Search

The mission of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care. Toward fulfillment of this goal and at the direction of its board of directors, the ASCOValue in Cancer Care Task Force set out to develop a framework that would enable a physician and patient to assess the value of a particular cancer treatment regimen given the patient’s individual preferences and circumstances. The rationale that served as the impetus for this initiative is many faceted. Substantial progress has been made in translating our knowledge of the biologic characteristics of cancer into novel therapies. Some of these therapies have led to major improvements in outcomes for specific diseases, and others have produced only modest advances. There is now a wide array of choices for treating many cancer types, and these treatment choices often differ by only small degrees in clinical effectiveness and toxicity. Yet, there is often a wide disparity in cost to patients and payers. Because patients are often confronted with enormous expenses when receiving cancer care, the goal of describing a relationship between the cost of an agent or regimen and the clinical benefits it delivers takes on great importance. As the primary advisor to the patient, the oncologist has an important role in providing a comparative assessment of the various treatment options available; in the spirit of shared decision making, the patient should have transparent information about the clinical impact that can be expected from the different options presented and their relative financial implications. The value framework has been constructed as a conceptual model that incorporates the elements of clinical benefit, toxicity, and symptom palliation as derived from a comparative clinical trial and combines these elements into a score termed the net health benefit (NHB). Ultimately, deployment of the framework as a software application is planned, enabling a patient to modify the weight attributed to any of the elements included in the NHB depending on his or her personal preferences and circumstances. The final NHB will therefore reflect the priorities that are most important to the patient and will be arrived at through guidance from the physician. Information on the cost of the regimens will also be presented so the patient can consider the relative financial impact of his or her treatment options. Two versions of the framework have been created: one for advanced disease and the other for potentially curable (adjuvant therapy) clinical presentations. The original framework versions are shown in Appendix Tables A1 and A2 (online only). The key elements included in the framework— namely, clinical benefit and toxicity—are also those that are regularly reported in the scientific literature when discussing the outcome of a clinical trial that compares two or more therapies. The importance of relying on high-quality, quantifiable evidence cannot be overstated, and this is most often provided by a well-designed, well-conducted prospective randomized trial. The task force recognizes that a limitation of this approach is that it does not readily permit cross-trial comparisons. Such analyses are important to patients and remain a goal for future versions of the value framework. The task force is well aware that there are many elements that might be important to individual patients in assessing the relative value of their treatment options that are not taken into account in our model. These include the convenience of receiving therapy, the avoidance of interrupting the flow of activities of daily living, and the impact of a treatment on quality of life

9032 Background: Consolidation checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) for up to 1 year following chemoradiation (CRT) is a current standard of care for pts with inoperable stage III NSCLC. However, some pts are not able to complete 1 year of CPI due to immune-related adverse events (irAES). In multiple retrospective studies, pts with stage IV NSCLC treated with CPI who experience irAEs generally receive fewer cycles of CPI without a significant detrimental effect on efficacy. The association between irAEs and outcomes with consolidation CPI after CRT has never been reported. Here we report the association between irAEs and efficacy outcomes from the HCRN LUN 14-179, a single-arm phase II trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent CRT in pts with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Methods: After completion of CRT eligible pts with stage III NSCLC without PD received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV q 3 wks for up to 1 yr. Demographics, disease characteristics, and number of cycles of pembrolizumab received were reported in pts who had any grade irAEs (except pneumonitis which included grade >2 only) [Group A] and those without irAEs (except grade 1 pneumonitis) [Group B]. Chi-square test (or Fisher's Exact test) were used for comparisons for categorical variables and Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze time to metastatic disease (TMDD), PFS, and OS. A log-rank test was used to compare groups. Results: 92 eligible pts for efficacy analysis were enrolled from March 2015 to November 2016. 4 yr OS estimate for all pts is 46.2%. Any grade irAEs (except grade I pneumonitis) (n = 37 pts) included pneumonitis (18.5%), colitis (3.3%), increased creatinine (5.4%), elevated transaminases (3.3%), hyperthyroidism (7.6%), hypothyroidism (13.0%). Grade ≥ 2 irAEs (n = 32 pts) included pneumonitis (18.5%), hypothyroidism (10.8%), and colitis (3.3%). Group A/B: male (21/38), female (16/17), current or former smoker (35/52), stage IIIA (20/35), stage IIIB (17/20), non-squamous (21/30), squamous (16/25). Median number of pembrolizumab cycles received in Group A/B pts were 9 vs 15 (p = 0.0942) respectively. 4 yr efficacy endpoints in Groups A/B were TMDD 35.3% vs 41.3% (p = 0.83), PFS 27.8% vs 28.7% (p = 0.97), OS 43.5% vs 47.9% (p = 0.99), respectively. Conclusions: Despite receiving fewer cycles of consolidation pembrolizumab, pts who experienced any grade irAEs (excluding grade 1 pneumonitis) did not have significantly reduced efficacy outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02343952.

