Citations

125 Background: Esophageal cancer is best managed by multimodality therapy, frequently with chemotherapy (C) or chemo- radiotherapy (CRT) preceding resection. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is increasingly accepted, but studies of MIE in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer after induction CRT are lacking. This report presents the data on MIE as part of tri-modality therapy for esophageal cancer at Mayo Clinic in Arizona (MCA). Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent CRT before or after MIE for cancer at MCA between November 2006 and May of 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Results: 46 pts (40 males, and 6 females) met study criteria and were reviewed. Median age was 62 years (41-88 years). 45 pts (98%) had adenocarcinoma and one pt had squamous carcinoma. Initial clinical stage was IIA in 10 pts (22%), IIB in 3 pts (7%), III in 26 pts (55%), and IVA in 7 pts (15%) with positive celiac nodes. 43 pts (93%) underwent preoperative CRT with additional intra-operative radiotherapy in 4 pts. Median operating time was 354 min (range 211-567 min), median blood loss was 225 ml (range 50-1,400 ml), and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 5-48 days). 19 pts (41%), including the 3 who did not undergo preoperative CRT, received postoperative C or CRT due to either residual disease at resection or to local recurrence. 30 of 43 pts undergoing MIE after CRT were down staged (11 CR [25.6%], 10 near CR [23.3%]) demonstrating a major response to neoadjuvant therapy in 48.9% of pts. One pt died in hospital (from ARDS and sepsis subsequent to aspiration pneumonia) and two pts died within 30 days of surgery (one from pulmonary embolism, and the other from unknown causes) for a 30 day surgical mortality of 6.5%. 29 pts (63%) had a complication of surgery including 11 (24%) minor and 18 (39%) major complications. After a median follow-up of 13 months (range 0.9-43 months) 16 pts were diagnosed with recurrent disease and 10 of these pts have died of their disease. Conclusions: CRT with MIE is associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality level for pts with locally advanced esophageal cancer. These results compare favorably with morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates in open esophagectomy pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

LBA7005 Background: In meta-analyses, platinum-based adjuvant (adj) chemotherapy (CT) in completely resected NSCLC increased cure rate by ∼5%. At BR.19 initiation, adj study results with third-generation agents were unavailable. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed activity in monotherapy trials. We report a trial of adj gefitinib versus placebo after complete resection of NSCLC. Methods: Patients (pts) with stage IB-IIIA NSCLC were stratified by sex, stage, histology, post-op radiation, and after Jan 2003, adj CT. Pts were randomized to gefitinib 250 mg or placebo daily x 2 years. Study endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), toxicity, preplanned correlative studies. Study closed prematurely in Apr. 2005. Trial committee and NCIC CTG staff remained blinded to study drug. Results: 503 pts randomized (Sep 2002-Apr 2005); median age 67, males 54%, PS 0 54%; stage IB 49%, II 38%, III 13%; adenocarcinoma 59%, squamous 28%; ever smokers 89%; adj CT 17%; lobectomy 82%. Commonest grade 3/4 toxicities = fatigue 5%, rash 4% and diarrhea 5%. grade 3+ pneumonitis in 7 (1.4%) pts and led to death in 1. Median follow-up is 4.7 yrs; median treatment time is 4.8 mos. For gefitinib versus placebo, median DFS is 4.2 yrs versus not yet reached (NYR) HR1.22 (95% C.I. 0.93-1.61), p=0.15 and median OS 5.1 yrs versus NYR HR 1.24 (95% C.I. 0.94-1.64), p=0.14. In multivariate analysis, tumor size >4cm was predictive of poor DFS (p<0.0001) and never smoking for better OS with gefitinib (p=0.02). Results for KRAS and EGFR copy are available on 350 and 348 pts respectively. KRAS mutations were neither prognostic HR 1.12 (95% C.I. 0.67-1.86), p=0.66 nor predictive of gefitinib benefit (p = 0.16) on OS. EGFRcopy whether low/high polysomy or amplification was neither prognostic (p=0.77) nor predictive of OS benefit from gefitinib. Conclusions: Adjuvant gefitinib after complete resection of early stage NSCLC did not confer DFS or OS advantage in overall population. KRAS and EGFR copy were neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from gefitinib. EGFR mutational analysis will be presented. [Table: see text]

Abstract BACKGROUND: Despite many publications about cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs), controversy remains regarding diagnostic and management strategies. OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for CCM management. METHODS: The Angioma Alliance (www.angioma.org), the patient support group in the United States advocating on behalf of patients and research in CCM, convened a multidisciplinary writing group comprising expert CCM clinicians to help summarize the existing literature related to the clinical care of CCM, focusing on 5 topics: (1) epidemiology and natural history, (2) genetic testing and counseling, (3) diagnostic criteria and radiology standards, (4) neurosurgical considerations, and (5) neurological considerations. The group reviewed literature, rated evidence, developed recommendations, and established consensus, controversies, and knowledge gaps according to a prespecified protocol. RESULTS: Of 1270 publications published between January 1, 1983 and September 31, 2014, we selected 98 based on methodological criteria, and identified 38 additional recent or relevant publications. Topic authors used these publications to summarize current knowledge and arrive at 23 consensus management recommendations, which we rated by class (size of effect) and level (estimate of certainty) according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association criteria. No recommendation was level A (because of the absence of randomized controlled trials), 11 (48%) were level B, and 12 (52%) were level C. Recommendations were class I in 8 (35%), class II in 10 (43%), and class III in 5 (22%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence supports recommendations for the management of CCM, but their generally low levels and classes mandate further research to better inform clinical practice and update these recommendations. The complete recommendations document, including the criteria for selecting reference citations, a more detailed justification of the respective recommendations, and a summary of controversies and knowledge gaps, was similarly peer reviewed and is available on line www.angioma.org/CCMGuidelines.

Abstract Lessons Learned Targeted therapy options for SCLC patients are limited; no agent, thus far, has resulted in a strategy promising enough to progress to phase III trials. Linsitinib, a potent insulin growth factor-1-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may be one agent with activity against SCLC. Despite lack of a reliable predictive biomarker in this disease, which may have partly contributed to the negative outcome reported here, linsitinib, although safe, showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients. Background. Treatment of relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains suboptimal. Insulin growth factor-1 receptor (IGF-1R) signaling plays a role in growth, survival, and chemoresistance in SCLC. Linsitinib is a potent IGF-1R tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potentially may be active against SCLC. Methods. In this phase II study, 8 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio to topotecan (1.5 mg/m2 intravenously or 2.3 mg/m2 orally, daily for 5 days for 4 cycles) or linsitinib (150 mg orally twice daily until progression). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Patients with relapsed SCLC, platinum sensitive or resistant, performance status (PS) 0–2, and adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function were enrolled. Patients with diabetes, cirrhosis, and those taking insulinotropic agents were excluded. Crossover to linsitinib was allowed at progression. Results. Fifteen patients received topotecan (8 resistant, 3 with PS 2) and 29 received linsitinib (16 resistant, 5 with PS 2). Two partial responses were observed with topotecan. Only 4 of 15 patients with topotecan and 1 of 29 with linsitinib achieved stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5–3.6) and 1.2 (95% CI, 1.1–1.4) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .0001). Median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 2.2–7.6) and 3.4 (95% CI, 1.8–5.6) months for topotecan and linsitinib, respectively (p = .71). Grade 3/4 adverse events (&gt;5% incidence) included anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia/leukopenia, diarrhea, fatigue, dehydration, and hypokalemia for topotecan; and thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations for linsitinib. Conclusion. Linsitinib was safe but showed no clinical activity in unselected, relapsed SCLC patients.