Search

Purpose Alofanib is a small-molecule allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor. We report safety and preliminary efficacy from the first-in-human phase 1b study of alofanib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer. Methods The standard dose-escalation design 3 + 3 aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Alofanib was administered daily intravenously 5 days on, 2 days off. There were five dose levels (50–350 mg/m2). All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results 21 patients were enrolled. Patients were predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (43%), 19% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 2 and more treatment lines). During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and MTD was not defined. 15 (71.4%) patients had at least one adverse event associated with the treatment (TRAE). Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were observed in 6 patients (28.6%). The most common TRAEs included reactions immediately after administration, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia, and headache. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was 3.63 (95% CI 1.58–5.68) and 7.0 (95% CI 3.82–10.18) months, respectively. The 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 57.1% and 33.3%. Disease control rate was 68% with one durable partial response. Conclusions The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2, 5 days on, 2 days off has been declared as RP2D. Alofanib showed acceptable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071184

Purpose: To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods: In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

The 17th St Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference in 2021 was held virtually, owing to the global COVID-19 pandemic. More than 3300 participants took part in this important bi-annual critical review of the 'state of the art' in the multidisciplinary care of early-stage breast cancer. Seventy-four expert panelists (see Appendix 1) from all continents discussed and commented on the previously elaborated consensus questions, as well as many key questions on early breast cancer diagnosis and treatment asked by the audience. The theme of this year's conference was 'Customizing local and systemic therapies.' A well-organized program of pre-recorded symposia, live panel discussions and real-time panel voting results drew a worldwide audience of thousands, reflecting the farreaching impact of breast cancer on every continent. The interactive technology platform allowed, for the first time, audience members to ask direct questions to panelists, and to weigh in with their own vote on several key panel questions. A hallmark of this meeting was to focus on customized recommendations for treatment of early-stage breast cancer. There is increasing recognition that the care of a breast cancer patient depends on highly individualized clinical features, including the stage at presentation, the biological subset of breast cancer, the genetic factors that may underlie breast cancer risk, the genomic signatures that inform treatment recommendations, the extent of response before surgery in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy, and patient preferences. This customized approach to treatment requires integration of clinical care between patients and radiology, pathology, genetics, and surgical, medical and radiation oncology providers. It also requires a dynamic response from clinicians as they encounter accumulating clinical information at the time of diagnosis and then serially with each step in the treatment plan and follow-up, reflecting patient experiences and treatment response.

Contains fulltext : 241226.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously been shown to extend progression-free survival versus placebo when given to patients with relapsed high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer who were platinum sensitive and who had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation, as part of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 trial. The aim of this final analysis is to investigate the effect of olaparib on overall survival. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done across 123 medical centres in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0-1, had histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous or high-grade endometrioid ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer, and had received two or more previous platinum regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive web or voice-response system. Stratification was by response to previous chemotherapy and length of platinum-free interval. Treatment assignment was masked to patients, treatment providers, and data assessors. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been reported previously. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint and was analysed in all patients as randomly allocated. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one treatment dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01874353, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2013 and Nov 21, 2014, 295 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either olaparib (n=196 [66%]) or placebo (n=99 [34%]). One patient, randomised in error, did not receive olaparib. Median follow-up was 65·7 months (IQR 63·6-69·3) with olaparib and 64·5 months (63·4-68·7) with placebo. Median overall survival was 51·7 months (95% CI 41·5-59·1) with olaparib and 38·8 months (31·4-48·6) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·00]; p=0·054), unadjusted for the 38% of patients in the placebo group who received subsequent PARP inhibitor therapy. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia (which occurred in 41 [21%] of 195 patients in the olaparib group and two [2%] of 99 patients in the placebo group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 50 (26%) of 195 patients receiving olaparib and eight (8%) of 99 patients receiving placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in eight (4%) of the 195 patients receiving olaparib, six of which were judged to be treatment-related (attributed to myelodysplastic syndrome [n=3] and acute myeloid leukaemia [n=3]). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib provided a median overall survival benefit of 12·9 months compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation. Although statistical significance was not reached, these findings are arguably clinically meaningful and support the use of maintenance olaparib in these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck.

PURPOSE Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)–positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

301 Background: FGFR2 status of a patient with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma could be an important factor in determining optimal treatment strategy with FGFR2 inhibitors and antibodies. The question remains how well different assays agree on the FGFR2 status of the same patient and whether one test can be substituted by another. Methods: Pairwise comparison of 4 tests based on the same patient population was performed: 3 IHC assays [Abcam clone EPR24075-418, R&D clone 98706, Santa Cruz clone C-8] and one FISH test. One hundred and nine formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded samples (including 64 primary tumors and 45 metastases of same patients) were obtained and were stained with FGFR2 IHC assays. Two trained pathologists independently evaluated the percentages of tumor staining and their intensity. FGFR2 FISH was performed as described previously [Su, BJC 2014]. The concordance analysis was performed to assess (1) correlation of FGFR2 expression/amplification between different assays in primary and metastases, (2) the predictive properties of one test of another. Results: After evaluating the expression in the first 19 patients, further study was carried out only using the Abсam assay due to pronounced nuclear staining with other IHC tests. FGFR2 any level expression was detected in 29 (47%) primary tumors and 18 (40%) metastases with concordance of 91%. The prevalence of FGFR2 amplification was 9.4% and intratumoral heterogeneity was observed in 33% of FGFR2 amplified cases. Pearson Correlation Coefficients (PCC) were: 0.89, 0.38 and 0.35 between IHC3+/FISH, IHC≥1% stained cells/FISH and IHC≥10%/FISH, respectively. The table represents how well one assay can predict the same outcome (positivity or negativity) of another assay. Conclusions: Among patients who were negative by FISH, 86%-93% of the patients were negative by IHC assay (Abcam). Among patients who were positive by FISH, 75-80% of them were positive by IHC. FISH should not be recommended as a substitute for a FGFR2 IHC assay due to high probability of false negative prediction as a result of intratumoral heterogeneity and low PCC. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The overall survival (OS) results in patients with ALK-positive metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have rarely been reported. The aim of this prospective-retrospective cohort study was to obtain real-world data on the use of crizotinib or chemotherapy in patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC in Russia. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with epidermal growth factor receptor–negative metastatic NSCLC were screened in 23 cancer centers. To be eligible, patients were required to have confirmation of ALK rearrangement. Patients were treated with crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 96) or the investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (n = 53). The primary end point was OS. RESULTS A total of 149 ALK-positive patients were included. Mean age was 53 years in both groups. Patients were predominately women (59%) and never-smokers (74%), and most patients had adenocarcinoma histology (95%). At a median follow-up time of 15 months, 79 of the 149 patients included in the analysis had died. Median OS from the start of treatment was 31 months (95% CI, 28.5 to 33.5 months) in the crizotinib group and 15.0 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 21.0 months) in the chemotherapy group ( P < .001). The objective response rate was 34% in the crizotinib group. Among patients with brain metastasis, one complete response (6%) and five partial responses (31%) were achieved. Grade 3 adverse events were observed in three patients (3%) in the crizotinib group. CONCLUSION The improved OS observed in crizotinib clinical trials in ALK-positive NSCLC was also observed in the less selective patient populations treated in daily practice in Russia. The use of standard chemotherapy in these patients remains common but seems inappropriate as a result of the effectiveness of newer treatments, such as crizotinib.

