Citations

e16076 Background: Median overall survival (mOS) of patients (pt) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved steadily over the past two decades. However, epidemiological data suggest that cancer outcomes for rural compared to urban dwelling pts are worse. In this study, we retrospectively compared progression free survival (PFS) and OS among mCRC pts residing in urban versus rural areas enrolled in N9741 (1997-2004) and CALGB 80405 (2005-2012) clinical trials. Methods: Zip code data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) were used to classify pts into rural or urban dwellers. Chi-square and Kruskal Wallis analyses were used to compare the groups. Survival outcomes were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, compared by stratified log rank and cox proportional hazards models. Results: In N9741 and 80405 respectively, 217 (35%) and 521 (21%) pts resided in rural areas. Median age of mCRC pts at diagnosis was 60.5 yrs. (rural) compared to 58.6 yrs. (urban) in 80405 (P < 0.01) and 59.6 yrs. to 60.2 yrs. in N9741 (P = 0.4). In 80405, pts in rural areas were less likely to be female (35% vs 43%, P < 0.01) black (6.6% vs 15.1%, P < 0.01), unmarried (51% vs 62%, P < 0.01), and to have private insurance (PI) (45% vs 50%, P = 0.03) when compared to pts in urban areas. In N9741, gender (P = 0.8) and PI (P = 0.3) distribution was similar; pts in rural areas were less likely to be black (1.4% vs 9.1%, P < 0.01). Rural vs urban pt PFS was no different in either trial. MOS was worse in pts in rural areas when compared to urban dwellers in 80405 (Table). OS outcomes stratified based on the use of cetuximab based regimen in 80405 showed worse outcomes for pts in rural compared to urban dwellers (21.9 vs 26.3 mo. HR: 1.22 (1.03-1.44), P = 0.02). Conclusions: MCRC pts from rural areas had a significantly worse mOS when compared to pts in urban areas in 80405. Furthermore, mOS with cetuximab based regimens was 4.4 months shorter in rural pts. The observed rural vs urban dweller mOS disparities in 80405 pts justifies additional research searching for causal factors and the necessity to identify actionable approaches in order to improve pt outcomes in rural areas. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, UG1CA180830; Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Genentech, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003594, NCT00265850. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Diabetes is a prognostic factor for some malignancies, but its association with outcome in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) is less clear. Methods This cohort study was nested within a randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy and bevacizumab and/or cetuximab for advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients were enrolled at 508 community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network. The primary exposure was physician-documented diabetes at the time of enrollment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events. Tests of statistical significance were two-sided. Results Among 2326 patients, 378 (16.3%) had diabetes. The median follow-up time was 6.0 years. We observed 1973 OS events and 2173 PFS events. The median time to an OS event was 22.7 months among those with diabetes and 27.1 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.44; P &lt; .001). The median time to a PFS event was 9.7 months among those with diabetes and 10.8 months among those without diabetes (HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.30; P = .02). Patients with diabetes were more likely to experience no less than grade 3 hypertension (8.1% vs 4.4%; P = .054) but were not more likely to experience other adverse events, including neuropathy. Conclusions Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of mortality and tumor progression in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. Patients with diabetes tolerate first-line treatment with chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies similarly to patients without diabetes.

