Citations

Background The purpose of the present study was to determine the cost of two-stage reimplantation for the treatment of deep infection after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and compare this with primary and aseptic revision TEA. Methods Three hundred and seventy-one primary TEA and 286 revision TEAs (including 47 elbows requiring two-stage reimplantation) were performed. Total direct medical costs during each hospitalization were obtained from our institutional research database and compared for three groups: primary TEA, revision for nonseptic reasons and two-stage reimplantation for deep infection. Results The mean cost of an uncomplicated primary TEA and aseptic revision TEA was $18,464 and $18,796, respectively. The mean overall cost associated with two-stage reimplantation increased to $34,286. Two-stage reimplantation increased both Part A (hospital costs) and Part B (professional costs). The mean Part A cost for septic revision TEA was $29,102 versus $15,844 for primary TEA. The mean Part B cost for septic revision TEA was $5,184 versus $2,621 for primary TEA. Conclusions Two-stage reimplantation for treatment of an infected TEA costs 186% the hospital cost of a primary uncomplicated or aseptic revision TEA. The overall cost to society is even greater if we take into account the cost of antibiotic therapy in between stages and lost days from work.

Abstract Purpose: Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 2/3 trial investigating lenalidomide versus investigator's choice (IC) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Experimental Design: Patients with DLBCL who received ≥2 prior therapies were stratified by DLBCL subtype [germinal center B-cell (GCB) vs. non-GCB; determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC)] and then randomized 1:1 to lenalidomide (25 mg/day, 21 days of 28-day cycle) or IC (gemcitabine, rituximab, etoposide, or oxaliplatin). Crossover to lenalidomide was permitted for IC-treated patients with radiologically confirmed progressive disease. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and subtype analysis [GCB vs. activated B-cell (ABC)] using gene expression profiling (GEP) were exploratory endpoints. Results: Stage 1: 102 DLBCL patients (by IHC: non-GCB, n = 54; GCB, n = 48) received ≥1 dose of lenalidomide or IC. Hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events with lenalidomide versus IC included neutropenia (42.6%; 36.4%), anemia (33.3%; 47.3%), thrombocytopenia (24.1%; 43.6%), and leukopenia (5.6%; 12.7%), respectively. Overall, lenalidomide-treated patients had an ORR of 27.5% versus 11.8% in IC (ORRs were similar regardless of IHC-defined DLBCL subtype). Median PFS was increased in patients receiving lenalidomide (13.6 weeks) versus IC (7.9 weeks; P = 0.041), with greater improvements in non-GCB patients (15.1 vs. 7.1 weeks, respectively; P = 0.021) compared with GCB (10.1 vs. 9.0 weeks, respectively; P = 0.550). Conclusions: The clinical benefit of lenalidomide monotherapy in DLBCL patients was more evident in the non-GCB subtype. Exploratory analyses suggest that this preferential benefit was more pronounced in the GEP-defined ABC population, demonstrating a need for additional studies of lenalidomide in DLBCL using GEP subtyping. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4127–37. ©2017 AACR.

Background: Giant cell tumor (GCT) of bone is a benign, though locally aggressive tumor, classically described as an eccentric lytic lesion, often with cortical expansion and destruction. It typically involves the metaphysis or epiphysis of long bones in skeletally mature patients, with a slight female predominance. The incidence in the small bones of the hand has been reported to be 2% to 5%. Methods: Treatment options have evolved in recent years, and currently include intralesional curettage with or without adjuvant therapy, wide resection, and occasionally amputation. Results: In this report, we present a long-term follow-up (10 years) of a patient with GCT involving a metacarpal, who was initially reconstructed with a metacarpal head allograft, which was eventually revised to a metacarpophalangeal (MCP) total joint arthroplasty. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the only report of pyrocarbon being used for tumor reconstruction and the only report of late MCP allograft salvage.

Background Dislocation is a challenging complication after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). We sought to evaluate the outcome of nonoperative and operative management of the dislocation after primary and revision RSA. Methods Between 2006 and 2013, dislocation occurred in 12/1081 primary RSAs (1.1%) and 15/342 revision RSAs (4.4%). Seventeen (69%) shoulders dislocated within 3 months of surgery. Ten (68%) patients underwent revision RSA for prosthetic instability. Mean age was 69 years, and mean follow-up after index RSA was 4 years. Results Closed reduction and bracing achieved a stable shoulder in 60% (3/5 patients) after primary and 20% (1/5 patients) after revision RSA dislocation. Operative management achieved a stable shoulder in 88% (7/8 patients) of primary and 64% (7/11 patients) of revision RSAs ( P = .40). Overall, 9 shoulders (33%) had persistent instability at the final follow-up: 2/12 (17%) primaries versus 7/15 (47%) revisions ( P = .08). Preoperative prosthetic instability was the main risk factor for chronic instability in the revision cohort ( P = .02). Worse functional outcomes were associated with the dislocation of a revision RSA ( P = .02). Conclusion After primary RSA dislocations, closed reduction is successful in half, while revision surgery is successful in 85% of cases. Conversely, closed reduction of a dislocated revision RSA is rarely successful, while revision surgery is successful 65% of the time. Every attempt should be made to achieve stability at the time of primary and revision RSA, since reduction or revision surgery does not guarantee the restoring stability.

