Citations

370 Background: The Phase 1 portion of a Phase 1/2 trial of Necuparanib (“Necu”) combined with nab-paclitaxel (nabP) + gemcitabine (gem) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01621243) showed acceptable safety and tolerability and encouraging signals of activity and established a dose for the randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase 2 portion. Methods: In Phase 2, patients received daily s.c. injections of either 5 mg/kg Necu daily or PBO, combined with i.v. 125 mg/m2 nabP and 1000 mg/m2 gem (Days 1, 8, 15 of each 28-day cycle). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, safety, and CA19.9 levels. An interim futility analysis was conducted in July 2016 once 57 deaths (50% of the target number of 114 events required for trial completion) had occurred. Results: The analysis was conducted on data from 120 randomized patients (62 Necu, 58 PBO). The Z-score for futility was -0.42 (prespecified boundary of -0.148 was crossed as actual score was lower). Median OS was Necu = 10.71 and PBO = 9.99 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12 (favoring PBO); OS curves were intertwined. PFS was Necu = 5.52 and PBO = 6.93 months; HR = 0.97. RECIST response rates were comparable between arms: complete response, Necu = 0%, PBO = 3%; partial response, Necu = 26%, PBO = 26%; stable disease, Necu = 31%, PBO = 34%; disease control rate, Necu = 56%, PBO = 64%. The most common Grade 3+ adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (Necu = 33%, PBO = 33%), thrombocytopenia (Necu = 27%, PBO = 5%), and anemia (Necu = 22%, PBO = 11%). There were lower rate of serious AEs with Necu (48%) vs. PBO (60%). Modest increases in APTT, AST, and ALT were noted following Necu relative to PBO. 23% of Necu and 5% of PBO patients were IgG positive with an anti-heparin/PF4 antibody titer of ≥ 0.4 at any time. There were no treatment differences for decreases in CA19.9. Conclusions: No new safety signals were observed and the toxicity profile was considered manageable; however, Necu in combination with nabP and gem did not show a sufficient level of efficacy in metastatic pancreatic cancer to warrant continued enrollment. Clinical trial information: NCT01621243.

365 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by dense stroma and connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) overexpression. Although prolonged overall survival (OS) can be achieved through resection, only approximately 15% to 20% of patients are treated with surgery. Previously, pamrevlumab (P), a fully human monoclonal antibody blocking CTGF, was combined with gemcitabine/erlotinib (G/E) in a study of advanced PDAC. P plasma levels of > 150 μg/mL and low baseline CTGF levels resulted in prolonged OS. We hypothesize that neoadjuvant (NA) treatment of LAPC with P + G/nab-paclitaxel (NP) may alter LAPC’s stroma, increase R0 resectability, and improve OS similar to that of patients resectable at presentation. Methods: LAPC subjects, confirmed by NCCN criteria and staging laparoscopy, were randomized 2:1 to G/NP ± P for 6-cycle/24-week treatment. Safety and efficacy (resection rate, OS, progression-free survival, tumor response) were assessed. Resection was performed in subjects who met protocol-defined criteria with no contraindications. Results: As of 26 Sep 2016, 25 subjects were enrolled. Of 14 subjects in Arm A (G/NP + P), 7 completed, 2 discontinued. Of 11 subjects in Arm B (G/NP), 4 completed, 4 discontinued. 6 subjects (43%) in Arm A and 4 (36%) in Arm B experienced SAEs; no P-related SAEs were reported. Out of 7 eligible Arm A subjects, 3 were not resected. Successful resection was achieved in 4 Arm A subjects (3 R0, 1 R1) and 1 Arm B subject (R0) (Table). Conclusions: The combination of G/NP + P is feasible and well-tolerated with no incremental safety signals in this study. The addition of P suggests a trend toward increased resectability among LAPC subjects. Clinical trial information: NCT02210559. [Table: see text]

