Citations

Abstract Background: While genomic alterations are central players in tumor progression, proteins are the targets for precision therapy. The degree by which “actionable” genomic alterations translate into activated/altered proteins and pathway is still under investigation. Using a multi-OMIC approach from the SideOut 2 metastatic breast cancer (MBC) trial, this study explored the concordance between selected “actionable” genomic alterations and protein expression/activation. Methods: Snap frozen biopsies from 29 MBC patients enrolled in a prospective phase II trial were used for this analysis. Exome WES and RNASeq data was processed using an in-house developed pipeline and identified amplification of CCND1 (6/29), FGFR1 (4/29), and FGF 3, 4, 5, and 19 (4/29) as some of most frequent “actionable” genomic alterations in our MBC cohort. Signaling analysis of the 29 cases was performed using Reverse Phase Protein Microarray coupled with Laser Capture Microdissection. Protein expression/phosphorylation was measured in a continuous scale and classified based on quartile distribution. Concordance between CCND1 amplification and Cyclin D1 expression, along with the activation of FOXM1 T600 and Rb S780, was explored. Amplification of the FGFR1 locus or its ligands was correlated with the level of activation/phosphorylation of FGFR1 Y653/654. Results: While Cyclin D1 protein expression was greater than the population mean for 4/6 (67%) patients with CCND1 amplification, only 2/6 (33%) patients with CCND1 amplification had Cyclin D1 level within the top quartile of the population (n=29). FOXM1 T600 activation was independent from CCND1 amplification, with high levels of FOXM1 T600 predominantly in the CCND1 wild-type population. Only 1/6 (17%) patients with CCND1 amplification had FOXM1 T600 level similar to the top quartile of the population while a second patient was above the population median. Activation of Rb S780 was above the population median, but below the top quartile, in 2/6 (33%) CCND1 amplified patients. Similarly, none of the patients with activation of FGFR Y653/654 equal to the top quartile harbored an FGFR1 amplification. Only 1/4 (25%) patients carrying an FGFR1 amplification had an activation of FGFR Y653/654 above the population median. Similarly, 1/4 (25%) patients with FGF ligand amplification showed FGFR Y653/654 level within the top quartile while three patients had FGFR Y653/654 activation below the population median. No significant results were found between proteomic (below/above the median) and genomic characteristics by Fisher test (p>0.05). Conclusion: Molecular genotyping of “actionable” cancer targets alone may be insufficient in predicting whether the actual drug target protein is expressed and/or activated in any given patient's tumor. Although these results need further validation, the combination of genomic and proteomic data may represent a more informative approach for identifying real molecular drivers of individual lesions as well as “actionable” protein/phosphoprotein targets in the absence of genomic events. Multi-OMIC approaches may lead to more effective stratification in precision medicine trials. Citation Format: Pierobon M, Wong S, Reeded A, Anthony S, Robert N, Northfelt DW, Jahanzeb M, Vocila L, Wulfkuhle J, Dunetz B, Aldrich J, Byron S, Craig D, Liotta L, Carpten J, Petricoin EF. A multi-OMIC analysis to explore the impact of “actionable” genomic alterations on protein pathway activation: Clinical implication for precision medicine in metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-07-09.

503 Background: We evaluated temporal patterns in the utilization of systemic therapy among patients undergoing cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) from a large national cancer registry and assessed patient characteristics associated with receipt of systemic treatment. Methods: We reviewed the National Cancer Database to identify patients with stage IV RCC who underwent CN between 1998-2010. Systemic therapy was defined as any treatment with immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy (including targeted agents). We evaluated the association between clinicopathologic features and receipt of systemic therapy using multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations, and assessed the interaction of treatment with time, stratified as immunotherapy (1998-2004) versus targeted-therapy (2005-2010) eras. Results: Of 22,409 patients with mRCC undergoing CN, 8,830 (39%) received systemic therapy. Receipt of systemic therapy increased from 32% in 1998 to 49% in 2010 (p<0.001), largely due to increased utilization of chemotherapy (13.9% vs. 46.7%; p<0.001). Following adjustment, increasing patient age (51-60 years: OR 0.82 [CI 0.73-0.92]; 61-70 years: OR 0.67 [CI 0.59-0.76]; ≥71 years: OR 0.36 [CI 0.31-0.43]), as well as coverage with Medicaid (OR 0.61 [CI 0.5-0.74]), Medicare (OR 0.70 [CI 0.62-0.79]), or no insurance (OR 0.75 [CI 0.63-0.91]) were associated with decreased utilization of systemic therapy. Although use of systemic therapy in the elderly (≥71 years) and in patients with Medicare/Medicaid remained lower throughout the study period, each of these cohorts was significantly more likely to receive systemic treatment in the targeted versus immunotherapy era (all p values <0.05). Conclusions: Utilization of systemic therapy among patients undergoing CN has increased over time, coinciding with the introduction of targeted therapies. Nevertheless, still less than half of such patients receive systemic treatment. While the etiology for lack of treatment is likely multifactorial, the potential health policy implications of continued disparities in care warrant further investigation.

