Citations

LBA1000 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

e18556 Background: Studies in the United States (US) have identified variation in incidence and survival of multiple myeloma (MM) patients of different races, and noted that MM is the most common hematologic cancer among African Americans. This analysis evaluated whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients in the US varies by race as they initiate treatment having been newly diagnosed with active, symptomatic MM. Methods: Data were collected in Connect MM, a prospective US observational registry begun in September 2009. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was reported by patients at enrollment within 2 months of diagnosis. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). Mean reported scores for BPI, EQ-5D and FACT-MM were analyzed by patient race. Statistical significance was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1. Results: Baseline HRQOL data were reported by 1144 patients (enrolled in 228 centers) of whom 82% were White, 13% Black, and 6% Other race. The cohorts did not differ statistically by ECOG status or by multiple myeloma stage (assessed by either the International Staging System or the Durie and Salmon system). Compared to non-Blacks, Black patients reported less anxiety/depression on the EQ-5D (p=0.030) and better emotional well-being on the FACT-MM (p=0.003). No other statistically significant differences were noted between cohorts on the BPI, other EQ-5D domains (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort), or other FACT-MM domains (physical, social/family, functional, and MM-specific considerations). Conclusions: Initial results from the Connect MM Registry indicate that baseline HRQOL prior to initiation of treatment may vary by patient race with respect to emotional well-being, and specifically anxiety/depression. These results serve as a baseline reference for future analyses. As patients in the Connect MM Registry proceed through therapy, analyses should be conducted of patients by race, among other characteristics and factors, to determine whether it may be associated with subsequent clinical outcomes and HRQOL over time.

7555 Background: In a retrospective exploratory analysis of E4599, patients (pts) > 70 yo had a higher frequency of and more severe toxicities without apparent survival benefit from the addition of B to C+paclitaxel. We hypothesized that in this pt population, B will have better safety and efficacy profile when used in combination with C+P. Methods: Pts >/= 70 yo with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV (TNM 6th ed) nonsquamous NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, measurable disease and adequate organ function were eligible. C at AUC 6, P at 500 mg/m2 and B at 15 mg/kg were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for up to 6 cycles followed by maintenance P+B in patients with CR, PR or SD. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The treatment would be considered promising based on a single arm one-stage binomial design if 34 or more successes out of 55 patients were observed. This design had an exact significance level of 0.05 at 93% power to detect a true success rate of at least 70%. Polymorphisms in VEGFA, FPGS, GGH, SLC19A1 and TYMS in germline DNA were correlated with treatment outcome. Results: 58 eligible pts were enrolled; 29 males/29 females. Median age was 75. Median treatment cycles received was 6. Grade 3 or higher adverse events (AE) were reported in 49 (85%) pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. The most common grade 3/4 AEs(regardless of attribution) were hypertension (10%), fatigue (28%), dehydration (9%), neutropenia (43%) and thrombocytopenia (21%). There were 3 (5%) grade 3/4 hemorrhagic events. 8 (14%) had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (5%) had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Grade 3/4 ischemic/thromboembolic events occurred in 6 pts (10%). Thirty-four out of the first 54 (63%, 95% CI: 48.7-75.7%) evaluable pts met the primary endpoint (4 pts were lost to follow-up prior to 6 months). The confirmed ORR was 37.9% (95% CI: 25.5-51.6%). Median time to treatment failure was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.9-6.4). Median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.9-11.7), median OS was 13.7 months (95% CI: 9.4-15.7). Results of SNP analysis will be presented. Conclusions: C+P+B followed by maintenance P+B is an active and tolerable first-line regimen for elderly patients with good PS.

