Citations

ObjectiveFDG‐PET/CT (fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography/computed tomography) is effective to assess for occult neck nodal disease. We report risks and patterns of nodal disease based on primary site and nodal level from data on the dissected cN0 per the results from ACRIN 6685.Study DesignProspective nonrandomized enrollment included participants with first‐time head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and at least 1 cN0 neck side to be dissected.SettingTwenty‐four ACRIN‐certified centers internationally (American College of Radiology Imaging Network).MethodsA total of 287 participants were enrolled. Preoperative FDG‐PET/CT findings were centrally reviewed and compared with pathology. Incidence, relative risk, pattern of lymph node involvement, and impact upon neck dissection were reported.ResultsAn overall 983 nodal levels were dissected (n = 261 necks, n = 203 participants). The highest percentages of ipsilateral positive nodes by primary location and nodal level were oral cavity (level I, 17/110, 15.5%), pharynx (level II, 6/30, 20.0%), and larynx (level VI, 1/3, 33.3%).ConclusionLevels at greatest risk for nodal disease in cN0 in terms of ipsilateral neck dissection are level I (oral cavity), II (pharynx), and VI (larynx). These data should be considered when treating patients presenting with cN0. This is the first study to comprehensively report the incidence, location, and risk of metastases in cN0 in the FDG‐PET/CT era.

Introduction: FL is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western world. FL may cause disease-related symptoms, and patients with high-risk disease usually require systemic therapy. BR is commonly used as first-line therapy for high-risk FL, and the addition of bortezomib to a BR backbone has been studied (Evens A et al. Clin Can Res 2020). Little is known about how these therapeutic options impact patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). To fill this gap, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were administered to patients enrolled on E2408 to quantify symptom burden and effects of BR versus BVR induction on HRQL. Methods: Patients (n=258) randomized to receive 6 cycles of BR or BVR induction completed PROs assessing neurotoxicity (FACT/GOG-Ntx) at the beginning of each treatment cycle. Additional PROs measuring fatigue (FACT-F), lymphoma-specific concerns (FACT-Lym) and HRQL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General; FACT-G) were completed at baseline, mid-treatment (MT; cycle 3/4) and end of induction (EOI; cycle 6). Paired t-test was used to assess PRO score changes from baseline to MT and EOI within BR or BVR group. Two-sample t-test was used to compare change scores between groups at MT and EOI, respectively. Univariate analyses with a linear model identified patient baseline characteristics and clinical factors (age, sex, stage, performance status, # extra nodal sites, FLIPI, GELF, bone marrow involvement, elevated LDH, palpable splenomegaly, B-symptoms, CRIS) associated with PRO change scores from baseline to EOI, adjusting for treatment group. A multivariate model was built with backward variable selection approach for each of the PROs. Results: As shown in Figure 1, compared with baseline, patients randomized to BVR reported significantly worse FACT/GOG-Ntx scores at cycle 4, which continued to end of induction (FACT/GOG-Ntx change scores -2.91 to -3.73; p < 0.001). Neurotoxicity remained stable for patients treated with BR (Ntx change scores -0.02 to -0.55). FACT-Fatigue scores indicated worse fatigue at MT compared to baseline for patients receiving BVR (-2.7, p<0.05), yet they remained stable for BR. FACT-Lym scores were significantly higher at MT (BR: 2.69, p<0.001; BVR: 2.71, p=0.007) and end of induction (BR: 3.32, p<0.001; BVR: 3.55, p<0.001) compared to baseline, signifying a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms in both arms. FACT-G scores were comparable between treatment arms at each time-point and did not change significantly from baseline to end of induction. Univariate analyses among all patients identified older age and the absence of palpable splenomegaly at baseline as associated with worse FACT-Lym, FACT-Fatigue, and FACT-G change scores, signifying less improvement in lymphoma-related symptoms, fatigue and HRQL from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). The presence of B-symptoms at baseline was associated with a greater reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms and fatigue from baseline to end of induction (p<0.01). Higher ECOG performance status was only associated with higher FACT-Fatigue change score, suggesting more improvement in fatigue for those with worse performance status at baseline. A multivariate model generated similar results. Conclusions: Despite worse treatment-related symptoms throughout induction, the addition of bortezomib was associated with comparable overall HRQL to those treated with BR. Both treatments were associated with a reduction in lymphoma-related symptoms from baseline to end of induction, likely contributing to stable HRQL throughout treatment despite treatment-related symptoms. Findings also suggest that a subgroup of patients, particularly those who are older, may experience fewer improvements in lymphoma-related symptoms. This underscores the potential need for closer monitoring and clinical management of these patients. Collectively, results are likely to be encouraging for patients experiencing lymphoma-related symptoms, for whom the symptom burden associated with treatment may be worth the trade-off given the potential for improved disease-related symptom control. Disclosures Evens: Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Advani:Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy. Ansell:Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Winter:Norvartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Delta Fly Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Other: DSMB; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: advisory board. Cella:FACIT.org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: President; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pled Pharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Alexion: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Kiniksa: Consultancy; IDDI: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; ASAHI KASEI PHARMA CORP.: Consultancy; Oncoquest: Consultancy; Mei Pharma: Consultancy; Ipsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Evidera: Consultancy; DSI: Consultancy, Research Funding; BlueNote: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; PROMIS Health Org: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other. Kahl:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner:Celgene Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Connect Multiple Myeloma Registry: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Purpose: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). Results: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively (P = 0.04). One-year DFS rates with BR-R versus BR-LR were 85% versus 67%, respectively (P = 0.0009). This was due to an imbalance in CR rates post-BR induction and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3–4 AEs for BVR versus BR were neutropenia and sensory neuropathy (12% vs <1%); 83% of the latter occurred with intravenous bortezomib. The most common grade 3–4 AEs related to LR versus rituximab maintenance were neutropenia 66% versus 21%, respectively (P < 0.0001), and febrile neutropenia 10% versus 2%, respectively (P = 0.05). The overall treatment-related mortality was 1.4%. With 5-year median follow-up, 3-year PFS rates for BR-R, BVR-R, and BR-LR were 77%, 82%, and 76%, respectively (P = 0.36) with OS rates of 87%, 90%, and 84%, respectively (P = 0.79). For prognostication, CR rate and POD-24 were associated with survival. Conclusions: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL.

