Search

Background Cancer cachexia causes significant morbidity and mortality in advanced lung cancer patients. Clinical benefit of β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, arginine, and glutamine (HMB/Arg/Gln) was assessed in newly diagnosed patients. Methods NOURISH, a prospective, two-arm, open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled phase II trial compared cachexia in patients who received HMB/Arg/Gln with those who did not. All patients received structured nutritional, exercise and symptom control via a Macmillan Durham Cachexia Pack. Conducted in five UK centres, patients aged > 18 years, with newly diagnosed advanced small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who were able to take oral nutrition, with a performance status of 0-to-2 and a life expectancy > 4 months were eligible for trial entry. Patients suitable for treatment with curative intent were ineligible. The trial was designed as a signal-seeking pilot study with target recruitment of 96 patients. One-to-one randomisation was stratified by diagnosis (SCLC or NSCLC), stage of disease (locally advanced or metastatic) and performance status. The primary outcome measure was treatment success defined as a patient being alive without significant loss of lean body mass (not > 5%) by 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included quality of life. Results Between February-2012 and February-2013, 38 patients were recruited, 19 to each arm. Baseline characteristics were balanced. The trial was halted due to slow accrual and partial adherence. Trial data demonstrated no evidence of treatment benefit. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial. Conclusions Further evaluation of HMB/Arg/Gln in this setting could not be recommended on the basis of this trial. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN registry: 39911673; 14-Apr-2011 10.1186/ISRCTN39911673.

Importance Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed. Objectives To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial. Design, Setting, and Participants Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration forERBB/HER2testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned. Results Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm. Conclusions and Relevance Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management. Trial Registration ISRCTN.org identifier:46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier:2006-000811-12

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the feasibility and adherence to home delivery (HD) of pemetrexed maintenance treatment in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Exploratory, prospective, single-arm, Phase II study in advanced nsqNSCLC patients, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1 that did not progress after 4 first-line induction cycles of a platinum doublet. The first cycle of pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) was hospital administered, further cycles were HD until progressive disease or discontinuation. Feasibility was assessed by the adherence rate to HD (probability of reversion to hospital administration or treatment discontinuation due to HD) as primary endpoint, and by health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL: EQ-5D, lung cancer symptom scale [LCSS]), satisfaction with HD, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS 52 patients (UK & Sweden) received a median of 4 (range 1-19) pemetrexed maintenance cycles. Adherence rate up to Cycle 6 was 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.4%, 99.7%). All but 2 patients remained on HD. 1 patient discontinued after Cycle 1 (patient decision), and 1 after Cycle 6 (non-compliance with oral dexamethasone). 87% (33/38) of the patients preferred home to hospital treatment and in 90% (28/31) of cases, physicians were satisfied with distant management of patients. During HD Cycles 2-4 mean change from baseline ranged from 3.0 to 7.7 for EQ-5D visual analog scale. The 6-month OS rate was 73% (95% CI: 58%, 83%). 1 patient had an HD-related adverse event (device-related infection, Grade 2) and 1 patient died after Cycle 1, before HD, due to a possibly drug-related atypical pneumonia. CONCLUSION HD of pemetrexed maintenance treatment in patients with advanced nsqNSCLC was feasible, safe, and preferred by patients, while maintaining HRQoL. Physicians were satisfied with distant patient management.

4022 Background: No large scale randomised data exists evaluating the impact of age and sex in patients (pts) undergoing potentially curative surgery and CTx for OG cancer. However, differences in age and sex may be contributing factors to variability in CTx dose-response and toxicity which could also impact survival. Methods: Data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival data, hazard ratios were calculated for pts

