Citations

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.

CRA1008 Background: S0221 is a SWOG-coordinated phase III adjuvant chemotherapy intergroup trial in node-positive and high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer which hypothesized that 1) the weekly AC+G regimen is superior to ddAC x 6 and 2) 12 weeks of weekly paclitaxel (wP) is superior to q 2 week paclitaxel x 6 (ddP). Methods: Between December 2003 and November 2010, 2,716 patients were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to 1) AC+G vs ddAC and 2) P 80 mg/m2/week x 12 vs P 175 mg/m2 q 2 weeks x 6. If there was no significant interaction between the factors, the trial was powered to find a disease-free survival hazard ratio (HR) ≤ 0.82 for weekly vs q 2 week for each factor. At the first interim analysis, the AC randomization was halted for futility, and S0221 was closed to accrual 10 November 2010. S0221 reopened 15 December 2010, after which time all patients received 4 cycles of ddAC and randomization to P weekly x 12 and ddP x 6 continued. Accrual halted at a total of 3,294 in January 2012. Results: By September 7, 2012, 487 events and 340 deaths had occurred, prompting the third planned interim analysis. The Data Safety and Monitoring Committee recommended reporting the results since the futility boundary was crossed. A Cox model adjusting for the AC arms had a HR = 1.08 (95% CI 0.90-1.28; p=0.42), with the 99.5% CI excluding the original alternative hypothesis that the HR=0.82. There was no significant interaction of the two factors. Estimated 5-year progression-free survivals were 82% for weekly P and 81% for ddP. Toxicity data were available for 1,385 patients treated with ddP and 1,367 treated with weekly P. Grade 5 toxicity occurred in 4 patients on ddP and 2 on weekly P. Percent grade 3-4 toxicity per arm are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Either ddPx6 or weekly P x 12 are acceptable schedules of P administration. The differences in leukopenia likely reflect ascertainment bias against weekly P. If this is accepted, weekly P x 12 produces less overall toxicity than 6 cycles of ddP. Support: NCI grants CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, CA21076, CA77597, CA25224, CA77202, CCSRI15469, and Amgen, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT00070564. [Table: see text]

3 Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) promotes angiogenesis, a mediator of disease progression in cervical cancer. Bevacizumab (B), a humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody, has shown single-agent activity in pretreated recurrent disease. We aimed to evaluate B in chemotherapy (CTX)-naive recurrent/persistent/metastatic cervical cancer. Methods: Using a 2x2 factorial design, patients were randomly assigned to CTX with or without B 15 mg/kg. The CTX regimens included cisplatin 50 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 135-175 mg/m2 and topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 d1-3 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2d1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or complete response. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint with a reduction in the hazard of death by 30% using anti-VEGF therapy considered important (90% power, 1-sided alpha=2.5%). Final analysis was planned when 346 deaths were observed. Results: 452 patients were accrued from 4/6/09 to 1/3/12. The scheduled interim analysis occurred after 174 patients had died and showed that the topotecan-paclitaxel backbone was not superior to the cisplatin-paclitaxel backbone. A second interim analysis was conducted after 271 deaths. A total of 225 patients received CTX alone and 227 patients received CTX plus B. The randomized treatment groups were similar with regard to age, histology, performance status, previous platinum as a radiosensitizer, and recurrence, persistence, or advanced disease. The B-to-no-B hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.71 (97.6% CI 0.54-0.95; 1-sided p=0.0035). Median survival was 17 m (CTX plus B) and 13.3 m (CTX alone). The RR were 48% (CTX plus B) and 36% (CTX alone) (p=0.0078). Treatment with B was associated with more grade 3-4 bleeding (5 vs 1%) thrombosis/embolism (9 vs 2%), and GI fistula (3 vs 0%). Conclusions: For the first time a targeted agent significantly improved OS in gynecologic cancer. The second interim analysis crossed the boundary for efficacy, warranting early release of this information. The nearly 4-month increase in median OS with the addition of B to CTX in women with recurrent cervical cancer is considered to be clinically significant. Clinical trial information: NCT00803062.

