Citations

89 Background: Lymph node counts have been proposed as a quality metric for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND). It is unclear whether surgical approach and hospital characteristics independently determine the number of lymph nodes removed at PLND. Therefore, we assessed the variation in lymph node counts from a population-based cohort of patients undergoing surgery for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer. Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified all surgically treated patients diagnosed with pre-treatment intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2011. The primary outcome was the number of lymph nodes retrieved at the time of RP. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess for differences in the adjusted number of lymph nodes retrieved after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics and surgical approach. Results: Overall, 35,876 patients were diagnosed with intermediate (61.2%) and high-risk (38.8%) prostate cancer and underwent RP and PLND. On multivariable analysis, open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and high volume and academic hospitals were independently associated with greater lymph node counts compared to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and medium/low and community hospitals, respectively (all p<0.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital variables, higher adjusted lymph nodes counts were observed for ORP compared to RARP (7.1 vs. 6.1; p<0.001). Adjusted counts were also higher for high volume compared to medium/low volume hospitals (7.8 vs. 5.9; p<0.001), and academic compared to community hospitals (7.3 vs. 5.6; p<0.001). Conclusions: Among patients with aggressive prostate cancer treated with RP and PLND, lymph node counts varied by surgical approach and hospital characteristics.

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.

194 Background: Currently, there are limited therapeutic options for patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumors progressing on first-line somatostatin analog therapy. Methods: NETTER-1 is the first Phase III multicentric, randomized, controlled trial evaluating 177Lu-DOTA0-Tyr3-Octreotate (Lutathera) in patients with inoperable, progressive, somatostatin receptor positive midgut NETs. 230 patients with Grade 1-2 metastatic midgut NETs were randomized to receive Lutathera 7.4 GBq every 8 weeks (x4 administrations) versus Octreotide LAR 60 mg every 4-weeks. The primary endpoint was PFS per RECIST 1.1 criteria, with objective tumor assessment performed by an independent reading center every 12 weeks. Secondary objectives included objective response rate, overall survival, toxicity, and health-related quality of life. Results: Enrolment was completed in February 2015, with a target of 230 patients randomized (1:1) in 36 European and 15 sites in the United States. At the time of statistical analysis, the number of centrally confirmed disease progressions or deaths was 23 in the Lutathera group and 67 in the Octreotide LAR 60 mg group. The median PFS was not reached for Lutathera and was 8.4 months with 60 mg Octreotide LAR [95% CI: 5.8-11.0 months], p < 0.0001, with a hazard ratio of 0.21 [95% CI: 0.13-0.34]. Within the current evaluable patient dataset for tumor responses (n = 201), the number of CR+PR was 19 (18.8%) in the Lutathera group and 3 (3.0%) in the Octreotide LAR 60 mg group (p < 0.0004). Although the OS data were not mature enough for a definitive analysis, the number of deaths was 13 in the Lutathera group and 22 in the Octreotide LAR 60 mg group (p < 0.019 at interim analysis) which suggests an improvement in overall survival. Conclusions: The Phase III NETTER-1 trial provides evidence for a clinically meaningful and statistically significant increase in PFS and ORR, and also suggests a survival benefit in patients with advanced midgut NETs treated with Lutathera. Clinical trial information: NCT01578239.

