Citations

Abstract Background: Preclinical evidence indicates that increased insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF1R) signaling interferes with the action of trastuzumab suggesting a possible mechanism of trastuzumab resistance. Thus, we evaluated IGF1R prevalence, relationship with demographic data, and association with disease-free survival (DFS) of patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy with sequential (Arm B) or concurrent trastuzumab (Arm C) in the prospective phase III HER2+ adjuvant N9831 trial. Experimental Design: IGF1R protein expression was determined in tissue microarray sections (three cores per block; N = 1,197) or in whole tissue sections (WS; N = 537) using IHC (rabbit polyclonal antibody against IGF1R β-subunit). A tumor was considered positive (IGF1R+) if any core or WS had ≥1+ membrane staining in >0% invasive cells. Median follow-up was 8.5 years. Results: Of 1,734 patients, 708 (41%) had IGF1R+ breast tumors. IGF1R+ was associated with younger age (median 48 vs. 51, P = 0.007), estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positivity (78% vs. 35%, P < 0.001), nodal positivity (89% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), well/intermediate grade (34% vs. 24%, P < 0.001), tumors ≥2 cm (72% vs. 67%, P = 0.02) but not associated with race or tumor histology. IGF1R did not affect DFS within arms. Between Arms A and C, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.48 (P ≤ 0.001) and 0.68 (P = 0.009), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.17). Between Arms A and B, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.83 (P = 0.25) and 0.69 (P = 0.01), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.42). Conclusions: In contrast to preclinical studies that suggest a decrease in trastuzumab sensitivity in IGF1R+ tumors, our adjuvant data show benefit of adding trastuzumab for patients with either IGF1R+ and IGF1R− breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4203–11. ©2016 AACR.

AbstractRationale, aims and objectivesDiagnostic uncertainty is often encountered in a medical practice. Patients with ambiguous, uncertain, and undiagnosed problems are frequently referred for second opinions. Comparing referral diagnoses to final diagnoses provides an opportunity to determine how frequently final diagnoses vary and changes the direction of medical care.MethodsA retrospective study was done at a single academic medical center using a sample of 286 patients referred by physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and physicians from primary care practices from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. Patients' referral and final diagnoses were compared and classified into 1 of 3 categories: referral diagnosis and final diagnosis the same, referral diagnosis better defined/refined, and referral diagnosis distinctly different from final diagnosis. Episode costs for the respective categories were calculated for the referral visit and services that occurred at our facility within the first 30 days.ResultsIn 12% (36/286) of cases, referral diagnoses were the same as final diagnoses. Final diagnoses were better defined/refined in 66% (188/286) of cases; but in 21% of cases (62/286), final diagnoses were distinctly different than referral diagnoses. Total costs for cases in category 3 (different final diagnoses) were significantly higher than costs for cases in category 1 (P = .0001) and category 2 (P = <.0001).ConclusionReferrals to advanced specialty care for undifferentiated problems are an essential component of patient care. Without adequate resources to handle undifferentiated diagnoses, a potential unintended consequence is misdiagnoses resulting in treatment delays and complications leading to more costly treatments.

Poly(GP) proteins are a promising pharmacodynamic marker for developing and testing therapeutics for treating C9ORF72 -associated amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The majority of quality measures used to assess providers and hospitals are based on easily obtained data, focused on a few dimensions of quality, and developed mainly for primary/community care and population health. While this approach supports efforts focused on addressing the triple aim of health care, many current quality report cards and assessments do not reflect the breadth or complexity of many referral center practices. In this article, the authors highlight the differences between population health efforts and referral care and address issues related to value measurement and performance assessment. They discuss why measures may need to differ across the three levels of care (primary/community care, secondary care, complex care) and illustrate the need for further risk adjustment to eliminate referral bias. With continued movement toward value-based purchasing, performance measures and reimbursement schemes need to reflect the increased level of intensity required to provide complex care. The authors propose a framework to operationalize value measurement and payment for specialty care, and they make specific recommendations to improve performance measurement for complex patients. Implementing such a framework to differentiate performance measures by level of care involves coordinated efforts to change both policy and operational platforms. An essential component of this framework is a new model that defines the characteristics of patients who require complex care and standardizes metrics that incorporate those definitions.

