Citations

766 Background: Tumor-size-based endpoints such as depth of response have recently become a focus of investigations related to search for early on-treatment predictive markers for patients with colorectal cancer (Piessevaux et al. 2013; Cremolini et al., 2015; Heinemann et al., 2015). We evaluate the use of time-to-nadir (TTN) and depth-of-nadir (DoN) as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). Methods: We have used the data from trials included in the ARCAD Advanced Colorectal Cancer Database. We have considered three sets of treatment comparisons: comparisons involving only chemotherapy agents (CT); involving anti-angiogenesic agents (ANG); and involving anti-EGFR agents (EGFR). For each of the sets separately, we applied a two-stage modelling approach (Renard et al. 2002) to jointly analyze the relative change of tumor size versus baseline (RCTS) and OS. In particular, in the first stage, a joint model for the repeated measurements of RCTS and OS was fitted to the data. Based on the model, treatment effects on OS and RCTS were estimated. Treatment effects on OS were expressed as log-hazard-ratios, while the effects on RCTS were expressed in terms of differences in the time-to-nadir (TTN) and in the depth of nadir (DoN). In the second stage, a linear regression was fitted through the estimated treatment effects on TTN/DoN and OS. The coefficient of determination (R2), computed by using the comparison-specific sample-size as weights, was used to quantify the strength of association between the treatment effects on TTN/DoN and OS. In particular, values of R2 larger than 0.75 were considered as indicating a good surrogate. Results: The CT set included 18 comparisons with 5726 pts. in total. For the treatment effects on TTN and OS, the value of R2 was estimated to be equal to 0.31, while for DoN and OS, it was equal to 0.01. For the ANG set (11 comparisons, 3964 pts.) the values of R2 were equal to 0.26 and 0.21, respectively, while for the EGFR set (16 comparisons, 4687 pts.) they were equal to 0.10 and 0.45, respectively. Conclusions: These preliminary results suggest that TTN and DoN are not good surrogates for OS in advanced colorectal cancer. More detailed analyses are ongoing and will be presented at the meeting.

764 Background: Psychosocial distress screening and assessment in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers has an established importance due to the distress experienced during and post treatment. GI cancer patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for curative or palliative measures were reviewed in order to determine if there was a relationship between patient reported distress (PRD) and survival. Methods: Patients at our institution who receive external beam RT for GI cancers completed a 30 question PRD survey that also included a linear analog measure of overall distress, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer, which ranged from 1 (low overall distress) to 10 (high overall stress) at the start of and/or during treatment. Each question on the PRD questionnaire concentrated on a possible cause of distress. It allowed patients to rate distress levels for each question from 1 to 5 (1 being the least distressed and 5 being the most distressed), and also overall distress according. The reported clinical results of the PRD questionnaire were retrospectively reviewed in patients receiving RT for GI cancers from Jan 2012 to Aug 2015. Patients were considered distressed if their overall PRD score was 5 or greater (PRD+) or not distressed (PRD-) if their score was 4 or under. Overall survival between PRD+ and PRD- was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: PRD surveys were completed by 134 consecutive patients, 67 (50%) male and 67 (50%) female within 30 days of starting RT. The median age was 65 years (range 28 to 93). The top histological finding was adenocarcinoma, 90 patients (60%). 113 (84%) received chemotherapy and 64 (48%) underwent surgery. 102 (75%) treatments were curative and 32 (25%) were palliative. Overall NCCN distress thermometer results ranged from 0 to 10, with a median of 4. Median follow-up was 2.7 years. Distressed patients (PRD+) had inferior survival to those not distressed (PRD-) at 2 years, 52% vs. 72%, p<0.02. Conclusions: Patient reported distress is associated with an inferior survival in patients receiving radiotherapy for gastrointestinal tumors.

757 Background: Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) appear to differ across trials, even when pts receive the same regimen (REG). This analysis aimed to benchmark the clinical outcomes in the 2nd line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Individual patient (pt) data was available on 6,462 pts with mCRC enrolled in 7 2ndline clinical trials (8 REGs) in the ARCAD database. Regimens used in at least two trials included FOLFIRI +/- an EGFR inhibitor (EGFRi), FOLFOX +/- a VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi), and irinotecan (IRI). Descriptive statistics were used to describe pt demographics. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences (DIFFs) in PFS and OS, while p-value <0.05 were considered statistically significant (SS). Results: 500-1400 pts received each REG (see Table). Median OS and PFS differed by 0.2 to 4.6 months (mo) and 0.8 to 2.5 mo across trials within the same REG. These DIFFs were SS except for PFS in REGs containing FOLFIRI +/- EGFRi. After multivariable adjustment, all DIFFs in OS were attenuated and non-significant. DIFFs in PFS attenuated for most REGs but remained SS for FOLFOX and IRI. Conclusions: After multivariable adjustment, there were no SS DIFFs in outcomes across trials within the same REG, with the exception of PFS in FOLFOX and IRI. The initial observed DIFFs in outcomes could be due to confounding factors and the remaining SS DIFFs in PFS in FOLFOX and IRI may be due to variation in definition of progression across trials. Therefore, caution is warranted when using historical data to design future trials.[Table: see text]