Purpose Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Patients and Methods One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. Results There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). Conclusion In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Purpose To compare gefitinib with placebo in chemotherapy naïve patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. Patients and Methods NSCLC patients (chemotherapy naïve, WHO performance status 2 or 3; unfit for chemotherapy; stage IIIB/IV) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d) plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 100) or placebo plus BSC (n = 101). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and safety. Correlation of gefitinib efficacy with EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH]) was explored. Results Hazard ratios (HRs; gefitinib:placebo) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.12; P = .217) for PFS and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.15; P = .272) for OS. As expected for this patient population, OS for both arms was poor, at about 3 months. ORRs were 6.0% (gefitinib) and 1.0% (placebo). QOL and PSI rates were 21.1% and 28.3% (gefitinib) and 20.0% and 28.3% (placebo), respectively. In EGFR FISH-positive patients (n = 32), HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.73) for PFS and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.12) for OS. No unexpected adverse events occurred. Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and ORRs after treatment with gefitinib or placebo, in the overall population; improvements in QOL and symptoms were similar in both groups. Tolerability profile of gefitinib was consistent with previous studies. PFS was statistically significantly improved for gefitinib-treated patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Summary Background Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. Methods For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0–2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. Findings Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23–4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97–4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference −8·61, 95% CI −14·49 to −2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI −2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (−3·18, 95% CI −8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (−4·11, 95% CI −9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23–1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07–1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66–0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3–4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). Interpretation The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Purpose: To develop a highly reproducible model of disseminated childhood neuroblastoma in mice to allow secondary evaluation of therapeutics against microscopic disseminated disease. Methods: CB17/Icr SCID were injected i.v. with 103 to 5×106 human NB-1691 neuroblastoma cells. NB-1691 cells were detected by PCR for synaptophysin and tyrosine hydroxylase in peripheral blood, and bone marrow. Therapeutic studies evaluated topotecan and vincristine as single agents or in combination. Topotecan was administered i.v. daily for 5 days on two consecutive weeks. Courses were repeated every 21 days for three cycles. Vincristine (1 mg/kg) was administered i.v. every 7 days for nine consecutive weeks. Treatment started 11–21 days after tumor cell inoculation. Results: Following injection of ≥1×105 cells 100% of mice developed disease. Mice inoculated with 107 cells survived a median of 42 days. Survival time was a linear function of the cell inoculum. At autopsy, gross tumor was routinely detected in many organs in particular liver, ovaries, kidneys and adrenals. NB-1691 cells were detected by PCR in peripheral blood, and bone marrow. Immunohistochemical staining showed that lesions were strongly positive for synaptophysin, chromogranin A and negative for leukocyte common antigen. Topotecan (0.6 mg/kg) alone extended median survival from 44 days (controls) to 95 days. When treatment was started 21 days after inoculation of NB-1691 cells, topotecan extended median survival from 39 days (controls) to 91 and 99 days at dose levels of 0.3 and 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. Vincristine (1 mg/kg) extended survival by a median of 9.5 days. In combination with vincristine (1 mg/kg), median survival was increased to 141 days (topotecan 0.6 mg/kg) and 159 days (topotecan 1.0 mg/kg). Conclusion: This model of disseminated neuroblastoma is highly reproducible. As this model may more closely simulate childhood disease it may be a valuable adjunct in developing new approaches to advanced stage, poor prognosis neuroblastoma.

The bis-naphthalimide DMP 840 has demonstrated high level antitumor activity in a number of preclinical models and has been evaluated in several Phase I studies in adults. We enrolled 10 patients with refractory pediatric solid tumors to this Phase I study of DMP 840 given intravenously by short infusion daily for 5 days. The most frequent and dose-limiting toxicity was myelosuppression. The maximum tolerated dose on this schedule was 8.6 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. One patient had a complete response; there were no measurable tumor responses among the remaining 9 patients.

Purpose Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted. Results Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity. Conclusion On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Purpose This phase II, open-label, parallel-group study compared gefitinib with vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients (age ≥ 70 years) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d orally) or vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 infusion on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and tolerability. Exploratory end points included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Results Patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib (n = 97) or to vinorelbine (n = 99). Hazard ratios (HR; gefitinib v vinorelbine) were 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.65) for PFS and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.47) for OS. ORR and disease control rates were 3.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 8.8) and 43.3% (for gefitinib) and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7 to 11.4) and 53.5% (for vinorelbine), respectively. Overall QOL improvement and PSI rates were 24.3% and 36.6% (for gefitinib) and 10.9% and 31.0% (for vinorelbine), respectively. In the 54 patients who were EGFR FISH-positive, HRs were 3.13 (95% CI, 1.45 to 6.76) for PFS and 2.88 (95% CI, 1.21 to 6.83) for OS. There were fewer treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events with gefitinib (12.8%) than with vinorelbine (41.7%). Conclusion There was no statistical difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine in efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve, unselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, but there was better tolerability with gefitinib. Individuals who were EGFR FISH-positive benefited more from vinorelbine than from gefitinib; this unexpected finding requires further study.