659 Background: Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with reduced risk of recurrence and mortality in non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Its influence on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is largely unexplored. Methods: 1231 patients participating in CALGB 80405 (first-line phase III chemotherapy trial for mCRC) completed questionnaires that included self-report on PA at time of chemotherapy initiation and total metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours/week were determined based on responses. The primary endpoint of the clinical trial and this companion study was overall survival (OS), with progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint. To minimize confounding by poor and rapidly declining health, we excluded patients who experienced progression or died within 60 days of activity assessment and adjusted for known prognostic factors, comorbid illness, and weight loss over the previous six months. Results: Compared with patients engaged in less than three MET-hours/week of PA, patients engaged in 18 or more MET-hours/week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, P for trend 0.03) and for PFS of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00, P for trend 0.03). Greater nonvigorous PA and walking duration were both associated with improved OS ( P for trend 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). Conclusions: In mCRC patients from CALGB 80405, greater total PA was associated with improved PFS and OS, while greater walking duration and non-vigorous PA were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00265850 [Table: see text]

Abstract Background LIV-1, a transmembrane protein and downstream target of STAT3, is highly expressed in breast cancer cells. It is associated with lymph node involvement and metastatic progression. SGN-LIV1A is an anti-LIV-1 antibody conjugated via a protease-cleavable linker to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE). Upon binding to cell-surface LIV-1, SGN-LIV1A is internalized and releases MMAE, which binds to tubulin and induces G2/M arrest and apoptosis. Methods This is an ongoing, phase 1 dose-escalation study evaluating safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of SGN-LIV1A (q3 wks IV) in women with LIV-1-positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) (NCT01969643). Patients (pts) with measurable disease and ≥2 prior cytotoxic regimens for LA/MBC were eligible. Pts with ≥Grade 2 neuropathy were excluded. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1; pts with stable disease (SD) or better could continue treatment until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. At completion of dose escalation in hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative (HR+/HER2–) and triple-negative (TN) pts, expansion cohorts were opened to further evaluate safety and antitumor activity of monotherapy in TN pts and combination therapy with trastuzumab (Tz) in HER2-positive (HER2+) pts. Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies were done to evaluate LIV-1 expression and other correlative endpoints. Results To date, 39 pts (18 HR+/HER2–, 21 TN) have received a median of 3 cycles (range, 1–10) of SGN-LIV1A monotherapy at doses of 0.5–2.8 mg/kg. Median age was 57 yrs (range, 33–79). At baseline, pts had a median of 4 prior cytotoxic regimens for LA/MBC (range, 2–8); 36 had visceral disease and 25 had bone involvement. No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) occurred in 19 DLT-evaluable pts; maximum tolerated dose was not exceeded at 2.8 mg/kg. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) reported in ≥30% of pts were: fatigue (64%), nausea (54%), alopecia (46%), decreased appetite (41%), constipation (39%), neutropenia (33%), and vomiting (31%). Peripheral neuropathy was reported in 9 pts (23%). Most AEs were Grade 1/2, except neutropenia (all ≥Grade 3). Four pts discontinued treatment due to AEs (acute respiratory distress syndrome, nausea, pneumonia, tachycardia). In dose escalation, modest activity was observed in 17 efficacy evaluable (EE) HR+/HER2- pts, with a disease control rate (DCR) of 59% (10 SD), including 1 pt with SD≥24 wks. Among the 17 EE TN pts (dose escalation plus cohort expansion), the overall response rate (ORR) was 41% (7 PR), DCR was 82% (7 PR, 7 SD) and clinical benefit rate (CBR=OR+SD≥24 wks) was 53% (9 pts). For TN pts, median PFS was 17.1 wks (95% CI: 6.0, 18.4); 6 pts remain on treatment. Of 281 MBC tumor samples evaluated for LIV-1, 93% were positive; 81% had moderate-to-high expression (H-score ≥100). Conclusions LIV-1 is expressed in almost all MBC tumors. SGN-LIV1A monotherapy has been generally well tolerated and shown encouraging antitumor activity in heavily pretreated TN MBC, with a PR rate of 41% and a CBR at ≥24 wks of 53%. Response duration data continue to evolve. Enrollment continues in the TN monotherapy expansion cohort and the HER2+ combination cohort with Tz. Citation Format: Forero-Torres A, Modi S, Specht J, Miller K, Weise A, Burris III H, Liu M, Krop I, Pusztai L, Kostic A, Li M, Mita M. Phase 1 study of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) SGN-LIV1A in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer [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 P6-12-04.

