Citations

139 Background: C may enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors by promoting an immune-permissive microenvironment. COSMIC-021 (NCT03170960), a multinational phase 1b study, is evaluating the combination of C with A in various solid tumors. We report interim results from Cohort 6 in mCRPC. Methods: Eligible pts were required to have radiographic progression in soft tissue after enzalutamide and/or abiraterone, measurable disease, and an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Prior chemotherapy for mCSPC was permitted. Pts received C 40 mg PO qd and A 1200 mg IV q3w. CT/MRI scans were performed q6w for 52w and q12w thereafter. Bone scans were performed q12w. The primary endpoint is ORR per RECIST 1.1. Other endpoints include safety, ORR per irRECIST, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Results: As of Oct 2019, 44 mCRPC pts were enrolled with a median follow-up of 10.6 mo (range 3.4+, 17.9). Median age was 70 y (range 49, 90), 50% had ECOG PS 1, 34% had visceral metastases, and 61% had extrapelvic lymph node metastases. 27% of pts had prior docetaxel and 52% had ≥2 prior novel hormonal therapies. The most common any grade TEAEs were fatigue (57%), nausea (48%), decreased appetite (45%), diarrhea (39%), PPE (32%), and vomiting (32%). One Grade 5 TRAE of dehydration was reported in a 90 y/o. Median duration of treatment was 5.3 mo. The ORR per RECIST 1.1 among all pts was 32% (2 CRs [4.5%] and 12 PRs [27%]); 21 (48%) pts had SD giving a disease control rate of 80% in all pts. One pt with initial PD per RECIST 1.1 had an irPR per irRECIST. ORR per RECIST 1.1 was 33% in 36 pts with high-risk clinical features (visceral and/or extrapelvic lymph node metastases). Median DOR for all pts with response per RECIST 1.1 was 8.3 mo (range 1.38+, 9.76+). In 12 responders with at least 1 post-baseline PSA evaluation, 8 (67%) had a PSA decline ≥50%. Conclusions: The combination of C+A had a tolerable safety profile and demonstrated clinically meaningful activity with durable responses in men with mCRPC. Given the encouraging activity in these pts, especially in those with visceral and/or extra pelvic lymph node metastases, further evaluation of C+A in men with mCRPC is being pursued. Clinical trial information: NCT03170960.

AbstractBackgroundThe optimal radiation dose for adult supratentorial low-grade glioma is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide a final update on oncologic and cognitive outcomes of high-dose versus low-dose radiation for low-grade glioma.MethodsBetween 1986 and 1994, 203 patients with supratentorial low-grade glioma were randomized (1:1) to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions versus 64.8 Gy in 36 fractions after any degree of resection.ResultsFor all patients, median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 years (95% CI: 7.2–10.8). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.2 years (95% CI: 4.3–6.6). Median follow-up is 17.2 years for the 33 patients still alive. High-dose radiation did not improve 15-year OS (22.4%) versus low-dose radiation (24.9%, log-rank P = 0.978) or 15-year PFS (high dose, 15.2% vs low dose, 9.5%; P = 0.7142). OS was significantly better for patients with preoperative tumor diameter <5 cm and baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) >27 and who underwent gross total resection. PFS was improved for patients with oligodendroglioma versus astrocytoma, preoperative tumor diameter <5 cm, patients who had gross total resection, and patients with baseline MMSE >27. For patients who had normal MMSE at baseline, at 7 years only 1 patient (5%) had a clinically significant decrease in MMSE from the previous time point, with the remainder (95%) stable. None had decrease in MMSE at 10, 12, or 15 years.ConclusionsLong-term follow-up indicates no benefit to high-dose over low-dose radiation for low-grade gliomas. Cognitive function appeared to be stable after radiation as measured by MMSE.