197 Background: Hyponatraemia, defined as a serum Na < 135mEq/L, is the commonest electrolyte abnormality in oncology practice. We describe the demographics, oncological management and response of hyponatraemia to oncological treatment modalities in our patient group. Methods: We retrospectively analysed serum sodium levels in lung cancer patients admitted to a teaching hospital in the UK between 2007 and 2013. Data was collected on baseline demographics, histology, tumour stage and grade of hyponatraemia. Mild hyponatraemia was defined as a serum sodium between 130-135mEq/L, moderate 125-129mEq/L and severe as < 124mEq/L. Results: 182 (108 male; 74 female) patients with lung cancer and documented hyponatraemia were hospitalised between 2007 and 2013. The median age of patients on admission was 69.2 years (range 33-92 years). 119(65%) had mild, 58(32%) moderate and 5(3%) severe hyponatraemia. 74(40%) were adenocarcinomas, 58(32%) squamous carcinomas, 43(24%)SCLC and 7(4%) had unspecified NSCLC. 89(49%) had metastatic disease on diagnosis. 18/43(42%)small-cell, 14/58(33%) squamous, 23/74 (31%)adenocarcinoma patients had moderate to severe hyponatraemia. 132(74%) of this cohort had active oncological treatment: 93(51%) chemotherapy, 25(14%) radiotherapy, 17(9%) surgery whilst 47(26%) had best supportive care. 28(15%) had a biochemical response to their treatment, 11(39%) of these patients were adenocarcinomas, 10(36%) squamous carcinomas and 7(25%) SCLC. Conclusions: Hyponatraemia in lung cancer patients is widely distributed in various age groups and histological subtypes. Among those admitted with hyponatraemia, severe cases were rare. Higher rates of SIADH are seen in SCLC than in any other malignancy and proportionately more SCLC patients had moderate - severe hyponatremia than NSCLC. Hyponatraemia responds to active oncological treatment including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Although historically, hyponatraemia is considered a poor prognostic marker and has been associated with shorter survival duration, this should not preclude active oncological management. Further studies are needed to evaluate the prognostic value of hyponatraemia and its treatment in cancer patients.

4002 Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (2 cycles cisplatin/5 fluorouracil) (CF) followed by surgery is a standard of care for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. We investigated whether more ch...

e20684 Background: Cancer cachexia is a multi-factorial syndrome causing loss of LBM, functional impairment and death. HMB/Arg/Gln attenuates skeletal muscle degradation in animal studies. Cancer t...

4016 Background: The Cancer Oesophagus Gefitinib (COG) trial randomised (1:1) 450 patients(pts) with advanced EC who had progressed after 1-2 lines of chemotherapy to gefitinib (G) or placebo (P). ...

BACKGROUND Topotecan is a topoisomerase I inhibitor with activity against xenografts of childhood solid tumors and established clinical activity against neuroblastoma and rhabdomyosarcoma. We have studied the relationship between systemic exposure to and the antitumor activity of topotecan lactone (the active form of the drug) in the xenograft models. Furthermore, we determined whether the responses seen in these models occur at systemic exposure levels that are tolerable in children. METHODS Neuroblastoma xenografts derived from the tumors of six different patients were established subcutaneously in immune-deprived mice. Topotecan was administered by intravenous bolus injection 5 days a week for 2 consecutive weeks, repeated every 21 days for three cycles. The minimum daily doses that induced complete responses (CRs) and partial responses (PRs) were determined. Topotecan lactone pharmacokinetic studies were performed in both tumor-bearing and nontumor-bearing mice. RESULTS The minimum doses associated with CRs and PRs in four of the six neuroblastoma xenografts were 0.61 and 0.36 mg/kg body weight, respectively. The topotecan lactone single-day systemic exposures associated with these doses were 88 and 52 ng x hr/mL, respectively. There was an approximately sixfold difference in topotecan lactone systemic exposure (290 ng x hr/mL versus 52 ng x hr/mL) associated with achieving CRs in the least-sensitive and most-sensitive tumors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Neuroblastoma xenografts are highly sensitive to topotecan therapy, and responses in mice are achieved at systemic exposures similar to those that are clinically effective and tolerable in children. These results support the concept of deriving preclinical data relating systemic exposure to antitumor activity in xenograft models. Such data may be valuable in making informed decisions regarding the clinical development of new agents.