359 Background: GA, FOLFIRINOX and FOLFIRI are standard chemotherapy (CTX) regimens for mPC.The optimal introduction of these regimens following GA is not known. This phase II study evaluated 2 different approaches to this question. Methods: Eligibility criteria included 1) untreated mPC, 2) ECOG PS 0/1, 3) organ function adequate for Rx. Patients (pts) were treated according to one of 2 methods following GA given per standard dose/schedule: FOLFIRINOX (bolus 5-FU omitted) for up to 12 cycles at 24 weeks or at time of disease progression (S); or GA alternating with FOLFIRI q8 weeks up to 48 weeks total Rx (A). Results: 54 evaluable pts (28S, 26A) were enrolled . Pt characteristics included median age 65, M/F 48/52% , liver involvement 89%. 17/53 pts (31%) did not achieve disease control at 8 weeks (8 toxicity/complications , 6 disease progression, 3 declined further protocol therapy). Of the remaining 37 pts, 24/13 were treated with S/A regimens, respectively. Grade ≥ 3 treatment toxicities reported while on study with frequency ≥ 10% included anemia 21%, neutropenia 43%, thrombocytopenia 15%, and fatigue 22%. Grade ≥ 3 neuropathy occurred in 8% of pts. For all 54 pts using RECIST 1.0, CR/PR/SD/DC was 2 (4%)/20 (37%)/19 (35%)/41(76%). Ca19.9 response ≥ 90% was seen in 20/37 (54%). For all pts, median OS was 12.3 months ( 95% CI 8.6-14.5 mo); 12 and 24 mo OS was 51% and 11%, respectively. For the 37 pts with DC on GA at 8 weeks (calculated from start Rx) median OS was 13.5 mo (95% CI 10.7-15.4 mo); 12 and 24 mo OS was 55% and 16% , respectively. No statistically significant differences were seen between S and A with respect to toxicity, response or survival. Conclusions: 1) As opposed to introduction of 5FU-based CTX at the time of disease progression/prohibitive toxicity, introduction prior to that time may be at least comparable regarding both toxicity and OS. 2) This approach may further enhance OS in pts who achieve DC on GA at 8 weeks. 3) Neither S nor A method of 5FU-based CTX introduction following GA was clearly superior in this study. 4) How best to combine 5FU-based combination CTX following GA in mPC merits further study. Supported by the Seena Magowitz Foundation.

348 Background: Neuroendocrine tumor progression is associated with decline in quality of life, both due to tumor and hormone-related symptoms. The Phase III NETTER-1 trial randomized patients with advanced, progressive midgut NETs to receive treatment with 177Lu-DOTATATE (177Lu; Lutathera) versus high-dose (60 mg) Octreotide LAR (Oct). EORTC questionnaires C30 and GINET21 were assessed during the trial in order to determine the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: Patients completed EORTC QLQ-30 and QLQ-G.I.NET21 questionnaires at baseline and every 12 weeks thereafter until disease progression. Raw scores were converted to a 100-point scale and individual changes from baseline scores were assessed. Clinically relevant ( ≥ 10 point) deterioration/improvement was considered clinically significant. Results: Clinically and statistically significant improvements in QoL were observed in the 177Lu arm versus the Oct arm at certain time points in key domains of HRQoL including global health status and diarrhea. In mean, global health status improved in 28% of patients on 177Lu arm vs. 15% on Oct, and worsened in 18% of patients on 177Lu vs. 26% on Oct. Diarrhea improved in 39% of patients on 177Lu vs. 23% on Oct, and worsened in 19% of patients on 177Lu vs. 23% on Oct. There was a trend towards improvement in pain that was not statistically significant. Flushing appeared to improve compared to baseline in both arms of the study with no clear advantage to treatment with 177Lu vs. Oct. Conclusions: QoL analysis suggests benefit in important domains associated with 177Lu treatment compared to high-dose octreotide in patients with advanced midgut NETs, and confirms the treatment value of 177Lu on patient QoL, in addition to the meaningful increase in progression-free survival already reported. Clinical trial information: NCT01578239.