20 Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) incidence is rising and prognosis is uniformly poor, even with early stage disease. Barrett esophagus (BE) serves as a premalignant marker for EAC, with an estimated progression of 0.5% per year. Low-grade (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) confer a higher risk of progression, providing an opportunity for intervention and surveillance. Aims: To evaluate a large cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic evaluation of BE and thereby better understand the natural history of BE and dysplasia. Methods: A retrospective review of endoscopic databases was conducted for all patients with the diagnosis of BE undergoing upper endoscopy at a tertiary academic medical center from 1991-2010. All endoscopy and accompanying pathology reports were reviewed. Only those patients with 2 biopsies documenting specialized intestinal metaplasia were analyzed. Results: 848 patients underwent upper endoscopy for evaluation of BE. Of these, 674 patients met inclusion criteria, at a mean follow up of 66.6 months. Table 1 depicts the distribution of patients according to their histology at presentation. 22 (3.2%) patients presented with established EAC, while EAC developed in 51 (7.6%). Of patients with HGD, LGD, or no dysplasia (ND) at presentation, EAC ultimately developed in 30.6%, 6.6%, and 2.7%, respectively. EAC developed in 4 patients despite RFA treatment for ND (2) or LGD (2). HGD developed in 6 such patients after treatment for ND (3) and LGD (3). Only 1 patient in each RFA-treated cohort required esophagectomy, while the others cleared dysplasia or EAC with continuous treatment. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, higher grade of dysplasia at first endoscopy was associated with development of EAC. Continuous surveillance during and after endoscopic treatment is necessary and often results in clearance of dysplasia and EAC. [Table: see text]

238 Background: Cbz/pred extends survival in mCRPC patients (pts) following docetaxel and first-line studies comparing Cbz to docetaxel are ongoing. Mito/pred also has anti-tumor activity in mCRPC and a non-overlapping mechanism of action and toxicity profile with Cbz. A multicenter phase 1 trial was initiated through the DOD PCCTC to establish the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination of Cbz, Mito, and Pred (CAMP). Methods: Chemotherapy (chemo)-naïve pts with mCRPC were enrolled in an accelerated titration design. The primary objective was to determine the MTD and RP2D of CAMP; secondary objectives included PSA response rate and duration of response. Cbz 20 and 25 mg/m2 were each evaluated in combination with escalating doses of Mito (starting dose 4 mg/m2), both administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Pred 5 mg BID and pegfilgrastim were given with each cycle. Results: 20 pts were enrolled. The median age was 66 (range 51-78) and the median baseline PSA was 62.5 (range 3.0-791.2). There were 2 DLTs observed at the dose level of Cbz 25 mg/m2 + Mito 10 mg/m2 (sepsis and febrile neutropenia). No DLTs were observed with Cbz 20 mg/m2 (N = 10), establishing Cbz 20 mg/m2 + Mito 12 mg/m2 as the MTD and RP2D. The most common grade ≥ 3 related adverse events were hematologic (neutropenia, n = 8; thrombocytopenia, n = 3; febrile neutropenia, n = 2). No cardiac adverse events were observed. The median number of treatment cycles was 9 (range 2-16), and 5 pts remain on study. Greater than 50% maximal PSA declines from baseline were observed in 8 of 18 evaluable pts (44%). Objective tumor responses have been observed in 2 of 4 pts (50%) with measurable disease, with evaluation ongoing. The median duration of response has not been reached (range 4.9-10.0+ months). Conclusions: The approved single-agent dose of Mito (12 mg/m2) was safely combined with Cbz 20 mg/m2, a dose with demonstrated activity in mCRPC and potentially less hematologic toxicity than 25 mg/m2. Preliminary efficacy data are encouraging with durable responses observed in a subset of pts. Further study of the treatment combination is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01594918.