110 Background: Anastomotic leaks can occur after esophagectomy and optimal management after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is not well defined. We reviewed endoscopic management of leaks after MIE in patients undergoing trimodality therapy at Mayo Clinic Arizona. Methods: Records of patients undergoing MIE from November, 2006 to February, 2015 were reviewed after appropriate IRB approval. Results: 148 patients underwent MIE including 136 (91.8%) thoracic and 12 (8.1%) cervical anastomoses. Clinically significant anastomotic leaks were observed in 13 (8.8%) patients with 2 (16%) cervical and 11 (8%) thoracic anastomosis at a median of 6.1 days (0-14). 11 (11%) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy experienced esophageal leak and 2 who did not receive chemoradiotherapy (4%). For treatment of anastomotic leaks, 10 patients underwent VATS with pleural space irrigation and chest tube replacement, and 11 patients underwent stent deployment at the anastomosis for repair. Stents were placed such that the fistula/leak was in the fully covered portion with the greater portion of the stent residing in the esophageal remnant. Stents were removed at a mean of 54 days (28-114). In 2 patients, overgrowth into the stent body required stent-in-stent placement (fully covered) with removal of both stents. Stents were successful at sealing all leaks. Conclusions: Leaks after MIE represent a small, but significant, morbidity in MIE. The majority can be managed by endoscopic stent placement. Stenting is an effective management tool for postoperative leaks in locally advanced esophageal malignancies.

513 Background: Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) is the third most common histologic subtype of kidney cancer. While most of these tumors have an indolent behavior, 7% of patients with chRCC develop metastases, with no currently available standard of care. The Cancer Genome Atlas characterized chRCC, highlighting pathognomonic single copy chromosomal losses of 1, 2, 6, 10, 13 and 17, as well as a minimal mutation burden distinguishing it from all other cancer types. However, only 15% of the analyzed patients had advanced disease. We analyzed metastatic chRCC to further characterize these tumors and elucidate mechanisms leading to aggressive disease using a variety of next generation and whole genome sequencing. Methods: Our cohort of metastatic chRCC consisted of 40 patients with available clinical and pathologic data. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on 6 patients (4 primary tumors and 2 metastases), 42 additional samples from 33 patients were analyzed using targeted next-generation sequencing (MSK-IMPACT). Notably, we were able to collect and analyze matched primary and metastatic tumors from 7 patients. As control cohort 27 non-metastatic chRCC tumors were sequenced with MSK-IMPACT. Copy number patterns were computed with OncoSNP seq and FACETS. Results: The most commonly mutated genes in the aggressive chRCC tumors were TP53 and PTEN (WGS: TP53 67 %, PTEN 33%; MSK-IMPACT: TP53 61%, PTEN 27%). No other genes were mutated frequently. Primary tumor samples of chRCC did show the typical pattern of chromosomal losses in 1, 2, 6, 10, 13 and 17. Interestingly, these canonical losses could not be detected in the metastases even when accounting for tumor purity. Conclusions: TP53 and PTEN mutations are highly enriched in both primary and metastatic tumors of aggressive chRCC compared to the non-aggressive tumors and likely play a critical role in disease progression. More intriguingly, the observation of differential copy numbers in matched primary and metastatic tumors suggest whole genome or whole chromosome events in these samples. We are currently employing different bioinformatic and cytogenetic platforms to validate our novel hypothesis of chromosomal events as driver for metastatic development in chRCC.

178 Background: Soft tissue sarcoma is a rare disease requiring multidisciplinary care for effective treatment. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network has developed guidelines for surgical resection and adjuvant therapy based on best available evidence. We sought to examine variance from these guidelines in treatment across the United States. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry was queried to identify patients undergoing surgery for extra-abdominal soft tissue sarcoma from 2004-2009. Coded variables signifying radical excision (RE) and the use of radiation therapy (RT) were correlated with stage of the primary tumor. Patients with metastatic disease, unknown size and unknown grade were excluded. Results: A total of 5,600 patients were identified with a median age of 61. Median tumor size was 8cm and most tumors were high grade (57% G3). Stage specific breakdown was as follows; Stage I 24%, Stage II 37% and Stage III 39%. Overall, 54% of patients underwent RE and 50% received RT, mostly in the post-operative setting (83%). The amputation rate was 4%. Although routine radiation therapy is not recommended for Stage IA and IB patients, 24% still underwent RT, whereas only 49% of Stage I patients were noted to have undergone a RE. Even though routine RT is recommended for Stage II and III tumors, 42% of patients did not undergo any RT, and only 58% underwent RE. On multivariate analysis predictors of RE were age <50 (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6), lower extremity tumor (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6- 2.8), Stage III, (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7- 2.6), and white race (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2- 1.8). Variance from guidelines was seen in 64% of patients. Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity and variation in the contemporary treatment for soft tissue sarcoma in the United States exists. Although low rates of RE may be related to coding discrepancies, rates as low as 54% are still a cause for concern. Overuse, and more importantly, underuse of RT is seen for a significant proportion of patients. If these trends are confirmed by further study, more effort will have to be directed towards compliance with appropriate treatment recommendations, perhaps by regionalizing sarcoma care.