PURPOSE RTOG 0617 compared standard-dose (SD; 60 Gy) versus high-dose (HD; 74 Gy) radiation with concurrent chemotherapy and determined the efficacy of cetuximab for stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS The study used a 2 × 2 factorial design with radiation dose as 1 factor and cetuximab as the other, with a primary end point of overall survival (OS). RESULTS Median follow-up was 5.1 years. There were 3 grade 5 adverse events (AEs) in the SD arm and 9 in the HD arm. Treatment-related grade ≥3 dysphagia and esophagitis occurred in 3.2% and 5.0% of patients in the SD arm v 12.1% and 17.4% in the HD arm, respectively ( P = .0005 and < .0001). There was no difference in pulmonary toxicity, with grade ≥3 AEs in 20.6% and 19.3%. Median OS was 28.7 v 20.3 months ( P = .0072) in the SD and HD arms, respectively, 5-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 32.1% and 23% and 18.3% and 13% ( P = .055), respectively. Factors associated with improved OS on multivariable analysis were standard radiation dose, tumor location, institution accrual volume, esophagitis/dysphagia, planning target volume and heart V5. The use of cetuximab conferred no survival benefit at the expense of increased toxicity. The prior signal of benefit in patients with higher H scores was no longer apparent. The progression rate within 1 month of treatment completion in the SD arm was 4.6%. For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rates allowing for that dropout rate were 59.6% and 30.7%, respectively, in the SD arms. CONCLUSION A 60-Gy radiation dose with concurrent chemotherapy should remain the standard of care, with the OS rate being among the highest reported in the literature for stage III NSCLC. Cetuximab had no effect on OS. The 2-year OS rates in the control arm are similar to the PACIFIC trial.

Background: Inotuzumab ozogamicin (InO) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of anti-CD22 antibody conjugated to the cytotoxic agent calicheamicin, which is approved for relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), based on efficacy demonstrated in a randomized control trial. We sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of InO in the "real world" setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of patients (pts) with RR B-cell ALL, who received InO outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response to InO, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Duration of response was estimated among pts who achieve complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Results: From June 2016 to May 2019, 84 pts with RR-B cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at InO initiation was 50 years (yrs) (range, 20-87). Twenty-two (27.5%) pts had t(9;22) (Ph+ve) and 6 (7.5%) pts had t(4;11) (MLL gene) chromosomal abnormalities. Nine (11%) and 20 (25%) pts had CNS disease at diagnosis and at relapse, respectively. Median number of therapies prior to InO was 2 (range, 0-7), 40 (48%) pts had ≥ 3 therapies and 23 (27%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to InO. Forty (48%) pts received blinatumomab prior to InO. Fourteen (17%) pts received InO in combination with chemotherapy and/ or tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Overall response rate (CR/CRi) was 63%; 44% had CR with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity by flow cytometry. Response rate in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 73%. Twenty-three (27%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median response duration with InO was 11.5 months (mo); 32.5% had sustained response at 2 yrs (Fig. 1a). Median response duration post InO, censored at allo-HCT was not reached (NR) (51% in remission at 2 yrs) (Fig. 1b). Median OS after InO was 11.6 mo and 32% were alive at 2 yrs (Fig. 1c). Median OS post InO, censored at of allo-HCT was 13.6 mo (Fig. 1d). Median OS after InO in Ph+ve pts was NR (71% alive at 1 yr). Forty-nine percent, 27%, 6% and 5% of pts discontinued InO due to progression, allo-HCT, adverse events and maintenance therapy, respectively. Nineteen (30%) pts had dose interruptions. In terms of toxicities, 14 (17%) and 7 (8%) pts had grade (G)1-2 and G3 transaminases secondary to InO, respectively. One pt each had G2 and G3 pancreatitis, respectively. One (1%) and 2 (2%) pts had G2 and G4 veno-occlusive disease secondary to InO, respectively. Two of these pts were treated with defibrotide. Two (2%) pts died due to InO toxicity. A complete description of adverse events are summarized in Table 1. Conclusion: Our real-world data obtained by multicenter collaboration suggest that InO was well tolerated and had significant efficacy in this heavily treated patient population of RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Liedtke: Celator: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Aldoss:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yang:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Advani:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding. Atallah:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy.

