Bryce, Alan H.

5023 Background: Skeletal-related events (SREs) drive morbidity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In the ALSYMPCA study, Radium-223 (Ra223) was found to palliate pain in addition to prolonging survival and reducing SREs. Earlier onset of pain relief was noted when zoledronic acid (ZA) was administered within 24-48 hours of samarium; we evaluated whether the timing of bone supportive therapy (BST) affected pain palliation fromRa223. Methods: We identified patients who received Ra223 at University of Southern California or Mayo Clinic Arizona. Data extracted: Ra223 administration dates, pain scores, pain medications, ZA or denosumab administration dates, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels, prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, and concurrent prostate cancer therapy. Patients were evaluable for pain response if they had at least 2 pain scores documented before and after Ra223 with pain medication use data. Pain response was defined as > 2 point decrease in pain on a 10 point scale; flare was defined as > 2 point increase followed by return to baseline or lower. Results: Of 65 patients, 20 had baseline pain score > 0 and 34 were evaluable. Median #doses Ra223 was 5 (range 2-6). 18 patients received concurrent abiraterone (abi) or enzalutamide (enza), 16 did not. Pain response occurred in 6/6 (100%) patients who received BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 dose and 4/8 (50%) patients who did not receive BST. Pain flare occurred in 6/21 patients (29%) without BST and 2/13 (15%) with BST. 6/10 (60%) patients with pain response had ALP decline but there was no consistent pattern of ALP changes in patients with flare. 8/8 patients with pain response had no PSA decline (6 increased, 2 stable). 6/12 (50%) and 2/22 (9%) patients on abi/enza had pain response and flare respectively, and 4/8 (50%) and 6/19 (32%) patients without concurrent abi/enza had response/flare. Conclusions: BST within 1 month prior to first Ra223 may be associated with increased likelihood of pain palliation and may prevent pain flare. PSA/ALP changes do not predict pain response. Concurrent use of abi/enza does not increase the likelihood of pain response and may decrease the likelihood of flare.

TPS389 Background: Recent data have shown that up to 25% of patients with advanced prostate cancer, including mCRPC, have a deleterious germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, or another homologous recombination DNA repair gene. Such mutations can be used as a molecular marker to select patients for targeted treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis), which are lethal to cells with HRD. Treatment with PARPis has shown preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a mutation in a homologous recombination DNA repair gene (Mateo et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1697-708). These data provide a compelling rationale for evaluating rucaparib, a potent inhibitor of PARP1, PARP2, and PARP3, in patients with mCRPC associated with HRD. Methods: TRITON3 (NCT02975934) is a randomized, phase 3 study evaluating rucaparib 600 mg BID vs physician’s choice of abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutation (identified by prior local testing or central testing during screening). Patients must have progressed on androgen receptor signaling–directed therapy in the mCRPC setting; prior PARPi treatment or chemotherapy for mCRPC are exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either rucaparib or physician’s choice, with the possibility for cross over from the comparator treatment to rucaparib upon radiographic progression confirmed by independent radiology review. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival (modified RECIST v1.1/PCWG3 criteria) assessed by independent radiology review. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, duration of response, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, and safety. Pretreatment blood samples collected from all patients will enable development of a noninvasive plasma-based companion diagnostic to select patients who may benefit from rucaparib treatment. Patients (≈400) will be enrolled at > 100 sites worldwide. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934.

TPS388 Background: Up to 25% of patients with advanced prostate cancer, including mCRPC, have a deleterious germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM or another homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair gene that can serve as a molecular marker to select those who may respond to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis). PARPis are lethal to cells with HRD, and PARPi treatment has shown preliminary evidence of an antitumor effect in patients with mCRPC who harbor a mutation in an HR DNA repair gene (Mateo et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1697-708). These data provide a compelling rationale for evaluating rucaparib, a potent PARP1, PARP2 and PARP3 inhibitor, in patients with mCRPC associated with HRD. Methods: TRITON2 (NCT02952534) is a phase 2 study evaluating rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with mCRPC. Patients with a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1, BRCA2 or ATM mutation (per prior local test or central test during screening) will be enrolled into 1 of 2 cohorts based on the presence or absence of measurable visceral and/or nodal disease. An exploratory cohort will enroll patients with an alteration in any of 12 other prespecified HR genes (eg, RAD51C, RAD51D and PALB2), with or without measurable visceral and/or nodal disease. Patients must have progressed on androgen receptor signaling–directed therapy and 1 prior taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Patients who received prior treatment with a PARPi, mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide or platinum-based chemotherapy are excluded. The primary endpoint is objective response rate measured using modified RECIST v1.1/PCWG3 for patients with soft-tissue disease and prostate-specific antigen response for patients with nonmeasurable disease. Secondary endpoints include duration of response, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, clinical benefit rate and safety. Pretreatment blood samples collected from all patients will enable development of a plasma-based companion diagnostic to select patients who may benefit from rucaparib treatment. Patients (≈160) will be enrolled at > 100 sites worldwide. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534.