Aim. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the effect of starting dose of regorafenib on overall survival (OS) of patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Materials and methods. We searched for research data in the PubMed. The analysis included all publications till 08.20.2019 which compared OS depending on the starting dose of regorafenib (160 mg or less) in the 1st course of therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Ver. 5.3. Results. Two studies demonstrated decreased OS at starting dose of less than 160 mg (A. Adenis et al., 2016: risk ratio - RR 1.26, 95% confidence interval - CI 1.01-1.56; A. Aljubran et al., 2019: RR 2.25, 95% CI 0.93-5.43). Two studies showed an improvement in OS with a starting dose of less than 160 mg in the 1st course (T. Bekaii-Saab et al., 2018: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.47-1,11; J. Gotfrit et al., 2017: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.17-1.22). In two other studies, there was no effect of a starting dose of regorafenib on OS (K. Yamaguchi et al., 2019: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.1; G. Argiles et al., 2019: RR 0,86, 95% CI 0.65-1.13). The meta-analysis did not reveal the effect of starting dose of the drug on OS: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78-1.21; p=0.79; I2=64. Conclusions. Reducing the starting dose of regorafenib in the 1st course does not decrease OS and can be recommended for routine clinical practice.

Definitive concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is offered to only 3% of Russian patients with stage III NSCLC. To determine the patterns of care and barriers to cCRT utilization in Russia, we conducted a survey of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs). Electronic IRB-approved survey containing 15 questions was distributed to Russian ROs. Fisher’s exact test or Cochran-Armitage test of trend was used to assess the associations between clinical experience, practice type, and patterns of care. We analyzed 58 questionnaires completed by ROs—16 respondents from tertiary referral hospitals, and 42 from community or private centers. A total of 88% of respondents formulate treatment recommendations in multi-disciplinary tumor boards. For unresectable stage III NSCLC, the most common recommendation is sequential CRT (50%), followed by concurrent CRT (40%), with an observed higher utilization of cCRT in tertiary centers (9/16, 56% vs 14/42, 33%). Of the respondents, 31% do not offer cCRT to their pts. Among reasons for avoiding cCRT are (1) poor performance of pts (76%); (2) high toxicity of therapy (55%); (3) lack of consensus among tumor board members (33%); and (4) preference for sequential CRT (31%). Only 3% do not irradiate elective LNs. Eighty-six percent of respondents counsel their NSCLC pts regarding smoking cessation. Despite level 1 evidence, cCRT is rarely used in Russia for pts with locally advanced NSCLC, and preference for sequential therapy and concerns over high toxicity are the most common barriers. Education of Russian ROs may increase cCRT utilization, leading to improved survival, notably in the era of maintenance immunotherapy.

Alofanib is a potent, small molecule, allosteric inhibitor that binds to the non-active extracellular site of IIIc and IIIb FGFR2 isoforms. Phase 1b clinical study (RPT835GC1B) met its primary endpoints and recommended phase 2 dose was described early. Here, we present pharmacokinetics (PK) and results of biomarker analysis. Alofanib was administered daily intravenously for 5-days followed by a 2-day interval (rest). There were five dose levels using a 3 + 3 design. 21 patients have been enrolled in the study. Patients were Caucasian (100%), predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver (43%) and bone (14.3%) metastases, 19% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 3 and more lines of therapy). The PK and biomarker analysis set included 18 patients. FGFR2 amplification was accessed by FISH with ZytoLight SPEC FGFR2/CEN 10 Dual Color Probe and FGFR2 expression was accessed by IHC with antibody 1G3 (Abcam (ab 5820). Table summarizes PK data. The geometric mean values of Cmax, AUC0-t, T1/2, Vd increased and CL, Kel decreased approximately dose-proportionally after single dosing, similar to previous preclinical studies. The decrease in the mean value of the Vd for a dose of 350 mg/m2 may be associated with a significant increase in AUC0-t. No correlations between PK values and objective response rate (n=2; 9.5%), progression-free (median 3.63 months (95% CI, 1.58 - 5.68) and overall (median 7.0 months (3.82 - 10.18) survival as well as in patients with liver metastases were found (all P>0.1). A positive FGFR2 IHC expression was observed in all tumor cells and a weak positive reaction in normal epithelium. FGFR2 amplification was confirmed by FISH in 1 (5.6%) patient.Alofanib PK in a gastric patient population is well characterized, supporting the use of a once-daily 350 mg/m2 dose. In further studies, the evaluation of FGFR2 amplification seems to be important. Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Cohort 5 50 mg/m2 100 mg/m2 165 mg/m2 250 mg/m2 350 mg/m2 Cmax, mcg/ml (CV%) 21.4 (32.3) 23.7 (18.4) 44.7 (15.5) 72.8 (64.3) 145.9 (42.7) AUC0-t, mcg*h/ml (CV%) 2.3 (31.9) 6.6 (14.2) 13.3 (49.9) 23.8 (8.7) 74.0 (57.5) Vd, ml/m2 (CV%) 4006.1 (28.3) 4907.5 (14.7) 5676.8 (26.6) 6686.7 (11) 3823.0 (63.8) CL, ml/h/m2 (SD) 19609.5 (7740) 14028.2 (1990) 11910.5 (8740) 10011.0 (827) 4183.0 (2420) Kel, 1/h (CV%) 4.9 (15.3) 2.9 (2.8) 2.1 (41.2) 1.5 (3.8) 1.1 (47.0) T1/2, h (SD) 0.1 (0.024) 0.2 (0.01) 0.3 (0.118) 0.5 (0.0171) 0.6 (0.293) Citation Format: Grigory Raskin, Vasily Kazey, Svetlana Gorbacheva, Aiyyna Nikiforova, Galina Statsenko, Elena Artamonova, Liubov Vladimirova, Natalia Besova, Anastasia Mochalova, Ivan Rykov, Vladimir Moiseyenko, Igor Utyashev, Sergei Iugai, Nadezhda Dragun, Dmitry Reznikov, Evgenia Gavrilova, Sergei Tjulandin, Ilya Tsimafeyeu. Pharmacokinetics of alofanib and biomarker analysis in patients with advanced gastric cancer: A phase 1b study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3481.

e15608 Background: in 2021 ASCO has updated guidelines on adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer with the statement: “Patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas patients with other high-risk factors, including sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen, perineural or lymphatic invasion, poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade, intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, or grade BD3 tumor budding, may be offered ACT”. We performed a single-center retrospective study to assess the prognostic role of postoperative tumor stage T4 and T3 with ≥2 negative prognostic factors in patients with resected stage II colon cancer. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1457 pts with stage I-III colon cancer treated in Russian Cancer Research Center n.a. N.N. Blokhin from 2001 to 2015. We included pts with resected stage II colon cancer with following negative prognostic factors: T4; sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen; perineural or lymphatic invasion; poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade; intestinal obstruction; and tumor perforation. Three cohorts were studied: pts with pT4N0M0 with no other high-risk factors (group A), pts with pT4N0M0 with additional high-risk factors (group B), and pts with pT3N0M0 with ≥2 high-risk factors (group C). The primary study endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). The secondary endpoint was 5-year overall survival (OS). Statistical analysis was done with SPSS v.20. Results: 164 pts met the inclusion criteria with 17 (10%) pts in group A, 90 (55%) pts in group B, and 57 (35%) pts in group C. Adjuvant chemotherapy was performed in 8 (47%), 25 (28%), and 9 (16%) pts, respectively (p = 0.035). At a median follow-up of 62 months (range, 2-135 months), the 3-year DFS was 82%, 68%, and 78% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99-2.4; p = 0.053). No difference in 3-year DFS was found between group A and C (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.34-3.2; p = 0.9). The 5-year OS was 75%, 65%, and 78% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.84-2.3; p = 0.2). Conclusions: Patients with pT4 with additional high-risk features had worse overall survival compared to other subgroups with resected stage II colon cancer. There was no difference in survival rates between patients with pT4 with no additional negative prognostic factors and pT3 with ≥2 negative prognostic factors. Therefore, we propose that patients with pT4 as well as with pT3 with ≥2 negative prognostic factors are at a higher risk of recurrence and should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy.