LBA3 Background: Bortezomib (btz) combined with lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) (VRd) is a standard initial therapy for NDMM. Carfilzomib (cfz), a next-generation proteasome inhibitor, in combination with len-dex (KRd) has shown higher efficacy in phase II trials. This randomized phase III trial was designed to examine if KRd improves progression free survival (PFS) compared to VRd in NDMM (current results), and whether indefinite maintenance with len improves OS compared with two-year maintenance (to be analyzed once data matures). Methods: Patients (Pts) with NDMM, were randomized to receive VRd or KRd in a 1:1 fashion for 36 weeks followed by a second randomization (1:1) to indefinite versus two years of len maintenance. Pts without del17p, t (14;16), t(14;20), plasma cell leukemia or high-risk GEP70 profile, were enrolled. VRd arm included btz 1.3 mg/m2 on days(d) 1, 4, 8, and 11 (d 1, 8 for cycles 9-12), len 25 mg d 1-14, and dex 40 mg d 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 of a 3-week (wk) cycle for 12 cycles, while pts in the KRd arm received cfz 36 mg/m2 d 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 with len 25 mg daily on d 1-21 and dex 40 mg wkly, in 4 wk cycles for 9 cycles. Maintenance included len 15mg d 1-21 every 4 wks. The study was designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR)=0.75 with 80% power at 1-sided 2.5% alpha and 399 PFS events (progression or death regardless of intervening therapy). Results: The study accrued 1087 pts (VRd=542, KRd=545). The median age was 65y. Treatment, efficacy, and toxicity data are in the table. At the second of 3 planned interim analyses, with PFS HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.8 to 1.3, p=0.74), futility was met. Median PFS was VRd=34.4m and KRd=34.6m; no differences were seen based on age (<65 or ≥65), presence or absence of t(4;14) or ISS stage. The three-year OS (95% CI) was similar: VRd 84% (80 to 88) and KRd 86% (82 to 89). Conclusions: In this randomized phase 3 trial, KRd did not improve PFS compared with VRd in NDMM. A significantly higher rate of cardio-pulmonary and renal toxicity was observed with KRd, while neuropathy rates were higher with VRd. VRd remains the standard triplet induction regimen in standard and intermediate risk NDMM, and a suitable backbone for 4 drug combinations. Clinical trial information: NCT01863550 . [Table: see text]

