Citations

TPS482 Background: Two combination chemotherapy regimens have emerged as standard of care options for first-line treatment of mPAC: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Nal-IRI (MM-398) is a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan. In a randomized phase 3 study (NAPOLI-1), of patients with mPAC who had been previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy, nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV demonstrated its safety and significant clinical activity, increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) relative to 5-FU/LV. The goal of this current study is to determine the preliminary safety and efficacy of nal-IRI+ + 5-FU/LV with or without oxaliplatin as compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with mPAC. Methods: This open-label, phase 2 comparative study will be conducted in two parts. Part 1 is a safety run-in of a nal-IRI+5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen. The safety run-in will enroll small cohorts of patients following a traditional 3 + 3 dose escalation design to confirm the target dose of oxaliplatin (n = ~6-18). The primary objective of Part 1 is the safety and tolerability of nal-IRI + 5FU/LV + oxaliplatin. Part 2 is a randomized, efficacy study of a nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen (Arm 1), the nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV combination that previously demonstrated efficacy in the NAPOLI-1 trial (Arm 2), versus a nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine control arm (Arm 3) (n = ~156-168). The primary objective of Part 2 is to assess the efficacy of nal-IRI-containing regimens in first-line mPAC patients compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine using the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks as the primary endpoint. Secondary of part 1 is a PK study and Part 2 secondary endpoints will include OS, PFS, objective response rate (per RECIST, v1.1), decrease in CA19-9 levels and quality of life assessments. Clinical trial information: NCT02551991.

TPS474 Background: In pts with APC, the distal common bile duct is frequently obstructed, which can lead to elevated bilirubin levels. Normalization of bilirubin by stenting can take weeks, so treatment options that could be initiated in pts with elevated bilirubin are desirable. In a phase III trial of pts with metastatic PC, nab-P + Gem demonstrated superior efficacy vs Gem alone for all endpoints, including overall survival (OS; median, 8.7 vs 6.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.72; P < 0.001). This study will be the first to analyze safety and PK profiles of nab-P + Gem in pts with APC and CH secondary to bile duct obstruction. Methods: Treatment-naive pts (≈ 12 to 40) with APC, Karnofsky performance status ≥ 70, and CH due to bile duct obstruction are eligible. Pts with a biliary stent must have 2 stable (within 20% of each other) bilirubin readings within 48 to 72 hours of each other taken between 5 and 21 days after stenting. Exclusion criteria consist of brain metastases, any other active malignancy, infection requiring systemic therapy, a history of myocardial infarction, or current use of medications known to be strong inducers of CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. Pts will enter 1 of 2 cohorts based on bilirubin level: cohort 1, > 1.5 to 3 × upper limit of normal (ULN), or cohort 2, > 3 to 5 × ULN. Cohort 2 will proceed only after review of safety and PK data from cohort 1 by a safety monitoring committee (SMC) and a decision has been made to proceed. The starting doses are nab-P 100 mg/m2 and Gem 800 mg/m2 for cohort 1 and nab-P 75 mg/m2 and Gem 600 mg/m2 for cohort 2. Treatment will be administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Doses in each cohort will be modified according to tolerability as determined by the SMC. The primary endpoints are determination of maximum tolerated dose for each cohort and PK profile. Secondary endpoints include investigator-assessed objective response rate, progression-free survival, OS, PK profile of Gem, and safety. The exploratory endpoint is change in serum CA19-9 level from baseline. Enrollment is ongoing. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02267707. Clinical trial information: NCT02267707.