Abstract Background: Patients on systemic therapy for cancer are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its consequences. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized medical and surgical cancer patients, but most VTE occurs in ambulatory cancer patients where risk can be estimated with a validated score. However, the benefit of extended outpatient thromboprophylaxis is uncertain with heparins and has not been tested with direct oral anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers initiating a new systemic regimen and at increased risk for VTE (defined as Khorana score ≥ 2). Enrolled subjects were screened for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and if none found randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo up to day 180. Subjects were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 8 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic lower-extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper- or lower-extremity distal DVT, symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death. ISTH-defined major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded independent committees. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted for intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients) for the up-to-day 180 observation period (primary) and the on-treatment period (supportive). Safety analyses were conducted for on-treatment period only for patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Results: Of 1,080 patients who provided consent, 49 (4.53%) had DVT on baseline screening and another 190 screen-failed due to other reasons. Of 841 randomized patients, 274 (32.6%) had pancreatic cancer; 698 (83%) were white and 428 (50.9%) were male. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 25 of 420 patients (5.95%) and 37 of 421 patients (8.79%) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.09; p=0.101) in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (number needed to treat, NNT=35) in the up-to-day 180 observation period (Figure 1A). Of all patients with VTE, 38.70% experienced events after discontinuing study drug. In a pre-specified analysis of all randomized patients during the on-treatment period, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 of 420 patients (2.62%) and 27 of 421 (6.41%) in rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80, p=0.007) (NNT=26) (Figure 1B). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 (1.98%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (0.99%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49; p=0.265) (number needed to harm, NNH=101). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 2.72% and 1.98% of rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.54 to 3.32; p=0.53) (NNH=135). Adverse events were comparable between groups. For secondary efficacy endpoints, a pre-specified analysis of the composite of primary endpoint with addition of arterial and visceral thromboembolic events in the up-to-day 180 observation period showed significantly fewer events in rivaroxaban versus placebo group (6.90% versus 10.70% respectively; HR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99; p=0.04). All-cause mortality occurred in 20.0% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 23.8% in placebo group (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.62, 1.11; p=0.213). A pre-specified composite of the primary endpoint with all-cause mortality occurred in 23.1% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 29.5% in placebo group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; p=0.03) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE and VTE-related death during the on-treatment period but not during the full study period; over one-third of events occurred post discontinuation of study drug. The incidence of major bleeding was low. The Khorana risk score cut-off of ≥2 identified cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic events both at baseline (4.53%) and during study (8.79% with additional 1.66% arterial events in placebo group). These results should inform future recommendations regarding thromboprophylaxis in at-risk ambulatory cancer patients. (Funded by Janssen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Khorana: Parexel: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; TriSalus: Other: Personal fees; Halozyme: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; AngioDynamics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; LEO Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Medscape/WebMD: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pharmacyclics: Other: Personal fees; PharmaCyte: Other: Personal fees; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel. Soff:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kakkar:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Europe: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi S.A.: Consultancy; Verseon: Consultancy. Vadhan-Raj:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: received funding from Amag to support clinical trial; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riess:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Other: Travel reimbursement; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wun:Eli Lilly, Inc.: Research Funding; Emmaus, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Streiff:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Other: outcome adjudication committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Liebman:Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): Other: steering committee of the CASSINI trial during the conduct of the study. Belani:Janssen: Consultancy. O'Reilly:3DMed, Agios, AlignMed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, ASLAN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientific, Bridgebio, CARsgen, Celgene, CASI, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Genoscience, Gilead, Halozyme: Consultancy; Hengrui, Incyte, Inovio, Ipsen, Jazz, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LAM, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mina, NewLink Genetics, Novella, Onxeo, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PharmaCyte, Pharmacyclics, Pieris, QED, RedHill, Sanofi, Servier, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Targovax: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Acta Biologica, Agios, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, CASI, Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech, Halozyme, Incyte, Lilly, MabVax, Novartis, OncoQuest, Polaris Puma, QED, and Roche: Research Funding; Tekmira, twoXAR, Vicus, Yakult, and Yiviva: Consultancy. Patel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Burton:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vijapurkar:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Kaul:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Eikelboom:AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, sanofi-aventis, and Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Other: Personnel award. Bauer:Janssen: Consultancy. Kuderer:Celldex: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Myriad Genetics: Consultancy; Halozyme: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lyman:Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy; Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support.

PURPOSERegular physical activity is associated with reduced risk of recurrence and mortality in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. Its influence on patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been largely unexplored.PATIENTS AND METHODSWe conducted a prospective cohort study nested in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850 ), a National Cancer Institute–sponsored phase III trial of systemic therapy for mCRC. Within 1 month after therapy initiation, patients were invited to complete a validated questionnaire that reported average physical activity over the previous 2 months. On the basis of responses, we calculated metabolic equivalent task (MET) hours per week to quantify physical activity. The primary end point of the clinical trial and this companion study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and first grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events. To minimize confounding by poor and declining health, we excluded patients who experienced progression or died within 60 days of activity assessment and used Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to adjust for known prognostic factors, comorbidities, and weight loss.RESULTSThe final cohort included 1,218 patients. Compared with patients engaged in less than 3 MET hours per week of physical activity, patients engaged in 18 or more MET hours per week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.02; PTrend= .06) and for PFS of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99; PTrend= .01). Compared with patients engaging in less than 9 MET hours per week, patients engaging in 9 or more MET hours per week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.86; PTrend< .001).CONCLUSIONAmong patients with mCRC in Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance)/SWOG 80405, association of physical activity with OS was not statistically significant. Greater physical activity was associated with longer PFS and lower adjusted risk for first grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events.

