Citations

617 Background: Currently, there is no published data on the efficacy of SSAs for well-differentiated G3 NETs. Randomized trials have demonstrated a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit and limited tumor response for lower grade 1-2 NETs, but the optimal systemic therapy for metastatic/unresectable G3 NETs is unknown. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of SSAs in G3 NETs. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of Mayo Clinic patients treated with SSAs for metastatic/unresectable G3 NETs, querying data from 1992 - present. Inclusion criteria were: centrally reviewed pathology confirming well-differentiated morphology, G3 based on WHO classification, SSA monotherapy, and radiological data available to assess response. Patients who had prior lines of treatment were included as long they subsequently were treated with single-agent SSA. Poorly-differentiated tumors were excluded. The primary endpoint was PFS. Best overall response was determined by radiographic regression, stabilization, or progression of tumor size. Results: Ninety patient records were reviewed, with 14 meeting inclusion criteria (diagnosed 2014 – 2018). Median Ki-67 proliferative index was 25%. Two patients (14%) had a partial response to SSA therapy, five (36%) had stable disease, and seven (50%) had progressive disease. The estimated median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI 2.9 – 24). Of the 7 patients with stable disease or partial response, the median time to progression was 8.7 months. Three patients had stable disease for greater than 9 months (24, 29 and 42 months, respectively). Overall survival was not estimable. There was no association of Ki-67 index with PFS based on a proportional hazards model. Conclusions: This is the first report on the efficacy of SSAs for G3 NETs. Although half of the patients in our series had at least stable disease, the PFS was modest at only 4.4 months. Given their favorable side-effect profile compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy, SSAs may present an attractive option to be further explored in a prospective fashion. We are presently updating this data by reassessing response using RECIST criteria.

494 Background: Our aim was to compare survival between patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT group) versus definitive chemoradiation (CRT group) for extrahepatic or hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: 49 patients (20 in OLT group vs. 29 in CRT group) with unresectable hilar/extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were treated at Mayo Clinic Arizona between Feb. 1998–Sep. 2019. Treatment included external beam radiation therapy (median 4500cGy) and boost (median 900cGy) with either continuous 5-flurouracil (dose range 180–225 mg/m2) or capecitabine (dose range 825–1000 mg/m2 BID) prior to or without OLT. Radiation boosts were delivered with EBRT or bile duct brachytherapy. Patients were between 27.9–84.3 years (median 64.3) at diagnosis. 18 patients had previous diagnosis of PSC. Results: Between Feb. 1998–Sep. 2019, 31(63%) of 49 patients died by the end of follow-up. Of patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy and OLT, 7(35%) of 20 patients died. 24(86%) of 28 patients treated with definitive therapy died. The OLT cohort were younger (mean age 56.5 vs. 69.0 years), more likely to have PSC and UC (65% vs. 17%), and had a lower CA 19-9 (median 43 vs. 535)(P < 0.003). From the end date of radiation, median overall survival was 76.8 months vs. 15.6 months for the OLT and CRT groups, respectively. Survival rates at 3 and 5 years were 78% and 69% in the OLT group compared to 19% and 6% in the CRT group (HR 7.73; 3.04-19.65:(P < 0.0001)). Progression-free survival (89% vs. 30% at 3 years), and distant metastasis-free survival (88% vs. 66% at 3 years) favored OLT versus CRT alone (HR 5.74;1.12-29.34:(P < 0.02)). Univariate analysis demonstrated that the method of treatment (OLT vs. CRT) was the only variable associated with better clinical outcomes. Conclusions: In patients with unresectable extrahepatic/hilar cholangiocarcinoma, survival was higher in those who underwent chemoradiation and OLT. Patients who received definitive chemoradiation in the absence of OLT were expected to have worse overall, progression-free, and metastasis-free survival.

