Citations

Abstract Approximately 90% of limited-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients are projected to be cured with standard therapy, but many do not live their expected life span because of late treatment–related complications. New treatment paradigms are needed to reduce the use of radiation therapy (RT) as well as conventional chemotherapy drugs while improving upon current standard-of-care survival outcomes. In this phase 2 multicenter study, patients with non-bulky limited-stage HL received doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) followed by brentuximab vedotin (BV) consolidation. Forty-one patients were enrolled, and patient characteristics included median age of 29 years (range, 19 to 67 years), 58% were female, 45% had unfavorable disease, and 98% had stage II disease. Based on positron emission tomography (PET)–based risk stratification, patients received 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD followed by 6 cycles of BV. After ABVD followed by BV, 95% of evaluable patients (37 out of 39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 83%-99%) achieved PET-negative status. In the intent-to-treat patient population, the estimated 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 92%, and the overall survival (OS) rate was 97%, with a median follow-up of 47 months. All 37 patients who achieved negative PET status after BV consolidation effectively avoided RT and remain in remission with estimated 3-year PFS and OS rates of 100%. In conclusion, BV demonstrates encouraging clinical activity when it follows ABVD therapy in limited-stage HL. Early incorporation of BV may reduce the use of RT as well as conventional chemotherapy drugs while achieving favorable survival outcomes in risk-stratified patients with non-bulky limited-stage HL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01578967.

Abstract Background: Treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) requires a careful balance between providing enough therapy to cure the disease and avoiding unnecessary treatment that could result in excessive long-term treatment-related complications. The preferred treatment option for limited stage non-bulky HL currently involves the use of combined chemotherapy and involved-field radiation therapy. Given the unclear overall survival advantage and the long-term side effects associated with consolidative radiation, the use of this modality remains one of the most controversial topics in the treatment of HL. Therefore, alternative consolidation approaches are worthy of exploration for treatment of limited stage non-bulky HL. Brentuximab vedotin has been associated with favorable response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory HL. We hypothesize that brentuximab vedotin may be safe and effective in eradicating residual disease after induction chemotherapy and may potentially replace radiation therapy for consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL. Methods: In this phase 2 multicenter study, patients with non-bulky (< 7.5 cm) stage I or II HL are being enrolled to determine the efficacy and safety of brentuximab vedotin when administered for consolidation after a standard chemotherapy with ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) (ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01578967). The primary objective of the study is to estimate the proportion of patients who achieve PET-negative disease (Deauville score of 2 or less) after induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation with brentuximab vedotin. Involved-field radiation is recommended only if the PET scan is positive at the completion of therapy with brentuximab vedotin. Patients received 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD based on their baseline risk factors and the interim PET scan result; patients with favorable disease with negative interim PET received 2 cycles, favorable disease with positive interim PET or unfavorable disease with negative interim PET received 4 cycles, and unfavorable disease with positive interim PET received 6 cycles of ABVD. Approximately 6 to 8 weeks after the induction chemotherapy, 1.8 mg/kg of brentuximab vedotin was given every 3 weeks for 6 cycles for consolidation. Results: Interim analysis was performed per protocol for futility and safety after 15 evaluable patients were enrolled since April 2012. Out of 15 evaluable patients, 8 patients have completed 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin, and the remaining 7 patients are currently under active treatment. The median age was 28 years (range 19 – 58), and 7 patients (47%) presented with unfavorable disease defined by the presence of B symptoms, ESR > 50, or > 3 sites of disease. All patients had masses measuring less than 7.5 cm in diameter except one patient who requested an exception to the eligibility criteria for a conglomerate mediastinal mass measuring 10 cm. No grade 3 or above adverse events have been observed with brentuximab vedotin therapy. No grade 2 or above peripheral neuropathy or pulmonary toxicity has been reported. Ten out of 12 patients, who completed ABVD, achieved PET-negative disease after 2 cycles of ABVD, and all 7 patients who completed brentuximab vedotin achieved PET-negative disease and remain in remission with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 5.6 – 15). Thus far, none of the treated patients on this protocol required consolidative radiation therapy. Conclusion: In this interim analysis of 15 patients with newly diagnosed limited stage non-bulky HL, brentuximab vedotin as consolidation therapy demonstrates promising safety and clinical activity following ABVD. Enrollment is currently open with the target accrual of 40 patients to assess the feasibility of achieving PET-negative disease and thereby avoiding radiation therapy in at least 85% of patients who receive ABVD followed by brentuximab vedotin consolidation. Table: PET results in HL patients who received ABVD followed by BV Consolidation Interim-PET2 (n = 12) Post ABVD (n = 12) Post BV (n = 7) Deauville 1 0 1 4 Deauville 2 10 11 3 Deauville 3 2 0 0 Deauville ≥ 4 0 0 0 PET, positron emission tomography; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; ABVD, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine; BV, brentuximab vedotin; Interim-PET-2, PET scan after 2 cycles of ABVD; Post ABVD, PET scan after 2 to 6 cycles of ABVD; Post BV, PET scan after 6 cycles of brentuximab vedotin Disclosures Park: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Janssen: Travel, Travel Other. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin in previously untreated Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