LBA2 Background: About 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with Stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor (IPT). Locoregional treatment (LRT) for the IPT is hypothesized to improve survival based on retrospective analyses, but randomized trials have provided conflicting data. We now report the results of E2108, a Phase 3 trial that examined the worth of LRT for the IPT following initial systemic therapy. Methods: Stage IV patients with IPT were registered, treated with optimal systemic therapy (OST) based on patient and tumor characteristics; those who did not progress during 4-8 months of OST were randomized to LRT for the IPT, or no LRT. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), with locoregional disease control as a secondary endpoint. Stratified log rank test and Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare OS between treatment groups. Cumulative incidence of locoregional recurrence/progression was estimated and Gray test was used for treatment group comparisons. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in 3 year OS rate from 30% with OST alone to 49.3% for OST+LRT (power 95%, 1-sided alpha 0.05) with full information expected after 152 deaths; the data monitoring committee recommended data release after 80% of full information. Results: 390 patients were enrolled between 2/8/11 and 7/23/15, and received OST. Of these, 256 eligible patients were randomized to either continued OST alone (N = 131) or OST+LRT (N = 125).There were 121 deaths and 43 locoregional progression events after a median follow up 59 months (range: 0-91). There was no significant difference in OS (3-year OS rate 68.4% in OST+LRT vs. 67.9% OST alone arm, stratified log-rank p = 0.63, HR = 1.09, 90% CI: 0.80, 1.49) or in progression-free survival (p = 0.40). The locoregional recurrence/progression was significantly higher in the OST alone arm (3-year rate 25.6% vs 10.2%, Gray test p = 0.003). Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by FACT-B Trial Outcome Index was significantly worse in the OST+LRT arm than OST alone arm at 18 months post randomization (60% completion, Wilcoxon rank sum test p = 0.01), but no difference was observed at time points 6 months (74% completion) or 30 months (56% completion). Conclusions: Early local therapy does not improve survival in patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer and an IPT. Although there was a 2.5-fold higher risk of local disease progression without LRT, LRT of the IPT did not lead to improved HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT01242800 .

e19136 Background: Patient reported side effect bother is needed to understand tolerability of cancer drugs. We examined whether increase in side effect bother from baseline to cycle 7 as measured by a single item (GP5) from the FACT-G, “I am bothered by side effects of treatment”, was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) in a multiple myeloma (MM) trial. Methods: Data were drawn from the induction phase of ECOG ACRIN E1A06, a two arm, phase 3 trial conducted in patients with untreated MM. The induction phase occurred over twelve, 28-day cycles. GP5 was assessed at registration and cycle 7. ETD was defined as completion of less than 12 cycles of treatment. We tested whether increase in side effect bother on the GP5 from baseline to cycle 7 was associated with months to ETD in two ways. At each timepoint, GP5 was rated with these response options: “Not at all”, “A little bit”, “Somewhat”, “Quite a bit”, “Very Much”. First, we stratified Kaplan Meier curves by patients with versus without substantially increased side effect burden from registration to cycle 7 on the GP5, defined as an increase of > 2 response categories; Cox regression was used to calculate a hazard ratio. Second, we fit a joint model of the GP5 change trajectory on months to ETD that substituted the estimated slope of a longitudinal logistic regression model into the hazard function of a Cox model. In this model, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all/”A little bit”; 1 = “Somewhat”/ “Quite a bit”/ “Very Much”. Results: 159 patients were followed during induction for a median of 11 months (range: 0.2-16.0). 10 patients (6%) reported a substantial increase on GP5 from registration to cycle 7. After 16 months, these patients had a significantly higher hazard of ETD as estimated by Kaplan Meier methods: 40% experienced ETD vs. 24% of patients without substantial GP5 increase [hazard ratio (HR): 3.08 (95% CI: 1.18-8.02)]. In the joint model, the effect of GP5 on hazard of ETD was larger [HR: 9.56 (95% CI: 2.41-37.82)]. Conclusions: This study found initial evidence that increase in side effect bother as measured by the GP5 predicts ETD and may therefore reflect treatment intolerability in cancer drug trials. The effects found in this study will be tested for replication in additional ECOG-ACRIN trials with diverse designs, treatments, and cancer types. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 .

e19132 Background: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General has an item about patient tolerability of treatment: “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” (GP5). We examined the predictive value of this single item for early treatment discontinuation in clinical trials. Methods: GP5 level prior to protocol therapy (rated using a 5-point Likert scale) and treatment start/end dates and off treatment reason data at each treatment phase were drawn from five phase III clinical trials conducted by ECOG-ACRIN. In the present analysis, GP5 was dichotomized as 0 = “Not at all”/“A little bit” and 1 = “Somewhat”/“Quite a bit”/“Very Much”. Early treatment discontinuation was defined either as receiving less than protocol specified cycles of treatment when maximum cycles specified in the protocol (E1A06 induction, E1912 induction, E1609 induction, E1105 induction, E5103 adjuvant), analyzed using logistic regression via odds ratio [OR]), or treatment cessation for reasons other than progressive disease or death when treatment continued until progression or intolerability (E1A06 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1105 maintenance), analyzed using Cox proportional hazard model via hazard ratio [HR]. Results: GP5 prior to treatment was significantly associated with early discontinuation of E1A06 maintenance, E1609 maintenance, E1912 maintenance, and E1912 induction. No significant association was found for other therapies examined in the study. Conclusions: High GP5 level prior to treatment is associated with higher likelihood of early treatment discontinuation in patients who have received previous treatment. The limited predictive value of GP5 for treatment naïve patients is more limited, serial on-treatment assessment should be considered in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00602641 . [Table: see text]

