Citations

134 Background: Brain metastasis (BM) is an uncommon site of failure in patients (pts) with esophageal cancer (EC) with reported rates between 1-6%. EC pts are living longer with the wider adoption of trimodality therapy and, as with other malignancies, this may change the patterns of failure. We evaluated the incidence and outcomes of BM in EC at Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Methods: A retrospective review identified pts who developed BM from cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. A total of 321 patients treated for stage I-IV EC (adenocarcinoma, n = 273; squamous, n = 46; small cell, n = 2) were identified between 1997 and 2012. Fisher’s exact test was used for comparisons. Actuarial survival was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: BM developed in 13 pts (4%), all of whom had adenocarcinoma. Nine pts initially presented with T3 and/or node-positive disease. Four pts presented with metastatic disease to other sites, but only 1 of this group was diagnosed with BM at initial presentation. The median time from initial diagnosis to BM detection was 12 months (range 0-40). All pts were symptomatic at diagnosis. BM was solitary in 6 pts, multiple in 6 pts, and unknown in 1 pt. The posterior fossa was involved in 9 pts. The brain represented the first site of failure in 9 pts. Treatment included surgical resection (n = 5), stereotactic radiosurgery (n = 4), and whole brain radiotherapy (n = 9). Median overall survival was 24 months from initial diagnosis and 5 months from BM detection. Among pts with adenocarcinoma, 3/119 (2.5%) were diagnosed between 1997-2006 compared to 10/154 (6.5%) between 2007-2012 (P = 0.1). Conclusions: The brain remains an uncommon site of failure among pts with EC. A recent series reported an incidence of BM in 13% of pts, raising the possibility of a changing failure pattern. In our series, BM was detected in only 4% of pts. Our study is suggestive of a trend towards increased incidence of BM in more recent years, although it did not reach statistical significance and could be a consequence of the retrospective nature of the study. Both series found BM limited only to pts with adenocarcinoma, and a possible association has been reported between HER-2 overexpression and BM in EC. Therefore, BM in EC may be an interesting area for future study.

125 Background: Treatment for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is radiation and chemotherapy, with or without surgery. Radiation has traditionally been delivered with 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT). This study evaluates late toxicity in patients treated with IMRT as well as early outcomes and acute toxicity. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 32 patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with IMRT at Mayo Clinic Florida from 2008 -2012. Pathology includes squamous cell and adenocarcinomas. Tumor sites include middle and lower thoracic and GE junction. Clinical stages are TX-T3, N0-3, M0-1. All patients received at least one cycle of concurrent chemotherapy. IMRT dose was 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions prescribed to a target volume including the tumor and regional lymphatics. IMRT plans utilized coplaner beams in a 7-9 beam arrangement or volumetric modulated arc therapy. Results: Median follow-up is 8.9 months (range 2.4-23.0) for all patients and 13.1 months (range 2.8-23.0 months) in surviving patients. Median patient age is 69 (range 46-87). Trimodality treatment was completed in 20 patients (62.5%). Surgery was either an open or minimally invasive esophagogastrectomy. The incidence of grade 3 or greater late toxicity at 1 year was 48% in surgery patients and 26% in non-surgery patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicity was esophageal strictures in 25%. The incidence of any grade 3 or greater acute toxicity was 65% in the surgery patients and 75% in the non-surgery patients. Overall survival (OS) for all patients at 18 months is 57% (CI 37-86%) and progression-free survival (PFS) is 60% (36-99%). OS and PFS for trimodality therapy at 12 months is 83% (66-100%) and 81% (63-100%) respectively and for bimodality therapy is 34% (12-93%) and 70% (33-100%) respectively. Conclusions: Increased late toxicity occurs in surgery patients, and increased acute toxicity in non-surgery patients. Lower survival in non-surgery patients may be due to early progression, morbidities which preclude surgery or improved survival with surgery. Overall, IMRT is a feasible treatment modality, which may be equally efficacious to 3D CRT for the treatment of esophageal carcinoma.