e13032 Background: CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) have dramatically changed therapeutic landscape of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+ HER2- aBC). There are three iCDK4/6 in Russia, which are available and included into the clinical guidelines as a preferred first line treatment option beginning since 2018. The aim of this study was to assess evolution of treatment approaches to HR+ HER2- aBC and identify demographic and disease characteristics in correlation with available groups of therapy (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy ±mTOR inhibitors/ CDK4/6i). Methods: Аdult patients diagnosed with de novo or recurrent HR+ HER2- aBC in 2014-2021 identified in outpatient departments of Moscow state oncology hospitals were included into our non-interventional, descriptive, retrospective cohort study. Primary objective of this real-world study was to describe the rate of CDK4/6i usage in the first line setting. As a secondary objective, we describe patient and disease characteristics in iCDK4/6 group, as well as in the endocrine monotherapy and chemotherapy groups. Results: From the cohort of 1000 patients (full-set analysis population) 874 cases were selected, who received treatment since 2018. 45.9% (95% CI 42.6, 49.2) patients were treated with CDK4/6i in combination with endocrine therapy in the first-line setting. From them in the subgroups of patients with or without visceral metastases 50.5% (95% CI 45.5, 55.5) and 42.1% (95% CI 37.7, 46.5) were treated with CDK4/6i in the first line setting, respectively. Among 874 cases 78.0% (95% CI 75.3, 80.7) patients received endocrine therapy ± targeted therapy; in the subgroups of patients with or without visceral metastases 69.5% (95% CI 64.9, 74.1) and 84.9% (95% CI 81.7, 88.1) were treated with endocrine therapy ± targeted therapy in the first line setting, respectively. Conclusions: Endocrine therapy is a predominant therapeutic option in the first line setting for HR+ HER2- aBC. Clinical trial information: NCT04852081. [Table: see text]

e17551 Background: recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) patients with platinum-free interval (PFI) < 6 mo. are usually considered platinum-resistant and treated with non-platinum chemotherapy. However, this practice is not based on proper-conducted randomized trials. Methods: we queried the PubMed database for all full-text articles and abstracts on the treatment of patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) in 01/01/2000-01/06/2019 timeframe. The PRISMA tool was used to ensure transparent reporting of the results. Inclusion criteria were: 1) histologically confirmed epithelial OC; 2) recurrent disease within 6 months after completion of platinum chemotherapy; 3) treatment with platinum- or non-platinum chemotherapy agents that are routinely used for OC; 4) no concomitant therapy with targeted or investigational agents; 5) defined response rate (RR) and assessment criteria. Proportion meta-analysis (random-effect model) and beta-regression were conducted to assess the impact of platinum agents on response rate as well as significance of other variables. In the beta-regression model response rate was a dependent variable, while platinum agents (yes or no), used non-platinum drugs and method of response assessment were independent variables. Statistical analysis was dose with meta and betareg packages of R software. Results: we identified 7156 articles and screened them for title and abstract, 157 studies for further analysis. Efficacy of non-platinum- and platinum-based therapy was assessed in 113 (n = 5272) and 44 (n = 1055) trials respectively. In meta-proportion random-effect model RR among patients treated with platinum-based and non-platinum chemotherapy RR was 36% (95% CI 30-41; I2 = 62%) and 16% (95% CI 14-19; I2= 70%) respectively. Multiple beta-regression model is presented in the Table below. For sensitivity analysis various regression models were made with different subsets of the trials and additional variables (including year of the trial, percentage of serous subtype of OC and median of prior therapy lines). Platinum was the strongest predictor of response in every developed model. Conclusions: this meta-analysis shows that patients with 'platinum-resistant' ovarian carcinoma may derive significant benefit from reintroduction of platinum agents. These results support recent ESMO-ESGO consensus on treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer and randomize trials are required to refine the role of platinum in early relapsed OC.[Table: see text]

e16077 Background: Alofanib (RPT835) is a first-in-class allosteric inhibitor that induces conformational changes in the extracellular domain of FGFR2. Here, we present the final results of the phase Ib clinical study (RPT835GC1B) of alofanib. Methods: Patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma resistant to standard therapy with measurable disease were eligible. The dose finding part used a 3+3 design, starting with a dose level of 50 mg/m2, intravenously, 5 days on, 2 days off. Five dose levels were foreseen. Primary endpoint was maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Secondary endpoints included toxicity, PK, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 21 patients were enrolled. 4 (19.1%), 14 (66.7%), 9 (43%), 3 (14.3%), and 12 (57%) patients had ECOG PS 2, ≥2 metastatic sites, liver metastases, bone metastases, and 3-6 lines previous therapy, respectively. The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2 has been declared as recommended phase II dose. With median follow-up of 13.0 months 15 (71.4%) patients had any grade treatment related adverse events (TRAE). Grade 3-4 TRAE occurred in 6 (28.6%) patients. Two (9.5%) patients discontinued treatment due to grade 3 diarrhea and grade 4 reactions immediately after injections. There were no treatment-related deaths in the study. One partial response (5.26%) with a duration of 18.53 months was identified. Disease control rate (DCR) was 68.4% and median duration of stable disease was 4.91 months. Median PFS was 3.63 (95% CI 1.58–5.68) months. Median OS was 7.0 (3.82–10.18) months. 6-month OS rate was 57.1%. OS was almost 2 times better in patients with DCR (median 10.05 vs. 5.9 months) and without bone metastases (8.6 vs. 3.1). Only one patient (4.8%) had FGFR2 amplification (time to death was 7 months). PK parameters linearly changed depending on the dose level, but no correlation with efficacy was found. Table summarizes rate of TRAE and DCR in dose cohorts. Conclusions: Alofanib was feasible and showed early signals of efficacy in heavily-pretreated patients with metastatic gastric cancer. A phase 2 randomized trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT04071184. [Table: see text]

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants’ responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants’ attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p

The aim of our study was to determine the effect of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) on prognosis and efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC). We performed PubMed and Embase database queries. We included 4 studies into the meta-analysis and 16 studies in the systematic review. Our systematic analysis showed that the average weighted median overall survival (OS) in patients with HRD with advanced PC was 19.8 and 15.6 months in patients without HRD. With platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 23.8 and 17.1 months in patients without HRD. Without platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 8.3 and 12.0 months in patients without HRD. For resected PC, our meta-analysis demonstrated that HRD status did not affect the prognosis (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.33), but results were rather heterogeneous (I2=83%, p=0.003). Our systematic analysis showed that the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 34.6 and 27.0 months in patients without HRD. With platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 46.1 and 36.3 months in patients without HRD. Without platinum-based chemotherapy, the average weighted median OS in patients with HRD was 24.2 and 42.9 months in patients without HRD. Results of our meta-analysis and systematic review support the idea of platinum use in patients with HRD both in resected and metastatic PCs, although a randomised trial is warranted to make a more reliable conclusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019121914.