7073 Background: In preclinical studies, combinations of bortezomib and RT result in synergistic tumor killing (Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007;59:207-15). Our group reported the results from the phase I portion of this study previously (J Clin Oncol. 200;28 (suppl; abstr 7085)). Based on these data, we undertook a phase II study of bortezomib in combination with paclitaxel/CBCDA and RT. Methods: Based on results from our previously reported phase I trial, systemic therapy included bortezomib (1.2 mg/m² IV days 1,4,8,11), paclitaxel (175 mg/m² IV day 2), and carboplatin (CBCDA; AUC=6 day 2) given every 3 weeks for 2 cycles. Thoracic radiotherapy (RT) included 60Gy/30 daily fractions starting day 1. The primary endpoint was the 12-month survival rate. If 41 or more of these 60 patients (68%) were alive at least 12 months after study entry, the trial would be deemed as positive and further study would be warranted. Results: 27 pts were enrolled to the phase II portion: M/F=17/10; stage IIIA/IIIB=13/14; ECOG PS 0/1=9/18; and median age: 58 (range 43-79). 18 pts (67%) completed therapy per protocol. At a planned interim analysis, 23 of 26 evaluable patients (88.5%, 95% CI: 70-98%) survived for at least 6 months, which exceeded the boundary of 21 or more needed to continue to full accrual. This trial could have continued per protocol, but was closed early due to slow accrual. With a median follow-up of 15.0 months in the 17 patients still alive, the 12-month survival rate was 71% (95% CI: 49 – 85). The median OS was 19 months (95% CI: 11 – no upper). Grade 3 or higher adverse events (regardless of attribution) were reported in 22 (82%) patients. Grade 4/5 adverse events were reported in 15 (56%) patients. There was one grade 5 event (pneumonitis). The most common (5 or more patients) grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue (22%), leukopenia (63%), neutropenia (67%), and thrombocytopenia (44%). Conclusions: The addition of bortezomib resulted in high levels of severe hematologic toxicity, but also demonstrated evidence of activity with a 12-month survival rate of 71% and a median OS of 19 months. Further testing of this regimen in a larger study appears warranted.

Prediction models aim to use available data to predict a health state or outcome that has not yet been observed. Prediction is primarily relevant to clinical practice, but is also used in research, and administration. While prediction modeling involves estimating the relationship between patient factors and outcomes, it is distinct from casual inference. Prediction modeling thus requires unique considerations for development, validation, and updating. This document represents an effort from editors at 31 respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine journals to consolidate contemporary best practices and recommendations related to prediction study design, conduct, and reporting. Herein, we address issues commonly encountered in submissions to our various journals. Key topics include considerations for selecting predictor variables, operationalizing variables, dealing with missing data, the importance of appropriate validation, model performance measures and their interpretation, and good reporting practices. Supplemental discussion covers emerging topics such as model fairness, competing risks, pitfalls of “modifiable risk factors”, measurement error, and risk for bias. This guidance is not meant to be overly prescriptive; we acknowledge that every study is different, and no set of rules will fit all cases. Additional best practices can be found in the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, to which we refer readers for further details.

Introduction: Alcohol use is common in the United States. Most studies describe a J-shaped relationship between alcohol consumption and cognitive function: frequent heavy consumption alters brain functions and decreases cognitive performance; regular light and moderate consumption may have protective impact. We are unaware of any reports utilizing longitudinally collected data to derive a cumulative exposure of alcohol use and assess its association with cognitive function. Hypothesis: Cumulative 30-year exposure to alcohol has a J-shaped association with mid-life cognitive function. Methods: We included 3,068 participants aged 18-30 years at the baseline examination (1985-86) and having up to 8 follow-up exams at 2- to 5-year intervals including at 30 years (2015-16). Cumulative “drink-years” exposure to alcohol was estimated at each exam by multiplying the usual number of drinks/day reported by the number of years since last exam, and then summing across exams. We used multivariable adjusted linear regression models to assess the independent associations of number of drink-years with 6 measures of cognitive function studied at Year 30: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Stroop Test, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Category Fluency Test, and Letter Fluency Test. We used inverse probability of censoring weighting to account for potential informative censoring. Linear regression models estimated standardized mean test scores for the cumulative alcohol use categories (drink-years: >0 and <15, 15-29.9, 30+). Too few participants were available for assessment of higher categories of use. Results: Compared with never drinking, the 3 categories of cumulative exposure were unassociated with any of the cognitive function measures. Conclusions: Cumulative 30-year alcohol use is not associated with cognitive function in middle-aged adults in the CARDIA study.