165 Background: The Hematology Hospital Outpatient service at Rochester Methodist Hospital provides ambulatory outpatient care to patients who would normally be hospitalized on our inpatient services due to cytopenias and need for infusion/transfusion support. A quality project was conducted to streamline our process and decrease wait times. Methods: This project was a part of a Mayo Lean Collaborative initiative to increase customer satisfaction and eliminate waste. The first step was to collect baseline measurements to capture the non-value added waiting time of our entire outpatient process. These benchmark times were collected from 65 patients over 4 days. We evaluated these wait times to identify gaps in care and factors contributing to delays in our process. Data collected "before and after" each implementation phase determined if the change was beneficial. Results: Through our data collection, one major area of opportunity we identified was the wait time for CBC results. At baseline, patients were waiting in a room for 61.9 minutes for lab results. A major contributor to delay was the lack of carriers to send blood samples through the tube system being stocked in the outpatient area. We also discovered that the time from when the sample was placed in the carrier to the time it arrived in our lab was significant. Through a process analysis it was identified that the CBC tubes were being sent to a central lab prior to their final destination in the Hematology lab. We were able to re-route our CBCs directly to the hem lab. Data collected after the intervention showed we were receiving results at 51 minutes, therefore, eliminating 10.9 minutes off of an appointment. We also identified additional opportunities such as pre-assigning rooms, scheduling, exam room organization, and communication that were able to be addressed. Conclusions: As a result of this lean collaborative project we reduced patient wait time by 20.1 minutes and increased patient satisfaction. We were able to order interventions sooner thereby increasing patient safety. By process analysis, we identified multiple areas in our process that could be shortened with no additional cost.

134 Background: The CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype (application for CAHPS trademark in process) represents a significant advancement towards helping cancer care providers understand patients’ experiences of care. Although a number of standard commercial surveys are in use, currently none are available that both (1) capture the aspects of care most important to patients and (2) allow comparisons of those aspects of care across treatment centers and modalities. Methods: We developed a survey instrument that incorporated patient, clinician, and other stakeholder input throughout the development process. The survey measures patients’ perceptions of observable provider behaviors that are indicative of high quality care. Field test data were collected from 1,367 of 2,826 eligible patients (48% response rate) treated with surgery, radiation, or medical oncology from 6 accredited cancer treatment centers across the US. Classical psychometric methods were used to evaluate the measurement properties of composite scales per standard CAHPS methodology. Results: Based on a priori conceptualization, patient and stakeholder input, and empirical analyses, we identified 5 composites measuring shared decision-making, exchanging information about treatment, affective communication, access to care, and patient self-management. A confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling showed an excellent fit (CFI > 0.96; RMSEA < 0.05) between the observed data and the structure for these five composites. Cronbach’s alpha for these composites ranged from 0.71-0.88, discriminant validity was good for all scales, and correlations with overall ratings of cancer care providers were moderate (0.31) to high (0.69). Evaluation of the precision with which the composites distinguish among cancer centers indicated that the measures were reliable; however, a second field test with a greater number and variety of centers will be needed to establish a standard sampling approach and confirm these results. Conclusions: We anticipate wide-spread adoption of this measure by cancer care providers to direct quality improvement efforts due to great interest and involvement in this project on the part of stakeholders.

110 Background: Assessment of compliance with national quality guidelines for the management of melanoma may be complicated by controversy about selection of patients for nodal surgery and limited by a lack of data on quality metrics. Previous reports suggest suboptimal overall compliance, with sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) not performed for many suitable patients and completion lymph node dissection (CLND) omitted in many biopsy-proven node-positive (LN+) cases. The purpose of this study was to assess compliance with national ASCO/SSO guidelines for lymph node (LN) surgery for T2 and T3 (intermediate thickness, 1.01-4.00 mm) primary cutaneous melanoma patients and elucidate factors associated with non-compliance. Methods: All cases of T2 and T3, M0 melanoma were identified from 2004-2010 SEER data. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to identify independent predictors of compliance. Five-year cancer specific survival (CSS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Overall, 75.3% (6,609/8,782) of T2-T3 primary cutaneous melanoma patients underwent LN staging including SLNB in 6,330 (74.5%) of 8,492 clinically LN negative patients. Among these 6,609 patients, 1,279 (19.4%) had one or more LN+. 940 LN+ patients (73.4%) underwent CLND with removal of a mean (median, IQR) of 20.7 (18, 11-27) LNs. Compliance with LN staging and management guidelines was associated with truncal primary site (for SLNB), p<0.001 and with patient age <65 yrs and increasing number of metastatic LNs (for CLND), both p<0.0001. Compliance with CLND for LN+ patients was associated with improved 5 year CSS: 70.0% vs 64.6%, p<0.001. Conclusions: Compliance with guidelines for LN surgery in T2 and T3 melanoma is poor despite the well-defined benefit for this group of patients. These data suggest that non-compliance is multifactorial and not simply due to practice differences arising from the controversial aspects of melanoma management. Room for improvement exists. Assessment of modifiable factors associated with poor compliance, design of strategies to improve compliance and the development of performance measures around appropriate LN staging and management of T2 and T3 melanoma deserve further investigation.