158 Background: Esophageal cancer patients (pts) require multidisciplinary management involving thoracic and general surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. Pts navigate complex medical discussions and endure challenges to nutrition, body image, swallowing mechanics, energy level and weight, mood, and performance status. Coordination of care is complicated by multiple sites of pt entry, complex scheduling requirements, and incomplete information at multidisciplinary consultation. A nurse navigator to coordinate the patient experience may optimize treatment and improve outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Methods: The nurse navigator evaluates all pt records prior to initial appointment and coordinates scheduling, records acquisition, testing and specialty appointments. The nurse navigator serves as a liaison with pts throughout the course of care and provides a patient navigation book (PNB) as a central source for patient-directed information and record keeping. Benchmarks compared before and after creation of the nurse navigator position include: (1) time from appointment request to multidisciplinary evaluation and start of treatment; (2) completeness of medical records and data (scans, pathology slides); (3) patient awareness of support services for themselves and caregivers; (4) utilization of the PNB; (5) number and frequency of interim hospitalizations and emergency room visits; (6) patient, caregiver, and physician satisfaction. Results: From January to July 2012, 27 gastroesophageal cancer pts have been followed by the nurse navigator. Most of these patients remain on active treatment, hence benchmark analysis is ongoing. Metrics thus far suggest improvement in time to treatment start and awareness of patient resources, use of the PNB and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Esophageal cancer pts undergo complex and toxic multimodality therapy with curative intent. A dedicated nurse navigator may improve the patient experience, optimize adherence to guideline based therapy and appropriate timeframes and provide continuity to pts undergoing multidisciplinary treatment.

327 Background: The use of preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer remains controversial. This study reviews our experience using neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation (CRT) followed by surgery with intraoperative electron irradiation (IOERT) for patients with borderline resectable (BR) or unresectable (UR) tumors. Methods: A retrospective review identified 48 patients (pts) with primary BR/UR pancreas adenocarcinoma treated with preop CRT with intent to proceed to curative surgery with IOERT. Seventeen patients did not undergo attempted resection and are excluded (disease progression, 12; medically inoperable, 3; declined surgery, 2). Thirty-one patients proceeded to resection attempt and are the subject of this analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed using log rank test for significance. Median follow up was 19 months (mo). Results: Complete resection (R0) was achieved in 11 pts, R1 in 5, and R2 or not resected (IOERT alone) in 15 patients. Twenty-six pts died (23 of disease, 2 unrelated causes, 1 uncertain). Median overall survival (OS) was 19 mo for all pts. Local progression was detected in only 5 patients (16%) while distant disease developed in 24 (77%). Resection status significantly correlated with OS; R0/R1 patients had a median survival of 23 mo vs. 10 mo for R2/unresected tumors (p = 0.002). Three-year OS was 35% vs. 0%, respectively. Survival was not influenced by tumor location, CA19-9 baseline or response, tumor size, or initial judgment of resectability (BR vs. UR). BR tumors were resectable after neoadjuvant therapy in 9 of 11 patients (R0, 8; R1, 1) while 8 of 20 initially UR tumors underwent resection (R0, 3; R1, 4; R2, 1). Conclusions: Neoadjuvant therapy combined with IOERT has the possibility to improve patient selection for surgical resection and to optimize local therapy. Although the prognosis for locally advanced pancreatic cancer remains poor, survival was superior among patients for whom R0 or R1 resection was achieved. Distant metastasis remained the dominant pattern of failure, and novel systemic agents are needed. Prospective evaluation of the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, CRT, and IOERT is warranted.