714 Background: Mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown to be responsive to blockade with anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibodies. We describe a cohort of 17 patients with dMMR mCRC receiving treatment with pembrolizumab. Methods: Patients were identified through review of the Mayo Clinic electronic medical record (EMR) and chemotherapy administration records from May 2015 through September 2016. All patients with dMMR mCRC who received treatment with pembrolizumab were included. The EMR was reviewed to identify demographic, clinical, pathologic and treatment details. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and disease control rate (DCR=CR+PR+SD) are reported. Time to event analysis was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 17 patients were included in this analysis; median age at diagnosis was 48.5 years (range 25-93); 59% were female. Most primary tumors were right sided (n=12; 71%), 4 (24%) were left sided and 1 (5%) was a tumor of unknown primary within the bowel. Thirteen (75%) patients received 2 or more lines of therapy prior to pembrolizumab (range 1-4). All patients received 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, with the exception of two patients on a clinical trial; one who received 200 mg every 3 weeks, the other received 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The most common mutations (mut) identified were loss of MLH1 (9/12) and PMS2 (10/12), 4 patients had germline mut. KRAS mut was identified in 6/15 patients and only 1 patient had BRAF mut. Number of cycles of pembrolizumab ranged from 1 to 35, with 10 (59%) patients receiving 6 or more cycles. DCR at first assessment was 57%, with 7% CR and 50% PR. Median follow-up was 28 months (95% CI 18-55). Median OS was 103 months (95% CI NR-NR); 12-month OS was 88% and 24-month OS was 81%. Median OS post-PD-1 therapy was NR (95% CI 2-NR). Median PFS was 19 months (95% CI 5-19); 12-month PFS was 64% and 24-month PFS was 0%. At time of analysis, 11 patients remain on PD-1 therapy; 4 patients have died. Conclusions: Anti-PD1 blockade with pembrolizumab can provide long lasting benefit in dMMR mCRC, even in heavily pretreated patients.

713 Background: Exploratory analyses from RAISE (NCT01183780), FOLFIRI with ramucirumab or placebo in previously treated mCRC pts, suggested pts with treatment-emergent neutropenia may have improved overall survival (OS) compared to pts who did not experience neutropenia on study (Ciuleanu T, et al. abst. 2475, ESMO 2016). Subsequent analyses suggested an even stronger association between baseline ANC and OS, with high baseline ANC associated with shorter OS. A retrospective observational study was conducted to test this association as a pre-specified hypothesis. Methods: The IMS Oncology Database (electronic medical record data from US community practices) was used to identify pts ≥ 18 yrs with mCRC (ICD-9 code 153.x, 154.0 or 154.1) who initiated second-line fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan (+/- bevacizumab; bev) in 2007-2013, following progression during or after first-line fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin (+/- biologic). Eligible pts had ≥ 1 ANC in the 60 days prior to second-line therapy. Pts were stratified by second-line bev use and high/low baseline ANC ( ≥ or < 5.5x109/L) and matched by propensity scores. OS based on a validated proxy was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for age, gender, ECOG PS, stage, length of first-line treatment, and BMI. Results: 747 eligible pts were identified, of whom 617 were matched. Pts with baseline characteristic data had a median age of 59 yr, 57% were male, 67% were Caucasian, 74% had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and 63% had ECOG PS of 0/1 at start of second-line. Bev-treated pts with high baseline ANC (n = 122) had a median OS (mOS) of 7.7 mo vs 14.7 mo in pts with low baseline ANC (n = 323); adjusted HR 1.69 (95% CI, 1.35, 2.12; p < 0.0001). Pts with high baseline ANC not treated with bev (n = 59) had a mOS 5.4 mo vs 14.4 mo in pts with low baseline ANC (n = 113); adjusted HR 2.73 (95% CI, 1.89, 3.93; p < 0.0001). There was a modest interaction effect between bev treatment and baseline ANC (p = 0.012), indicating greater bev benefit in the high ANC group. Conclusions: Baseline ANC appears to be a strong prognostic factor and potentially a weak predictive factor for antiangiogenic therapy for OS in pts with previously treated mCRC.