304 Background: FGFR2 promotes gastric cancer progression, suggesting that inhibition of FGFR2 may be an important therapeutic strategy. Alofanib (RPT835) is a small molecule, allosteric inhibitor that binds to the non-active extracellular site of IIIc and IIIb FGFR2 isoforms with IC50 < 10 nM. Methods: RPT835GC1B is a Phase 1b open-label study evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of alofanib in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma pretreated with ≥ 1 previous lines of therapy. The standard dose-escalation part (design 3+3) aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) as a primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, rate of adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). Alofanib was administered daily intravenously for 5-days followed by a 2-day interval (rest). There were five dose levels: 50, 100, 165, 250, and 350 mg/m2. All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: As of 20 September 2021, 21 patients have been enrolled in the study. Patients were Caucasian (100%), predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (43%), 14% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 3 and more lines of therapy). All enrolled patients have been studied for safety and have not experienced any dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) within the 28-day DLT-assessment window. 17 (81%) patients had at least one treatment-related adverse event (trAE). Grade 3 or higher trAEs (5/23.8%) have included raised ALT/AST at 50 mg/m2, neutropenia at 50 mg/m2, diarrhea at 165 mg/m2, headache at 165 mg/m2, increased serum amylase at 350 mg/m2, and reactions immediately after intravenous injections (facial flushing, dizziness, weakness, sweating, and sinus tachycardia) at 350 mg/m2. Three (14.3%) patients discontinued treatment due to trAEs. Most common Grade 1-2 adverse events included reactions immediately after intravenous injections, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia, and headache. Grade 1 hyperphosphatemia was found in 1 (4.8%) patient. Table summarizes efficacy data. Conclusions: The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2 has been declared as RP2D. Alofanib showed acceptable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT04071184. [Table: see text]

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) is associated with an unfavorable prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. Acquired mutations in FGFR2 develop resistance to multikinase inhibitors. Besides, resistance to monoclonal antibodies depends on the type of FGFR2 isoforms IIIc or IIIb expressed by cancer cells. Alofanib (RPT835) is a small molecule, allosteric inhibitor that binds to the non-active site of FGFR2 extracellular domain. RPT835GC1B (NCT04071184) is an ongoing Phase 1b open-label study evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of alofanib in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma pretreated with ≥ 1 previous lines of therapy. The standard dose-escalation part (design 3+3) aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (R2PD) as a primary endpoint. The first part of the study includes a 28-day period when alofanib is administered daily intravenously for 5-days followed by a 2-day interval (rest). There are five dose levels: 50, 100, 165, 250, and 350 mg/m2. Secondary endpoints include pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, rate of adverse events, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate. All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. As of data cutoff on December 30, 2020, 13 patients have been enrolled in the trial. Patients were predominantly male (85%), 54% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (54%), and were heavily pretreated (60% received previous 3-6 lines of therapy). To date, all enrolled patients have been studied for safety and have not experienced any dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) within the 28-day DLT-assessment window. Grade 3 or higher drug related adverse events have included raised ALT/AST at 50 mg/m2, diarrhea at 165 mg/m2, and hyponatremia at 350 mg/m2. 93% of patients had any grade adverse events. Most common Grade 1-2 adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, anemia, thrombocytopenia, increased alkaline phosphatase, and reactions immediately after intravenous injections (facial flushing, dizziness, weakness, sweating, and sinus tachycardia). Grade 1 hyperphosphatemia was founded in 25% of cases. One patient discontinued treatment due to drug related Grade 3 uncontrolled diarrhea. Alofanib has demonstrated evidence of biologic activity in 12 patients in the first 4 dose levels evaluated to date. Disease control rate was 75% (1 durable partial response (13 months) at 50 mg/m2 and 8 stable diseases at 50-250 mg/m2). After a median follow-up of 4.5 months, the median PFS and OS was not reached. In conclusion, dosing up to 350 mg/m2 of alofanib was well tolerated, DLT and MTD were not reached. The early biologic activity of alofanib in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer is encouraging. In addition to the above, any updated safety, PK, and efficacy data will be presented at the time of the AACR meeting. Citation Format: Ilya Tsimafeyeu, Galina Statsenko, Anastasia Mochalova, Natalia Trenina, Vyacheslav Kurakin, Natalia Besova, Kristina Novoselova, Natalia Abramova, Ekaterina Obarevich, Alina Kashanova, Margarita Suetina, Vladimir Moiseyenko, Mikhail Byakhov, Elena Artamonova, Liubov Vladimirova, Sergei Tjulandin. Preliminary data on a phase 1b, first-in-human study of the allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor alofanib in patients with refractory metastatic gastric cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT113.

Objectives Limited understanding exists of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation frequency in less common subgroups of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]), and to what extent local practices exclude patients from EGFR testing based on their clinical characteristics. Materials and methods IGNITE (non-comparative/-interventional; NCT01788163) was conducted in 90 centres (Asia-Pacific/Russia). Eligible patients: local/metastatic aNSCLC; chemotherapy-naive, newly-diagnosed/recurrent disease after resection; ineligible for curative treatment. Patients provided a tissue/cytology (all) and a blood plasma (China/Russia/South Korea/Taiwan) sample. Primary endpoint: EGFR mutation frequency in aNSCLC patients (adenocarcinoma [ADC]/non-ADC), as per local practices. Results 3382 patients were enrolled. EGFR mutation frequencies for evaluable tissue/cytology samples in Asia-Pacific and Russian patients: 49.3% (862/1749) and 18.0% (90/500) for ADC tumours; 14.1% (74/525) and 3.7% (15/402) for non-ADC; 9.9% (40/403) and 3.7% (13/349) for SCC. Of Russian patients with SCC tumours harbouring common, activating EGFR mutations, 6/9 were never-/former-smokers. Mutation status concordance between 2581 matched tissue/cytology and plasma samples: 80.5% (sensitivity 46.9%, specificity 95.6%). Conclusion EGFR mutation testing should be considered in all Asian aNSCLC patients. Also, as activating EGFR mutations were observed in a small number of Caucasian squamous NSCLC patients, testing here may be appropriate, particularly in those with no/remote smoking history. Circulating free tumour-derived DNA is feasible for mutation analysis employing well-validated and sensitive methods, when tumour samples are unavailable.

Radiation oncologists in Russia face a number of unique professional difficulties including lack of standardized training and continuing medical education. To combat this, under the auspices of the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our group has developed a series of ongoing in-person interactive contouring workshops that are held during the major Russian oncology conferences in Moscow, Russia. Since November 2016 during each workshop, we utilized a web-based open-access interactive three-dimensional contouring atlas as part of our didactics. We sought to determine the impact of this resource on radiation oncology practice in Russia. We distributed an IRB-approved web-based survey to 172 practicing radiation oncologists in Russia. We inquired about practice demographics, RUSSCO contouring workshop attendance, and the clinical use of open-access English language interactive contouring atlas (eContour). The survey remained open for 2 months until November 2017. Eighty radiation oncologists completed the survey with a 46.5% response rate. Mean number of years in practice was 13.7. Sixty respondents (75%) attended at least one RUSSCO contouring workshop. Of those who were aware of eContour, 76% were introduced during a RUSSCO contouring workshop, and 81% continue to use it in their daily practice. The greatest obstacles to using the program were language barrier (51%) and internet access (38%). Nearly 90% reported their contouring practices changed since they started using the program, particularly for delineation of clinical target volumes (57%) and/or organs at risk (46%). More than 97% found the clinical pearls/links to cooperative group protocols in the software helpful in their daily practice. The majority used the contouring program several times per month (43%) or several times per week (41%). Face-to-face contouring instruction in combination with open-access web-based interactive contouring resource had a meaningful impact on perceived quality of radiation oncology contours among Russian practitioners and has the potential to have applications worldwide.

Objective: Little evidence is available on the management of patients with metastatic and/or unresectable gastric cancer (mGC) after the failure of first-line treatment. This study presents real-world data on characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with mGC in Russia. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥18 years old, diagnosed with mGC ≥ January 1, 2012, received first-line chemotherapy followed by second-line chemotherapy or best supportive care (BSC), had ≥3 months of follow-up after the start of second-line chemotherapy or BSC (except in cases of death), and had not participated in a clinical trial. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 88 physicians provided data from 202 charts. Mean age at mGC diagnosis was 53.7 (standard deviation: 11.2) years; 70.8% of patients were male. Reasons for first-line treatment discontinuation included disease progression (50.5%) and adverse events/toxicity (39.1%). There were 52 unique treatment regimens prescribed in second-line; capecitabine (14.5%), paclitaxel (9.3%), and capecitabine + oxaliplatin (8.7%) were the most frequent. Reasons for second-line treatment discontinuation included disease progression (39.8%) and patient refusal to continue (37.5%). During 2nd-line treatment, the most common treatment-related symptoms were nausea/vomiting (75.0%), while pain (73.8%) was the most common disease-related symptom. Antiemetics (63.4%), chemotherapy (61.6%), non-narcotic analgesics (48.3%), endoscopy (45.9%), and nutritional support (35.5%) were most frequently used as supportive care. Conclusions: Second-line treatment patterns for patients with mGC in Russia are heterogeneous. Results of this study indicate the need for more intensive implementation of the most active regimens in second-line treatment of mGC according to international and national guidelines.