61 Background: Patients with cancer often have complex symptoms and morbidity that prompt frequent Emergency Department visits. The length of stay in the ED for cancer patients exceeds that of patients without cancer. Patients with cancer are also more likely to be admitted, but are often discharged within 72h. Protracted ED visits, extensive investigations, and the burdens of even a short admission may be distressing and may not be aligned with patients’ care goals and preferences. Furthermore, the healthcare resources dedicated to these patients is considerable and has economic implications. We recently established a Supportive Care Infusion Center (SCIC), an on-campus outpatient unit where patients can receive treatments for symptom relief and comfort; they are assured integrated palliative care with routine oncologic care. We believe there is a subset of cancer patients who can be safely transferred from the ED to the SCIC for appropriate care. Methods: We are retrospectively evaluating cancer patients admitted through the ED to validate clinical parameters likely to lead to admission, and also identify any differences between patients admitted for <72h vs >72h. Patients are analyzed based on symptoms, cancer type, prior cancer therapies, performance status, comorbidities, and presence/absence of advance care planning as well as previous contact with Palliative Care. Data are also being gathered on patient outcomes, including mortality within 60d of admission. Results: Previously established indicators predictive of admission included shortness of breath and SIRS criteria, which our current review validates. We also observe that patients admitted for >72h have greater symptom burden and comorbidities and have received multiple lines of therapy. They also less frequently have advance care planning in place. Data analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: There exists a difference between cancer patients admitted >72h and those discharged within 72h. Awareness of these characteristics may lead to improved workflow in the ED. Identifying patients who may be suitable for transfer to an outpatient supportive care unit rather than short-term admission will also facilitate cost-effectiveness. Future direction includes evaluation of outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, and patient-caregiver satisfaction.

42 Background: Methods of stratifying esophageal adenocarcinoma patients into prognostic groups are needed, as are new insights into genetic determinants of disease behaviour. Prognosis is likely to have non-negligible genetic influences, as mediated by host responses to tumor, resistance to therapeutic side-effects, and/or an influence on tumor development. Prior studies have used candidate-gene approaches. We took an alternative approach, using an unbiased, genome-wide approach, and novel analytic methods that may be better able to detect multi-gene interactions, which may contribute the majority of genetic effects for many clinical phenotypes. Methods: Germline DNA from a Toronto-based cohort of EAC patients (n=270) was analyzed by Omni1 Quad microarray as part of the BEAGESS initiative. Quality control and analysis was performed using PLINK, R, and GenABEL software packages. A Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model for progression-free survival tested each polymorphism for independent effects at a genome-wide significance level of P < 1E-07, adjusting for population stratification. While classical analysis has limited ability to detect gene-gene interactions, a Random Survival Forest algorithm was used to detect effects based on the complex interactions among top 1,000 polymorphisms by p-value ranking. Results: After data cleaning and standard GWAS quality control procedures, there were 735,309 SNPs and 245 patients remaining for analysis. The CPH model, adjusted for population stratification, produced a satisfactory Q-Q plot, and showed one SNP (rs7844673, Chr 8) that was significant at p=7.8E-8. In addition, Random Forest based variable selection produced a set of 20 polymorphisms that (1) reproduced 86% of the predictive ability of the full 1000 variables, and (2) also included the #3 ranked polymorphism by CPH modeling (rs9290822, Chr 3) upstream of the IGF2BP2 gene. Conclusions: A genome-wide approach has discovered two previously undescribed SNPs with a potential influence on EAC prognosis via a combination of independent and interactive effects. Validation in an independent cohort is currently being pursued.