704 Background: Inpatients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies are at a high risk for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) but the impact of CDI on outcomes in these patients needs elucidation. We analyzed the incidence of CDI and its impact on outcomes in GI cancer patients using the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) database from 2001 - 2010. Methods: NHDS collects clinical information on patients dismissed from non-Federal short-stay United States hospitals. Demographics, diagnoses (GI malignancies, CDI and comorbidities), length of stay (LOS), and dismissal information were abstracted using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Weighted analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Results: Of an estimated 317.9 million unique hospitalizations; 4.6 million had a diagnosis of a GI malignancy (1.4%); median age 68 years, 46.1% female. CDI was more common in patients with GI malignancies compared to patients with no GI malignancy (1.05% vs 0.69%, aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15- 1.17, p < 0.0001). There was a significant increase in CDI incidence in GI cancer patients over the 10-year study period (72.7 in 2001-2002 to 109.1 in 2009-2010, per 10,000 discharges, p < 0001). In multivariable analysis, compared to GI cancer patients without CDI, GI cancer patients with CDI had a longer mean LOS (3.94 more days, 95% CI 3.31-4.56) and dismissal to a care facility (adjusted OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.71-1.79), but lower all-cause in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79), all p < 0.0001 Conclusions: In this national database of hospitalized patients, an increasing incidence of CDI in patients with GI malignancies was noted over the study period. CDI prolonged hospitalization, and was associated with increased dismissal to a care-facility. Lower rates of in-hospital mortality may represent early diagnosis due to vigilance or a milder form of CDI. Despite increased attention over the last few decades, CDI remained a serious infection in GI cancer patients, and merits appropriate prevention, management and follow-up.

685 Background: RAS/BRAF mutations constitutively activate the MAPK pathway in colorectal cancer, and may promote resistance to CRT. We propose that trametinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with 5FU CRT for patients with LARC will improve outcome. Methods: Phase I study with standard 3+3 design in patients with Stage II/III rectal cancer with 3 dose levels of trametinib: 0.5, 1, and 2mg daily with 5FU 225mg/m2/day and 50.4 Gy. Trametinib was given over a 5-day lead-in and continued through the course of CRT. Patients undergo surgery 6-10 weeks after the completion of CRT. An expansion cohort at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) with 12 patients is ongoing. Tumor tissue is collected prior to therapy, at day 4/5 of trametinib, and at surgery. The primary endpoint is to determine the MTD of trametinib with CRT. Results: 15 patients (10 males, 5 females) have been enrolled and 14 patients are evaluable for toxicities to date. Median age is 53 years (range 35-74). Patients have completed enrollment to all dose levels, with 1 dose-limiting toxicity of diarrhea attributed to 5FU CRT. No grade 4/5 toxicities, and toxicities are shown in the table. Generalized skin rash led to trametinib discontinuation after 2 weeks of therapy for 1 patient, and was held 3 days for 2 patients. At the trametinib dose level of 2mg, 3 out of 7 (43%) patients had a pathological complete response and the average neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score is 8.1. Tumor RAS/BRAF mutation status is determined. Analysis of tumor tissue shows dose-dependent decrease in phosphorylated-ERK1/2 with increasing doses of trametinib. Conclusions: Initial evaluation shows that the combination of trametinib with 5FU CRT is tolerable and effective, and warrants further investigation in LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01740648. [Table: see text]

677 Background: Napabucasin a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor in clinical development, suppresses cancer stemness by targeting Stat3-driven gene transcription. Preclinically, potent and broad-spectrum anti-cancer activity was observed in vitro and in vivo, alone and in combination with other agents. In a phase 1 study, napabucasin monotherapy was well tolerated with encouraging signs of anti-tumor activity at the RP2D of 500 mg BID. Methods: The current open-label, multi-center study includes phase II expansion in pts with refractory, K- Raswt mCRC to confirm safety and anti-tumor activity of napabucasin administered orally at 480mg BID in combination with panitumumab (6mg/kg bi-weekly). Results: 72 pts were enrolled, 48 pts were evaluable by RECIST of which 7 (15%) and 41 (85%) had 2 or >3 prior treatment lines, respectively. Of the 48 evaluable pts, 64.6% (31/48) were previously treated with an anti-EGFR agent. No new adverse events (AEs) were observed and most common AEs included grade 1/2 diarrhea, nausea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting. Among 48 pts enrolled who received RECIST evaluation, Disease Control Rate (DCR) was observed in 25 pts (52.1%) of which 3 pts achieved PR (6%) and 22 pts achieved SD (45%). Among 31 pts previously treated with anti-EGFR therapy, DCR was observed in 15 pts (48%) compared with DCR of 59% observed in 10 out of 17 anti-EGFR naïve pts receiving a scan. Conclusions: This phase II study confirmed that napabucasin can be safely combined with panitumumab at full dose and shows encouraging anti-tumor activity in pts with K- Ras wt mCRC, regardless of prior anti-EGFR exposure, suggesting that napabucasin may sensitize pts to repeat anti-EGFR therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01776307. [Table: see text]