Background Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen. Methods Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC

e15549 Background: Role of metastasectomy in pts with mBRAF metastatic CRC is still controversial. We performed analysis of prospective multicentric database of pts with mBRAF mCRC to evaluate the efficacy of metastasectomy in such group of pts in the real clinical practice. Methods: We analyzed a database of pts with mCRC in 7 cancer clinics in Russia and chose pts with metastasectomy with different mutational status. The primary endpoints were disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), which were calculated from the time of metastasectomy. Analysis was performed with the SPSS v.20 software package. Results: The study included 126 pts: 26 pts with mBRAF, 57 pts with mRAS and 43 pts with wtRAS/BRAF. Pts with mBRAF more often had synchronous metastases (50%/19,3/11,6%, p

88 Background: There are no direct prospective randomized studies supporting the need for antiangiogenic drugs in the treatment of patients with the m BRAF mCRC. However, subgroup analysis of different studies showed conflicting results. Therefore, we performed systemic review and meta-analysis to compare efficacy anti-angiogenic targeted therapy with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in patients with m BRAF mCRC in terms of progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We performed a search of all prospective randomized phase III studies in PubMed, ASCO and ESMO congresses for all years before September, 2020, compared chemotherapy (CT) plus bevacizumab or aflibercept or ramucirumab and CT alone at the first-line or second-lines with information of the BRAF status. Primary outcome was hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and 95% confidence interval (CI); secondary–HR for OS and 95%CI. Fixed effects were used for analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted by "Review Manager" Ver. 5.3. Results: We identified 4 trials (AVF2107g, AGITG MAX, VELOUR and RAISE), which included 120 patients with mBRAF (anti-angiogenic plus CT–65 (54%) and CT alone–55 (46%). According to results of the meta-analysis there was a tendency for significant improvement in PFS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.4-1.02; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%, p for heterogeneity 0.7; 53trials) and significant improvement in OS (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82; p = 0.005; I2 = 0%, p for heterogeneity 0.52; 4 trials) in group of ani-angiogenic therapy. Conclusions: Addition of anti-angiogenic therapy to chemotherapy showed improvement in the PFS and OS in pts with m BRAF compared with chemotherapy alone. A prospective randomized trial is needed to determine the optimal regimen of systemic therapy for pts with m BRAF mCRC.

Objective The role of preoperative chemotherapy in squamous cell esophageal carcinoma remains controversial. A prospective trial was initiated to investigate whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery results in increased progression-free survival in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma. Methods Patients with Stage IIb-IIIa/b resectable esophageal carcinoma were eligible for the study. They received two cycles of FLEP regimen chemotherapy (cisplatin, etoposide, leucovorine, 5-fluorouracil) followed by transthoracic extended 2- or 3-field esophagectomy. Two-year progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. To evaluate the potential benefit of the dual-modality approach we compared these results with the outcome of patients who were treated in our center in the same period of time and were non-randomly allocated to surgery alone. Results From 2001 to 2008, 63 patients were included in the study (bimodality group) and 58 patients into the surgery-alone group. Median follow-up was 68 (range, 4-123) months. Squamous cell carcinoma had 93% patients. Two-year progression-free survival for all patients was 45.3 and 30.7% (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.46-1.08) and median overall survival was 26.5 months and 18.0 months (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.01) in bimodality- and surgery-alone groups, respectively. Patients who underwent R0-resection after bimodality treatment had significantly better overall survival (40.9 months) than after surgery alone (19.0 months, hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.81). Conclusions Two cycles of preoperative chemotherapy did not improve progression-free survival of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma in intent-to-treat population. However, significantly better results of bimodality approach was seen in R0-resected patients which warrants further trials with more effective chemotherapy combinations.

Alofanib (RPT835) is a novel selective allosteric inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2). We showed previously that alofanib could bind to the extracellular domain of FGFR2 and has an inhibitory effect on FGF2-induced phoshphorylation of FRS2α. In the present study, we further showed that alofanib inhibited phosphorylation of FRS2α with the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) values of 7 and 9 nmol/l in cancer cells expressing different FGFR2 isoforms. In a panel of four cell lines representing several tumour types (triple-negative breast cancer, melanoma, and ovarian cancer), alofanib inhibited FGF-mediated proliferation with 50% growth inhibition (GI50) values of 16-370 nmol/l. Alofanib dose dependently inhibited the proliferation and migration of human and mouse endothelial cells (GI50 11-58 nmol/l) compared with brivanib and bevacizumab. Treatment with alofanib ablated experimental FGF-induced angiogenesis in vivo. In a FGFR-driven human tumour xenograft model, oral administration of alofanib was well tolerated and resulted in potent antitumour activity. Importantly, alofanib was effective in FGFR2-expressing models. These results show that alofanib is a potent FGFR2 inhibitor and provide strong rationale for its evaluation in patients with FGFR2-driven cancers.

It is known that tumor cells have the ability to penetrate into the bloodstream. The identification of such circulating tumor cells (CTC) determines the prognosis in several tumors, including colon cancer. Tumor DNA (ctDNA), which is only a part of the total circulating DNA obtained from the blood of cancer patients, is also further separated from plasma. This separation of the neoplastic derivatives of the primary tumor and metastases (CTC, ctDNA, RNA, proteome) in plasma is called “liquid biopsy.” CTC increasingly represents the pool of tumor cells that can initiate the growth of metastatic lesions, while the ctDNA provides the information about the whole tumor mass. Traditional tissue biopsy gives information based only on one small section of the primary tumor or metastasis, often retrieved before the start of treatment; however, liquid biopsy provides real-time information about the molecular disorders for the whole tumor mass and allows us to estimate the dynamics of the evolutionary tumor changes, the heterogeneity of the disease, and the effect of chemotherapy. With the possibility of obtaining multiple blood samples for analysis during the therapy, in contrast to traditional biopsy, it also allows us to evaluate the mechanisms of resistance to treatment, which in the future will perhaps lead to modification of the treatment in accordance with the detected molecular defects in tumors. Thus, this would facilitate implementing the principles of personalized therapy. In this literature review, we concentrate on liquid biopsy in patients with colon cancer.

Background Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) improves outcomes for metastatic human epidermal growth factor 2–positive breast cancer and increases the pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, but their role as adjuvant therapy remains uncertain. Methods In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization trial, patients with centrally confirmed human epidermal growth factor 2–positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with T, L, their sequence (T→L), or their combination (L+T). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), with 850 events required for 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for L+T versus T. Results Between June 2007 and July 2011, 8,381 patients were enrolled. In 2011, due to futility to demonstrate noninferiority of L versus T, the L arm was closed, and patients free of disease were offered adjuvant T. A protocol modification required P ≤ .025 for the two remaining pairwise comparisons. At a protocol-specified analysis with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, a 16% reduction in the DFS hazard rate was observed with L+T compared with T (555 DFS events; HR, 0.84; 97.5% CI, 0.70 to 1.02; P = .048), and a 4% reduction was observed with T→L compared with T (HR, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .61). L-treated patients experienced more diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and hepatic toxicity compared with T-treated patients. The incidence of cardiac toxicity was low in all treatment arms. Conclusion Adjuvant treatment that includes L did not significantly improve DFS compared with T alone and added toxicity. One year of adjuvant T remains standard of care.