Background Blinatumomab is a bispecific T cell antibody construct, that binds and allows CD-3 positive cytotoxic T cells to recognize and eradicate CD19-positive acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) blasts. The drug is approved for patient (pts) with relapsed/ refractory (RR) B-cell ALL and those with minimal residual disease (MRD) based on efficacy in clinical trials. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blinatumomab in the "real world" setting. Methods We conducted a retrospective multicenter study in collaboration with 11 U.S. academic institutions, and evaluated the outcome of RR B-cell ALL pts, who received blinatumomab outside of clinical trials. These pts were evaluated for response, duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS) from the time of blinatumomab initiation and toxicity. DOR was estimated among pts who had achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. Results From December 2014 to May 2019, 239 pts with B-cell ALL were identified. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age of pts at blinatumomab initiation was 48 years (yrs) (range, 18-85). Sixty-one (26%) pts had Philadelphia chromosome [t(9;22)] positive (Ph+ve) disease. Sixty-one (26%) pts had ≥ 3 prior therapies and 46 (19%) pts had allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-HCT) prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-two (9%) pts received inotuzumab ozagamicin prior to blinatumomab. Twenty-nine (12%) pts received blinatumomab in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Twelve (5%) pts received blinatumomab for MRD. Response rate (CR/CRi) in pts with RR disease was 61%; 44% had CR with MRD negativity by flow cytometry. Rate of CR/CRi in Ph+ve B-cell ALL was 74.5%. Among 12 pts who received Blinatumomab for MRD, 9 (75%) pts achieved MRD negativity. Overall 113 (48%) pts were successfully bridged to allo-HCT. Median DOR in pts with RR disease was 32.1 months (95% CI; 9.5-not reached [NR]) (Fig. 1a) and when censored at allo-HCT was 14.8 months (95% CI; 5.2-NR) (Fig. 1b). Median OS in pts with RR disease after blinatumomab was 12.7 months (95% CI; 9.2 -17.9) (Fig. 1c) and when censored at allo-HCT was 8.6 months (95% CI; 6.4-11.6) (Fig.1d). Median OS after blinatumomab in RR B-cell ALL Ph+ve pts was NR (59% alive at 2 yr). Among pts who received blinatumomab for MRD, median DOR was NR and 54% sustained MRD negativity at 2 yrs. Median OS was 34.7 months (95% CI; 8.8-34.7) in group of pts who received blinatumomab for MRD. Seven (3%) pts discontinued blinatumomab due to adverse events and 40 (21%) pts had dose interruptions. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) of any grade (G) was reported in higher number of pts (93 [39%]) compared to clinical trials, though G3-4 CRS appears to be similar (G1-2 [36%], G3-4 [3%]). Forty-four (44%) pts were treated with steroids and 8 (8%) pts required tocilizumab with steroids for CRS. Ninety-three percent of pts had complete resolution of CRS. CNS toxicities were observed in 31 (13%) pts, among them 60% (n= 19) had G3-4 toxicities. Hepatic toxicities were observed in 84 (35%) pts as outlined in Table 1. Six (2.5%) pts died due to blinatumomab induced toxicities. Conclusion: Our real-world data with multicenter collaboration suggest that overall blinatumomab was well tolerated and had led to significant response in pts with RR B-cell ALL. Disclosures Advani: Amgen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Aldoss:AUTO1: Consultancy; Helocyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: travel/accommodation/expenses, Speakers Bureau. Podoltsev:Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding. Curran:Incyte: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Yang:Agios: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Mattison:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Liedtke:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; IQVIA/Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BlueBirdBio: Research Funding; Amgen/Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Atallah:Helsinn: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy.