341 Background: Genomes of metastatic pancreatic cancers frequently contain intrachromosomal aberrations indicating DNA repair abnormalities associated with sensitivity to DNA damaging agents such as the platinums. Cisplatin was added to a nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine regimen, which has been determined to improve survival over gemcitabine alone (NEJM 2013; 369:1691-1703). The objectives are to determine the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine plus cisplatin in patients with Stage IV pancreatic cancer. Methods: Eligibility criteria included Stage IV adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, no prior chemotherapy for systemic disease, KPS ≥ 70; life expectancy ≥ 12 weeks and measurable disease. Doses are nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 undiluted, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 in 500 ml of normal saline (NS), each infused over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle, along with 3 different dose levels of cisplatin (25, 37.5 or 50 mg/m2) in 500 ml of NS infused over 60 minutes, after the nab-paclitaxel infusion. Pre and post cisplatin hydration was given. The maximum tolerated dose and phase II dose of cisplatin is 25 mg/m2. Results: 25 pts were treated; 24 were evaluable (baseline and ≥ 1 follow up CT scan). The most common drug related grade (gr) 3 - 4 adverse events (AEs), n = 25, were thrombocytopenia 76% (gr 3 = 36%, gr 4 = 40%) with no serious bleeding events, anemia 32% (gr 3 = 32%, gr 4 = 0%), neutropenia 24% (gr 3 = 20%, gr 4 = 4%), infection 20% (gr 3 = 16%, gr 4 = 4%), and diarrhea 16% (gr 3 = 16%, gr 4 = 0%). Peripheral neuropathy ≥ gr 3 was seen in only 1 pt (gr 3 = 4%). Grade 5 AEs were infection (1), cardiac arrest (1), and stroke (1). Median time on therapy was 5.5 months, range (1 – 9.5). By RECIST 1.1 criteria, 2 pts had complete response (8.3%), 15 partial response (62.5%), 4 stable disease (16.7%), and 3 progressive disease (12.5%). Median overall survival to date as of 11/10/16 is 16.5 months. Conclusions: Although a small study, the high response rate and landmark evolving median survival are very encouraging. This regimen is being expanded in patients with stage IV pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Clinical trial information: NCT01893801.

294 Background: CX-4945 is a first-in-class casein kinase-2 (CK2) threonine kinase small molecule inhibitor. CK2 is pleiotropic and regulates key cellular processes such as proliferation and DNA damage repair, and has been shown to enhance efficacy of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) in cell line and xenograft CCA model systems. A Phase IB study of G+C with CX-4945 was conducted in advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients. Methods: A multi-center “3+3” dose escalation study was conducted in advanced CCA patients. Eligible patients had ECOG PS 0-1 and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses, overall toxicity evaluation and preliminary assessment of efficacy. Routine clinical dosing for G (1000 mg/m2) and C (25 mg/m2), both on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, was used. Dose escalation cohort were CX-4945 given twice daily on days 0,1,2 and 7,8,9 at 200 mg (DL1), 400mg (DL2), 600 mg (DL3), 800 mg (DL4) and 1000 (DL5) mg. NCI CTCAE v4.03 was used for toxicity assessment and RECIST v1.1 for efficacy evaluation. Results: Nineteen patients were enrolled (DL1:n = 3; DL2:n = 4 DL3:n = 3; DL4:n = 4; DL5:n = 5). No dose limiting toxicities were encountered. MTD and RP2D were ascertained to be DL5. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities at prevalence > 10% were encountered and the overall toxicity profile of the combination was reflective of standard G+C toxicity profile. At data cut-off, preliminary efficacy evaluation demonstrated disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 64% (PR:32%, SD:32% and CR:0%), along with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5 months (range 0-14 months). PK analyses showed no evidence of drug-drug interactions between G, C and CX-4945. Conclusions: RP2D for G+C with CX-4945 is DL5 (CX-4945 dosed on days 0,1,2 and 7,8,9 at 1000 mg PO bid with standard G and C dosing). Preliminary clinical efficacy and tolerability of the regimen support planned controlled, randomized Phase 2 evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