375 Background: Combination FP with P CT have become the standard of care for advanced G/GEJ cancer. Clinical trials in conjunction with practice, have adopted induction FP and P CT for 3-4 months (mos). In other GI malignancies, induction CT followed by maintenance CT (MTC) has been shown to improve patient (pt) outcomes compared to observation, with a decrease in treatment (trmt) related toxicities with induction therapy. However a maintenance approach in G/GEJ cancer has not been investigated in clinical trials. We investigated pt outcomes with metastatic G/GEJ cancer who received continuous induction (CTX) versus induction followed by MTC. Methods: A retrospective analysis of pts with metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with (FP+ P)-based CT between 2007 to 2017 from three centers of a single institution was performed. Metastatic G/GEJ cancer pts who achieved at least stable disease after initial induction trmt were included. Pts were categorized into the CTX group if they received greater than 16 weeks or 8 cycles of combined CT and assigned to the MTC group if they received maintenance FP monotherapy after 8 or less cycles of combined induction CT. Data was extracted from the medical record to determine progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicities. Results: Sixty-four pts that met criteria and were evaluated, thirty-four received CTX and thirty received MTC. No significant difference in PFS (12.1 vs 8.0 mos p = .72, HR=1.10 95%CI .66-1.83) was observed between the CTX and MTC groups, additionally there was no significant difference in OS. A significant decrease in trmt related toxicities were observed, with a higher proportion of thrombocytopenia (84.8% vs 50.0% p = .004), and grade 3 neuropathy (39.4% vs 13.8% p =.024) in CTX pts (Table). Conclusions: MTC following induction FP/P CT is associated with an improved toxicity profile and appears to be effective compared to CTX in metastatic G/GEJ cancer. Prospective randomized studies confirming its potential benefits compared with continuous induction CT are warranted. [Table: see text]

362 Background: Most pts with mGEA do not respond to ICI or ramucirumab/paclitaxel (RAM/TAX). Emerging data suggest that ICI may potentiate subsequent therapy (Tx). In KN059 we unexpectedly observed durable responses in 2 pts on RAM/TAX after ICI (PMID 29674442). We examined if ICI impacts efficacy of subsequent RAM/TAX in a larger cohort and explored alterations in the tumor microenvironment. Methods: All pts with mGEA at Mayo Clinic (MN, AZ, FL) who received RAM/TAX (2014-19) were included. We compared best objective response rate (ORR: complete [CR] or partial response [PR]) per RECIST1.1 and overall survival (OS) in pts who received RAM/TAX with (Group A) vs without (Group B) immediately preceding PD-1 blockade. Chi square and multivariate logistic and Cox regression were used. We adjusted for total lines of Tx received and the line of Tx in which RAM/TAX was given, to control for potential differences in the biology of heavily treated pts or those receiving RAM/TAX as 2nd vs 3rd line Tx. We also adjusted for age and ECOG PS. Results: In total 87 pts met inclusion criteria. In the 19 pts (Group A) who received RAM/TAX (usually as 3rd line Tx) after progression on ICI, there was a 77% relative risk reduction of death after initiation of RAM/TAX compared to the 68 pts (Group B) who received RAM/TAX (usually as 2nd line) without preceding ICI (median OS 15.0 vs 7.6 mo; HR 0.23; P < .001). The ORR was also significantly higher (58% vs 18%; P < .001) including the CR rate (16% vs 1%; P = .006). Two CRs in Group A are ongoing (10 - 34 mo). Of note, 95% of Group A pts did not respond to ICI, and all had irRECIST progression on ICI. Immunofluorescent analysis from a responder showed 65-fold reduction (post vs pre-Tx) in intratumoral density of immunosuppressive FOXP3+ Tregs, with preserved density of antitumor CD8+ T cells. Conclusions: Higher than expected efficacy was observed on RAM/TAX when immediately preceded by ICI, suggesting ICI may enhance efficacy of subsequent anti-VEGFR/taxane therapy. This serial immunotherapy combination may be a novel option for pts with primary resistance to ICI and will be tested prospectively in a new randomized phase 2 trial (NCT04069273).