260 Background: Recent placebo-controlled phase III trials of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF/ PDGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in PNET noted improved progression-free survival (PFS). However, objective response rates (RR) with these agents are <10%. Preclinical studies suggest enhanced anti-tumor effects with combined mTOR and VEGF targeted therapy. Methods: We conducted a phase II trial of the mTOR inhibitor TEM (25 mg IV q week) and the VEGF-A monoclonal antibody BEV (10 mg/kg IV q 2 weeks) in patients (pts) with well or moderately differentiated PNET and progressive disease by RECIST within 7 months of study entry. Co-primary endpoints were RR and 6-month PFS. Planned enrollment is 50 patients, with interim analysis after the first 25 evaluable pts. Pts had no prior mTOR or VEGF targeted agents, ECOG PS 0-1, and adequate hematologic and organ function. Continued octreotide was allowed, but not required. Prior interferon, embolization, and ≤ 2 chemotherapy regimens were allowed. Results: Confirmed PR was documented in 11 of the first 25 (44%) evaluable patients. 20 of 25 (80%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. Both endpoints exceeded pre-defined criteria to continue enrollment. For 35 evaluable patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events attributed to therapy were leukopenia (12%), hypertension (12%), hyperglycemia (12%), mucositis (9%), and fatigue (9%). Conclusions: The combination of TEM/BEV has substantial activity in a multi-center phase II trial with RR of 44%, well in excess of single targeted agents in PNET. 6-month PFS was a notable 80% in a population of patients with RECIST criteria progression within 7 months of study entry. Accrual is ongoing. Supported by NCI N01 Contracts: 662205, 62203, 62208, 62209, 62206, 62204, 62207, 62201.

125 Background: Esophageal cancer is best managed by multimodality therapy, frequently with chemotherapy (C) or chemo- radiotherapy (CRT) preceding resection. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted, but studies of MIE in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer after induction CRT are lacking. This report presents the data on MIE as part of tri-modality therapy for esophageal cancer at Mayo Clinic in Arizona (MCA). Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent CRT before or after MIE for cancer at MCA between November 2006 and May of 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Results: 46 pts (40 males, and 6 females) met study criteria and were reviewed. Median age was 62 years (41-88 years). 45 pts (98%) had adenocarcinoma and one pt had squamous carcinoma. Initial clinical stage was IIA in 10 pts (22%), IIB in 3 pts (7%), III in 26 pts (55%), and IVA in 7 pts (15%) with positive celiac nodes. 43 pts (93%) underwent preoperative CRT with additional intra-operative radiotherapy in 4 pts. Median operating time was 354 min (range 211-567 min), median blood loss was 225 ml (range 50-1,400 ml), and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-48 days). 19 pts (41%), including the 3 who did not undergo preoperative CRT, received postoperative C or CRT due to either residual disease at resection or to local recurrence. 30 of 43 pts undergoing MIE after CRT were down staged (11 CR [25.6%], 10 near CR [23.3%]) demonstrating a major response to neoadjuvant therapy in 48.9% of pts. One pt died in hospital (from ARDS and sepsis subsequent to aspiration pneumonia) and two pts died within 30 days of surgery (one from pulmonary embolism, and the other from unknown causes) for a 30 day surgical mortality of 6.5%. 29 pts (63%) had a complication of surgery including 11 (24%) minor and 18 (39%) major complications. After a median follow-up of 13 months (range 0.9-43 months) 16 pts were diagnosed with recurrent disease and 10 of these pts have died of their disease. Conclusions: CRT with MIE is associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality level for pts with locally advanced esophageal cancer. These results compare favorably with morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates in open esophagectomy pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.