Halabi, Susan

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression–free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, −0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.

5079 Background: Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP did not increase 3-year biochemical progression free-survival (bPFS) compared to RP alone in men with CLHRPC. However, there is evidence that bPFS and overall survival over time was improved. In the current analysis we assessed whether CHT followed by RP improved pathological specimen features compared to RP alone. Methods: CALGB 90203 (Alliance) is a Phase III study which randomly assigned, in a 1:1 fashion, men with CLHRPC [biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 4 or 5 or Kattan pre-op nomogram bPFS < 60%] to RP alone or RP plus neoadjuvant CHT [androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles)]. We conducted an exploratory analysis comparing histologic findings, determined at the treating center, in the RP specimens of men receiving CHT plus RP and men treated with RP alone. We used the Chi-square test, with P-values adjusted by the Holm method for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 788 men (median age, 62; range: 32-83 years) were randomized, with 738 ultimately undergoing RP. There was no difference in pathologic GGG (Table). Men treated with neoadjuvant CHT had a lower pathologic T-stage and lower likelihood of having seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive pelvic lymph nodes, or positive surgical margins (SM) (Table). Conclusions: Most pathologic features in the RP specimen were improved in men receiving neoadjuvant CHT compared to RP alone. The relationship between pathologic changes and the development of metastasis and survival require further analysis. RP pathologic outcomes. Summary statistics are calculated for the number of patients with non-missing data for each characteristic. Clinical trial information: NCT00430183. [Table: see text]

5008 Background: Androgen receptor (AR) signaling is an important growth mechanism in mCRPC, providing the rationale for treatment with AR axis inhibitors such as ENZ and AAP. Targeting AR with anti-androgens such as ENZ can result in compensatory autocrine and paracrine androgenic stimulation. Therefore, using ENZ with the androgen biosynthesis inhibitor AAP to dampen these resistance mechanisms could improve clinical outcomes relative to ENZ alone. Methods: Men with progressive mCRPC by Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria were eligible. Prior treatment with taxanes for mCRPC and any prior treatment with ENZ or AAP was exclusionary. Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ENZ or ENZ/AAP at standard FDA-approved doses. Randomization was stratified by prior chemotherapy and Halabi prognostic three risk groups. Castrating therapy was maintained. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) defined as the date of randomization from date of death or last follow-up. The log-rank test had 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for OS of 0.77 with a one-sided type I error rate of 0.025. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) and on-treatment PSA declines. Exploratory endpoints included imaging changes, and changes in serum biomarkers such as androgens, angiokines, and circulating microRNA and RNA. The primary analysis was based on the stratified log-rank test adjusting on the stratification factors. Results: Between January 2014 and August 2016, 1311 men were randomized: 657 to ENZ and 654 to ENZ/AAP. Groups were well balanced between arms, including stratification variables. 15.6% of pts were high risk, 35.3% intermediate, and 48.1% low. Median OS was 33.6 mo (95% CI 30.5-36.4) and 32.7 mo (29.9-35.4) respectively, two-sided p = 0.53. Fifty percent PSA decline rate was 80% vs. 76.5%. Grade 3-5 adverse events (AE) (all attributions) were 55.6% and 68.8% respectively. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 5% and 12%, pt withdrawal in 5% and 13%, and progression or death in 57% and 48% of pts respectively. Conclusions: Addition of abiraterone acetate to enzalutamide did not prolong survival in men with mCRPC. The combination resulted in more AEs than enzalutamide alone. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT01949337.