88 Background: There is not yet a consensus on the efficacy and safety of IMRT for the treatment of patients with esophageal carcinomas. We report on our experience with outcomes and toxicity with IMRT for these patients. Methods: Fifty-five patients with esophageal carcinoma were treated with IMRT at our institution from 12/2008 and 12/2014. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy (majority 5-FU with oxaliplatin). Thirty-one (56%) patients underwent surgery. Fifty (91%) received 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. Seventy-three percent of cases were adenocarcinoma. Regions include mid-thoracic (15%), lower thoracic (64%), and GE junction (22%). Clinical uT-stages were as follows: T1 (2%), T2 (20%), T3 (69%), and T4a (5%). Clinical N-stages were as follows: N0 (33%), N1 (53%), N2 (13%), and N3 (2%). Results: Median follow-up for all patients was 15 months (1.5 - 64.5) and 25.5 months (1.5 - 64.5) for patients who were alive at follow-up (n = 31). Fifty-one (93%) patients completed RT. Of the 31 patients who underwent surgery, 9 (29%) were found to have a complete pathologic response. Site of first recurrence was local (n = 2, 4%), regional (n = 3, 6%), and distant (n = 14, 26%). At 12 and 24 months, overall survival was 72% and 58%, freedom from recurrence was 78% and 65%, and freedom from distant recurrence was 78% and 68%. On univariate analysis, improved OS was noted with patients who underwent surgery (RR 0.29) or were cN0 (RR 0.27). Twenty eight patients (51%) experienced > / = CTCAE v.4grade 3 acute toxicity; notable were hematologic (n = 14, 25%), esophagitis (n = 6, 11%), acute coronary event (n = 1, 2%), and post-chemoRT pneumonia (n = 1, 2%). Fifteen patients (31%) experienced > grade 3 late toxicity; notable were esophageal stricture (n = 7, 14%), post-op pneumonia (n = 3, 6%), post-CRT pneumonia (n = 2, 4%), and COPD exacerbation (n = 1, 2%). Conclusions: Patient receiving IMRT with concurrent chemotherapy for esophageal carcinomas have good LC rates, with or without surgery. Majority of patients are able to finish treatment with acceptable rates of late toxicity. Patient who underwent surgery or were cN0 had better OS.

83 Background: Although surgery is traditionally the standard of care for esophageal cancer, esophagectomy carries significant morbidity and mortality. Alternative endoscopic therapies are needed for patients who are not candidates for conventional treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of spray cryotherapy of esophageal cancer. Methods: This study includes patients enrolled retrospectively and prospectively in an open-label registry and patients in a retrospective cohort from twelve academic and community practices. Endoscopic spray cryotherapy was performed until local tumor eradication was confirmed by biopsy or until treatment was halted due to progression of disease, patient withdrawal or co-morbidities. Results: One-hundred and eight patients (median age 75.5, 79.6% male, 93.5% adenocarcinoma, mean length 5.2 cm) underwent 442 treatments (mean 4.2 per patient). Tumor stages included 40 with T1a, 27 with T1b, 10 with unspecified T1, 15 with T2, and 16 with no T stage reported. One-hundred and six patients completed treatment with complete response of intraluminal disease in 54.7%, including complete response in 74.4% for T1a, 50% for T1b, 65.3% for all T1, 6.7% for T2, and 50% for those with no T stage reported. Mean follow-up was 17.3 months. There were no deaths or perforations related to spray cryotherapy. Strictures developed in 11 of 108 patients (10.2%) but were present before spray cryotherapy in 3 of 11. Conclusions: This study suggests that endoscopic spray cryotherapy is safe, well tolerated and effective for early esophageal cancer in patients who are not candidates for conventional therapy.

735 Background: In the phase III CORRECT study, regorafenib significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC. CONSIGN (NCT01538680) was a large phase IIIb study that included 2872 patients from 25 countries; it was designed to provide continued access to regorafenib for patients with mCRC who failed standard therapy and to further characterize the safety of regorafenib. In CONSIGN, adverse events (AEs) and PFS were consistent with those reported in phase III studies. We present a retrospective subgroup analysis of patients enrolled in CONSIGN in the USA. Methods: Patients with mCRC who progressed on standard therapies and had an ECOG PS 0─1 received regorafenib 160 mg QD for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. PFS (per investigator) was the only efficacy variable assessed. Results: A total of 364 patients in the USA were assigned to treatment (all evaluable for safety). The median age was 60 years; 38% and 62% had ECOG PS 0 and 1, respectively. KRAS mutation was present in 59%, KRAS wt in 38%; 74% had ≥ 3 prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median duration of treatment was 2.3 months (range: 0–30). Median PFS (95% CI) was 2.3 (2.0–2.6) months (2.1 months KRAS wt; 2.3 months KRAS mutant). NCI-CTCAE v4.0 grade ≥ 3 AEs occurred in 81% of patients and were considered drug-related in 53% (Table). Grade ≥ 3 hepatobiliary disorders occurred in 2%. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent laboratory toxicities included bilirubin (9%), AST (6%), and ALT (3%). Conclusions: In patients from the USA enrolled in CONSIGN, the safety profile of regorafenib was consistent with that of the overall population and the known safety profile of regorafenib in mCRC. Median PFS was in the range of that reported in phase III trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01538680. [Table: see text]

