Citations

104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer - investigational agent(I) +paclitaxel(T) qwk, doxorubicin & cyclophosphamide(AC) q2-3 wk x 4 vs. T/AC (control arm). The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR) at surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens that have ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (statistical significance) in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR) & HER2 status & MammaPrint (MP). Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (&lt; 10% probability of success) or following accrual of maximum sample size (10%&lt; probability of success &lt;85%). We report the results for experimental arm Ganitumab, a type I insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) inhibitor. IGF1R inhibitors are known to induce insulin resistance and all patients assigned to Ganitumab received metformin. Methods: Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening. MP low/HR+ and HER2+ tumors were ineligible for randomization. Hemoglobin A1C≥ 8.0% were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, 3 cycles after start of therapy, at completion of weekly T and prior to surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to improve the efficiency of adaptive randomization. Ganitumab was given at 12mg/kg q2 weeks and metformin at 850mg PO BID, while receiving ganitumab. Analysis was intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCRs. Ganitumab/metformin was open only to HER2- patients, and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Results: Ganitumab/metformin did not meet the criteria for graduation in the 3 signatures tested. When the maximum sample size was reached, accrual to this arm stopped. Ganitumab/metformin was assigned to 106 patients; there were 128 controls. We report probabilities of superiority for Ganitumab/metformin over control and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in a neoadjuvant phase 3 trial equally randomized between Ganitumab/metformin and control, for each of the 3 biomarker signatures, using the final pathological response data from all patients. Safety data will be presented. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability Ganitumab/ Metformin Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3 Ganitumab/ Metformin N = 106Control N = 128 All HER2-22% (13%-31%)16% (10%-23%)89%33%HR+/HER2-14% (4%-24%)12% (4%-19%)66%21%HR-/HER2-32% (17%-46%)21% (11%-32%)91%51% Conclusion: The I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization study estimates the probability that investigational regimens will be successful in a phase 3 neoadjuvant trial. The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent's likelihood of achieving pCR. For Ganitumab/metformin, no subtype came close to the efficacy threshold of 85% likelihood of success in phase 3, and this regimen does not appear to impact upfront reduction of tumor burden. Our data do not support its continued development for the neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Citation Format: Yee D, Paoloni M, van't Veer L, Sanil A, Yau C, Forero A, Chien AJ, Wallace AM, Moulder S, Albain KS, Kaplan HG, Elias AD, Haley BB, Boughey JC, Kemmer KA, Korde LA, Isaacs C, Minton S, Nanda R, DeMichele A, Lang JE, Buxton MB, Hylton NM, Symmans WF, Lyandres J, Hogarth M, Perlmutter J, Esserman LJ, Berry DA. The evaluation of ganitumab/metformin plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-11-04.

Abstract Background:Pathologic complete response(pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy is an established prognostic biomarker for high-risk breast cancer(BC). Improving pCR rates may identify new therapies that improve survival. I-SPY 2 uses response-adaptive randomization within biomarker subtypes to evaluate novel agents when added to standard neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer; the goal is to identify regimens that have ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (statistical significance) in a 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial defined by hormone-receptor (HR), HER2 status and MammaPrint (MP). We report the results for Ganetespib, a selective inhibitor of Hsp90 that induces the degradation/deactivation of key drivers of tumor initiation, progression, angiogenesis, and metastasis.Ganetespib + taxanes previously have resulted in a superior therapeutic response compared to monotherapy in multiple solid tumor models including BC. Methods:Women with tumors ≥2.5cm were eligible for screening and participation. MP low/HR+ tumors were ineligible for randomization. QTcF &gt;470msec and HbA1C &gt;8.0% were ineligible. MRI scans (baseline, +3 cycles, following weekly paclitaxel, T, and pre-surgery) were used in a longitudinal statistical model to improve the efficiency of adaptive randomization. Ganetespib was given with weekly T at 150 mg/m2 IV weekly (3 weeks on, 1 off). Patients were premedicated (dexamethasone 10mg and diphenhydramine HCl 25-50 mg, or therapeutic equivalents). Analysis was intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCRs. The Ganetespib regimen was open only to HER2- patients, and eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+/HER2- and HR-/HER2-. Results:Ganetespib did not meet the criteria for graduation in the 3 signatures tested. When the maximum sample size was reached, accrual stopped. Ganetespib was assigned to 93 patients; there were 140 controls. We report probabilities of superiority for Ganetespib over control and Bayesian predictive probabilities of success in a neoadjuvant phase 3 trial equally randomized between Ganetespib and control, for the 3 biomarker signatures, using the final pCR data from all patients. Safety data will be presented. SignatureEstimated pCR Rate (95% probability interval)Probability Ganetespib Is Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Ganetespib Success in a Phase 3 Trial Ganetespib N = 93Control N = 140 All HER2-26% (16%-37%)18% (8%-28%)91%47%HR+/HER2-15% (4%-27%)14% (4%-24%)60%19%HR-/HER2-38% (23%-53%)22% (9%-35%)96%72% Conclusion:The I-SPY 2 adaptive randomization model efficiently evaluates investigational agents in the setting of neoadjuvant BC. The value of I-SPY 2 is that it provides insight as to the regimen's likelihood of success in a phase 3 neoadjuvant study. Although no signature reached the efficacy threshold of 85% likelihood of success in phase 3, we observed the most impact in HR-/HER2- patients, with a 16% improvement in pCR rate. While our data do not support the continued development of Ganetespib alone for neoadjuvant BC, combinations with Ganetespib, which could potentiate its effect, may be worth pursuing in I-SPY 2 or similar trials. Citation Format: Forero A, Yee D, Buxton MB, Symmans WF, Chien AJ, Boughey JC, Elias AD, DeMichele A, Moulder S, Minton S, Kaplan HG, Albain KS, Wallace AM, Haley BB, Isaacs C, Korde LA, Nanda R, Lang JE, Kemmer KA, Hylton NM, Paoloni M, van't Veer L, Lyandres J, Perlmutter J, Hogarth M, Yau C, Sanil A, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. Efficacy of Hsp90 inhibitor ganetespib plus standard neoadjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-11-02.