1079 Background: patients with triple negative breast cancer has poor survival outcomes. Achievement of pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy can significantly improve survival of these patients, however some patients will relapse even after pCR. Methods: we reviewed prospectively-maintained outcomes database of N.N. Blokhin NMRCO. We extracted information about patients with locally advanced non-metastatic (stage IIIA-IIIC) triple negative breast cancer who were treated with neoadjuvant platinum based chemotherapy in 2014-2018 years. All included patients were tested for the presence of BRCA1/2 mutation with whole-exome next-generation sequencing or for “founder” hot-spot mutations. Results: we identified 80 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment with various platinum-based regimens. Pathological complete response rate was 62.5%. BRCA-mutations was found at 22 (27.5%) patients. Median follow-up time was 35.6 months (17.0 – 61.3). 2-year DFS was 77.3%, and 3-year DFS was 70.0%, there was significant differences in DFS in patients, who achieved and patients with residual tumor – 85,2% vs 64,3% (p=0,028). 2-year OS was 91%, 3-year OS was 78,5%. 18 patient had disease progression, the most common sites of disease progression were brain (9 [50.0%]), lungs (5 [27.8%]), 3 (16.7%) patients had locoregional relapses and 1 (5,6%) liver metastases. We separately analysed characteristics of patients with brain metastases (table). There were no significant differences in tumour pathologic response and patient age. All patients, who relapced after pCR, had brain metastases. We also found, that 7 of 9 patients with brain metastases had different BRCA mutations. Brain metastases developed in 40,9% (9/22) of patients with BRCA1 mutations and 3,4% (2/58) of patients with wild type BRCA1 (p

3559 Background: Recently, conflicting evidence has emerged showing the association of ctDNA level and cancer progression. The aim of our study was the development of a method for detecting ctDNA in plasma and the investigation of the prognostic value of ctDNA retention after surgery in the prospective way. Methods: This prospective, single-center, sample collection study; pts with early-stage malignancies of the different origin were included. Tumor somatic mutations were determined by target sequencing of DNA from FFPE tumor blocks. Sequencing was performed using the custom NGS panel covering regions of frequent somatic mutations in 50 genes. Tumor-specific mutations were monitored in plasma samples taken before and after surgery. The median time between surgery and plasma collection was 7 days (5-15). Mutations of plasma ctDNA were determined by ddPCR. The plasma sample was considered "positive" if the content of ctDNA was more than 0.5 copies of mutant DNA in ml plasma. We needed 265 pts for improving 1-year disease free survival (DFS) from 60% to 80% with α=0.01, β=0.1, 10% loss of f.-up and duration of the study for 2 years. Results: The study comprised 271 pts with various cancers including colorectal – 91 (33,6%), pancreatic – 37 (13,7%), breast – 66 (24,4%), lung – 35 (12,9%) and gastric cancer – 42 (15,5%). Pts with stage I was 50 (18,5%), stage II – 118 (43,5%) and stage III – 103 (38%). The median time of the f.-up was 9 mos. (1-37). No significant association was found between the level of ctDNA before surgery and DFS either in the general group or in groups stratified by tumor sites (HR 2.4, 95%CI 0.8-7.1, р=0.12 and HR 1.5, 95%CI 0.4-6.3, р=0.5, correspondingly). ctDNA was detected in the plasma after surgery in 57 (10%) pts: 9 (9.9%) cases of colorectal, 10 (27%) - pancreatic, 9 (13.6%) - breast, 19 (54.3%) - lung, and 10 (23.8%) - gastric cancer. Progression of the disease was detected in 28/57 (49%) pts with ctDNA(+) and 17/214 (8%) - in ctDNA(-) pts (p

e18066 Background: Patients with advanced ovarian cancer have unfavorable prognosis after primary debulking surgery if the size of residual tumor exceeds 1 cm. The optimal approaches to systemic treatment of these patients remain unknown. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of dose-dose chemotherapy in frontline treatment of ovarian cancer patients after upfront non-optimal debulking surgery. Methods: This was a non-randomized single-arm phase II trial. We enrolled patients with advanced (FIGO III-IV) epithelial ovarian who underwent non-optimal upfront debulking surgery with residual tumor size > 10 mm. All patients were treated with dose-dense chemotherapy (ie, paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15 + carboplatin AUC6 day 1, cycled every 21 days – 6 cycles). Patients in historical control arm received standard chemotherapy with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 day 1 + carboplatin AUC6 day 1, cycled every 21 days – 6 cycles. No patient in experimental or control arm received front-line bevacizumab or PARP inhibitors. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival (PFS). According to the historical data of our department, 1-year PFS in this category of patients equals to 51%. To increase 1-year PFS to 70%, 40 patients should be enrolled with α = 0.05 and β = 0.20 and estimated data loss for 10% of patients. Results: The study enrolled 40 patients to dose-dense chemotherapy arm, control arm included 86 patients. The trial arms were balanced in terms of age, performance status and other characteristics. Median follow-up was 28.8 months. The 1-year PFS was 76.9% compared to 51% in historical arm, median PFS was 19.8 months and 12 months respectively (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95; p = 0,03). The 1-year overall survival rate was 92.3% with median OS not reached with specified follow-up period. Severe neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia was observed in 82.1%, 53.8%, 15.3% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The results of the study showed high efficacy of dose-dose chemotherapy as front line of treatment for advanced ovarian cancer patients after non-optimal upfront debulking surgery but one should consider high toxicity of this regimen.

e18076 Background: Current management of recurrent ovarian cancer (OC) is based on the amount of time between the completion of penultimate platinum-based treatment and the detection of relapse. Patients with platinum-free interval (PFI) < 6 mo. are considered to be platinum-resistant (PROC) and to have low response rate (RR) probability to platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: We searched PubMed database for all prospective and retrospective full-text articles and abstracts on the treatment of patients with PROC for all years between 01/01/2000 and 01/06/2019 in English language. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool was used to ensure transparent reporting of the results. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) morphologically confirmed epithelial ovarian cancer; 2) standard definition of PROC as a disease that recurred within 6 months after completion of platinum-based chemotherapy; 3) treatment with platinum- or non-platinum chemotherapy with agents that are routinely used for OC; 4) no concomitant therapy with targeted or investigational agents; 5) clearly defined RR for patients with PROC and criteria used for response assessment. Pooled analysis of outcomes and multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to assess the impact of platinum salts on probability of response. Results: We identified 7156 articles and screened them for title and abstract. After the review process we selected 197 studies for further analysis. Of them, 52 (n = 1320) and 145 (n = 6937) trials assessed efficacy of platinum- and non-platinum based chemotherapy respectively. Among patients treated with platinum-based and non-platinum chemotherapy RR was 36.04% (95% CI 33.45-38.63) and 14.85% (95% CI 14.01-15.68) respectively. Pooled median progression-free survival was 5.8 mo. and 3.75 mo. respectively. In multiple linear regression model administration of platinum-based chemotherapy was the strongest predictor of objective response with B value 0.503 (p < 0.001). Among platinum agents cisplatin (RR 39.9%: 95% CI 35.8-44.0%) and carboplatin (RR 42.3%; 95% CI 37.0-47.6%) were associated with better rates of objective response compared to oxaliplatin (RR 28.1%; 95% CI 23.9-32.3). Conclusions: This systematic review shows that patients with 'platinum-resistant' ovarian carcinoma may derive significant benefit from reintroduction of platinum agents and their value should be evaluated in further randomized trials.