467 Background: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Methods: Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit vs placebo in the randomized phase III CORRECT study. We examined the time course of adverse events (AEs) in the CORRECT study. Results: The safety population comprised 753 patients (pts): REG n=500; placebo n=253. The mean treatment duration was 12.1 ± 9.7 weeks in the REG group and 7.8 ± 5.2 weeks in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred at any grade in 99.6% of REG pts and 96.8% of placebo pts, at grade 1/2 in 21.6% and 47.8%, respectively, at grade 3 in 56.0% and 26.5%, respectively, and at grade 4/5 in 22.0% and 22.5%, respectively. AEs occurring in ≥10% more REG than placebo pts were fatigue, hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR), anorexia, diarrhea, weight loss, voice changes, hypertension, rash/desquamation, oral mucositis, fever, hyperbilirubinemia, low platelet count. The most frequent AEs deemed to be regorafenib related were HFSR, fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension, and rash/desquamation. The frequency of these AEs over time is shown in the Table. The incidence of HFSR, fatigue, hypertension, and rash/desquamation peaked in cycle 1 and tapered to a relatively stable lower incidence over later cycles. The incidence of diarrhea remained relatively constant throughout treatment. AEs led to dose modification in 66.6% of pts in the REG group and 22.5% in the placebo group. Data on dose intensity across treatment cycles will be presented. Conclusions: In the CORRECT trial, the incidences of the most common AEs in the REG group peaked early during treatment. There appeared to be no evidence for cumulative toxicity of REG. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]

381 Background: In the CORRECT Ph3 trial, regorafenib demonstrated significant improvement in OS and PFS vs. placebo in subjects with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed on standard therapies. An exploratory biomarker substudy was conducted on samples collected from subjects enrolled in CORRECT. Methods: DNA was isolated from archival tumor tissue and fresh baseline plasma samples that were available from 239 (31%) and 503 (66%) subjects enrolled in CORRECT, respectively. Mutations in KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF were evaluated via BEAMing technology. Results: Mutations were readily detected in DNA isolated from both tumor and plasma samples: KRAS: 59/69%; PIK3CA: 12/17% and BRAF: 1.5/3.4%. The frequency of KRAS mutation detected in tumor samples via BEAMing (59%) was identical to the frequency determined from pre-existing “historical” KRAS mutation data that was available from 96% of the subjects enrolled in the study. Concordance among the mutations detected via BEAMing in tumor vs. plasma was 76% (KRAS), 88% (PIK3CA), and 97% (BRAF). A subset of CRC which was found to be KRAS-wildtype in DNA from archival tumor, but KRAS-mutant in DNA from fresh plasma was identified and may represent subjects whose KRAS mutational status had changed during prior therapy. Correlative subgroup analyses demonstrated that regorafenib mediated a trend for clinical benefit vs. placebo in both KRAS wildtype and mutant subgroups identified by plasma BEAMing (OS: KRAS WT, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41–1.08; KRAS mutant, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.61–1.09; interaction p=0.561). Similar results were noted for PIK3CA WT/mutant subgroups (OS: WT, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57–0.99; mutant, HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.47–1.50; interaction p=0.723). BRAF was not analysed due to the small number of BRAF-mutant samples. Conclusions: The mutational analysis of DNA isolated from fresh plasma is feasible and robust using the BEAMing platform and may better represent the mutational status of the tumor(s) that a mCRC patient harbors at the time of enrollment than does the mutational analysis of archival primary tumor tissue. Regorafenib was associated with clinical benefit (vs. placebo) in all mutational subgroups evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.