179 Background: GISTs arise from interstitial cells of Cajal anywhere within the gastrointestinal tract, but those of the esophagus and GEJ are exceedingly rare ( < 1% of cases). Our aim was to characterize clinicopathological features and outcomes of esophageal and GEJ GISTs and compare survival with a population-based registry (SEER). Methods: 28 cases were identified using the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry from 1997 to 2016, and 378 cases from the SEER 18 registry from 2000 to 2013. Mayo cases were re-reviewed by Mayo pathologists. We analyzed patient characteristics, tumor location, TNM staging, mitotic index, molecular diagnostics, IHC staining, and histomorphology. JMP software was used to calculate time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) utilizing Kaplan-Meier and log-rank. Results: At Mayo, 60% of tumors arose in the distal esophagus. Mean tumor size was 5.73 cm. 42% of cases were low grade. None had nodal involvement. Five cases were metastatic at diagnosis, all to the liver. 86.7% had spindle cell morphology. IHC staining was positive for KIT in 92%, followed by CD34 (52%), DOG-1 (24%), and actin (16%). Mutational analysis was done on 10 cases and KIT mutation was found in 8 cases; 2 were wild-type. Two-thirds of patients underwent surgery, mostly esophagectomy. 14 patients received adjuvant imatinib. Median time to diagnosis from symptom onset was 2 months; median time to surgery from diagnosis was 1 month. Of 10 patients with complete follow-up, 2 had recurrences: 1at the anastomotic site and 1 in the liver. Median TTR from surgery was 36.5 months. Median follow-up time was 31.5 months. Median OS from diagnosis for the Mayo cohort was 129.5 months (95% CI 55.7-x). SEER cohort median OS was 81 months (95% CI 63-101), and females had superior OS compared to males (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48-0.93, p = 0.016). Conclusions: Patients undergoing surgical resection for esophageal and GEJ GISTs had a favorable prognosis, but recurrences occurred. The superior OS seen in the Mayo cohort suggests early resection and adjuvant imatinib may improve outcomes.

165 Background: Distant metastases are common in primary esophageal cancer, but data conflict regarding the rates of brain metastases (BM) ranging from 0% to 13%. We sought to investigate whether the incidence of BM from esophageal malignancies is increasing in the modern era. Methods: After IRB approval, a single institution retrospective review identified 583 patients (pts) treated between 1/1997 and 1/2016 for stage I-IV cancer of the esophagus/esophagogastric junction with at least 3 months follow-up. Data collected included demographic information, primary diagnosis date and staging, histologic subtype, treatment regimens for primary and BM, date of BM diagnosis, status of neurologic symptoms and extracranial disease at BM diagnosis, and date of death. Data were analyzed by Fischer’s exact test and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: The overall cohort was comprised of 495 pts (85%) with adenocarcinoma and 82 pts (14%) with squamous cell carcinoma. 492 pts (84%) were male; the median age was 68 years (range 26-90). BM were identified in 22 pts (3.8%) with a median latency of 11 months from the primary diagnosis. Of the pts with BM, the primary histology was adenocarcinoma in 21 pts and squamous cell carcinoma in 1 pt ( P = 0.3). BM developed in 12 pts who were initially treated for locally advanced disease and in 10 pts who presented with distant metastases. Diagnosis of BM was at the time of initial presentation in 4 of these 10 stage IV pts. A solitary BM was identified in 9 pts. Initial treatments of BM were surgical resection followed by stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS; n = 5); surgical resection followed by whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT; n = 1); WBRT alone (n = 13); SRS alone (n = 3). Overall survival (OS) following diagnosis of BM was 18% at 1 year with a median of 4 months. OS was superior for pts who had surgical resection as initial treatment of BM compared to pts treated with WBRT or SRS alone (1-year OS 67 vs. 0%; median OS 13.5 vs. 3 months; P = 0.003). Conclusions: The incidence of BM is low in esophageal cancer with no statistically significant increased rate of BM developing in patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma. Outcomes were poor overall for pts who developed BM, but pts who were appropriate for neurosurgical resection had improved survival.