e15659 Background: The incidence of cancer among the people of reproductive age is constantly increasing. Although FGF2/FGFR2 expression in the male reproductive tract has been reported, there is no evidence of the impact of FGFRs inhibitors on sperm function. Therefore, the objective of this large study was to determine the effects of alofanib, selective FGFR2 allosteric extracellular inhibitor on the regulation of sperm physiology using the rat and rabbit models. Methods: Two-hundred forty Sprague-Dawley rats and 30 Chinchilla white rabbits received alofanib (0–40.5 and 0–21.6 mg/kg/day, respectively) intravenously on a consecutive daily dosing schedule for six months. Eighty rats and 8 rabbits were in the control group. The subchronic study evaluated high doses (300 mg/kg/day) of alofanib for 2 months in 15 male rats. Necropsy was conducted following treatment/recovery periods, and histologic examinations were performed. Results: Animals were active. After injections of a dose equivalent to a human therapeutic dose during 6 months, most of the seminiferous tubules were empty, the elements of spermatogenesis were not classified, and altered primary spermatogonia and spermatocytes were distinguished in male rats. After injections of a five-fold dose, all seminiferous tubules were empty and expelled by a cylindrical epithelium. Very similar changes in sperm physiology were founded in rabbits. Most of the seminiferous tubules were blank, and some tubules contained eosinophilic amorphous masses. High doses of alofanib resulted in pronounced atrophy of the spermatogenic tubule epithelium. Multinucleated giant cells were observed in the lumen of a part of the tubules. There were no changes in untreated animals. Conclusions: FGFR2 inhibition led to the suppression of spermatogenesis. Male cancer patients should be informed of this potential adverse event before treatment with FGFR2 inhibitors.

131 Background: Regorafenib is one of the standards of care in pts with chemorefractory mCRC. However, high toxicity is a common reason of treatment discontinuation, interruption and dose reduction. There are conflicting results how started dose of regorafenib influence OS (REBECCA, ReDOS and ARRANGE trials). Therefore, we performed systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate association between started dose of regorafenib and OS in pts with mCRC. Methods: We performed a search of all retrospective and prospective studies in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library. The search criteria included all articles and abstracts for all years before 20.08.2019. We compared the pts with standard dose (160 mg) and 2 = 64. Conclusions: Started dose of regorafenib

TPS466 Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) is amplified or overexpressed in 3% to 61% of patients with gastric cancer and associated with a poor prognosis. Acquired mutations in FGFR2 develop resistance to multikinase inhibitors. Besides, resistance to monoclonal antibodies depends on the type of FGFR2 isoforms IIIc or IIIb expressed by cancer cells. Alofanib (RPT835) is a novel selective allosteric inhibitor of FGFR2. Alofanib could bind to the non-active site of FGFR2 extracellular domain and had an inhibitory effect on FGF2-induced phosphorylation of FRS2α. On preclinical models no severe organ and function test changes were observed. Based on these results, alofanib has advanced into clinical evaluation. Methods: RPT835GC1B is a Phase 1b study, being conducted in at least four sites in Russia, evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of alofanib in patients with advanced and metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma pretreated with ≥ 1 previous lines of therapy. This trial consists of two parts. The standard dose-escalation part (design 3+3) aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (R2PD) as a primary endpoint. The first part of the study includes a 28-day period when alofanib is administered daily intravenously for 5-days followed by a 2-day interval (rest). There are five dose levels: 50, 100, 165, 250, and 350 mg/m2. The dose-expansion phase accrues additional 20 patients, where comprehensive information to be collected. Secondary endpoints include pharmacokinetic parameters, rate of adverse events, progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate. All patients will receive alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. FGFR2 amplification, fusion, and overexpression will be assessed as well. Clinical trial information: NCT04071184.

Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but globally, it is underutilized. In Russia, practice patterns with regard to liver-directed radiation are unknown. Under the auspices of Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our team conducted an IRB-approved contouring workshop for Russian radiation oncologists. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were analyzed to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care for liver-directed RT among Russian providers. The effect of the contouring workshop on participants’ knowledge was tested using mixed effects model. Forty pre-workshop and 24 post-workshop questionnaires were analyzable with a 100% response rate. Sixty percent of respondents had never evaluated a patient with HCC and only 8% (3 out of 40) reported treating an HCC patient with liver-directed RT. Nonetheless, 73% of respondents were comfortable offering liver-directed RT prior to the workshop. After the workshop, 85% of respondents felt comfortable treating a patient with HCC with liver-directed RT and 50% were comfortable recommending stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Measures of knowledge pertaining to evaluation of HCC patients and selection for appropriate liver-directed therapies were dramatically improved after the workshop. Liver-directed RT is not commonly used in Russia in the management of patients with HCC, and few centers are equipped for motion management. Our contouring workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of the evaluation and management of HCC patients. We recommend starting with a more protracted fractionated RT and building experience through attendance of additional educational activities, participation in multidisciplinary liver tumor boards, and prospective analysis of treatment toxicity and outcomes.

Tamoxifen is a first targeted drug that continues to be the gold standard in treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer for almost 50 years. The current review is an update of the paper published in 2012. We provide the new data on the tamoxifen targets that are the key points of signaling cascades activating cellular proliferation, which determines aggressiveness of disease and chemotherapy resistance or sensitivity. Some inspiring clinical cases dealing with tamoxifen efficiency in treatment of different tumors are discussed. Additionally, the review includes data on antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal and antiparasitic activity of tamoxifen.

Patients with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (mNSGCT) and a high tumor burden or a poor performance status at initial diagnosis are at risk from potentially life-threatening early complications during or after the first chemotherapy cycle. The outcomes with dose-reduced first cycle of chemotherapy in this population of patients are not well established. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with mNSGCT and International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) poor risk features. All patients received cisplatin and etoposide-based combinations as first-line treatment. Ultra high tumor marker levels were defined as α-fetoprotein ≥ 100,000 ng/ml or human chorionic gonadotropin ≥ 200,000 mIU/ml. Before 2005, the first treatment cycle was administered at a full dose in our center. After 2005, we used an abbreviated course of cisplatin and etoposide (EP) for the first cycle, followed by subsequent full-dose administration. From 1987 to 2012, 265 patients with poor risk features according to IGCCCG received first-line chemotherapy. Among them, 63 out of 265 (24%) patients had ultra high tumor marker levels and/or ECOG performance status of 3–4. Dose reduction of the first chemotherapy cycle was associated with a significant decrease of life-threatening complications from 76 to 44% (p = 0.01), but not with the overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.44–2.26). Dose reduction of the first EP cycle by 40–60% in the subgroup of poor risk patients with ultra high tumor marker levels and/or ECOG performance status 3–4 is associated with significantly lowered acute complication rates but not with overall survival.

Purpose The efficacy of lapatinib versus trastuzumab combined with taxanes in the first-line setting of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –positive metastatic breast cancer (BC) is unknown. Patients and Methods The MA.31 trial compared a combination of first-line anti-HER2 therapy (lapatinib or trastuzumab) and taxane therapy for 24 weeks, followed by the same anti-HER2 monotherapy until progression. Stratification was by prior (neo)adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy, prior (neo)adjuvant taxane, planned taxane, and liver metastases. The primary end point was intention-to-treat (ITT) progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time from random assignment to progression by RECIST (version 1.0) criteria, or death for patients with locally assessed HER2-positive tumors. The primary test statistic was a stratified log-rank test for noninferiority. PFS was also assessed for patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive tumors. Results From July 17, 2008, to December 1, 2011, 652 patients were accrued from 21 countries, resulting in 537 patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive tumors. Median follow-up was 21.5 months. Median ITT PFS was 9.0 months with lapatinib and 11.3 months with trastuzumab. By ITT analysis, PFS was inferior for lapatinib compared with trastuzumab, with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.65; P = .001). In patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive tumors, median PFS was 9.1 months with lapatinib and 13.6 months with trastuzumab (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.83; P < .001). More grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and rash were observed with lapatinib (P < .001). PFS results were supported by the secondary end point of overall survival, with an ITT HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.72; P = .11); in patients with centrally confirmed HER2-positive tumors, the HR was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.03 to 2.09; P = .03). Conclusion As first-line therapy for HER2-positive metastatic BC, lapatinib combined with taxane was associated with shorter PFS and more toxicity compared with trastuzumab combined with taxane.