711 Background: For patients with stage IVA rectal cancer with liver metastases treated with curative-intent chemotherapy and surgery, the role of adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy (RT) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of pelvic RT on oncologic outcomes in this patient population. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all patients with stage IVA rectal adenocarcinoma with liver metastases treated with curative-intent resection of the primary tumor and all liver metastases at our institution between 1991 and 2010. Patient and treatment characteristics were compared between patients who did or did not receive pelvic RT using chi-square and unpaired ttests. Survival and recurrence estimates were calculated from date of initial diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. Local recurrence (LR) was defined as recurrence in the pelvis occurring at or before distant recurrence (DR). Cox regression was used to compare rates of freedom from LR (FFLR), freedom from DR (FFDR), and overall survival (OS) between patients who did or did not receive pelvic RT. Results: The analysis included 65 patients. Median patient age at diagnosis was 59 years (range, 27-87). Tumor stage was T2 (n = 4), T3 (n = 53), or T4 (n = 8). The median number of liver metastases was 2 (range, 1-14). Surgery was low anterior resection (n = 54) or abdominoperineal resection (n = 11). All patients received perioperative fluoropyrimidine based chemotherapy. Pelvic RT was administered to 35 patients (54%), either preoperatively (n = 22) or postoperatively (n = 13). Median RT dose was 50.4 Gy (range 25-58). Patient characteristics were similar for those who did or did not receive pelvic RT. Median follow-up was 3.7 years. The 3-year estimates of FFLR, FFDR and OS were 81% vs 58% (p =.056), 35% vs 29% (p =.75), and 66% vs 71% (p =.81) for RT vs no RT, respectively. Conclusions: In this analysis of patients with stage IVA rectal cancer with liver metastases undergoing curative intent therapy, pelvic RT (vs. no pelvic RT) was associated with a trend to lower rates of LR and similar rates of DR and OS.

710 Background: Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) has been described as a rare form of metastatic disease progression in colorectal cancer (CRC). There remains a paucity of literature with regards to the course and management of LM in CRC. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of LM in CRC patients seen at our institution over a 15-year period, and to describe the clinical course and outcome of these cases. Methods: LM in CRC primary cases between 2000 and 2014 were identified in the Mayo Clinic databases. The charts were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Of 17,095 CRC primaries, we identified 10 patients with LM (0.058%) in this 15-year period. Nine cases were included in the analysis. Four had metastatic disease at the time of their initial CRC diagnosis. One patient also had a lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed during initial staging for the CRC primary. Median overall survival after CRC diagnosis was 25.7 months (range 4.7-74.8). Median time to diagnosis of LM after CRC diagnosis was 25.3 months (range 1-68.1). All patients had MRI findings consistent with LM: 3 patients with spinal LM, 5 patients with intracranial LM, 1 with both. One of three CSF analyses at the time of LM workup was positive for malignant cells; all had elevated protein. Neurologic symptoms correlated with site of the lesions, with headache, cranial nerve palsy, lower extremity weakness, and gait disturbance among the most frequently reported. However, not all patients had neurologic findings, with LM lesions found incidentally in two cases. Seven patients (78%) had palliative radiotherapy (RT) for LM. Three patients continued to receive systemic chemotherapy after diagnosis of LM. No patients underwent intrathecal chemotherapy. Median survival after LM diagnosis was 7 weeks (range 2-39). Conclusions: The diagnosis of LM is an exceedingly rare development in the natural course of CRC. It continues to confer an extremely poor prognosis with limited treatment options. At our institution, most patients had their disease addressed by palliative means, with many receiving RT to control their neurologic symptoms. Based on our series, supportive care remains a sensible approach to the management of LM in CRC.

708 Background: In June 2015 Cancer Care Ontario convened an expert panel to determine if there is an optimum LV dose in 5FU-LV combinations for the treatment of CRC. This request arose out of observed variation in LV dosages between some cancer centers. The research question was effect of LV dose on overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), disease free survival (DFS), response rate (RR) and adverse events/toxicity, given a constant dose of 5FU. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for guidelines (GL) and comparative trials; eligibility included English language, with > 30 patients, that examined different doses of LV where dose of 5FU was not varied. Assessment of studies for inclusion was completed by 4 reviewers. Results: We identified 5 GL, 0 systematic reviews and 12 trials that defined a LV dose in combination with 5FU. None of the GL informed an optimal dose of LV. RR was assessed in 10 trials; 4 showed trends to higher RR with higher LV dose, but differences were not statistically significant (SS) between arms. PFS or DFS was reported in 6 trials and was similar between arms. Time to recurrence reported in one trial that included bevacizumab (BV) was longer in the high dose LV group that was SS. OS was addressed in 10 studies: no difference found in 7 studies; in one RCT OS was longer with the higher dose LV 55 vs. 45 months (p not reported); in one retrospective study OS was 23 vs. 20 months in favor of high dose LV (p not reported); one study of LV and BV had longer OS vs. lower dose LV at 26 vs. 21 months (SS). Toxicity: higher dose LV was associated with greater toxicity in 3 of 4 studies that reported stomatis, and increased rates of diarrhea in 9 of 11 trials. Meta-analysis was not appropriate as studies were too heterogeneous. Conclusions: There is no convincing evidence to identify an optimum dose of LV to be used in 5-FU/LV combinations. Amongst studies that did show a difference the trend was improved survival in favor of the higher dose. Similarly, differences in toxicities when identified were consistently greater with the higher dose LV. The expert panel concludes that the existing literature provides insufficient data to suggest that chemotherapy protocols should deviate from standard protocol doses.

