Citations

265 Background: UC response to CT is not durable. Angiogenesis may play a role in the progression of UC. We evaluated whether maintenance sunitinib delays progression after response to CT. Methods: Pts with ECOG PS 0-2, adequate organ function, stable disease, partial or complete response (SD, PR, CR) after 4-6 cycles of CT for advanced UC were randomized to oral sunitinib 50 mg/day, 28 days on, 14 days off (6-week cycle) or placebo. Disease was assessed every 12 wks. At progression, placebo pts were offered open label sunitinib. Primary endpoint: progression rate at 6 months (ms); secondary endpoints: safety, objective response rate, survival, VEGF/sVEGFR2 serum level changes. Using a randomized selection design 42 pts/arm has 90% probability of selecting sunitinib if true reduction in 6-ms progression rate is 15% (from 50% to 35%). Results: Study was closed early due to slow accrual. 54 pts with median age 69 years, median ECOG PS 1, 70% with bladder primary, 26 with SD, 23 with PR, 5 with CR to CT were randomized to sunitinib (26) or placebo (28). The median number of cycles was 2/arm (sunitinib 0-15, placebo 0-13). The 6-ms progression rate was 81% (95%CI 61-93%), median time-to-progression (TTP) 5 ms (0.3-22.2, 95%CI 2.4-6.3) for sunitinib and 75% (95%CI 55-89%), 2.7 ms (0.8-19.6, 95%CI 2.5-7.4) for placebo. Response rate in pts with SD at enrollment was 9% for sunitinib and 7% for placebo. Most common G3/4 AEs on sunitinib were diarrhea (15.4%/0%), fatigue (15.4%/3.8%), thrombocytopenia (15.4%/7.7%), hypertension (11.5%/0%). 16 placebo pts received sunitinib with best response 1 PR (6.25%), 6 SD (37.5%), 5 PD (31.25%); 4 not response evaluable. Median TTP was 3.4 ms (0.1-22, 95%CI 1.6-5.5). 11 pts had G3/4 AEs, 5 pts discontinued sunitinib due to AEs (4 related, 1 unrelated). Placebo pts had no change in VEGF/sVEGFR2 over time. Sunitinib pts had no change in VEGF but sVEGFR2 significantly decreased after 1 cycle (p<0.0001) and at progression (p=0.0002). VEGF/sVEGFR2 did not correlate with TTP. Conclusions: Maintenance sunitinib was feasible but did not improve 6-ms progression rate; open label sunitinib had limited activity. sVEGFR-2 decreased on sunitinib.

CRA3507 Background: FOLFOX is standard adjuvant therapy for stage III CC. Adding Cmab to FOLFOX benefits pts with metastatic CC WT KRAS tumors. N0147 assessed the potential benefit of Cmab added to FOLFOX. Methods: 21-56 days following resection and informed consent, KRAS status was centrally determined. Pts with wtKRAS CC were randomized to 12 biweekly cycles of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 d1, with leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5FU 400 mg/m2 bolus IV, then 46-hr IV 5FU 2,400 mg/m2 on d1-2 (mFOLFOX6), without (arm A) or with Cmab (arm D) 250 mg/m2 d1&8, with Cmab at 400 mg/m2, cycle 1, d1. Primary endpoint was 3-yr disease free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Planned accrual of 2,070 wtKRAS pts provided 90% power to detect hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 with 2-sided α=0.05; with interim analyses after 25%, 50%, and 75% of planned events. Results: 1,760 wtKRAS pts (Arm A-858, Arm D-902) were enrolled at the time of closure; median follow-up on 1,624 pts is 15.9 months. Trial closed to accrual when preplanned interim analysis after 50% of planned events demonstrated no benefit to addition of Cmab. 3-yr DFS favored FOLFOX alone (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52; p=0.33). No benefit of Cmab was observed in any subgroups assessed. Any grade ≥ 3 AE, diarrhea, and failure to complete 12 cycles was significantly increased in arm D. Increased toxicity and greater differences in all outcomes were observed in pts aged ≥ 70 ( Table ). Conclusions: In this randomized phase III trial the addition of Cmab to mFOLFOX6 was of no benefit for pts with resected stage III wtKRAS CC. Supported by NIH Grant CA25224, Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImClone, Sanofi-Aventis, and Pfizer. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

We describe a primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor of a 57-year-old Thai woman who presented in 2004 with a suspicious mass in the left hepatic lobe. She underwent left hepatectomy for the 10.5-cm mass, calledintermediate grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown origin,likely metastatic. The tumor recurred in 2007, then calledrecurrent primary hepatic neuroendocrine tumor(PHNET), and the patient underwent liver transplant. Because of similarity between the neuroendocrine tumor and a thyroid tumor—specifically, follicular-like characteristics—immunohistochemical stains for thyroglobulin, TTF1, and calcitonin were performed. However, all were negative. All imaging studies revealed no evidence of a primary lesion other than the liver mass. In 2008, the patient’s liver transplant failed because of ischemic cholangiopathy, and she underwent a second liver transplant. Seven years later, in 2015, she presented with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor of intermediate grade to the lung, consistent with metastatic PHNET. She underwent left upper-lobe wedge resection to remove the tumor. The patient is alive with no evidence of disease at 13 years after initial diagnosis. This rare variant of PHNET had thyroid-like morphologic characteristics but there is no evidence of primary thyroid tumor or thyroid markers in the primary and recurrent hepatic tumors and lung metastasis.