Citations

11503 Background: EHE is a rare vascular cancer arising in liver, lung, soft tissue and bone. The natural history of metastatic disease varies considerably from indolent growth over years to rapid growth with fatal outcome in months. Treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic EHE with antiangiogenic therapy induces tumor response in a minority of pts, and median PFS is 6-12 months. TAZ-CAMTA1 translocation results in activation of MAPK pathway and is an oncogenic driver in EHE. We sought to evaluate the effect of MEK inhibition using trametinib in pts with unresectable EHE. Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib 2 mg daily was conducted in pts with EHE though the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network supported by NCI in collaboration with SARC. Additional support was provided by the EHE Rare Cancer Charity and the EHE Foundation. Pts had to have evidence of objective tumor progression or EHE-related pain requiring narcotics for relief prior to enrollment. Presence of TAZ-CAMTA1 translocation was analyzed by fusion-FISH after enrollment. Primary trial endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST1.1 with at least 1 objective response required in the 1st 13 pts to expand enrollment to 27. The trial was amended after stage 1 to continue enrollment to 27 pts with TAZ-CAMTA1 detected by FISH with goal of >4 objective responses in this group. Secondary objectives were PFS and OS rates, safety and change in pt-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 43 pts were enrolled between 6/2017 – 9/2020 across 10 sites and 41 started therapy. TAZ-CAMTA1 fusion was detected in 26, not detected in 7, test failed in 5 and was not performed due to insufficient tumor in 5. Median pt age was 54 (range 22-81 yrs) and 11 were >65 yrs; 25 were female; ECOG was 0 in 23, 1 in 16 and 2 in 3 pts. Most pts experienced reduction in tumor size. ORR per RECIST was 7% (3/41); in pts with TAZ-CAMTA1 detected, the ORR was 0% (0/26). Mean pain intensity and interference scores had a statistically significant improvement and global quality of life scores did not statistically change after 4 weeks of therapy. 17 pts remained on treatment > 6 months and 7 > 12 months. 25 pts stopped trametinib due to EHE progression, 6 died during treatment, 6 withdrew from treatment, 3 stopped drug due to adverse event and 1 is on treatment. The most common AEs related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, alopecia and edema; Grade >3 AEs included anemia, dyspnea, hypoxia, hypotension, syncope and dermatitis. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest prospective clinical study focused on pts with EHE. Although the trial did not meet the ORR goal, stable disease > 6 months was seen in 40% of pts, and EHE-related pain improved on treatment. Trametinib was associated with expected cutaneous and GI adverse effects. Additional pt-reported outcomes and biomarkers of inflammation are undergoing analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT03148275.

TPS595 Background: Patients (pts) with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than pts with a pathologic complete response (pCR). Post neoadjuvant T-DM1 has improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but pts with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes and recurrences in the central nervous system are a problem. More effective treatment strategies are needed. The CompassHER2 trials, EA1181 and A011801, leverage pCR to tailor post neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ EBC. EA1181 is a NAT de-escalation trial of a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) in clinical stage II-III HER2+ EBC; pts with a pCR complete HP +/- adjuvant radiation (RT) +/- endocrine therapy (ET). A011801 is an escalation trial for pts with high risk HER2+ RD after NAT, examining addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to adjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Pts. with high-risk HER2+ RD (e.g. ER-,node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1+ placebo (pb), vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of T and H +/- P. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (̃15-30% enrollees); these pts must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801. Pts who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is higher with addition of T-DM1 to tucatinib in pts with HER2+ EBC with RD after NAT; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in pts with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints will also be evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-),and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 pts; activation and completion dates are 01/6/21 and ̃ 01/2028. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Clinical trial information: NCT04457596.

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.

Abstract Lessons Learned Background Endoglin is an angiogenic receptor expressed on proliferating tumor vessels and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stem cells that is implicated as a mechanism of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors. This study evaluated an antiendoglin monoclonal antibody (carotuximab, TRC105) combined with axitinib in patients with advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. Methods TRAXAR was a multicenter, international randomized 1:1 (stratified by ECOG, 0 vs. 1), phase II study of carotuximab combined with axitinib versus axitinib alone in mccRCC patients who had progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR) per RECIST 1.1 Results A total of 150 patients were randomized. The combination therapy resulted in shorter median PFS by RECIST 1.1 than axitinib monotherapy (6.7 vs. 11.4 months). The combination was tolerated similarly to axitinib monotherapy, and there were no treatment related deaths. Exploratory evaluation of pretreatment circulating biomarkers suggested the combination might benefit patients who have low baseline VEGF levels. Conclusion The combination of carotuximab with axitinib did not demonstrate additional efficacy over single agent axitinib in patients with mccRCC who progressed following one or more prior VEGF inhibitor treatment.

TPS366 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase III trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through January 2021 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

Abstract BACKGROUND The original 3-arm CODEL design included a radiotherapy (RT)-alone control arm, an RT plus temozolomide (TMZ) arm, and an exploratory TMZ-alone arm. We report the analysis involving patients treated per the initial design. METHODS Adults (18+ years) with newly-diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted WHO grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to RT (5940 cGy) alone (Arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant TMZ (Arm B); or TMZ alone (Arm C). Primary endpoint was OS, Arm A vs. B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and PFS, comparing pooled RT arms with the TMZ-alone arm. RESULTS 36 patients were randomized equally to the three arms. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients had progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) patients on the RT arms. PFS was shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared to RT-treated patients (HR=3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; p=0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) of RT-treated patients. OS did not statistically differ between arms, although this comparison was underpowered. After adjustment for IDH status (mutated vs. wildtype) in a Cox regression model, with IDH status and RT treatment status as co-variables (Arm C vs pooled A and B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR= 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; p=0.011), and OS differences remained non-significant ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI 0.58, 13.22, p=0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42% and 33% patients (Arms A, B and C, respectively). Neurocognitive assessments, comparing baseline and 3 month timepoints, showed no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS TMZ-alone treated patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the pooled RT arms, which remained significant when adjusting for IDH status. CODEL has been redesigned to compare the efficacy and toxicity of RT+PCV versus RT+TMZ. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00887146. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org.