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.

202 Background: Cabazitaxel and prednisone (Cbz/pred) extend survival in mCRPC patients (pts) following docetaxel and first-line studies comparing Cbz to docetaxel are ongoing. Mito/pred also has anti-tumor activity in mCRPC and a non-overlapping mechanism of action and toxicity profile with Cbz. A multicenter phase 1 trial was initiated to establish the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination of Cbz, Mito, and Pred(CAMP). Methods: Chemotherapy (chemo)-naive pts with mCRPC were enrolled in an accelerated titration design. The primary objective was to determine the MTD and RP2D of CAMP; secondary objectives included PSA response rate and duration of response. Cbz 20 and 25 mg/m2 were evaluated in combination with escalating doses of Mito (starting dose 4 mg/m2), both administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Pred 5 mg BID and pegfilgrastim were given with each cycle. Results: 23 pts were enrolled. The median age was 66 (range 51-78) and the median baseline PSA was 62.5 (range 3-791.2). There were 2 DLTs (sepsis and febrile neutropenia) observed at the dose level of Cbz 25 mg/m2 + Mito 10 mg/m2 (n = 4). There was 1 DLT (febrile neutropenia) observed with Cbz 20 mg/m2 (N = 12), establishing Cbz 20 mg/m2 + Mito 12 mg/m2 as the MTD and RP2D. The most common grade ³ 3 related adverse events were hematologic (neutropenia, n = 9; thrombocytopenia, n = 3; febrile neutropenia, n = 3). The median number of treatment cycles was 7.5 (range 2-16), and 2 pts remain on study. Greater than or equal to 50% maximal PSA declines from baseline were observed in 12 of 19 evaluable pts(63%). The median duration of response has not been reached (range 4.9-10.0+ months). Conclusions: The approved single-agent dose of Mito (12 mg/m2) was safely combined with Cbz 20 mg/m2, a dose with demonstrated activity in mCRPC and potentially less hematologic toxicity than 25 mg/m2. Preliminary efficacy data are encouraging with durable control of disease observed in a subset of pts. Further study of the treatment combination is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01594918.

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.

PURPOSE: The goals of this study were to determine the maximum-tolerated dose and describe the toxicities of the combination of irinotecan and docetaxel administered every 3 weeks to patients with advanced malignancies and, also, to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel and describe preliminary evidence of antitumor activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients received 85 courses (median, two courses; range, one to 15 courses) of treatment with irinotecan, administered over 90 minutes by intravenous infusion, followed by docetaxel, administered over 60 minutes by intravenous infusion. Four escalating dose levels of irinotecan/docetaxel (160/50 mg/m2, 160/65 mg/m2, 200/65 mg/m2, and 200/75 mg/m2) were studied. Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of irinotecan on the disposition of docetaxel. RESULTS: The most common and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression, which consisted of neutropenia that was severe (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI CTC] grade 4) but brief (< 5 days) in 11 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia. Nonhematologic toxicities of anorexia, nausea, and stomatitis were mild to moderate (NCI CTC grades 1 and 2), but there was one incidence each of both CTC grade 3 anorexia and nausea. All patients had total alopecia. Diarrhea was dose-dependent and severe in four patients who failed to take adequate antidiarrhea therapy. Five out of 16 assessable patients, one with cholangiocarcinoma, one with leiomyosarcoma, and three with non–small-cell lung cancer, achieved partial remissions. CONCLUSION: The combination of irinotecan and docetaxel causes significant reversible myelosuppression, which was dose limiting but led to no serious sequelae. There was no evidence of a clinically significant interaction using these two agents in this sequence. The combination showed antitumor activity at all the dose levels tested and should be further studied in a number of tumor types. The recommended phase II dose on this schedule is irinotecan 160 mg/m2 and docetaxel 65 mg/m2.

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.