LBA9000^ Background: The humanized monoclonal IgG4 anti-PD-1 antibody MK-3475 has demonstrated durable antitumor activity in MEL and NSCLC. We evaluated MK-3475 efficacy and safety in a pooled analysis of 411 MEL pts. Methods: A nonrandomized cohort of ipilimumab-naive (IPI-N) and IPI-treated (IPI-T) pts treated with MK-3475 10 mg/kg Q2W, 10 mg/kg Q3W, or 2 mg/kg Q3W and randomized cohorts of IPI-N and IPI-T pts treated with 2 Q3W or 10 Q3W were included. Response was assessed every 12 wk by RECIST 1.1 by independent central review and by immune-related response criteria (irRC) by investigator. Results: 162 pts were treated at 2 Q3W, 192 at 10 Q3W, and 57 at 10 Q2W. 190 pts were IPI-N and 221 were IPI-T. As of the 10/18/2013 cutoff, all pts had ≥6 mo follow-up and >75% had ≥9 mo follow-up. Among the 365 pts with measurable disease at baseline, ORR by RECIST was 40% (95% CI 32%-48%) in IPI-N and 28% (95% CI 22%-35%) in IPI-T pts. Responses were durable (88% ongoing at analysis). Median PFS by RECIST was 24 wk in IPI-N and 23 wk in IPI-T pts. Median OS was not reached, with 1-y OS of 71% in all pts. Benefit was observed by both RECIST and irRC at all doses and schedules in IPI-N and IPI-T pts (Table). MK-3475 demonstrated activity in all major subgroups irrespective of ECOG PS, LDH levels, BRAFmutation, M stage, and number and type of prior therapy. Overall, 12% of pts experienced drug-related grade 3/4 AEs and 4% discontinued due to a drug-related AE. There were no drug-related deaths. Conclusions: MK-3475 showed durable responses and a manageable safety profile across dose and schedules in IPI-N and IPI-T MEL pts. The observed efficacy and safety suggest MK-3475 may be an appropriate treatment for all pts with MEL. Clinical trial information: NCT01295827. [Table: see text]

LBA7008 Background: Treatment options for CLL/ SLL patients (pts) who fail chemoimmunotherapy are limited. We report interim results from a phase III randomized study of ibrutinib (ibr), a first in class covalent BTK inhibitor, vs ofatumumab (ofa) in R/R CLL/SLL. The Data Monitoring Committee recommended this analysis be considered final, based on meeting the primary and a key secondary endpoint. Methods: R/R CLL/SLL pts who failed ≥1 therapy received 420 mg oral ibr daily until progression or IV ofa 300/2000mg for 12 doses. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), IRC assessed overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results: Of 391 pts enrolled (median age 67 years; 40% ≥70 years; 57% Rai stage III/IV disease; 30% del 17p), 195 were randomized to ibr and 196 to ofa. Ibr pts had median 3 prior therapies vs 2 for ofa. Median follow-up was 9.4 months (m). Ibr significantly lengthened PFS (median not reached vs 8.1 m; HR 0.215, CI 0.146–0.317, p<0.0001; 78.5% risk reduction), and significantly improved OS (median not reached; HR 0.434, CI 0.238–0.789, p=0.0049) compared with ofa. ORR was 42.6 vs 4.1% (p<0.0001) and ORR+PR with lymphocytosis was 62.6 vs 4.1% for ibr vs ofa. Similar effects were seen in del17p and purine analog refractory subsets. In each arm 2 pts had confirmed Richter’s transformation. Most frequent adverse events (AE) for ibr vs ofa were diarrhea (47.7 vs 17.8%) fatigue (27.7 vs 29.8%), and nausea (26.2 vs 18.3%). Atrial fibrillation was more frequent with ibr (5.1 vs 0.5%). Major hemorrhages were reported in 1.0 vs 1.6% for ibr vs ofa. Drug discontinuation due to AE was 4.1 vs 3.6% for ibr vs ofa. 86% of ibr pts were continuing treatment. 57 pts randomized to ofa with confirmed PD had initiated ibr at cross-over. Conclusions: Compared with ofa, ibr significantly improved PFS, OS and ORR in pts with R/R CLL/SLL. The safety profile was comparable with that previously reported (Byrd NEJM 2013). These results support ibr as a beneficial therapy for R/R CLL patients irrespective of del 17p or purine analog refractory disease. Clinical trial information: NCT01578707.