Abstract PURPOSE We investigated the long term impact of SRS and WBRT in two large prospective phase III trials. METHODS Patients with 1–4 BMs +/- resection were randomized to SRS or WBRT. Cognitive deterioration was a drop of >1 standard deviation from baseline in >2/6 cognitive measures (CM). Quality of life (QOL) scores were scored 0–100 point scale. CM and QOL scores were modeled using baseline adjusted Linear Mixed Models (LMM) with uncorrelated random intercept for subject and random slopes for time. Differences over time between groups and the effect of >2 cognitive scores with >2 SD change from baseline were assessed. RESULTS 88 patients were included with median follow up of 24 months. We observed decreasing CM over time (SRS: 4/6; WBRT: 5/6). Mean CM was significantly higher in SRS for Total recall and Delayed Recall at 3, 6, 9, 12 months. More patients in WBRT arm declined 1 SD in >1 and >2 CM at the 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. A 1 SD decline in >3 CM at 1 year was 21% SRS vs 47% WBRT (p=0.02). SRS had fewer patients with a 2 SD decline in >1 CM at every time point. SRS had fewer patients with a 2 SD decline at >2 and >3 CM. WBRT had lower QOL at 3 months, but switched to SRS having lower QOL at 24 months for PWB, EWB, FWB, FactG, BR, and FactBR (p< 0.05). A 2 SD decline in cognition decreased mean FWB by 6.4 units (95% CI: -11, -1.75; p=0.007) and decreased QOL by 5.1 units (95% CI: -7.7, -2.5; p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS We report the first pooled prospective study demonstrating the long term outcomes of patients with BMs after cranial radiation. WBRT was associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Impaired cognition is associated with worse QOL.

Evidence for massage therapy (MT) in hospice patients remains limited. We conducted a prospective pilot study on MTs impact on quality of life of hospice patients and caregivers. Patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled if patients scored ≥5 on pain, depression, anxiety, or well-being using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised (ESAS-r). The patient received MT weekly for up to 3 massages with assessments completed at baseline, after each massage, and 1 week after the final massage for patients and at baseline and 1 week after final massage for caregivers. A satisfaction survey was completed at study completion. A pro-rated area under the curve (AUC) was utilized to assess the primary endpoints of change in ESAS-r for patient ratings of pain, depression and anxiety as well as the Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA). Median difference scores (end of study value)-(baseline value) for each participant and caregiver were calculated. Of 27 patients and caregivers enrolled, 25 patients received MT. Fifteen patients completed all 3 MT sessions and were given the final symptom assessment and satisfaction survey and their caregivers completed final assessments. The proportion of patients considered success (AUC > baseline) in the primary endpoints were the following: pain 40.9%, depression 40.9%, anxiety 54.5%, LASA 54.5%. Median difference scores were largely zero indicating no significant temporal change in symptoms. Patients were highly satisfied with MT. This pilot study indicated that MT was a feasible and well-received intervention in our population of patients with inadequately controlled symptoms.

BackgroundThe goal of this study was to assess the impact of trastuzumab on locoregional failure.METHODSThe analysis included 2763 patients with HER2‐positive (HER2+) breast cancer who were randomly assigned to adjuvant doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C), paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (arm A, AC→T [n = 922]; arm B, AC→T→H [n = 988]; arm C, AC→T+H→H [n = 853]). Radiotherapy was given after AC→T concurrently with H. Radiotherapy was given after lumpectomy (L) or after mastectomy (M) with ≥4 positive lymph nodes but was optional for 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. Locoregional failures at 10 years (LFR10) as first events were compared using competing risk analysis.ResultsThe median follow‐up was 13.0 years. The first site of failure was local‐only in 96 cases, locoregional in 16 cases, regional in 32 cases, and not specified in 2 cases; LFR10 was 4.8% (95% CI 4.1%‐5.7%). LFR10 was 5.5% (95% CI 4.3%‐7.2%), 4.9% (95% CI 3.7%‐6.4%), and 2.8% (95% CI 1.9%‐4.1%) in arms A, B, and C (B vs A: hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, P = .62; C vs A: HR 0.72, P = .12). For estrogen receptor–positive patients, LFR10 was 3.7% (95% CI 2.8%‐4.8%) and for estrogen receptor–negative patients, it was 6.1% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.4%; HR 0.61, P = .004). Local treatment included L+RT (n = 1044 [38%]), M+RT (n = 1025 [37%]), and M (n = 694 [25%]). LFR10 was 6.% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.8%), 3.0% (95% CI 2.1%‐4.3%), and 5.5% (95% CI 4.0%‐7.4%) for L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M+RT vs L+RT: HR 0.43, P < .001; M vs L+RT: HR 0.88, P = .57). For 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, LFR10 was 6.5% (95% CI 4.8%‐8.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.4%‐7.0%), and 4.3% (95% CI 2.9%‐6.5%) in L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M vs L+RT: HR 0.68, P = .14; M vs M+RT: HR 1.2, P = .6).ConclusionLow 10‐year LFRs were seen regardless of trastuzumab use. Differences in local therapy in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes did not appear to improve local control. Local therapy studies for HER2+ and other tumor characteristics are important as the role of local therapies continues to evolve.