7595 Background: Most SCLC patients initially respond to chemotherapy but then relapse and die so new therapies are urgently required. Pre-clinical data shows statins induce growth arrest and apoptosis in SCLC and several other tumour cell types and are additive with chemotherapy. This may in part be due to impaired Ras superfamily function as statins deplete mevalonate, reducing geranylgeranylation and farnesylation of these proteins. We therefore undertook this large pragmatic phase III trial in order to determine if overall survival (OS) was affected by the addition of pravastatin in SCLC. Methods: Patients with limited (LD) or extensive (ED) stage SCLC were randomised to pravastatin 40mg OD or placebo for up to 2 years and given standard chemotherapy according to local practice recommended as either cisplatin 60mg/m2 iv or carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 and etoposide 120 mg/m2iv d1 to 3 or 100 mg BD po d2 & 3; max 6 cycles plus radiotherapy as usually given. Patients were excluded if they had used statins within 12 months prior to randomisation. Stratification was: LD vs ED and ECOG 0,1 vs 2,3. Endpoints were: primary - OS; secondary - progression free survival (PFS), local PFS (local control), response rates (RR) and toxicity. Results: Between 2007 and 2012, 846 patients were randomised, 422 (49.9.%) received pravastatin and 424 (50.1%) placebo in 93 participating sites in the UK. The median age was 64 years (range 54-69); ECOG performance status: 0: 23%; 1: 54%; 2: 17% and 3: 6%; weight 72.6 kg; LD, 357 (42.2%); ED, 479 (56.6%); 211 (24.9%) had ipsilateral effusion and 201 (23.8%) had ipsilateral SCF lymph nodes; Relative Dose intensity of cisplatin/carboplatin and etoposide was 91.6% (range 80.8 to 99.7), and 94.7% (range 85.7 to 100); 83.4% vs 86.3% completed > 4 cycles of chemotherapy on the pravastatin and placebo arms respectively. Most patients completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy: 263 (62.3%) vs 265 (62.5%) in the pravastatin vs. placebo groups. Updated results showing OS, PFS, local PFS and toxicity will be presented. Conclusions: This trial will report on whether pravastatin 40 mg OD added to standard therapy alters the outcome for SCLC patients. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN56306957.

4023 Background: Survival in patients who relapse after first-line chemotherapy (CT) for advanced esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma (EGC) is poor though recently randomised trials (RCT) have suggested a small benefit for second line chemotherapy with taxanes or irinotecan. There is very little data on health related quality of life (HRQL) or overall survival (OS), particularly in patients who progress shortly after first-line therapy. Methods: COUGAR-02 was a multicentre open-label, phase III RCT for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGC of performance status (PS) 0-2 who had progressed within 6 months of previous platinum/fluoropyrimidine CT. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive either docetaxel 75mg/m2every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles or active symptom control (ASC). The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoint of HRQL, assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ST022, was analysed using standardised area under a curve and compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Sensitivity analysis adjusting for dropouts due to death were performed using quality adjusted survival. Results: 168 patients (84 patients in each arm) were recruited between April 2008 and April 2012. Median age was 65 years (range 28-84); 81% were males. PS at randomisation was 0 for 27%, 1 for 57% and 2 for 15%. 86% had metastatic disease. 43% progressed during previous CT, 28% progressed within 3 months of end of previous CT and 29% progressed between 3 and 6 months. Median number of cycles of docetaxel was 3. 23% completed 6 cycles. Docetaxel was well tolerated and resulted in a significantly improved OS over ASC alone (HR=0.67 (95% CI 0.49-0.92); p=0.01). Objective response rate was 7%. For QLQ-C30, patients on docetaxel arm reported significantly less pain (p=0.0008) and trend for less nausea and vomiting (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.02) than those on ASC arm. Similar global HRQL seen (p=0.53).For QLQ-ST022, trend seen for less dysphagia (p=0.02) and pain symptoms (p=0.01) for patients on docetaxel arm than ASC Conclusions: Docetaxel provided a significant OS benefit over ASC with improvements in symptom scores and no loss in overall HRQL. Docetaxel can be considered a standard of care in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00978549.