Health care costs in the United States present a major challenge to the national economic well being. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has projected that US health care spending will reach $4.3 trillion and account for 19.3% of the national gross domestic product by 2019.1 This growth in spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of our gross domestic product—has not been accompanied by commensurate improvements in health outcomes, despite expenditures far exceeding those of other countries.2–4 One of the fastest growing components of US health care costs is cancer care, the cost of which is now estimated to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $158 billion in 2020.1 Although cancer care represents a small fraction of overall health care costs, its contribution to health care cost escalation is increasing faster than those of most other areas because of several factors: the increasing prevalence of cancer due to the overall aging of the population and better control of some causes of competing mortality; the introduction of costly new drugs and techniques in radiation therapy and surgery; and the adoption of more expensive diagnostic tests. In some cases, the adoption of newer, more expensive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions may not be well supported by medical evidence, thereby raising costs without improving outcomes.5 Coupled with, or even driving, some of these rising costs are sometimes unrealistic patient and family expectations that lead clinicians to offer or recommend some of these services, despite the lack of supporting evidence of utility or benefit.6 Historically, most individuals in the United States were shielded from the acute economic impact of expensive care because they had health insurance. However, current trends suggest that patients will find themselves increasingly responsible for a greater proportion of the cost of their health care. Cost shifting or sharing can occur through the increased use of high-deductible policies and larger copayments. These increased costs are already commonplace and may not be affordable for many families. Indeed, health care expenditures are cited as a major cause of personal bankruptcy,7 and the term financial toxicity has entered the vernacular as a means of describing the financial distress that now often accompanies cancer treatment.8 Like other toxicities of cancer treatment, financial toxicity resulting from out-of-pocket treatment expenses can reduce quality of life and impede delivery of high-quality care.9,10 Patients experiencing high out-of-pocket costs have reported reducing their spending on food and clothing, reducing the frequency with which they take prescribed medications, avoiding recommended procedures, and skipping physician appointments to save money.10,11 These unintended consequences risk an increase in health disparities, which runs counter to some of the key goals of health care reform. In many communities, the high costs associated with cancer care have created a difficult situation for patients and the oncologists who care for them. Addressing this situation will require greater understanding of all the risks and benefits of various treatment options as well as the consequences of specific choices. In this regard, studies have shown that patients specifically want financial information about treatment alternatives along with information about medical effectiveness and treatment toxicity. However, they often do not receive it. Closing this knowledge gap will require educated providers who are able to sensitively initiate a dialogue about the cost of care with their patients when appropriate.12,13 Patients with cancer are often surprised by and unprepared for the high out-of-pocket costs of treatments. They also overestimate the benefits of treatments that sometimes extend life by only weeks or months or not at all. Oncologists are generally aware of this conundrum but uncertain about whether and how the cost of care should affect their recommendations.14 Although raising awareness of costs and providing tools to assess value may help to manage costs while maintaining high-quality care, some oncologists see this as being in conflict with their duty to individual patients.15 Recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Efforts Motivated by our responsibility to help oncologists deliver the highest-quality care to patients everywhere, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) formed the Task Force on the Cost of Cancer Care in 2007. Its mission includes educating oncologists about the importance of discussing costs associated with recommended treatments, empowering patients to ask questions pertaining to the anticipated costs of their treatment options, identifying the drivers of the rising costs of cancer care, and ultimately developing policy positions that will help Americans move toward more equal access to the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.16 In 2012, through the work of the Task Force, ASCO responded to the Choosing Wisely Campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and identified specific instances of overuse in the delivery of cancer care. ASCO used a deliberative consensus process to identify five common clinical practices that are not supported by high-level evidence. A second list of five was developed using the same process and submitted to the Choosing Wisely Campaign in 2013. ASCO amplified the evidence basis for both top-five lists in two publications17,18 and is now developing measures to evaluate the use of these practices as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. These exercises have provided opportunities to develop a rigorous but flexible approach to assessing efficacy across diagnostic and treatment domains.

8500Background: Concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) has been the standard Rx for pts with unresectable stage III NSCLC. A recent phase III trial (PACIFIC) of consolidation durvalumab [PDL-1 inhibitor] ...

TPS8619 Background: Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-δ,γ isoforms are preferentially expressed in leukocytes, have significant roles in normal B and T cell function, and are central to the growth a...