LBA4 Background: Lapatinib (L) is a HER1-HER2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimisation (ALTTO) Trial is a randomised, phase III trial comparing 3 oral L-containing regimens with T, each given for 1 year. Methods: From June 2007 to July 2011, 8381 patients (pts) were randomised from 946 sites in 44 countries to receive either L+T, T→L, L, or T. Anti-HER2 therapy was initiated after completing all chemotherapy (N=4613), concurrently with a taxane following anthracycline (N=3337), or concurrently with a non-anthracycline, platinum-containing regimen (N=431). The L arm was closed in Aug 2011 for futility and is not presented. The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (DFS). L+T vs. T is tested for superiority and T→L vs. T is tested for non-inferiority at 1.11 margin. P≤0.025 is required for statistical significance. 850 DFS events in the L+T vs. T comparison would provide 80% power to detect a true hazard ratio (HR) of 0.80 with experiment-wide alpha=0.05. The current analysis was planned to occur either after observing these 850 events or at 4.5 yrs median follow up (MFU). Results: Pt and disease characteristics were well balanced. 40% were node-negative and 57% were hormone receptor positive. Only 555 DFS events for the L+T vs. T comparison were observed at 4.5 years MFU. HR for DFS was 0.84 (97.5% CI, 0.70-1.02; P=0.048; 4-yr DFS%=88% vs. 86%) for L+T vs. T and 0.93 (97.5% CI, 0.76-1.13; non-inferiority P=0.044; 4-yr DFS%=87% vs. 86%) for T→L vs. T. Diarrhoea (75% vs. 20%), rash (55% vs. 20%) and hepatobiliary (23% vs. 16%) adverse events were more frequent in L+T vs. T. Primary cardiac endpoints were infrequent (<1%) in all arms. Conclusions: L+T has lower risk of a DFS event compared with T, and T→L appeared non-inferior to T, but neither finding was statistically significant. The first DFS results of dual HER2 blockade in the adjuvant ALTTO at 4.5 years MFU are unexpected considering the effect shown by doubling the pCR rate with L+T vs. T in the NeoALLTO trial. Follow up continues. Clinical trial information: NCT00490139.

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]

LBA1 Background: Adjuvant endocrine therapy with AI vs T improves outcomes in postmenopausal HR+ BC. TEXT and SOFT were designed to test whether adjuvant AI improves outcomes in premenopausal women with HR+ BC treated with OFS (AI question) and to determine the value of OFS in women who remain premenopausal and are suitable for adjuvant T (OFS question). Methods: TEXT and SOFT, randomized phase 3 trials, enrolled 5,738 premenopausal women with HR+ early BC from Nov03 to Apr11 (2672 TEXT; 3066 SOFT). TEXT randomized women within 12wk of surgery to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS; chemotherapy (CT) was optional and concurrent with OFS. SOFT randomized women to 5y E+OFS vs T+OFS vs T alone, either within 12wk of surgery if no CT planned, or within 8mo of completing (neo)adjuvant CT. OFS was by choice of 5y triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS: randomization until invasive local, regional, distant recurrence, or contralateral breast; 2nd malignancy; death). Due to low event rates, protocol amendments in 2011 changed the analysis plans to answer the AI question (E+OFS vs T+OFS) by joint analysis of TEXT and SOFT. By Q3’2013 with >5y median follow-up, 436 DFS events were projected, providing 84% power for HR=0.75 with E+OFS vs T+OFS (stratified logrank 2-sided α=0.05). Results: At 5.7y median follow-up, 514 (11%) DFS events were reported in the ITT population comparing E+OFS (n=2346) vs T+OFS (n=2344). Patients assigned E+OFS had significantly reduced DFS hazard (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86; P=0.0002) vs T+OFS; 5y DFS was 91.1% vs 87.3%. Reductions were similar for secondary endpoints of BC-free interval (HR=0.66 (0.55-0.80) 5y BCFI 92.8% vs 88.8%) and distant recurrence-free interval (HR=0.78 (0.62-0.97)), though not overall survival (HR=1.14 (0.86-1.51)) at this early follow-up (194 (4%) deaths). Grade 3-4 targeted AEs were reported in 31% E+OFS vs 29% T+OFS patients. Conclusion: In premenopausal women with HR+ BC, adjuvant treatment with E+OFS significantly reduced the risk of recurrence compared to T+OFS. Clinical trial information: NCT00066703 / NCT00066690 .