55 Background: To compare the predictive ability of health utility mapping algorithms derived using cross-sectional and longitudinal data specific to the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Methods: This mapping study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected using EPIC, and health utilities were obtained using EuroQOL-5D (EQ5D) at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. Data were split into an estimation sample (70%) and a validation sample (30%). Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were estimated using baseline cross-sectional data as well as pooled data from all assessment periods. Random effects (RE) specifications that explicitly model the longitudinal nature of the data were also estimated. Candidate models were selected based on root mean square error (RMSE). Results: A total of 196 (147) patients in the estimation sample had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (subdomain) data at all time points. OLS models using combined data outperformed the counter-part RE models as well as OLS models using baseline data in the five-fold cross-validation. Addition of covariates to the models resulted in improved predictive ability. In the external validation, when only EPIC domain/ subdomain data are available, the OLS model using combined data predicted EQ5D utilities better than the counterpart RE model and OLS model using baseline data (RMSE=0.121108 & 0.111345). OLS model using baseline data outperformed other model types for algorithms with EPIC domains and demographics (RMSE=0.121757), while RE models outperformed the other two model types for algorithms with EPIC subdomains and demographic data, (0.112782) and for algorithms with EPIC domains/ subdomains, demographics, and clinical covariates (RMSE=0.123589 & 0.163093). Conclusions: While algorithms using pooled data outperformed other model types in internal validation, RE models showed better predictive ability in external validation for algorithms with covariates. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