3508 Background: Tivantinib (ARQ 197) selectively inhibits the MET receptor tyrosine kinase, which is implicated in tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Resistance to EGFR inhibitors has been associated with activation of alternative pathways including MET. Methods: Pts with advanced KRAS WT CRC that progressed on or after 1 prior line of chemotherapy and no previous treatment with an EGFR inhibitor were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive cetuximab (500 mg/m2) and irinotecan (180 mg/m2) on days 1 and 15 every 28 days, plus oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily [BID]) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); additional endpoints include safety, objective response rate, overall survival (OS) and exploratory biomarker analyses. Results: Between Jul 2010 and Feb 2012, 122 pts were randomized; 117 pts were eligible for analysis (60 tivantinib, 57 placebo). Mean age was 57 years (range, 27-79 years); ECOG PS 0/1 55%/45%; and 81% received prior oxaliplatin. Median PFS was 8.3 months in the tivantinib arm vs 7.3 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Objective response rate (95% CI) was 45% (33%-58%) in the tivantinib arm and 33% (23%-46%) in the placebo arm. Median OS has not yet been reached but is trending in favor of tivantinib vs placebo (HR = 0.67). Among pts with prior oxaliplatin therapy, median PFS was 8.4 months for tivantinib and 7.2 months for placebo (HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.00; P= 0.1). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (≥ 10%) were neutropenia, diarrhea, and nausea. Correlation of clinical outcomes with additional factors including mutation status and immunohistochemical analysis of tumor MET expression will be presented. Conclusions: Outcomes in this trial trended towards improvement with tivantinib (360 mg BID) plus cetuximab and irinotecan, particularly in the subgroup who had previous oxaliplatin. Further studies are needed to identify the CRC population most likely to benefit from addition of tivantinib to standard therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01075048.

4085 Background: Diarrhea associated with carcinoid syndrome has been attributed to tumor production of serotonin. Telotristat etiprate, (LX1032, LX1606), is an oral inhibitor of peripheral serotonin synthesis. This study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of telotristat etiprate in carcinoid patients with octreotide-refractory diarrhea. Methods: Carcinoid patients with ≥4 bowel movements (BMs)/day on octreotide were randomized 3:1 to receive telotristat etiprate or placebo as double-blind treatment. Patients enrolled in sequential, escalating dose cohorts of 150, 250, 350, or 500 mg tid, followed by a 500 mg tid expansion cohort. Patients were followed for toxicity, 24-hr urinary 5-HIAA (u5-HIAA), BM frequency, and self-reported bowel-related symptoms. Subjects were asked “In the past 7 days, have you had adequate relief of your carcinoid syndrome bowel complaints such as diarrhea, urgent need to have a bowel movement, abdominal pain or discomfort?” Responses (yes or no) were analyzed as categorical variables. Results: 16 patients enrolled in the 4 escalating dose cohorts and 7 in the expansion cohort; 18 on telotristat etiprate and 5 on placebo. Median age: 62 yrs; mean 6.3 BMs/day (range, 4-10). AEs included primarily mild-moderate diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal discomfort. In treated subjects, adequate relief was reported as: Week 1 - 6/18 (33.3%), Week 2 - 5/16 (31.3%), Week 3 - 5/15 (33.3%), and Week 4 - 6/13 (46.0%). No placebo subjects reported improvement at any timepoint. Biochemical response (≥50%reduction in u5-HIAA) and BM response (≥30% reduction in daily BMs for 2 weeks) were associated with reporting of adequate relief. For evaluable telotristat etiprate-treated patients, 9/16 (56%) experienced a biochemical response and 5/18 (28%) experienced a clinical (BM) response; no placebo subjects achieved either biochemical or clinical response. Conclusions: Treatment with telotristat etiprate was associated with decreases in u5-HIAA and BM frequency, and with self-reported relief of bowel related symptoms. Treatment in an extension phase with open-label telotristat etiprate is ongoing.