4005 Background: Patients (pts) with progressive advanced well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors arising outside of the pancreas have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib (PZ) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor with activity against VEGFR-2,-3, PDGFR-α, and β, and c-KIT, with initial data suggesting efficacy in CARC. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of PZ (800 mg/day) versus placebo (PL) in progressive CARC. Key eligibility: low-intermediate grade CARC, radiologic progressive disease (PD) < 12 months (mo), and adequate end-organ function. Prior somatostatin analog (SSA) mandated for midgut tumors. Concurrent SSA allowed if previous PD on SSA documented. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time from randomization to PD by central review or death. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. The trial had 85% power to detect a difference in median PFS of 14 v 9 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64) at one-sided alpha = 0.1. A stratified log-rank test based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) principle was used. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD confirmed by central review. Results: 171 (97 PZ, 74 PL) pts were randomized between 6/2013-10/2015: median age 63; 56% female; 66% small bowel primary; 87% concurrent SSA. Median follow-up of 31 mo; 112 (56 PZ, 56 PL) PFS events observed. 6 pts (4 PZ, 2 PL) remain on initial treatment. Median PFS was 11.6 and 8.5 mo in PZ and PL, respectively (HR = 0.53, 1-sided 90% upper confidence limit [UCL] 0.69, p = 0.0005) which crossed the pre-specified protocol efficacy boundary. 49 PL pts received PZ after PD. Median OS was 41 and 42 mo in PZ and PL, respectively (HR = 1.13, 1-sided 90% UCL 1.51, p = 0.70). RR data will be presented. Notable grade 3+ adverse events were (PZ v. PL %) hypertension (35 v. 8), fatigue (11 v. 4), ALT (10 v. 0), AST (10 v. 0), and diarrhea (7 v. 4). Conclusions: PZ compared to PL was associated with significant improvement in PFS in patients with progressive CARC. The results confirm that VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in CARC. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882 https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01841736.

e15169 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR), anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy produced high tumor response rates and extended progression-free survival compared to lack of benefit for cancers with proficient MMR. In an ongoing phase III randomized trial, we will determine if the addition of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab (Genentech), to adjuvant FOLFOX can improve patient disease-free survival (DFS) vs FOLFOX alone in patients with stage III colon cancers with dMMR. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, atezolizumab may activate T cells, thereby, restoring their ability to detect and attack tumor cells. Limited data suggest that FOLFOX may increase intratumoral cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that could serve as ‘immune priming'. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage III colon carcinomas with evidence of dMMR are randomized to modified FOLFOX6 for 6 months (12 cycles) alone (control arm) or combined with atezolizumab (840 mg IV q2 wk) with continuation of the antibody as monotherapy for an additional 6 months (total duration of 12 months) [experimental arm]. Patients will be stratified by T, N stage and tumor sidedness. Local testing for MMR proteins is allowed. Atezolizumab must begin by/with cycle 2. One cycle of FOLFOX is allowed pre-registration. The targeted accrual goal of 700 patients and 165 disease-free survival (DFS) events will provide 90% power to detect an effect size expressed as hazard ratio of 0.6 for the primary endpoint of DFS at two-sided alpha of 0.05. Interim analyses are planned at 50% and 75% of events. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, treatment tolerability, and quality of life. Results: This study is being conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, was approved by NCI CTEP and activated in 09/2017. The study is actively accruing and, as of 02/11/2019, 152 patients are enrolled. We are actively exploring an international collaboration. Conclusions: This is a current clinical trial in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559.

The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma discuss the diagnosis and management of adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2019 version of the guidelines, focusing on postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with pancreatic cancers.

588 Background: CALGB/SWOG 80405 found no difference in overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in 1137 patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with either the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab (Bev) or the anti-EGFR agent cetuximab (Cet) in combination with chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy. Additional molecular biomarkers are required for the optimization of treatment choices for patients with mCRC. Methods: Levels of 24 proteins were assayed in EDTA-plasma samples using multiplex ELISA techniques. Plasma samples were collected at baseline and cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1). Analyses of baseline markers have been presented previously. Changes from baseline to C2D1 were expressed as an L-ratio (LR, log2 of C2D1 divided by baseline measure). LRs dichotomized at 0 were analyzed for potential prognostic and predictive effects on OS and PFS using Cox models while adjusting for confounders (post-hoc optimized cutpoints were used for PLGF, TIMP1, VCAM1, and VEGFR3 due to skew in the distributions of these markers). P-values are not corrected for multiple testing. Results: Baseline and matched C2D1 samples from 446 patients (212 Bev/234 Cet) were available for analysis. Thirteen markers were differentially modulated between arms (p < 0.05). Early increases in CD73 (p = 0.001), ICAM1 (p = 0.022), TIMP1 (p = 0.001), TSP2 (p = 0.024), and VEGFR3 (p = 0.006) were prognostic for shorter OS. Increases in ICAM1 (p = 0.008), TIMP1 (p = 0.042), and TGFB1 (p = 0.039) were prognostic for shorter PFS. Changes in VEGFR3 (pint = 0.097) and TGFBR3 (pint = 0.052) were predictive for OS and PFS, respectively. No other markers were predictive for OS or PFS (p < 0.1). Conclusions: Changes in circulating plasma protein biomarkers observed in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405 were both prognostic and predictive for OS and PFS and warrant further study. Such changes could provide valuable information and help guide treatment decisions. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180830; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00265850. [Table: see text]