LBA4 Background: Survival in patients who relapse after first-line chemotherapy for advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGC) is poor though recently randomized trials have suggested a small survival benefit for second-line chemotherapy with taxanes or irinotecan. There is very little data on quality of life or survival, particularly in patients who progress shortly after first-line therapy. Methods: COUGAR-02 was a multicenter open-label, randomized controlled phase III trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic OGC of performance status (PS) 0-2 who had progressed within 6 months of previous platinum/fluoropyrimidine (PF) chemotherapy (CT). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either docetaxel 75mg/m2every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles or active symptom control (ASC), which could include any treatment thought by the treating clinician to be appropriate for the management of symptoms including radiotherapy, steroids and supportive medications. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were response rate, toxicity, health related quality of life (HRQL) and healthcare resource use. Results: Between April 2008 and April 2012, 168 patients were recruited (84 patients in each arm). Median age was 65 years (range 28-84), 81% were male. PS at randomisation was 0 for 27%, 1 for 57% and 2 for 15%. Site of disease was stomach in 46%, esophagogastric junction in 34% and esophagus in 20%. 86% had metastatic disease. 43% progressed during previous CT, 28% progressed within 3 months of end of previous CT and 29% progressed between 3 and 6 months. 19 (23%) patients completed 6 CT cycles (median 3 cycles per patient). The main reasons for not completing treatment were progression and toxicity. Docetaxel significantly improved overall survival over ASC alone (median 5.2 months (95% CI 4.1-5.9 months) for docetaxel; 3.6 months (95% CI 3.3-4.4 months) for ASC, HR=0.67 (95% CI 0.49-0.92); p=0.01). 7% had a partial response and 46% had stable disease after CT. 21% on docetaxel had grade 4 toxicity. Conclusions: The addition of docetaxel to ASC significantly improved overall survival. Docetaxel can be considered a standard of care in this setting. Clinical trial information: 13366390.

6 Background: There are no randomised trials of 2nd line chemotherapy for esophageal cancer. The phase III COG trial of gefitinib versus placebo in patients with esophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy did not show significant overall survival (OS) benefit, however the trial incorporated patient reported outcomes (PRO) using validated tools. The PRO data are therefore critical to inform practice and the initial results are presented here. Methods: Adults with measurable/evaluable metastatic esophageal or types I/II junctional adeno or squamous cell carcinoma progressing after prior chemotherapy, with performance status 0-2 were randomised 1:1 to 500mg gefitinib (G) or placebo (P), treated until progression. Primary outcome: OS. Secondary outcomes include safety, PFS, PRO (assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-OG25 at baseline 4, 8 and 12 weeks until progression) and predictive biomarkers. Pre-specified PRO domains were global quality of life, dysphagia, eating and odynophagia. Analysis by ANCOVA of change in PRO at 4 weeks adjusted for baseline. Results: 450 patients were recruited from 51 UK centres and no difference in OS was detected. There was evidence that PFS was better in the intervention arm (P 35 days, G 49 days; HR=0.795, 95%CI 0.66, 0.96, p=0.017). Questionnaire compliance rates were excellent at baseline (94%) and at 4 weeks (77%). Patients in the gefitinib arm reported significantly better social function (9.26; 95%CI 1.94 to 16.58; p=0.013) and significantly fewer problems with odynophagia (-8.61; 95%CI -14.49 to -2.73; p=0.004), constipation (-15.24; 95%CI -22.83 to -7.65; p=0.0001) and speech (-10.40; 95%CI -16.13 to -4.67; p=0.0004) than patients receiving placebo but more problems with diarrhoea (19.23; 95%CI 11.79 to 26.27; p