Purpose To update guideline recommendations on the role of bone-modifying agents in multiple myeloma. Methods An update panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review by searching PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical practice guidelines, and observational studies. Results Thirty-five relevant studies were identified, and updated evidence supports the current recommendations. Recommendations For patients with active symptomatic multiple myeloma that requires systemic therapy with or without evidence of lytic destruction of bone or compression fracture of the spine from osteopenia on plain radiograph(s) or other imaging studies, intravenous administration of pamidronate 90 mg over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Denosumab has shown to be noninferior to zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal-related events and provides an alternative. Fewer adverse events related to renal toxicity have been noted with denosumab compared with zoledronic acid and may be preferred in this setting. The update panel recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with preexisting renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The update panel suggests that bone-modifying treatment continue for up to 2 years. Less frequent dosing has been evaluated and should be considered in patients with responsive or stable disease. Continuous use is at the discretion of the treating physician and the risk of ongoing skeletal morbidity. Retreatment should be initiated at the time of disease relapse. The update panel discusses measures regarding osteonecrosis of the jaw. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/hematologic-malignancies-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Integrating diverse types of prognostic information into accurate, individualized estimates of outcome in colorectal cancer is challenging. Significant heterogeneity in colorectal cancer prognostication tool quality exists. Methodology is incompletely or inadequately reported. Evaluations of the internal or external validity of the prognostic model are rarely performed. Prognostication tools are important devices for patient management, but tool reliability is compromised by poor quality. Guidance for future development of prognostication tools in colorectal cancer is needed.

Background: Futility (inefficacy) interim monitoring is an important component in the conduct of phase III clinical trials, especially in life-threatening diseases. Desirable futility monitoring guidelines allow timely stopping if the new therapy is harmful or if it is unlikely to demonstrate to be sufficiently effective if the trial were to continue to its final analysis. There are a number of analytical approaches that are used to construct futility monitoring boundaries. The most common approaches are based on conditional power, sequential testing of the alternative hypothesis, or sequential confidence intervals. The resulting futility boundaries vary considerably with respect to the level of evidence required for recommending stopping the study. Purpose: We evaluate the performance of commonly used methods using event histories from completed phase III clinical trials of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, Cancer and Leukemia Group B, and North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Methods: We considered published superiority phase III trials with survival endpoints initiated after 1990. There are 52 studies available for this analysis from different disease sites. Total sample size and maximum number of events (statistical information) for each study were calculated using protocol-specified effect size, type I and type II error rates. In addition to the common futility approaches, we considered a recently proposed linear inefficacy boundary approach with an early harm look followed by several lack-of-efficacy analyses. For each futility approach, interim test statistics were generated for three schedules with different analysis frequency, and early stopping was recommended if the interim result crossed a futility stopping boundary. For trials not demonstrating superiority, the impact of each rule is summarized as savings on sample size, study duration, and information time scales. Results: For negative studies, our results show that the futility approaches based on testing the alternative hypothesis and repeated confidence interval rules yielded less savings (compared to the other two rules). These boundaries are too conservative, especially during the first half of the study (<50% of information). The conditional power rules are too aggressive during the second half of the study (>50% of information) and may stop a trial even when there is a clinically meaningful treatment effect. The linear inefficacy boundary with three or more interim analyses provided the best results. For positive studies, we demonstrated that none of the futility rules would have stopped the trials. Conclusion: The linear inefficacy boundary futility approach is attractive from statistical, clinical, and logistical standpoints in clinical trials evaluating new anti-cancer agents.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Purpose To update the recommendations for the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of bone disease in multiple myeloma. The Update Committee expanded the guideline to include a discussion of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). Methods For the 2007 update, an Update Committee composed of members from the full panel completed a review and analysis of data published since 2002. Searches of Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library databases were performed. Recommendations For multiple myeloma patients who have, on plain radiograph(s) or imaging studies, lytic destruction of bone or spine compression fracture from osteopenia, intravenous pamidronate 90 mg delivered over at least 2 hours or zoledronic acid 4 mg delivered over at least 15 minutes every 3 to 4 weeks is recommended. Clodronate is an alternative bisphosphonate approved worldwide, except in the United States, for oral or intravenous administration. New dosing guidelines for patients with pre-existing renal impairment were added to the zoledronic acid package insert. Although no similar dosing guidelines are available for pamidronate, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians consider reducing the initial pamidronate dose in patients with pre-existing renal impairment. Zoledronic acid has not been studied in patients with severe renal impairment and is not recommended in this setting. The Update Committee suggests that bisphosphonate treatment continue for a period of 2 years. At 2 years, physicians should seriously consider discontinuing bisphosphonates in patients with responsive or stable disease, but further use is at the discretion of the treating physician. The Update Committee also discusses measures regarding ONJ.