225 Background: ICIs induce durable responses in dMMR CRC patients. However, clinical and molecular biomarkers of response to ICIs have not been well-established. In this study, we investigated impact of specific MMR gene loss, BRAF V600E mutation and clinical characteristics of pts on clinical outcomes of ICIs. Methods: Pts were eligible if they had confirmed dMMR CRC by IHC or MSI-H by PCR and received ICIs between 01/01/2012 and 05/01/2019 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt or Stanford University. Due to the functional dependency, the groups were categorized as protein loss of MLH1+PMS2 vs MSH2+MSH6. Log-rank test, Cox hazard model and Fisher’s exact test were used for survival outcomes, the best response and the distribution of variables among the subgroups. Results: A total of 66 pts with dMMR CRC were identified and BRAF status was available for 41 pts. ORRs in MLH1+PMS2 and MSH2+MSH6 groups were 72.9% and 56.5% respectively (P = 0.189). At 2 years, PFS rates were 55.6% and 78.2% for MLH1+PMS2 and MSH2+MSH6 groups respectively (P < 0.001). Pts with BRAF V600E mutations had significantly worse outcomes as compared to pts with wild-type BRAF (2-year PFS rate of 35.0% and 73.3% respectively; P < 0.001). Notably pts < 65 had better 2-year disease control rates when compared to > 65 (71.1% and 41.5% respectively; P < 0.001). We also observed worse 2-year PFS rates in pts with liver metastases (P = 0.014). CRC side and tumor volume did not impact 2-year PFS rates in our cohort. Conclusions: Our data suggest that pts with loss of function in MSH2+MSH6 may have better 2 year-PFS rates compared pts with MLH1+PMS2 even though ORR favored MLH1+PMS2 group suggesting that ORR may not reflect the durability of ICI response in dMMR CRC patients. Consistently, pts with BRAF V600E mutation which is associated with MLH1 promoter methylation had significantly worse 2-year PFS rates. Overall, our findings suggest that BRAFV600E mutation, the affected MMR proteins, pt age, and site of metastasis may impact durability of ICI response in dMMR CRC patients.

BackgroundThe focus on noncancer causes of death in patients with breast cancer (BC) remains superficial. The objective of the current study was to assess and quantify causes of death after BC diagnosis.MethodsIn total, 754,270 women with BC in the United States who were diagnosed during 2000 through 2015 and retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were studied. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for causes of death were calculated.ResultsOf the included patients, 183,002 (24.3%) died during the follow‐up period. The greatest proportion of deaths (46.2%) occurred within 1 to 5 years after diagnosis. Most deaths occurred from BC itself or from other cancers, and the number of BC deaths decreased as more years passed after diagnosis. The most common noncancer causes of death within <10 years after diagnosis were heart diseases followed by cerebrovascular diseases. However, >10 years after diagnosis, the most common noncancer causes of death were heart diseases followed by Alzheimer disease. Patients had a statistically significant higher risk of death from chronic liver diseases within 5 to 10 years after diagnosis compared with the general population (SMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09‐1.38) and had statistically significant higher risks of death from Alzheimer disease (SMR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14‐1.29) and from diseases of the heart (SMR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.09) >10 years after diagnosis.ConclusionsAlthough BC remains the most common cause of death after BC diagnosis, other non‐BC causes of death (mainly heart and cerebrovascular diseases) represent a significant number of deaths among patients with BC. These findings provide important insight into how BC survivors should be counselled regarding future health risks.