Objective: Bringing together genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and other –omics technologies is an important step towards developing highly personalized medicine. However, instrumentation has advances far beyond expectations and now we are able to generate data faster than it can be interpreted. Materials and Methods: We have developed PANDA ( P athway AND A nnotation) Explorer, a visualization tool that integrates gene-level annotation in the context of biological pathways to help interpret complex data from disparate sources. PANDA is a web-based application that displays data in the context of well-studied pathways like KEGG, BioCarta, and PharmGKB. PANDA represents data/annotations as icons in the graph while maintaining the other data elements (i.e. other columns for the table of annotations). Custom pathways from underrepresented diseases can be imported when existing data sources are inadequate. PANDA also allows sharing annotations among collaborators. Results : In our first use case, we show how easy it is to view supplemental data from a manuscript in the context of a user’s own data. Another use-case is provided describing how PANDA was leveraged to design a treatment strategy from the somatic variants found in the tumor of a patient with metastatic sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma. Conclusion : PANDA facilitates the interpretation of gene-centric annotations by visually integrating this information with context of biological pathways. The application can be downloaded or used directly from our website http://bioinformaticstools.mayo.edu/research/panda-viewer/.

Introduction: Optimal scheduling and calendar management in an outpatient chemotherapy unit is a complex process that is driven by a need to focus on safety while accommodating a high degree of variability. Primary constraints are infusion times, staffing resources, chair availability, and unit hours. Methods: We undertook a process to analyze our existing management models across multiple practice settings in our health care system, then developed a model to optimize safety and efficiency. The model was tested in one of the community chemotherapy units. We assessed staffing violations as measured by nurse-to-patient ratios throughout the workday and at key points during treatment. Staffing violations were tracked before and after the implementation of the new model. Results: The new model reduced staffing violations by nearly 50% and required fewer chairs to treat the same number of patients for the selected clinic day. Actual implementation results indicated that the new model leveled the distribution of patients across the workday with an 18% reduction in maximum chair utilization and a 27% reduction in staffing violations. Subsequently, a positive impact on peak pharmacy workload reduced delays by as much as 35 minutes. Nursing staff satisfaction with the new model was positive. Conclusion: We conclude that the proposed optimization approach with regard to nursing resource assignment and workload balance throughout a day effectively improves patient service quality and staff satisfaction.

BACKGROUNDDespite the success of immune checkpoint and targeted therapy, many patients with melanoma ultimately require further treatment. The combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab (CPB) has demonstrated promising activity in a single‐arm study. In the current study, the authors performed a randomized phase 2 study to confirm efficacy and to determine whether adding everolimus would increase the activity of the combination.METHODSThrough the North Central Cancer Treatment Group, a total of 149 patients with unresectable AJCC 6th edition stage IV melanoma were randomized from May 2010 to May 2014 to either CPB or CPB with everolimus (CPBE). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS), response rate, and tolerability.RESULTSThe CPB and CPBE treatment arms were balanced with regard to age (median age: 59 years vs 58 years) and high lactate dehydrogenase (48% vs 51%), but were unbalanced with regard to sex (male sex: 72% vs 55%; P = .03). Overall, there was no difference noted with regard to PFS, with a median PFS of 5.6 months for CPB versus 5.1 months for CPBE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.81‐1.62 [P = .44]), or for OS, with a median OS of 14.5 months for CPB versus 10.8 months for CPBE (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.84‐1.84). The confirmed response rate was 13% for CPB and 23% for CPBE (P = .13). Toxicity was higher for CPBE compared with CPB (83% for grade 3 + and 14% for grade 4 + vs 63% for grade 3 + and 11% for grade 4+, respectively) (toxicities were graded using the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Common grade 3 + toxicities were neutropenia, leukopenia, and fatigue, which occurred in both treatment arms with comparable frequency.CONCLUSIONSBoth experimental arms demonstrated activity, with a PFS of >5 months. However, the addition of everolimus to CPB failed to improve outcomes, with increased toxicity noted. These findings replicate the moderate antitumor activity of CPB, with future development possibly in combination with targeted or immunotherapy. Cancer 2018;124:537‐45. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

e569 Background: O is a PARP inhibitor that has received breakthrough designation for use in mCRPC based on a study in which a subset of 16 patients with DNA repair defects had an 80% response rate. O is an oral tablet taken twice daily. Studies have demonstrated that compliance with oral agents is often poor, and the less frequent contact with medical staff increases the risk of toxicities when compared to IV therapies. This is compounded by a bias where oral medications are thought of as less toxic than IV medications. The toxicities of O include myelosuppression, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Our practice employs a pharmacist to conduct weekly phone calls for toxicity management, monitor patient adherence, and monitor for drug-drug interactions. We report our experience with patient adherence, toxicities, and response with O in mCRPC. Methods: A single institution, retrospective review was performed on 14 mCRPC patients treated with O from November 2015 - October 2016. Adherence and toxicity data were assessed and documented via phone calls conducted by a clinical pharmacist. The primary outcomes were number of missed doses, incidence of toxicities, and dose modifications. The secondary outcome was response rate, defined as a 50% reduction in PSA or radiographic response according to RECIST 1.1 for a duration of greater than 3 months. Results: Patients reported taking 99% of the prescribed doses. The toxicities observed most commonly were fatigue (64%), nausea (57%) and anemia (57%). As a result of toxicities, four patients required a dose reduction to 300 mg BID, three patients required a dose reduction to 200 mg BID and two patients were initiated on 200 mg BID and maintained on that dose until progression. Partial responses were seen in 6 of 14 patients. Conclusions: Our pharmacist led adherence program facilitated timely dose adjustments and high patient adherence. Response rates were comparable to published data.