Sparano, Joseph A.

Preclinical and clinical evidence suggest a potential advantage for infusional therapy in lymphoma. Sixty-two analyzable patients with predominantly intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma received cyclophosphamide (200 mg/m2 per day), doxorubicin (12.5 mg/m2 per day), and etoposide (60 mg/m2per day) (CDE) by continuous intravenous infusion for 4 days (96 hours) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 8 cycles. By the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), 42% were at high risk and 58% were at high-intermediate risk. Complete response (CR) occurred in 30 (48%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%, 64%), and partial response occurred in 16 (26%) patients, yielding an overall response rate of 74% (95% CI, 62%, 84%). Failure-free survival (FFS) rates at 1 and 2 years were 55% (95% CI, 43%, 67%) and 50% (95% CI, 38%, 62%), respectively. When comparing the outcome for 62 patients receiving infusional CDE with historical data derived from 927 IPI-matched lymphoma patients using a Cox proportional hazards model, there was a nonsignificant trend favoring CDE in FFS (P = .12) and overall survival (P = .09). Severe or life-threatening toxicity included neutropenia (68%), anemia (57%), thrombocytopenia (44%), and infection (24%). Two patients (3%) died of treatment-related infectious complications. The primary end point of improving 1-year FFS from 55% to 70% was not achieved with infusional CDE given as initial therapy in patients with poor-risk intermediate-grade lymphoma. It is unlikely that infusional therapy as used in this study produces a 25% or greater relative improvement in FFS compared with standard therapy.

503 Background: TAILORx established that endocrine therapy (ET) alone is non-inferior to adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) plus ET in EBC and a 21-gene RS of 11-25, with some benefit if ≤50 years (y) with RS 16-25 (PMID: 29860917). We evaluated whether clinical risk (tumor size & histologic grade) provides additional prognostic information to RS, a secondary trial objective. Methods: Clinical risk by was assessed by Adjuvant! (version 8.0) using MINDACT criteria (PMID 27557300), defined as low clinical risk (LCR - tumor ≤3 cm and low grade, <2 cm and intermediate grade, or ≤1 cm and high grade) or high clinical risk (HCR -not meeting LCR criteria). Results: Of 9427 women with RS and clinical risk information, 70% were LCR and 30% HCR, with comparable distribution by age ( ≤50 vs. >50). The RS was 26-100 in 9% of LCR and 27% of HCR patients, with similar distributions by age. Although LCR/HCR provided additional prognostic information in each RS category for iDFS, including RS 0-10 (9-year rates 86.7% vs. 75.7% LCR vs. HCR), 11-25 (85.4% vs. 78.9%), and 26-100 (82.0% vs. 70.4%), iDFS rates were similar irrespective of CT (no vs. yes) in the entire RS 11-25 cohort whether LCR (85.8% vs. 85.1%) or HCR (79.8% vs. 77.9%). DRFI rates were also similar irrespective of CT in the RS 11-25 cohort or > 50y group whether LCR (96.0% vs. 96.1% overall; 96.5% vs. 96.0% > 50y) or HCR (92.3% vs. 89.9% overall; 91.7% vs. 90.7% >50y). For women ≤50y, the absolute reduction in distant recurrence from CT with a RS of 16-20 (N=923) was -0.2% (standard error [SE]±2.1%) for LCR vs. 6.5%(SE±4.9%) for HCR (vs. 1.6%[SE±1.9%] overall), whereas for a RS 21-25 (N=492) it was 6.4% (SE±4.9%) for LCR vs. 8.6% (SE±6.2%) for HCR (vs. 6.5%[SE±3.7%] overall). Conclusions: Clinical risk stratification provides additional prognostic information to the 21-gene RS, but not prediction of CT benefit in the overall TAILORx population or those > 50y, and facilitates more refined estimates of absolute CT benefit for women ≤50y with a RS 16-25. (Funded by National Cancer Institute, Komen Foundation, Breast Cancer Research Foundation). Clinical trial information: NCT00310180.