Abstract PURPOSE To provide a final update on oncologic and cognitive outcomes of high dose versus low dose radiation for low-grade glioma. METHODS Between 1986 and 1994, 203 patients with supratentorial low grade glioma were randomized to 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions versus 64.8 Gy in 36 fractions after any degree of resection. Histologic subtype was oligodendroglioma (71%) or astrocytoma (29%). Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Cognitive status was followed using Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). RESULTS For the entire cohort of 203 patients, median OS was 8.4 years (95% CI: 7.2 – 10.8). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.2 years (95% CI: 4.3 – 6.6). Median follow-up is 17.2 years for the 33 patients still alive. High-dose radiation did not improve OS (15-yr OS: 22.4% vs. 24.9%, log rank p=0.978) or PFS (15-yr PFS: 15.2% vs. 9.5%, p=0.7142). OS was significantly better for patients with pre-operative tumor diameter < 5 cm (15-yr OS: 39.4% vs. 15.2%, p< 0.001), baseline MMSE > 27 (15-yr OS: 27.3% vs. 9.8%, p=0.001), and for patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) (15-yr OS: 39.3% GTR vs. 16.4% subtotal resection vs. 24.5% biopsy only, p=0.0119). PFS was improved for patients with oligodendroglioma versus astrocytoma (15-yr PFS: 13.8% vs. 8.6%, p=0.0221). PFS was also improved for patients with pre-operative tumor diameter < 5 cm, patients who had GTR, and patients with baseline MMSE > 27. For patients who had normal MMSE at baseline, at 7 years only 1 patient (5%) had a clinically significant decrease in MMSE from the previous time point, with the remainder (95%) stable. None had decrease in MMSE at 10, 12, or 15 years. CONCLUSIONS Long-term follow-up indicates no benefit to high-dose over low-dose radiation for low-grade gliomas. Minimal late decline in cognitive function after radiation was seen by MMSE. SUPPORT: U10CA180821,U10CA180882. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Abstract OBJECTIVE The K16ApoE peptide enhances delivery of multiple agents across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Transgenic mouse models are central to elucidating the underlying pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and provide a system for evaluating novel therapeutic strategies. PET imaging plays a central clinical role in diagnosing human cases of AD but has had variable performance in mouse models. We investigated the role of K16ApoE to enhance delivery of a radiolabeled PET imaging tracer, 11C-PiB and assess whether this corresponds to improved PET sensitivity in APP/PS1 transgenic mice. METHODS Brain-delivery of 11C-PiB was accomplished by successive injections of K16ApoE and 11C-PiB. Distribution of 11C-PiB to the brain and heart was quantified via dynamic PET/CT imaging and digital autoradiography. RESULTS K16ApoE increased the brain uptake of 11C-PiB in both wild-type (WT) and APP/PS1 mice. Administration of K16ApoE increased the PET standard uptake value of 11C-PiB at 5 minutes in WT mice from 1.132 to 2.963 (p=0.006) and in APP/PS1 mice from 0.842 to 3.268 (p=0.016). Enhancement peaked at 5 minutes. Binding was reversible with similarly increased kinetics in both WT and APP/PS1 mice. The absolute values were higher in APP/PS1 mice suggesting increased retention. The increased retention in APP/PS1 mice was consistent with specific binding to A-beta plaques as unlabeled PiB reduced 11C-PiB signal retention. CONCLUSION K16ApoE mediates enhancement of 11C-PiB signal in APP/PS1 mice brains with increased PET sensitivity. There is increased uptake kinetics in both WT and APP/PS1 mice with specific A-beta plaque binding in the latter. This enhanced delivery of the PET tracer has implications for development and testing of new hypotheses and the efficacy of novel therapeutic paradigms. K16ApoE has potential for improving delivery of several agents across the BBB. This has implication for delivery of diagnostic and therapeutic agents for neurodegenerative and neuro-oncologic diseases.

508 Background: PBI is an alternative to WBI, with potentially greater therapy (tx) compliance, and better integration with chemotherapy (CTX). NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 clinical outcome results from 2018 did not show equivalence of PBI to WBI in local tumor control; PBI was statistically inferior, but with clinically small differences. PBI may be an acceptable alternative to WBI for some women. Understanding cosmesis and quality of life (QOL) treatment outcomes is important. Methods: B-39/0413 included a prospective QOL substudy with PRO evaluation of breast cancer treatment outcomes (cosmesis, function, pain) and fatigue using BCTOS and SF-36 vitality scales. Secondary QOL parameters included treatment related symptoms, perceived convenience of care, and the BPI pain scale. The study sample was stratified by CTX or not, as CTX is given before WBI but after PBI. PRO assessments occurred before randomization, the last day of adjuvant tx [CTX or radiation], 4 wks later, and 6, 12, 24, and 36 mo later. Primary aims included comparisons of change in fatigue from baseline to end of tx and equivalency of change in cosmesis from baseline to 36 mo for PBI v WBI. Separate analyses were done for CTX and non-CTX pts, controlling for axillary dissection. Each comparison used α=0.0125. Planned sample size was 964. Results: From 3-23-05 to 5-27-09, 975 pts were enrolled in the PRO study; 950 had follow-up data. 504 did not receive CTX and 446 received CTX. In non-CTX pts, PBI had less fatigue (p=0.011) and did not meet criteria for cosmesis equivalence (97.5% CI, -0.02 to 0.22; ∆=0.20). In CTX pts, PBI had worse fatigue (p=0.011) and equivalent cosmesis to WBI (97.5% CI, -0.09 to 0.21; ∆=0.24). In both groups, PBI pts reported less pain at end of tx. In non-CTX pts, PBI had more pain at 36 mo but in CTX pts, there was no difference. Convenience of care and treatment related symptom outcomes will be presented. Conclusions: In non-CTX pts, PBI is more convenient with less fatigue and slightly poorer cosmesis at 36 mo. Cosmesis was equivalent at 36 mo in CTX pts. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Clinical trial information: NCT00103181.