658 Background: In patients (pts) with mCRC with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is limited evidence regarding the indication for primary tumor resection. The primary objective was to evaluate the prognostic value of primary tumor resection in synchronous mCRC pts. Methods: In this IPD analysis, a total of 3,423 pts from 8 first-line randomized trials (RCTs) with systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analyzed. Five RCTs included targeted (anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR) agents. Synchronous mCRC was defined as distant metastases occurring ≤ 6 months of the initial CRC diagnosis. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared by stratified multivariate Cox models. Results: There were 710 (21%), 1,705 (50%) and 1,008 (29%) pts with non-resected and resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC, respectively. Compared to the non-resection group, pts in the synchronous resection group were associated with female gender, colon tumor, isolated liver/lung involvement, single metastatic site, and lower LDH (all p<.001). Adjusted for age, gender, performance status and prior chemotherapy, the non-resection group had a significantly worse median OS (16.4m) compared to the resection (22.2m; HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, PFS was significantly worse for the non-resection group (7.9m) compared to the resection (9.7m; HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous group (8.9m; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66). Similar trends were observed in pts treated with non-targeted vs targeted agents, and anti-VEGF vs anti-EGFR therapy. In a subset analysis (n= 526), the observed associations remained after additional adjustment for primary tumor location, liver/lung involvement, number of metastatic sites, BMI and LDH. Conclusions: In this largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date, primary tumor resection is associated with better OS and PFS in synchronous mCRC pts. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Prospective RCTs on this topic are ongoing.

656 Background: Patients (pts) with peritoneal metastases from CRC (pmCRC) have reduced OS compared to mCRC pts without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the impact of number and location of metastases among pts receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. Methods: Individual patient data were available on 9,265 pts (median age 64; 63% male; 93% ECOG PS 0-1; 68% colon primary tumor; brain metastases excluded) enrolled onto 12 first-line randomized trials (4 tested targeted regimens). Stratified multivariable Cox models were used to assess the associations with overall survival (OS); adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals are reported (CI). Results: There were 7,963 (86%) pts with non-pmCRC (3,904 with one disease site; 4,059 with ≥2 disease sites), 191 (2%) pts with isolated pmCRC, and 1,111 (12%) non-isolated pmCRC. These groups were similar in age, race, and use of targeted chemotherapy. Compared to non-pmCRC, pts with pmCRC were more likely to be female (41% vs. 36%, p<.001), have colon primary tumors (85% vs. 67%, p<.0001), and have PS2 (10% vs. 6%, p<.0001). Compared to isolated pmCRC, pts with solitary non-peritoneal sites (both M1a) had significantly better OS (HRadj=0.78; CI, 0.64-0.94, p=.009) while pts with ≥2 non-peritoneal sites had similar OS (HRadj=1.06; CI 0.88-1.28, p=.535). OS of pts with pmCRC with a single other disease site (n=446) was similar to isolated pmCRC (HRadj=1.13; CI 0.91-1.40, p=.28), but those with pmCRC + ≥2 additional disease sites (n=665) had shortest survival (HRadj=1.44; CI 1.17-1.77, p<.001). A combination of peritoneal and liver metastases (n=821; HRadj=1.37, CI 1.12-1.67, p=.002) was associated with poorer survival compared with isolated pmCRC; but combination with extrahepatic sites (n=290; HRadj=1.15, CI 0.91-1.45, p=.25) was not. Conclusions: pmCRC pts have significantly worse survival than those with other solitary site mCRC. Among those with multiple disease sites, poorer survival is a function of increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement, which indicates prognostic heterogeneities among M1b pts.