analyzed for both the D-alone and D+T (approved 150/2 dose) arms. Results: This updated analysis represents an additional ≈ 2 y of follow-up (D and D+T arms; n = 54 each). As of 13 Oct 2016, 45 pts (83%) on D alone had crossed over to D+T. 20 pts were ongoing (D, n = 7 [13%]; D+T, n = 13 [24%]); 80% of D pts and 70% of D+T pts had died. D+T OS remained superior to D alone. The 4- and 5-y OS rates with D+T were 30% and 28%, respectively, demonstrating a stabilization of the OS curve. The PFS curve for D+T also remained stable (4- and 5-y: both 13%). Consistent with earlier results, the best OS for pts who received D+T was seen in pts with normal LDH (5-y, 45%) and normal LDH with disease in < 3 organ sites (5-y, 51%). At the 5-y landmark, 1 additional pt who received D+T improved from a partial to a complete response. Additional follow-up revealed no new safety signals with D+T. Detailed analyses of D crossover pts, responders, and post-progression therapy will be presented. Conclusions: This longest follow-up to date of BRAF + MEK inhibitor combination therapy in pts with BRAFV600–mutant mm revealed stable OS and PFS lasting ≥ 5 y with consistent tolerability. These results demonstrate that some pts with mm can achieve durable benefit with D+T therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01072175.

TPS7573 Background: The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is an important immune checkpoint used by tumor cells and may provide an effective target for enhancing anticancer immune response. In DLBCL, high PD-L1 expression has been identified as a negative prognostic factor for overall survival. Durvalumab (MEDI4736) is a high-affinity human IgG1 monoclonal Ab that selectively blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, and preliminary preclinical and clinical activity support the study of durvalumab in high-risk DLBCL subtypes. The primary study objective is to explore the clinical activity of durvalumab with R-CHOP in non-activated B-cell–like (non-ABC) and durvalumab with lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R2-CHOP) in ABC previously untreated DLBCL; secondary objectives are to evaluate safety and identify biomarkers predictive of clinical response. Methods: This is a phase II, two-arm, open-label, global, multicenter study of durvalumab combinations in patients with previously untreated, high-risk DLBCL (MEDI4736-DLBCL-001; EUDRA CT 2015-005173-20; NCT03003520). High risk was defined as Ann Arbor stage III/IV or II with bulky disease (≥7.0 cm), along with intermediate-high/high IPI ≥3 or NCCN-IPI ≥4; patients must also have CD20+ DLBCL, ECOG PS 0-2, and no prior antilymphoma therapy. All patients receive durvalumab + R-CHOP21 in induction cycle 1 simultaneous to cell-of-origin (COO) analysis by gene expression profiling with NanoString technology. Beginning with cycle 2, Arm A (non-ABC) receives durvalumab 1125 mg IV on day 1 with 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP21; Arm B (ABC) receives the same durvalumab + R-CHOP21 doses with oral lenalidomide 15 mg/day on days 1-14. Both arms receive durvalumab consolidation 1500 mg IV on day 1 q28d for ≤12 months from induction cycle 1, day 1. The primary endpoint is 2-y progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints include clinical response to treatment in biomarker-defined subpopulations (tumor and peripheral blood) and safety as assessed per NCI CTCAE v4.03 criteria. Exploratory endpoints include PFS at 12 mo, complete response, and PK/PD. Recruitment is ongoing, with a target enrollment of 120 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03003520.

e15641 Background: CC pts with biliary stents or catheters are prone to have obstruction/infection and studies show 20-40% present with fever/or jaundice requiring urgent treatment for which there is no uniform guideline. We aimed to develop an expert panel consensus on this topic using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process to rate treatment appropriateness. Methods: We recruited 13 physician experts from relevant specialty, geography, and practice settings. Patient scenarios were developed and panelists rated the therapies before and after a face-to-face discussion. The appropriateness of various therapies was rated on a 1-9 scale and classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Scenarios with > 2 ratings of 1-3 (inappropriate) and > 2 ratings of 7-9 (appropriate) were considered to have disagreement and were not assigned an appropriateness rating. Results: Panelists were from all US regions (92%) and the UK (8%); had practiced for a mean 16.5 years (4-33 years). Panelists rated 480 scenarios before the meeting, but re-rated only 288 clinical scenarios as they felt that ongoing treatment with chemotherapy did not influence decision-making. Disagreement decreased from 37.5% before the meeting to 10.4% after. Consensus statements are summarized in the table below. Conclusions: The Delphi process produced consensus guidelines to fill an unmet need in urgent management of ascending cholangitis in pts with CC. (Support: The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation). [Table: see text]