LBA2 Background: Docetaxel (D) improves OS of men with mPrCa who have progressed on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We aimed to assess the benefit of upfront chemohormonal therapy for metastatic PrCa. Methods: 1:1 randomization to ADT alone or ADT + D dosed 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles within 4 month (mos) of starting ADT. Stratification factors: high volume (HV) vs. low volume (LV) disease (HV: visceral metastases and/or 4 or more bone metastases); anti-androgen use beyond 30 days; Age ≥70 vs. < 70 years; ECOG PS 0-1 vs. 2; Prior adjuvant ADT > 12 vs. ≤ 12 mos; FDA approved drug for delaying skeletal related events. Key eligibility criteria: suitable organ and neurological function for D; adjuvant ADT ≤ 24 mos and no progression within 12 mos of adjuvant ADT. OS was the primary endpoint and the study was powered to assess for a 33.3% improvement in median OS (80% power and 1-sided alpha=2.5%). Projected median OS for ADT alone: HV-33 mos; LV-67 mos. Results: 790 men were accrued from 7/28/06 to 11/21/2012: ADT N=393; ADT + D: N=397; balanced for demographic, stratification and disease factors. Median age: 63 years (range: 36 to 91); 98% ECOG PS 0 or 1; 89% Caucasian; 24% prior radiotherapy, 24% prior prostatectomy; HV 64% on ADT and 67% on ADT + D. Data released after 4th interim analysis in Sept 2013 when O’Brien Fleming upper boundary was crossed with 53.1% information. This report reflects 1/16/2014 data with median follow-up of 29 mos with 137 deaths on ADT alone vs. 104 deaths on ADT+D. ADT+D: Grade (G) 3/4 Neutropenic fever: 4%/2%; G3 neuropathy: 1% sensory, 1% motor; 1 death due to treatment (no deaths due to treatment on ADT). Efficacy data is in the table below. After disease progression, 123 pts on ADT alone and 45 pts on ADT + D received docetaxel. Conclusions: ADT + D improves OS over ADT alone in men with HV mPrCa. Longer follow-up is needed for men with LV mPrCa. Clinical trial information: NCT00309985. [Table: see text]

442 Background: For patients with advanced or locally recurrent (LR) renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the role of intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT) remains controversial. We analyzed outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with RCC who received IORT. Methods: Between 1985 and 2010, 98 patients were treated with IORT for advanced or LR RCC at 9 institutions. We collected demographic, clinical, treatment, and outcomes data for all patients. Overall (OS), disease specific (DSS), and disease-free survival (DFS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariate Cox hazards regression was used to test significance. Results: IORT was delivered at nephrectomy for advanced disease (28%) or during resection of LR RCC in the renal fossa (72%). 69% of patients were male and mean age at RCC diagnosis was 57. At initial nephrectomy, primary T-stage was 17% T1, 12% T2, 55% T3, and 16% T4. Prior to IORT, 87% had visibly complete surgical resection of tumor. Mean IORT dose delivered was 14.7Gy (range 9-20Gy). Average post-op hospitalization was 10.7 days. Median follow-up after IORT was 1.6 years. OS at 1 and 5 years after IORT was 69% and 37% for advanced patients and 94% and 55% for LR patients, respectively. DFS at 1 and 5 years was 72% and 39% for advanced patients and 96% and 52% for LR patients, respectively. DSS at 1 and 5 years was 72% and 41% for advanced patients and 96% and 60% for LR patients, respectively. For the entire cohort, higher IORT dose (HR 1.3, p < 0.001), positive initial node status (HR 2.9-3.6, p < 0.01), and presence of sarcomatoid features (HR 3.7-6.9, p < 0.05) had a significant association with decreased OS, DFS and DSS. Patients who received adjuvant systemic therapy after IORT showed decreased DSS (HR 2.4, p = 0.03). When analyzing LR tumors alone, positive margin (HR 2.6, p = 0.01) was associated with decreased OS. Conclusions: We report on the largest known cohort of patients with RCC managed with IORT and we have identified factors associated with survival. Outcomes in our cohort with LR RCC treated with local resection and IORT compare favorably to similar groups treated with resection alone suggesting improved DSS may be possible with IORT.