584 Background: Standard therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer includes surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Multiple trials demonstrated neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) provides better local control and decreased morbidity compared to adjuvant CRT, though differences in overall survival and long-term QoL have not been demonstrated. We examined impact of treatment (pre-op CRT/post-op CRT/no CRT) on long-term QoL. Methods: CanCORS patients with survey/medical record data diagnosed in 2003-2005 with stage II/III rectal (non-rectosigmoid) cancer had resection and survived > 7 years were included. QoL (SF-36, EQ-5D) measures and defecation problems were derived from surveys at 14 months and 7 years post-diagnosis. Mean scores were adjusted for the following when significant: age, gender, stage, sphincter preservation, comorbidities, and baseline self-reported health status and QoL scores. Results: Of 119 patients, 53% received pre-op CRT, 23% post-op CRT, and 24% no CRT. Of 114 patients with 14-month follow-up, Pre-op CRT and No CRT groups had better EQ-5D adjusted mean scores but worse defecation scale (DS) scores compared to the Post-op CRT group. Of 49 disease-free survivors with 7 years follow-up, there were no differences among groups in QoL scores, but the No CRT group had better DS scores than other groups. Conclusions: No major differences were detected in long-term QoL based on treatment aside from the DS, though sample sizes became small. Regardless of treatment, long term (7y) mental health and vitality were generally comparable to U.S. norms, while physical health and overall health status (EQ-5D) were somewhat lower. [Table: see text]

678 Background: Improvements in outcome of medical therapy for mCRC are closely linked to availability of active agents. Based on phase III clinical data, regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, received FDA approval September 2012 for patients with mCRC previously treated with all approved therapies. Post regorafenib therapy (PRTx) has not been established. Based on clinical observations, we established a multi-institution collaboration to assess chemotherapy response in mCRC after regorafenib therapy. Methods: After IRB approval, patient records at Mayo Clinic (MC), MD Anderson (MDA) and the University of Southern California (USC) from April 2010 to February 2014 were reviewed for regorafenib use and outcomes for mCRC. Therapies, patient and tumor characteristics were reviewed. Response and progression were determined by investigator review. Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate survival. Results: Regorafenib was given to 173 patients with mCRC (MC:59 MDA:95 and USC:19). Of these, 11 (6%) continued on regorafenib at time of analysis and 98 (57%) received no additional therapy. PRTx was given to 64 (37%) patients, 31 of which went on a clinic trial. 33 patients were treated with standard approved therapy of which 11 (33%) progressed, 20 (61%) showed response or SD, and 2 (6%) were not evaluable. Out of the 33 treated with standard agents, 8 (24%) had stable disease or response to a treatment previously discontinued without definitive PD, whereas 4 (12%) responded to rechallenge with chemotherapy previously discontinued due to PD. Response was noted in 8 (24%) patients that received an agent not given prior to regorafenib. After discontinuation of regorafenib, mOS was 6.5 mo (CI 4.9 – 9.4), and the probability of survival at 6 and 12 months was 52% and 27% respectively. Conclusions: With the caveat of a small sample size and a potential selection bias, our multi-institution study shows that re-utilizing standard treatment options after regorafenib may be beneficial in select patients with mCRC including in patients with progression on identical therapy before regorafenib. Further retrospective and prospective studies could be warranted to define the role of regorafenib as a chemotherapy re-sensitizing agent.