675 Background: Recent retrospective analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 showed that left-sided colon cancers (LCC) respond differently to biological therapy compared with right-sided tumors. However, differences between rectal cancers (RC) and LCC remain undefined. Herein, we report our exploration of differences between these two groups. Methods: Individual patient data from 4182 patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancers, enrolled onto 8 first-line randomized trials, were pooled. Only pts with tumor locations that were clearly defined as LCC (splenic flexure to sigmoid) or RC were included in this analysis. Differences in pt characteristics and disease factors according to LCC vs. RC were identified. The prognostic effect of primary tumor location on OS and PFS was quantified via multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling stratified by treatment arm within each study and adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and prior surgery. Results: In total, 2,479 (59%) pts with LCC and 1,703 (41%) pts with RC were identified. Pts with RC, compared with LCC, were more likely to be male (68% vs. 62%, p < 0.001), have lung metastases (mets) (56% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), and have 2 or more metastatic sites (64% vs. 60%, p < 0.02), whereas pts with LCC were more likely to have liver mets (84% vs. 76%, p < 0.001). RC had a greater frequency of KRAS mutations (41% vs. 37%, p = 0.04) than LCC but there were no differences in the frequency of BRAF mutations (5% vs. 4%, p = 0.2). In multivariable analysis, no differences in OS or PFS were observed between pts with LCC vs. RC. While risk of death did not differ by primary tumor location, across all pts with LCC or RC, those with liver mets had a 17% increased risk of death compared to those with lung mets (HR = 1.17, p = 0.03) after adjusting for effects of other variables. Forthcoming prognostic analysis of LCC vs. RC within grouped backbone treatments (e.g., FOLFOX and FOLFIRI) is underway. Conclusions: Tumors arising in the rectum may carry clinical and molecular features that are distinct from LCC. Further investigations are warranted to determine whether RC should be treated with the same chemo backbone and biological therapy as LCC.

668 Background: Ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody antagonist of VEGFR-2. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in 2nd line FOLFIRI based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were improved with RAM therapy versus PBO in the RAISE trial. Recent work suggests mCRC primary tumor location is both prognostic and predictive; with improved OS and therapy-specific sensitivity observed in left (L)- vs right (R)-sided tumors. Given these findings, the RAISE trial data was subjected to post-hoc analysis to determine if sidedness influenced RAM efficacy. Methods: Primary tumor site was obtained. L-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum, while R-CRC included transverse, ascending colon and cecum. OS/PFS in L and R subgroups were analyzed via Kaplan-Meier method and unstratified log-rank test (treatments within subgroup), unstratified Cox proportional hazards model (estimate hazard ratio [HR] and 95% CI), and Wald test (treatment-by-subgroup interaction). Results: Tumor location was available for 1012/1072 (94%) patients, 699 L- and 313 R-CRC. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. RAM treatment enhanced L-CRC median OS by 2.5 mo (median 14.5 vs 12.0 mo) with a HR (95% CI) = 0.807 (0.675, 0.965), P = 0.019; compared to a 1.1 mo increase in median OS in R-CRC vs PBO (12.7 vs 11.6) with a HR (95% CI) = 0.971 (0.750, 1.258), P = 0.823; and, RAM enhanced L-CRC median PFS by 1.6 mo (6.0 vs 4.4 mo) and HR (95% CI) = 0.776 (0.664, 0.906), P = 0.001 compared to a 1.1 mo increase in median PFS R-CRC vs PBO (5.6 vs 4.5) with a HR (95% CI) = 0.855 (0.674, 1.084), P = 0.197. The treatment-by-subgroup interaction for both OS and PFS was not significant ( P = 0.276, 0.578, respectively). Conclusions: Despite L-CRC patients having longer OS/PFS and a seemingly stronger RAM treatment effect than R-CRC, the non-significant interaction test cannot verify sidedness as being predictive of RAM efficacy. The current study confirms ramucirumab benefits mCRC patients regardless primary tumor location. Clinical trial information: NCT01183780.