Abstract Background: Conventional WBI after lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer decreases ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR), yielding comparable results to mastectomy. Accelerated PBI appears effective in reducing IBTR by treating only the tumor bed area. As the majority of IBTR occur at or in the vicinity of the tumor bed, we hypothesized that PBI would be as effective as WBI in controlling IBTR. The primary aim of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 was to determine if PBI provides equivalent local tumor control post lumpectomy compared to WBI in pts with early-stage breast cancer. The equivalency test was based on a 50% margin of increase in the hazard ratio (HR=1.5). Secondary endpoints included: overall survival (OS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant disease-free interval (DDFI), and toxicity. Methods: Eligible pts had lumpectomy with histologically-free margins and 0-3 positive axillary nodes. Pts were stratified by stage, menopausal status, hormone receptor status, and intent to receive chemotherapy and then randomized to PBI or WBI. PBI was 10 fractions of 3.4-3.85 Gy, given twice daily with either brachytherapy or 3D external beam radiation. WBI was 50 Gy in 2 Gy fractions given daily with a sequential boost to the surgical cavity. Follow-up was every 6 mos for 5 yrs and then annually. All analyses were by intent-to-treat. Results: From 3-21-05 to 4-16-13, 4216 pts were randomized: 2107 PBI; 2109 WBI. 61% were postmenopausal; 81% were hormone receptor-positive; 29% intended to receive chemotherapy. Stage distribution was: DCIS, 24%; invasive pN0, 65%; invasive pN1, 10%. As of 7-31-18, median follow-up was 10.2 yrs. There were 161 IBTRs as first events: 90 PBI v 71 WBI (HR 1.22; 90%CI 0.94-1.58). Per protocol-defined margin, to declare PBI and WBI equivalent regarding IBTR risk, the 90% CI for the observed HR had to lie entirely between 0.667 and 1.5. The percent of pts IBTR-free at 10 yrs was 95.2% PBI v 95.9% WBI. A statistically significant difference in the 10-yr RFI rate favored WBI (91.9% PBI v 93.4% WBI; HR 1.32; 95%CI 1.04-1.68; p=0.02). No statistically significant differences existed between PBI and WBI in DDFI (HR 1.31; 95%CI 0.91-1.91; p=0.15), OS (HR 1.10; 95%CI 0.90-1.35; p=0.35), or DFS (HR 1.12; 95%CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.11). Grade 3 toxicity was 9.6% PBI v 7.1% WBI, and grade 4-5 toxicity was 0.5% v 0.3%, respectively. Discussion: PBI did not meet the criteria for equivalence to WBI in controlling IBTR based on the upper limit of the hazard ratio confidence interval. However, the absolute difference in 10-yr rate of IBTR was &lt;1% (4.8% PBI v 4.1% WBI). The risk of an RFI event was statistically significantly higher for PBI compared to WBI, but the absolute difference in 10-yr RFI rate was also small (8.1% PBI v 6.6% WBI). DDFI, OS, and DFS were not statistically different for PBI v WBI. Grade 3-5 toxicities, although low, were more common for PBI than WBI. The trial population was heterogeneous, ranging from Stage 0-2 breast cancer, and outcome by risk categories are being analyzed. Support: U10CA180868, -180822, UG1CA189867. Citation Format: Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, Julian TB, Arthur DW, Rabinovitch RA, Kuske RR, Parda DS, Ganz PA, Scheier MF, Winter KA, Paik S, Kuerer HM, Vallow LA, Pierce LJ, Mamounas EP, Costantino JP, Bear HD, Germaine I, Gustafson G, Grossheim L, Petersen IA, Hudes RS, Curran, Jr. WJ, Wolmark N. Primary results of NSABP B-39/RTOG 0413 (NRG Oncology): A randomized phase III study of conventional whole breast irradiation (WBI) versus partial breast irradiation (PBI) for women with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-04.

AbstractBackgroundPathologic extranodal extension (ENE) has traditionally guided the management of head and neck cancers. The prognostic value of radiographic ENE (rENE) in human papillomavirus (HPV)‐associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV + OPX) is uncertain.MethodsPatients with HPV + OPX with adequate pretreatment radiographic nodal evaluation from a single institution were analyzed. rENE status was determined by neuroradiologists' at time of diagnosis. Distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and locoregional recurrence‐free survival (LRFS) were estimated using Kaplan‐Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the impact of rENE on survival endpoints.ResultsHundred sixty‐eight patients with OPX + squamous cell carcinomas diagnosed between April 2008 and December 2014 were included for analysis with median follow‐up of 3.3 years. Eighty‐eight percent of patients received concurrent chemoradiotherapy. rENE was not prognostic; its presence in patients with HPV + OPX did not significantly impact OS, LRFS, or DMFS.ConclusionsIn patients with HPV + OPX, rENE was not significantly associated with OS, LRFS, or DMFS.