Abstract Background: In the past several years, biology of CLL is being unleashed which had led to discovery of novel treatments, including ofatumumab and obinutuzumab, CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAb), and ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which exhibited a paradigm shift in CLL. Available clinical trials provided direct comparison with chlorambucil, with no head-to-head trials to compare them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to summarize the evidence on first-line treatments of CLL. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of ofatumumab, obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, rituximab, bendamustin or alemtuzumab, in patients with previously untreated CLL. Efficacy outcome measures included progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months and best overall response rate (ORR), which consists of both complete and partial response rates. Bayesian NMA method was used to conduct this NMA that pools evidence from direct and indirect comparisons to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments used. Results: Five trials were identified, enrolling 2,113 newly diagnosed CLL patients with a median age ranging from 60 to 73. NMA demonstrated superiority of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil over other mAb combinations and ibrutinib, and had the highest probability of achieving PFS at 18 months when compared to ibrutinib with risk ratio (RR) of 2.41 (credible interval [CrI] 0.89 to 5.29) and ofatumumab plus chlorambucil with RR of 7.11 (CrI 3.31 to 13.8). Table-1 depicts the results of NMA for PFS at 18 months. It also had the highest probability of achieving ORR, followed by ibrutinib ranking the second. Conclusion: Obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil has higher probability of achieving efficacy compared to other mAb combinations or ibrutinib, in terms of better ORR and better PFS rates, followed by ibrutinib. The certainty in the evidence is low because of indirectness, which is a limitation in this NMA, however our results parallel the evidence based practice. Although no head to head clinical trials compared first-line treatments for CLL, our NMA showed that obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil and ibrutinib had better efficacy profile. NMA is not a substitute for well conducted RCTs investigating direct comparisons. Abbreviations: CrI, credible intervals; PFS, progression free survival. *Treatments are ranked according to their probability of achieving comparative effectiveness. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are associated with marked improvements in molecular response and survival compared with previous therapies for patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) in chronic phase (CP). We previously reported efficacy and safety of TKI at 12-month follow-up (Firwana et. al.JCO. 2014; 32(15_suppl): 7054). Here, we summarize the evidence of TKI efficacy and safety of TKI, comparing them directly and in-directly, in the mature follow-up for patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating TKI in adults with newly diagnosed CP-CML. TKI (imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib) were included if used as an initial treatment. Studies on bosutinib were excluded as it is only approved in the US for the treatment of CP-CML after failure of initial therapy. Studies that included patients with accelerated- or blast-phase CML, intolerant or resistant patients to first-line treatment, those on IFN-α, older agents or stem cell transplantation were excluded. Main outcomes are efficacy, represented by major molecular response (MMR, ≤ 0.1% BCR-ABLIS) and deeper molecular responses (MR4.5, ≤ 0.0032%IS), survival, represented by overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), and safety represented by medication discontinuation rate due to adverse events. Latest period of reporting outcome data were considered. As available trials provides direct comparison with imatinib, with no head-to-head trials to compare other TKI, we conducted a mixed treatment comparison (MTC) analysis which pools evidence from direct and indirect comparisons to facilitate simultaneous inference regarding all treatments. Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison method was used to rank TKI in terms of effectiveness. Results: Four landmark trials reported in 15 published articles and conference abstracts were identified involving 1647 patients with CP-CML. Follow-up times ranged from 3 months to 6 years. Table-1 depicts the results of MTC for imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib. MTC analysis demonstrated superiority of both nilotinib and dasatinib over imatinib in terms of efficacy and safety. Nilotinib ranked first in efficacy with better improvement in MMR and MR4.5 at 48-month follow-up despite its different regimens, followed by dasatinib. Dasatinib has the highest medication discontinuation rate due to adverse events or drug-related toxicity. Among TKI, nilotinib was found to have the best survival profile; however, it was statistically nonsignificant. Conclusion: Both nilotinib and dasatinib are associated with significantly better efficacy and safety profiles compared to imatinib. At 48-month follow-up period, nilotinib ranked first to achieve MMR and MR4.5, with lower discontinuation rate due to adverse events. This analysis shows that new generation TKI are not only showing faster response, but also maintaining a more potent one through longer follow up period. It is important to note out that MTC is not a substitute for well conducted RCTs investigating direct comparisons. Table-1: Results of mixed treatment comparison for imatinib, dasatinib and nilotinib using fixed-effect Bayesian method. Comparison Mean risk difference (95% CrI) compared to from reference standard (Imatinib) Rank* MMR MR 4.5 PFS OS Discontinuation due to adverse events 48 months 48 months 36 months 48 months 48 months Imatinib Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference 4 Dasatinib 0.62 (0.26 to 1.01) 0.32 (-0.05 to 0.69) 0.21 (-0.43 to 0.85) 0.17 (-0.49 to 0.83) 0.59 (-0.05 to 1.25) 3 Nilotinib 300 0.92 (0.56 to 1.28) 0.81 (0.45 to 1.18) 1.02 (0.24 to 1.86) 0.19 (-0.51 to 0.89) -0.11 (-0.66 to 0.43) 1 Nilotinib 400 0.76 (0.41 to 1.12) 0.68 (0.31 to 1.05) 0.05 (-0.57 to 0.65) 0.81 (0.01 to 1.67) 0.30 (-0.20 to 0.81) 2 *Reported rank is valid for all outcomes, except for PFS and OS, where Nilotinib 400 ranks #1 and Nilotinib 300 ranks #2. Also, for rate of medication discontinuation due to adverse events, Dasatinib has the highest rate for discontinuation, followed by Nilotinib, both doses. Abbreviations: CrI, credible intervals; MMR, major molecular response, BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.1%; MR4, deeper molecular responses, BCR-ABLIS ≤ 0.0032%; PFS, progression free survival; OS, overall survival. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. Materials and Methods We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Results Six trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26–0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40–0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48–0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57–0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23–0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21–0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160. Conclusion Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. Implications for Practice Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.