131 Background: Research demonstrating a volume-outcome relationship has resulted in regionalization of complex cancer surgery to high volume hospitals. A simultaneous national trend towards improved surgical outcomes brings into question whether the potential benefits of regionalization are still relevant. We hypothesize that the difference in adjusted post-operative mortality between low and high volume hospitals has decreased over time. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients with colon, esophageal, and pancreatic cancer undergoing curative intent surgery from 2003-2011. Hospitals were divided into low ( < 25th percentile), medium (25th-75th) and high ( > 75thpercentile) volume groups depending on annual volume of cancer-specific surgery. Year-specific hospital averaged observed/expected (O/E) ratios were calculated for 90-day mortality. Poisson regression was used to model hospital averaged O/E ratios over time. Results: Our study population included 343,929 patients with colon (88%), esophageal (5%) and pancreatic (7%) cancer. There were significant (p < 0.05) improvements in adjusted 90-day mortality from 2003 and 2011 for all volume categories and cancer types, except in high volume hospitals for esophageal cancer. In 2003, high volume hospitals had significantly better outcomes compared to low volume hospitals for all cancer types, as suggested by lower O/E ratios for 90 day mortality (p < 0.05). However, by 2011 the difference in O/E ratios for 90 day mortality was no longer significantly lower for high compared to low volume hospitals (p > 0.05); this was true for all three cancer types (Figure1). Conclusions: During the period of our study, 90-day mortality following gastrointestinal cancer surgery improved in low, medium and high volume hospitals. However, by 2011 the difference in adjusted post-operative mortality between low and high volume hospitals was not significantly different, likely due to global improvements in operative and peri-operative care. This attenuation of the volume-outcome curve has important implications for policy pertaining to regionalization of cancer care in the US.

109 Background: Hospital readmissions following surgery are a focus of quality improvement efforts nationwide. Although some reflect appropriate care, others are potentially preventable readmissions (PPRs). We aim to describe the burden, timing, and factors associated with PPRs after complex cancer surgery. Methods: The National Readmissions Dataset (2013) was used to select patients undergoing a complex oncologic resection (defined as esophagectomy/gastrectomy, hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, colorectal resection, lung resection, and cystectomy). All Readmissions occurring within 30 days from discharge were analyzed. Causes for readmissions were categorized in eleven diagnostic groups and tabulated. ICD-9 primary diagnosis codes were reviewed to identify PPRs. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify demographic, clinical and hospital factors associated with PPRs. Results: We analyzed 60,970 patients with 92,260 admissions. A 30 day readmission occurred in 14% of patients, and was highest following cystectomy (25%) and lowest for lung resections (9%). Of all readmissions 82% were deemed to be PPRs. Half of PPRs occurred within the first 10 days of discharge. Infections, gastrointestinal complications and respiratory conditions accounted for 59% of PPRs. Other common causes included dehydration/electrolyte deficiencies (11%), exacerbation of comorbidity (9.2%), bleeding (5%), thromboembolism (3.5%), and wound complications (3.2%). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of PPRs include Medicaid compared with private insurance (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.8-1.7), higher comorbid conditions (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.32, 1.59), and discharge to a facility (OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.7-2.1). Patients with a prolonged hospital stay or a major complication during the index admission had a 34% (OR 1.34, 95%CI 1.3-1.4), and 64% (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.5-1.7) higher likelihood of a PPR respectively. Conclusions: Most 30 day readmissions after complex cancer surgery are potentially preventable and occur within 10 days of discharge. We identify common causes of readmission and high risk populations to help physicians, administrators and policy makers develop strategies to decrease PPRs.