This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The study was stopped after a preplanned futility analysis indicated a positive outcome was unlikely at primary analysis. Ganitumab plus gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS versus gemcitabine alone in unselected patients. Background This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and methods Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers. Results Overall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77–1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab. Conclusion Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.

The aim of our study was to identify factors which influence survival in patients with disseminated seminoma in the good prognostic group according to IGCCCG, as well as to evaluate the impact of treatment intensification in patients with negative prognostic factors.We analyzed the database of the patients with metastatic seminoma who had received treatment at our department from 1986 to 2005. Inclusion criteria were as follows: morphologically verified seminoma; favorable prognosis according to IGCCCG; modern chemotherapy regimen (EP ± bleomycin); AFP level15 IU/ml; and HCG level300 mIU/ml. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).With median follow-up 83 months, 5-year OS rate was 91% in 206 patients. Only three negative prognostic factors were associated with OS: retroperitoneal lymph nodes5 cm (p0.01), pulmonary metastases (p0.01) and LDH level ≥ 2.25 × ULN (p = 0.01). In view of the obtained data, we have changed our treatment approach since 2005. In case of any negative prognostic factors, we administered an intensified CT regimen--4BEP or 3BEP + 1EP. Prospective phase of the study included 34 patients with unfavorable prognosis. We observed an increase of 5-year OS rate in the intensified CT group in comparison with the standard CT group in patients with unfavorable prognostic from 85 to 100%.Administration of 4 cycles of induction CT (4BEP or 3BEP + 1EP) in patients with metastatic seminoma who have LDH level ≥ 2.25 ULN, and/or retroperitoneal lymph nodes5 cm and/or pulmonary metastases results in decreased disease progression rate and significant gain in OS.

Summary Background Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Methods This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m 2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072. Findings Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6–12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3–13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7–10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6–12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10–1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. Interpretation Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Funding Amgen.

Background Olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, has previously shown efficacy in a phase 2 study when given in capsule formulation to all-comer patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed high-grade serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to confirm these findings in patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation using a tablet formulation of olaparib. Methods This international, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial evaluated olaparib tablet maintenance treatment in platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation who had received at least two lines of previous chemotherapy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at baseline of 0–1 and histologically confirmed, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer or high-grade endometrioid cancer, including primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg in two 150 mg tablets, twice daily) or matching placebo tablets using an interactive voice and web response system. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous platinum chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (6–12 months vs ≥12 months) and treatment assignment was masked for patients, those giving the interventions, data collectors, and data analysers. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we report the primary analysis from this ongoing study. The efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is ongoing and no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Sept 3, 2013, and Nov 21, 2014, we enrolled 295 eligible patients who were randomly assigned to receive olaparib (n=196) or placebo (n=99). One patient in the olaparib group was randomised in error and did not receive study treatment. Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib (19·1 months [95% CI 16·3–25·7]) than with placebo (5·5 months [5·2–5·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·22–0·41], p

Rachel L.G.M. Blom,1 Tatiana Bogush,2 Bjorn L.D.M. Brucher,3,4 Andrew C. Chang,5 Mikhail Davydov,2 Evgeny Dudko,2 Trevor Leong,6 Boris Polotsky,2 Paul E. Swanson,7 Peter S.N. van Rossum,8,9 Jelle P. Ruurda,8 Xavier Sagaert,10 Sergei Tjulandin,2 Marie-Celine Schraepen,11 Meindert N. Sosef,11 and Richard van Hillegersberg8 1Department of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow, Russia. 3Surgical Oncology, Bon Secours Cancer Institute, Richmond, Virginia. 4Theodor-Billroth-Academy, Munich, Germany. 5Section of Thoracic Surgery, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 7University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 8Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 9Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 10Translational Cell & Tissue Research, Department of Imaging and Pathology, University of KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 11Department of Surgery, Atrium Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands

Purpose: We report a retrospective exploratory analysis of the association of the research-based prediction analysis of microarray 50 (PAM50) subtype predictor with pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS) in women enrolled in the NeOAdjuvant Herceptin (NOAH) trial. Experimental Design: Gene expression profiling was performed using RNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded core biopsies from 114 pretreated patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) tumors randomized to receive neoadjuvant doxorubicin/paclitaxel (AT) followed by cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF), or the same regimen in combination with trastuzumab for one year. A control cohort of 42 patients with HER2-negative tumors treated with AT-CMF was also included. The PAM50 subtypes, the PAM50 proliferation score, and the PAM50 risk of relapse score based on subtype (RORS) and subtype and proliferation (RORP) were evaluated. Results: HER2-enriched (HER2-E) tumors predominated within HER2+ disease, although all PAM50 intrinsic subtypes were identified across the three cohorts. The OR for achieving pCR with trastuzumab-based chemotherapy for HER2+/HER2-E and HER2+/RORP-high were 5.117 (P = 0.009) and 8.469 (P = 0.025), respectively, compared with chemotherapy only. The pCR rates of HER2+/HER2-E and HER2+/RORP-high after trastuzumab-based chemotherapy were 52.9% and 75.0%, respectively. A statistically nonsignificant trend was observed for more pronounced survival benefit with trastuzumab in patients with HER2+/HER2-E and HER2+/RORP-high tumors compared with patients with HER2+/non-HER2-E and HER2+/non-RORP-high tumors, respectively. Conclusions: As determined by EFS and pCR, patients with HER2+/HER2-E tumors, or HER2+/RORP-high tumors, benefit substantially from trastuzumab-based chemotherapy. The clinical value of this genomic test within HER2+ disease warrants further investigation. Clin Cancer Res; 20(2); 511–21. ©2014 AACR.

Introduction Predictive markers of platinum-based chemotherapy efficacy in patients with ovarian cancer have been widely discussed in recent years. Oestrogen receptors (ER) are involved in regulation of proliferative factors responsible for tumour growth, so they could predict the effectiveness of anticancer chemotherapy. The aim of the study was to determine the predictive value of ER-beta expression in a cohort of ovarian cancer patients treated with platinum and taxanes. The level of ER-beta expression was correlated with progression-free survival and also with a number of disease relapses during 40 months of monitoring. Material and methods The quantitative immunofluorescence flow cytometry analysis was performed to detect ER-beta in 34 serous ovarian cancer surgical specimens. All the patients were treated with the first line platinum and taxane-based regimen. The primary anti-ER-beta (ab14C8) and the secondary antibodies (DyLight650, ab98729) were used for the analysis. The level of ER-beta expression was calculated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test as the ratio (%) of specifically fluorescent cells to the number of cells incubated only with secondary antibodies. Association of ER-beta expression levels with progression-free survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Results and discussions ER-beta were revealed in all tumour specimens tested and the median value of the expression level was 41,5%. Patients were dichotomized in groups with low and high level of ER-beta expression, below- and above-median value respectively. Significant differences were shown between these groups. First, median of progression-free survival was larger in the high-level expression group as compared to the low-level expression group – 25,5 vs 8 months. Second, the disease rate during 40 months of monitoring was lover in the high-level expression group as compared the low-level expression group – 6 vs 15 respectively. Conclusion A quantitative index of the ER-beta level expression in tumour tissue predicts the efficacy of the first line platinum and taxane-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Progression-free survival was about 3.0 times longer and the number of the disease relapses during 40 months of monitoring was 1.5 times less in patients with high level of ER-beta expression. The study was supported in part by RSF 17-75-10212.