3604 Background: Limited research has investigated the role of variation in the host genome as a determinant of colon carcinoma (CC) outcomes, including toxicity due to therapeutic agents. We examined the relationship between germline genetic factors and treatment-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) in a population of CC patients in which treatment was standardized and follow-up for outcomes was uniformly conducted. Methods: Using existing biospecimens from CC patients with resected stage III disease in a phase III randomized trial of FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy with and without cetuximab (NCCTG N0147), genome-wide genotyping arrays were conducted for 2200 patients for a total of ~20 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Using logistic regression models we assessed SNP-specific associations with SAEs, utilizing a discovery-based approach to search the genome in an unbiased manner. Detailed information on SAEs was collected using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v3.0). Analyses evaluating associations with specific classes of common grade ≥3 SAEs were performed, including gastrointestinal toxicities, neutropenia, and paresthesias. A threshold of P < 5x10-8was used to denote genome-wide significance. Results: Among patients who received FOLFOX, several SNPs on chr 15 near the ANP32A gene and on chr 2 near the CD207 gene were statistically significantly associated with grade ≥3 neuropathy. The strongest SNP-specific associations in these regions were in the range of odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, P = 2.8×10−10 and OR = 1.5, P = 2.7×10−10, respectively. Conclusions: Findings from this genome-wide analysis demonstrate the potential importance of germline genetic variation in influencing CC patients’ experience of specific toxicities to FOLFOX regimens. These results highlight two genomic regions of potential interest for understanding the biological mechanism for such toxicities, although further evaluation and replication is needed. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180863, U10CA180888, CCSRI 021039, R01CA176272, Eli Lilly & Co, Pfizer, Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT00079274 .

521 Background: S0221 investigated weekly vs q 2 week dosing of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and paclitaxel (P) in patients (pts) with high risk early breast cancer as previously reported (JCO 33:58-64, 2015). After enrollment of 2716 pts randomization to the two AC arms was stopped for futility and an additional 578 pts received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC and were randomized to P weekly (Pw) or P q 2 weeks (P2). We report updated results of the original trial design and the first report of the 578 pts treated with AC x 4 and Pw x 12 or P2 x 6. Methods: Between December 2003 and November 2010, 2716 pts were randomized in a 2x2 factorial design to 1) 15 weeks of weekly AC (A 24 mg/m2/week and C 60 mg/m2/day po) vs 6 cycles of q 2 week AC (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2) and 2) Pw (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2/week x 12) vs P2 (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 q 2 weeks x 6), with growth factor support as previously described. After study amendment 578 patients received 4 cycles of q 2 week AC followed by Pw or P2. Updated survival was assessed using log-rank tests and Cox regression models. Results: At a median follow-up of 8.5 years, among the pts treated in the original protocol, there were no significant differences among the four treatments for DFS (p=0.21) or OS (p=0.08). The triple-negative subset had worse DFS (P<0.001) than the HER2-positive or ER/PR+/HER2- subsets, with 5 year DFS of 75% vs 83% and 84%, respectively. While we previously found in the triple negative subset that the arm using q 2 weeks for both AC and paclitaxel was marginally superior, the differences among the arms are no longer significant for DFS (p=0.12) or OS (p=0.11). Among the 578 pts assigned ACx4 and randomized to Pw v P2 there were no overall differences in DFS (p=0.70) or OS (p=0.63) after 4.4 years median follow-up. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in DFS or OS between any of the schedules with extended follow-up in the original cohort and no difference in outcome by paclitaxel schedule for the 578 additional patients in the revised protocol. Either paclitaxel schedule may be recommended, with selection based on toxicity, cost, or patient preference rather than efficacy. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, CA21076, CA77597, CA25224, CA77202, CCSRI15469, and Amgen, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00070564.

The prevailing first‐come‐first‐served approach to outpatient appointment scheduling ignores differing urgency levels, leading to unnecessarily long waits for urgent patients. In data from a partner healthcare organization, we found in some departments that urgent patients were inadvertently waiting longer for an appointment than non‐urgent patients. This study develops a capacity allocation optimization methodology that reserves appointment slots based on urgency in a complicated, integrated care environment where multiple specialties serve multiple types of patients. This optimization reallocates network capacity to limit access delays (indirect waiting times) for initial and downstream appointments differentiated by urgency. We formulate this problem as a queueing network optimization and approximate it via deterministic linear optimization to simultaneously smooth workloads and guarantee access delay targets. In a case study of our industry partner we demonstrate the ability to (i) reduce urgent patient mean access delay by 27% with only a 7% increase in mean access delay for non‐urgent patients, and (ii) increase throughput by 31% with the same service levels and overtime.