TPS7619 Background: Personalizing therapy based on an individual patient’s molecular profile is a potentially promising approach to optimize efficacy with the available agents. Optimizing efficacy in the elderly is particularly relevant owing to their increased propensity to suffer therapy-induced toxicity. In this proposal we will attempt to demonstrate optimization of therapy in good performance EGFR mutation negative elderly patients by taking in to consideration the histology of the tumor, the ERCC1 (marker of platinum resistance), RRM1 (for gemcitabine resistance) and TS (for pemetrexed resistance) status. Methods: Untreated advanced stage NSCLC patients age >70 years with measurable disease will be enrolled. Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 randomization to experimental arm (A) or standard arm (B). In arm A, treatment with single or dual-agent chemotherapy will be selected based on histology, ERCC1 (E), RRM1(R) and TS (T) expression at the RNA level. The cut off for high (+, therefore resistant) or low (-, therefore sensitive) expression have been previously defined. Patients with squamousNSCLC who are E-R+ will be treated with single agent carboplatin, E+R- with gemcitabine, E-R- with carboplatin and gemcitabine and E+R+ with docetaxel or vinorelbine. In non-squamous NSCLC patients E-T+ will be treated with carboplatin, E+T- withpemetrexed, E-T- with carboplatin and pemetrexed, E+T+R- with gemcitabine and E+T+R+ with docetaxel or vinorelbine. In arm B treatment with single or dual-agent chemotherapy will be at the discretion of the care provider, i.e., standard of care. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). The tertiary endpoint is disease response. Treatment will continue to maximum of 6 cycles if tolerated or until disease progression. A sample size of 453 patients will give us 90% power to detect a three-month improvement in median survival (8 to 11 months; corresponding to a HR of 0.73) with the log rank test at a significance level of 5%(1-sided) allowing for a 10% failure rate in gene analyses.

312 Background: Diarrhea associated with carcinoid syndrome (CS) has been attributed to tumor production of serotonin. Telotristat etiprate, (LX1032, LX1606), is an oral inhibitor of peripheral serotonin synthesis. This study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of telotristat etiprate in carcinoid patients with octreotide-refractory diarrhea. Methods: Carcinoid patients with >4 bowel movements (BM)/day on octreotide were randomized 3:1 to receive telotristat etiprate or placebo. Patients enrolled in sequential, escalating dose cohorts of 150, 250, 350, or 500 mg tid, followed by a 500 mg tid expansion cohort. Patients were followed for toxicity, 24-hr urinary 5-HIAA (u5-HIAA) secretion, BM frequency, and self-reported relief of bowel-related symptoms. Subjects were asked “In the past 7 days, have you had adequate relief of your carcinoid syndrome bowel complaints such as diarrhea, urgent need to have a bowel movement, abdominal pain or discomfort?” Responses (yes or no) were analyzed as categorical variables. Results: 16 patients enrolled in the 4 escalating dose cohorts and 7 in the expansion cohort; 18 on telotristat etiprate and 5 on placebo. Median age was 62 yrs with a mean 6.2 BMs/day (range 4-10). AEs included primarily mild-moderate diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal discomfort. In treated subjects, adequate relief was reported as follows: Week 1 – 6/18 (33.3%), Week 2 – 5/16 (31.3%), Week 3 - 5/15 (33.3%), and Week 4 – 6/12 (50.0%). No placebo subjects reported improvement at any timepoint. Biochemical response (>50%reduction in u5-HIAA) and BM response (>30% reduction in daily BM for 2 weeks) were associated with reporting of adequate relief. For evaluable telotristat etiprate-treated patients, 9/16 (56%) experienced a biochemical response and 5/18 (28%) experienced a clinical (BM) response; no placebo subjects achieved either biochemical or clinical response. Conclusions: Treatment with telotristat etiprate was associated with decreases in u5-HIAA and BM frequency, and with self-reported relief of bowel related symptoms. Treatment in an extension phase with open-label telotristat etiprate is ongoing.

TPS168 Background: Carcinoid tumors are associated with serotonin (5-HT) secretion. High levels of serotonin are thought to contribute to the flushing, diarrhea, and abdominal discomfort observed i...

4568 Background: Docetaxel plus prednisone provides a modest survival benefit for men with HRPC. We evaluated the feasibility and toxicity of two docetaxel based combined microtubule inhibition doublets in men with HRPC. Methods: Patients with HRPC were randomized to one of two arms: Arm A - D 60 mg/m2 IV d2 + EMP 280 mg PO tid d1–5 q21d cycle with dose-escalation of D to 70 mg/m2 IV d2 after cycle 1; Arm B - D 25 mg/m2 IV d1,8 + VRB 20 mg/m2 IV d1,8 q21d cycle. The primary outcome measure was the rate of Grade 3 and 4 toxicity associated with each arm. Results: Patient characteristics: 64 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Toxicity: Nine of 32 patients (28.1%) (95% CI 6.4%, 39.8%) experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicity in Arm A compared to 5 of 32 patients (15.6%) (95% CI 5.0%, 32.0%) in Arm B. Response and Survival: Among patients with measurable disease in Arm A, 6 of 9 patients (66.7%) had a partial or complete response compared to 4 of 12 patients (33.3%) in Arm ...