767 Background: The CORRECT trial (NCT01103323) showed that REG improves overall survival (OS) vs placebo (PBO) in patients with mCRC who failed approved therapies (OS HR 0.77; 1-sided p=0.0052; Grothey 2013). A total of 760 patients were randomized to REG (n=505) or PBO (n=255) in more than 100 centers across North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. We conducted a post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of the 83 (11%) patients from 18 US centers. Methods: Eligible patients had an ECOG PS ≤1 and had received approved therapies, including a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab, and if KRAS wild-type cetuximab and/or panitumumab. Data from the overall cohort, including US patients, are provided for perspective. Descriptive statistics are shown. Results: Of the 83 US patients, 36 (43%) were randomized to PBO and 47 (57%) to REG. Baseline characteristics of the US group were consistent with the overall cohort: median age in the US was 58 yr (range, 34 – 85) vs 61 (22 – 85) overall, 49% of US patients were ECOG PS1 (vs 46%), and 46% received ≤ 3 treatments for mCRC (vs 52%). KRAS status mutant/wild-type was 57%/34% in the US vs 57%/39% overall. All patients in the trial had prior bevacizumab and 57% of US patients also had prior cetuximab and/or panitumumab (vs 51% overall). However, higher proportion of patients in the US were Black (11% vs 2%), KRAS status unknown (10% vs 4%), and had colon as the primary disease site (82% vs 65%). Mean percentages of planned REG dose were similar (76% US vs 79% overall) and mean REG treatment duration was 3.1 mos in US vs 2.8 mos overall. Rates of dose modifications REG/PBO were 87%/47% in the US vs 76%/38% overall and grade ≥3 adverse events REG/PBO were 74%/64% vs 78%/49%, respectively. Based on 44 total death events, the HR for OS in the US subgroup was 0.46 (95%CI 0.25 – 0.84) favoring REG; median OS was 4.7 mos for PBO, but could not be estimated for REG due to censored data. However, this analysis was based on a relatively small sample size and event count. Conclusions: Patients treated in the CORRECT study in the US appear similar to the overall cohort and results are generally consistent with the overall findings of the trial. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.

710 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial (NCT01103323), the multikinase inhibitor REG significantly improved overall survival (OS) and PFS vs placebo in patients with mCRC who had disease progression after other standard therapies (HR for OS: 0.77; 1-sided p =0.0052; Grothey 2013). A post-hoc exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate patients in the REG treatment group who had a PFS longer than 4 months (long-PFS) defined as patients who progressed, died, or discontinued treatment for other reasons after 4 months. Methods: Of the505 patients randomized to REG in CORRECT, 98 (19.4%) were classified as having a long-PFS benefit. Baseline characteristics, safety, and dosing parameters were analyzed descriptively. Results: The long-PFS subpopulation was representative of the overall study population (Table). Long-PFS patients received a median of 6 cycles of REG (1-12), 92% received ≥5 cycles, and 20% had > 8 cycles. Overall 34% of patients had dose reductions and 87% had dose interruptions. The actual mean daily dose was 139 mg and the mean percent of the planned dose was 81%. Adverse events (AE) of any grade were experienced by all long-PFS patients, and the most common grade ≥3 AEs were hand-foot skin reaction (20%), hypertension (17%), diarrhea (17%), and fatigue (16%). Conclusions: A subset of 98 (19.4%) patients treated with REG in the CORRECT study had a PFS > 4 months, confirming the clinical benefit and tolerability of REG as a treatment option for patients with mCRC. Prospective validation of these findings in conjunction with biomarker analysis from real-life clinical experience is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. [Table: see text]

LBA385 Background: Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506) is an oral multikinase inhibitor of a broad range of angiogenic, oncogenic, and stromal kinases. The phase III CORRECT trial was conducted to evaluate efficacy and safety of regorafenib in pts with mCRC who had progressed after all approved standard therapies. Methods: Enrollment criteria included documented mCRC and progression during or ≤3 months after last standard therapy. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive regorafenib (160 mg od po, 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus BSC, or placebo (PL) plus BSC. Pts continued on treatment until progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), safety, and quality of life. Results: From May 2010 to March 2011, 760 pts were randomized (regorafenib: 505; PL: 255). Baseline characteristics were balanced between two arms. Preliminary results are available from a pre-planned formal interim analysis. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.773 (95% CI: 0.635, 0.941; 1-sided p=0.0051). Median OS was 6.4 mos (95% CI: 5.9, 7.3) for regorafenib and 5.0 mos (95% CI: 4.4, 5.8) for PL. The estimated HR for PFS was 0.493 (95% CI: 0.418, 0.581; 1-sided p < 0.000001). Median PFS was 1.9 mos (95% CI: 1.88, 2.17) for regorafenib and 1.7 mos (95% CI: 1.68, 1.74) for PL. ORR was 1.6% for regorafenib and 0.4% for PL. DCR was 44% for regorafenib and 15% for PL (p < 0.000001). Since the prespecified OS efficacy boundary was crossed (nominal α: 0.0093), the Data Monitoring Committee recommended to unblind the study and pts on PL were allowed to cross over to regorafenib. The most frequent grade 3+ AEs in the regorafenib arm were hand-foot skin reaction (17%), fatigue (15%), diarrhea (8%), hyperbilirubinemia (8%), and hypertension (7%). Updated results will be presented. Conclusions: Statistically significant benefit in OS and PFS was observed for regorafenib over PL in pts with mCRC who have failed all approved standard therapies. No new or unexpected safety signal was found.