LBA4 Background: WBRT significantly improves tumor control in the brain after SRS, yet the role of adjuvant WBRT remains undefined due to concerns regarding neurocognitive risks. Methods: Patients with 1-3 brain metastases, each < 3 cm by contrast MRI, were randomized to SRS alone or SRS + WBRT and underwent cognitive testing before and after treatment. The primary endpoint was cognitive progression (CP) defined as decline > 1 SD from baseline in any of the 6 cognitive tests at 3 months. Time to CP was estimated using cumulative incidence adjusting for survival as a competing risk. Results: 213 patients were enrolled with 2 ineligible and 3 cancels prior to receiving treatment. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between study arms. The median age was 60 and lung primary the most common (68%). CP at 3 months was more frequent after WBRT + SRS vs. SRS alone (88.0% vs. 61.9% respectively, p = 0.002). There was more deterioration in the WBRT + SRS arm in immediate recall (31% vs. 8%, p = 0.007), delayed recall (51% vs. 20%, p = 0.002), and verbal fluency (19% vs. 2%, p = 0.02). Intracranial tumor control at 6 and 12 months were 66.1% and 50.5% with SRS alone vs. 88.3% and 84.9% with SRS+WBRT (p < 0.001). Median OS was 10.7 for SRS alone vs. 7.5 months for SRS+WBRT respectively (HR = 1.02, p = 0.93). Conclusions: Decline in cognitive function, specifically immediate recall, memory and verbal fluency, was more frequent with the addition of WBRT to SRS. Adjuvant WBRT did not improve OS despite better brain control. Initial treatment with SRS and close monitoring is recommended to better preserve cognitive function in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases that are amenable to SRS. Clinical trial information: NCT00377156.

144 Background: Many patients require hospitalization after mastectomy, predominantly for pain management and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). In order to improve a woman's perioperative experience after mastectomy and facilitate mastectomy on an outpatient basis, we initiated a clinical pathway for perioperative management of unilateral mastectomy patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Methods: The clinical pathway consists of preoperative oral medications (celecoxib and gabapentin), preoperative ultrasound guided paravertebral block using bupivacaine, intraoperative anesthesia management with total intravenous anesthetic, and minimal use of long-acting opioids and postoperative acetaminophen and oxycodone. All patients are evaluated by the surgical team on the afternoon after surgery and if patients are recovering well are discharged on the day of surgery. The following morning, the surgical team telephones the patient to follow up on management of pain, nausea or vomiting, and drain output. Results: Eighteen patients have been treated on this clinical pathway. Mean age of patients was 66 (range 51-81). Majority of patients (n=16, 89%) underwent unilateral mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy, with 1 patient undergoing bilateral mastectomy and 1 patient undergoing mastectomy and axillary dissection. All patients are evaluated by the surgical team on the afternoon of surgery. Fourteen patients (78%) were without evidence of hematoma or PONV, pain was well-controlled on oral medications and they were discharged on the day of surgery. On morning after telephone calls, pain scale ratings ranged from 1 to 3 and no patients verbalized complaints of nausea. Four patients (22%) treated on this clinical pathway required overnight observation in the hospital, one for urinary retention, two for pain control, and one for high sanguineous drain output. Conclusions: The clinical pathway presented provides preemptive analgesia and regional anesthesia for patients undergoing mastectomy, enabling the majority of patients to be discharged on the day of surgery. The clinical pathway is a safe and effective way to improve the perioperative experience of breast surgery patients and decrease hospital admission.

AbstractIntroductionThe pace of medical discovery is accelerating to the point where caregivers can no longer keep up with the latest diagnosis or treatment recommendations. At the same time, sophisticated and complex electronic medical records and clinical systems are generating increasing volumes of patient data, making it difficult to find the important information required for patient care. To address these challenges, Mayo Clinic established a knowledge management program to curate, store, and disseminate clinical knowledge.MethodsThe authors describe AskMayoExpert, a point‐of‐care knowledge delivery system, and discuss the process by which the clinical knowledge is captured, vetted by clinicians, annotated, and stored in a knowledge content management system. The content generated for AskMayoExpert is considered to be core clinical content and serves as the basis for knowledge diffusion to clinicians through order sets and clinical decision support rules, as well as to patients and consumers through patient education materials and internet content. The authors evaluate alternative approaches for better integration of knowledge into the clinical workflow through development of computer‐interpretable care process models.ResultsEach of the modeling approaches evaluated has shown promise. However, because each of them addresses the problem from a different perspective, there have been challenges in coming to a common model. Given the current state of guideline modeling and the need for a near‐term solution, Mayo Clinic will likely focus on breaking down care process models into components and on standardization of those components, deferring, for now, the orchestration.ConclusionA point‐of‐care knowledge resource developed to support an individualized approach to patient care has grown into a formal knowledge management program. Translation of the textual knowledge into machine executable knowledge will allow integration of the knowledge with specific patient data and truly serve as a colleague and mentor for the physicians taking care of the patient.