LBA3 Background: Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6), combined with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET), are first-line treatments for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC). The optimal antibody combination is unknown. Methods: Patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt)(codons 12 and 13) MCRC and performance status 0-1 received FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 (MD/pt choice at enrollment) and randomized to either CET 400 mg/m2 X 1, then 250 mg/m2 qw or BV 5 mg/kg q2w. The original study included unselected MCRC pts receiving FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 and randomized to CET, BV, or both. After 1,420 pts accrued the study amended as follows: only pts with KRAS wt tumors (codon 12 and 13) were included and the combination CET + BV arm was deleted. Rx continued until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, curative surgery; treatment holidays of 4 wks permitted. Subsequent Rx not mandated. Accrual goal was 1,142 pts. One° endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Between November 2005 and March 2012, 3,058 unselected pts enrolled, 2,334 KRAS wt pts randomized; final N =1137 (333 pre-amend eligible retrospective KRAS test, 804 post-amend), median f/u = 24 mos; Median age – 59 y; 61% male. Chemo/BV – 559; chemo/CET – 578. FOLFIRI = 26.6%, mFOLFOX6 = 73.4%. OS analysis planned at 849 events; efficacy futility boundary crossed at 10th interim analysis on 1/29/14. OS - chemo/BV v. chemo/CET = 29.04 (25.66 - 31.21) v. 29.93 (27.56 - 31.21) mos; HR = 0.92 (0.78, 1.09) (p value = 0.34). PFS (by investigator): chemo/BV v. chemo/CET: 10.84 (9.86 - 11.4) v. 10.45 (9.66 - 11.33) mos. There were 94 pts free of disease following surgery, median f/u 40 mos (range 8.0 - 86.0). Outcomes similar by gender. On-study toxicity and deaths as expected. Analyses underway: Expanded RAS, FOLFOX v. FOLFIRI, subsequent therapies, long-term survivors, correlates. Conclusions: Chemo/CET and chemo/BV equivalent in OS in pts KRAS wt (codons 12 + 13) MCRC; either is appropriate in first line. Overall OS of 29 + mos and 8% long-term survivors confirms progress in MCRC. The preference for FOLFOX limits chemotherapy comparison. Expanded RAS and other molecular and clinical analyses may identify subsets of pts who get more or less benefit from specific regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT00265850.

CRA506 Background: Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) eliminates the need for axillary dissection (ALND) in patients whose sentinel node (SN) is tumor-free. However, completion ALND remains the gold standard for patients with a tumor-involved sentinel node. ALND achieves regional control, but its effect on survival remains controversial. The main objective of ACOSOG Z0011 was to compare outcomes of patients with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) detected metastasis in SN managed with or without ALND and no axillary irradiation. Methods: Clinically node-negative patients who underwent SN biopsy and had 1 or 2 SN with metastases detected by H&E were randomized to ALND or no further axillary specific treatment. All patients were treated with lumpectomy and opposing tangential field irradiation. Adjuvant systemic therapy was at the discretion of their physicians. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional control were evaluated. Results: 446 patients were randomized to SNB alone and 445 to SNB plus ALND. Patients treated with SNB alone were similar to those treated with SNB + ALND with respect to age, tumor size, Bloom-Richardson score, estrogen receptor status, adjuvant systemic therapy, tumor type, and T stage. Patients randomized to SNB alone had a median of two lymph nodes removed whereas patients randomized to ALND had a median of 17 lymph nodes removed. 17.6% of ALND patients had 3 or more involved nodes compared to 5.0% of SNB patients (p < 0.001). Median follow-up is 6.2 years. 5-year in breast recurrence after ALND was 3.7% compared to 2.1% for SNB (p = 0.16) while 5-year nodal recurrence was 0.6% compared to 1.3% (p = 0.44) respectively. The five-year OS for patients undergoing SNB + ALND is 91.9% compared to 92.5% for SNB alone (p = 0.24), and DFS is 82.2% compared to 83.8% respectively (p = 0.13). Conclusions: Despite the widely held belief that ALND improves survival, no significant difference was recognized by this study of SN node-positive women. Although the study closed early because of low accrual/event rate, it is the largest phase III study of ALND for node-positive women, and it demonstrates no trend toward clinical benefit of ALND for patients with limited nodal disease. [Table: see text]