158 Background: There is limited research on methods for alerting clinicians to concerning patient-reported outcome (PRO) responses and how often PROs trigger alerts to nurses during cancer care. Methods: In two randomized trials, adults with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy were enrolled. Participants were randomized to usual care vs. weekly PROs completed between visits (with automated feedback to nurses). PRO responses in the intervention arm triggered automated email alerts to nurses for frequent, severe, or worsening symptoms in the last 7 days. Alert thresholds for PROs were chosen a priori but were unique to each study. The “Symptom Tracking and Reporting” (STAR) trial was conducted at one academic medical center. The “PROs to Enhance Cancer Treatment” (PRO-TECT [AFT-39]) cluster-randomized trial is being conducted in > 30 community practices. Results: In STAR, 766 patients participated (58% female, 38% ages ≥65, 17% minority, 28% ≤high school). 441 participants were randomized to the intervention arm, where 1,431/84,212 items (2%) triggered a concerning symptom alert, during 1,070/8,498 weeks (13%). Frequent alerts were for fatigue (62%), pain (32%), and appetite (16%). In PRO-TECT (AFT-39), 300 patients have been enrolled (58% female, 49% ages ≥65, 8% minority, 47% ≤high school) out of 1,000. 146 participants have been randomized to the intervention arm, where 1,422/24,739 items (6%) triggered an alert, during 824/2249 weeks (37%). Common alerts were for pain (48%), physical function (35%), and diarrhea (15%). PRO-TECT provided clinical decision support with alerts. Conclusions: In two randomized trials in advanced cancer, PROs collected during care delivery enabled tailored treatment based on issues identified on PROs. Pain, physical function, appetite, and diarrhea commonly triggered alerts for concerning symptoms. Early PRO-TECT results are showing a trend for higher weekly alert rates for concerning symptoms (37% vs. 13% in STAR), which may indicate that the PRO intervention will be even more effective in community practices. Results assist in addressing logistical considerations for implementing PROs into routine care. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

LBA2 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

LBA2 Background: We previously reported significant benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, and emergency room utilization outcomes from a large single-center randomized controlled trial comparing web-based symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs. usual care in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00578006). We now present overall survival results from this trial. Methods: Patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were randomly assigned to self-report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers (“PRO intervention”), or to usual care. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits and nurses received email alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. Overall survival was tabulated based on medical records and Social Security Death Index data, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between arms using a log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for age, sex, race, education level, and cancer type. Results: Between September 2007 and January 2011, 766 patients were randomized, with median age 61 (range 26-91), 86% white, 58% female, and 22% with less than high school education. Cancer types included genitourinary (32% of patients), gynecologic (23%), breast (19%), and lung cancer (26%). Survival results were assessed in June 2016 after a median follow up of 7 years and 517/766 (67%) of participants had died. Median overall survival in the PRO intervention arm was 5 months longer than the control arm (31.2 vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.03). In the multivariable model, results remained statistically significant with a hazard ratio of 0.832 (p = 0.04; 95% CI; 0.696, 0.995). Conclusions: Systematic symptom monitoring during outpatient chemotherapy using web-based patient-reported outcomes confers overall survival benefits. These single-center results are being further evaluated in a national multicenter implementation trial. Clinical trial information: NCT00578006.

Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.