6500 Background: ECOG-ACRIN 3311 examines reduced postoperative therapy in patients with “intermediate risk” p16+ oropharynx cancer (OPC) undergoing primary transoral surgical management. We report the primary endpoint of 2-year progression free survival (PFS) for patients randomized to 50Gy vs 60Gy without chemotherapy. Methods: Between December 2013 and July 2017, 82 credentialed surgeons performed transoral resection (TOS) for 519 OPC patients (cT1-2 stage III/IV AJCC7 without matted neck nodes); post-operative management was determined by pathologically assessed risk. Among 353 eligible and treated patients, Arm A enrolled 10% (N=37) for clear margins, 0-1 nodes, no extranodal extension (ENE)), Arms B (50Gy, N=102) or C (60Gy, N=104) randomized 58%, for clear/close margins, 2-4 + nodes, or ENE ≤1mm, while Arm D (N=110, 60-66Gy plus weekly cisplatin, 40 mg/m2, positive margin with any T stage, >4 + nodes, or >1mm ENE) enrolled 31%. Arm D assignment was based on >1mm ENE (76%), > 4 nodes (27%), and/or positive margins (11%). Intermediate-risk patients were stratified by smoking history (>10 pk-yr). Of the 80 pts (15%) deemed ineligible, 28 had scans/labs not done per protocol, however treatment arm distribution for all patients mirrored that for the 353 pts eligible and treated. Results: Median follow-up was 31.8 months. 2 yr PFS for Arms A, B and C were 93.9% (90% CI=87.3%, 100%), 95.0% (90% CI=91.4%, 98.6%) and 95.9% (90% CI=92.6%, 99.3%) respectively, while Arm D was 90.5% (90% CI=85.9%, 95.3%). The regimen of TOS + low-dose radiation is considered worthy of further study, since the primary endpoint of the upper bound of the 90% CI (in the intermediate risk group) exceeding 85% was met. Of 17 progression events, 7 were locoregional. There were 10 distant recurrences: Arm A=1, Arm B=2, Arm C=4, Arm D=3. Grade III/IV treatment-related AE rates were 15%/2% during surgery, 13%/2% for Arm B and 25%/0% for Arm C. There were 2 treatment-related deaths (one surgical and one Arm D). Conclusions: Transoral resection of p16+ OPC is safe and results in good oncologic outcome, presenting a promising deintensification approach. For patients with low-risk disease, 2-yr PFS is favorable without post-operative therapy. For those with uninvolved surgical margins, <5 involved nodes, and minimal (<1mm) ENE, reduced dose postoperative RT without chemotherapy appears sufficient. Transoral surgery plus 50Gy should be compared to optimal non-surgical therapy in a phase III trial. Clinical trial information: NCT01898494 .

TPS5101 Background: There is no standard adjuvant systemic therapy that increases overall survival (OS) over surgery alone for non-metastatic RCC. Anti-PD-1 nivolumab (nivo) improves OS in metastatic RCC and is well tolerated. In mouse models, priming the immune system prior to surgery with anti-PD-1 results in superior OS compared to adjuvant dosing. Remarkable pathologic responses have been seen with neoadjuvant PD-1 in multiple ph 2 studies in bladder, lung and breast cancers. Phase 2 neoadjuvant RCC trials of nivo show preliminary feasibility and safety with no surgical delays. PROSPER RCC seeks to improve clinical outcomes by priming the immune system with neoadjuvant nivo prior to nephrectomy followed by continued immune system engagement with adjuvant blockade in patients (pts) with high risk RCC compared to standard of care surgery alone. Methods: This global, unblinded, phase 3 National Clinical Trials Network study is accruing pts with clinical stage ≥T2 or TanyN+ RCC of any histology planned for radical or partial nephrectomy. Select oligometastatic disease is permitted if the pt can be rendered ‘no evidence of disease’ within 12 weeks of nephrectomy (≤3 metastases; no brain, bone or liver). In the investigational arm, nivo is administered 480mg IV q4 weeks with 1 dose prior to surgery followed by 9 adjuvant doses. The control arm is nephrectomy followed by standard of care surveillance. There is no placebo. Baseline tumor biopsy is required only in the nivo arm but encouraged in both. Randomized pts are stratified by clinical T stage, node positivity, and M stage. 805 pts provide 84.2% power to detect a 14.4% absolute benefit in recurrence-free survival at 5 years assuming the ASSURE historical control of ~56% to 70% (HR = 0.70). The study is powered to evaluate a significant increase in OS (HR 0.67). Critical perioperative therapy considerations such as safety, feasibility, and quality of life metrics are integrated. PROSPER RCC embeds a wealth of translational studies to examine the contribution of the baseline immune milieu and neoadjuvant priming with anti-PD-1 on clinical outcomes. As of February 2020, 396 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03055013 .