BACKGROUND: Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) has been the standard therapy for younger patients with CLL. FCR therapy is particularly effective in patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region (IGHV) mutated CLL. Approximately half of IGHV mutated patients are progression free 8 years after FCR therapy. At the ASH 2018 meeting, we reported the initial results of the ECOG 1912 (E1912) trial, a phase 3 trial comparing the FCR regimen to the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab (IR) for previously untreated CLL patients age 70 or younger who required therapy. With median follow-up of approximately 34 months, the trial demonstrated both a progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to FCR. On sub-set analysis by IGHV mutation status, the difference in PFS was statistically significant for IGHV unmutated patients but, with current follow-up, not IGHV mutated patients. Here, we present updated results for PFS in the E1912 trial. METHODS: As previously reported, eligible patients were treatment-naive individuals with CLL age 70 or younger. Patients with deletion 17p- were excluded from participating in the E1912 trial given their known poor response to FCR therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive ibrutinib (420 mg/day until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 2, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 2, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 3-7) or six courses of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2 days 1-3), cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2 days 1-3) and rituximab (50 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, 325 mg/m2 on day 2 of cycle 1, and then 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6) every 28-days. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (version 4). Dose adjustments for cytopenias were based on the IWCLL CLL Working Group grading scale. The primary endpoint of the trial was PFS with OS a secondary endpoint. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 45 months, 257 (73%) of 354 patients randomized to IR remain on ibrutinib. With extended follow-up, grade 3 and above treatment-related AEs were observed in 70% of IR and 80% of FCR treated patients (OR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 - 0.90; p=0.013). Among IR-treated patients, the median time on treatment is currently 43 months (range=0.2-61). Among the 95 patients who have discontinued ibrutinib, the reason for discontinuation was progression or death in 23 (7% of patients who started IR; 24% of those who discontinued treatment), AE or complication in 48 (14% of patients who started IR; 51% of those who discontinued treatment), and withdrawal of consent or other reasons in 24 (7% of patients who started IR; 25% of those who discontinued treatment). On multivariable Cox regression adjusting for Timed Up and Go test score, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score, age, gender, ECOG performance status, creatinine clearance, and baseline anemia/thrombocytopenia, only CIRS score (range 0 - 14) predicted discontinuation of ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death (HR=1.13 per unit increase; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.23; p=0.009). Among the 72 patients who discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death, the median time on ibrutinib was 15.1 months (range 0.2-58.2 months). The median time from ibrutinib discontinuation to disease progression or death was 23 months. With current follow-up, we observed 110 PFS events. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS favored IR over FCR (HR=0.39; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p&lt;0.0001). Updated analysis of OS will be presented. On sub-group analysis by IGHV mutation status, IR was superior to FCR for IGHV unmutated patients (HR=0.28; 95% CI 0.17-0.48; p&lt;0.0001). With current follow-up the difference is not significant in IGHV mutated patients (HR=0.42; 95% CI 0.16-1.16; p=0.086). Kaplan-Meier estimates for PFS are shown in Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Although less than 7% of ibrutinib treated patients progressed while on therapy, roughly 1 in 5 patients have discontinued ibrutinib for a reason other than progression or death. The only parameter significantly associated with discontinuation for a reason other than progression was increased baseline CIRS score. With extended follow-up, the combination of ibrutinib and rituximab continues to provide superior PFS compared to FCR for younger patients with previously untreated CLL. Disclosures Shanafelt: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Patent: Patents & Royalties: US14/292,075 on green tea extract epigallocatechin gallate in combination with chemotherapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Polyphenon E International: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Glaxo-SmithKline: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding. Kay:MorphoSys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Other: DSMB; Celgene: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Agios: Other: DSMB. O'Brien:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Aptose Biosciences, Inc: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vaniam Group LLC: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding. Coutre:Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses & Data Safety Monitoring Committee; Genentech: Consultancy. Barr:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cashen:Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Mato:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB member , Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Erba:Amgen: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding. Stone:Arog Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka-Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celator Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical-Theradex Oncology: Consultancy; Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Orsenix: Consultancy; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Fees for serving on a steering committee, and fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Other: Fees for serving on a data and safety monitoring board ; Roche: Consultancy. Tallman:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: Results from epidemiologic studies examining polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and colorectal cancer risk are inconsistent. Mendelian randomization may strengthen causal inference from observational studies. Given their shared metabolic pathway, examining the combined effects of aspirin/NSAID use with PUFAs could help elucidate an association between PUFAs and colorectal cancer risk. Methods: Information was leveraged from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) regarding PUFA-associated SNPs to create weighted genetic scores (wGS) representing genetically predicted circulating blood PUFAs for 11,016 non-Hispanic white colorectal cancer cases and 13,732 controls in the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium (GECCO). Associations per SD increase in the wGS were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Interactions between PUFA wGSs and aspirin/NSAID use on colorectal cancer risk were also examined. Results: Modest colorectal cancer risk reductions were observed per SD increase in circulating linoleic acid [ORLA = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93–0.98; P = 5.2 × 10−4] and α-linolenic acid (ORALA = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92–0.97; P = 5.4 × 10−5), whereas modest increased risks were observed for arachidonic (ORAA = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.03–1.08; P = 3.3 × 10−5), eicosapentaenoic (OREPA = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01–1.07; P = 2.5 × 10−3), and docosapentaenoic acids (ORDPA = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01–1.06; P = 1.2 × 10−2). Each of these effects was stronger among aspirin/NSAID nonusers in the stratified analyses. Conclusions: Our study suggests that higher circulating shorter-chain PUFAs (i.e., LA and ALA) were associated with reduced colorectal cancer risk, whereas longer-chain PUFAs (i.e., AA, EPA, and DPA) were associated with an increased colorectal cancer risk. Impact: The interaction of PUFAs with aspirin/NSAID use indicates a shared colorectal cancer inflammatory pathway. Future research should continue to improve PUFA genetic instruments to elucidate the independent effects of PUFAs on colorectal cancer.