Search

IntroductionMuch drug development and published analysis for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) focuses on early-line treatment. Full sequences of treatment from diagnosis to death and the impact of later lines of therapy are rarely studied. We describe the establishment of an international network of cancer centers configured to compare real-world treatment pathways in UK, Portugal, Germany, South Korea, France and Romania (the Ovarian Real-World International Consortium; ORWIC).Methods3344 patients diagnosed with EOC (2012-2018) were analysed using a common data model and hub and spoke programming approach applied to existing electronic medical records. Consistent definition of line of therapy between sites and an efficient approach to analysis within the limitations of local information governance was achieved.ResultsMedian age of participants was 53-67 years old and 5-29% were ECOG >1. Between 62% and 84% of patients were diagnosed with late-stage disease (FIGO III-IV). Sites treating younger and fitter patients had higher rates of debulking surgery for those diagnosed at late stage than sites with older, more frail patients. At least 21% of patients treated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) had recurrent disease following second-line therapy (2L); up to 11 lines of SACT treatment were recorded for some patients. Platinum-based SACT was consistently used across sites at 1L, but choices at 2L varied, with hormone therapies commonly used in the UK and Portugal. The use (and type) of maintenance therapy following 1L also varied. Beyond 2L, there was little consensus between sites on treatment choice: trial compounds and unspecified combinations of other agents were common.DiscussionSpecific treatment sequences are reported up to 4L and the establishment of this network facilitates future analysis of comparative outcomes per line of treatment with the aim of optimizing available options for patients with recurrent EOC. In particular, this real-world network can be used to assess the growing use of PARP inhibitors. The real-world optimization of advanced line treatment will be especially important for patients not usually eligible for involvement with clinical trials. The resources to enable this analysis to be implemented elsewhere are supplied and the network will seek to grow in coverage of further sites.

Objectives: To characterize treatment patterns and survival outcomes for patients with locally advanced or metastatic malignancy of the urothelial tract during a period immediately preceding the widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the UK. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively examined the electronic case notes of patients attending the Leeds Cancer Center, UK with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, receiving chemotherapy between January 2003 and March 2017. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes were collected. Summary and descriptive statistics were calculated for categorical and continuous variables as appropriate. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median survival and Cox regression proportional hazards model was used to explore relationships between clinical variables and outcome. Results: Two hundred and sixteen patients made up the study cohort, with a median age of 66 years (range: 35-83) and 72.7% being male. First-line treatment consisted of either a cisplatin- (44%) or carboplatin-based regimen (48%) in the majority of patients. Twenty seven percent of patients received a second-line of treatment (most commonly single-agent paclitaxel) following a first-line platinum containing regimen. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 19 and 27% of those treated with a first-line cisplatin- and carboplatin-based regimen, respectively. The median overall survival (mOS) of the study cohort was estimated to be 16.2 months (IQR: 10.6-28.3 months). Receipt by patients of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was associated with a longer mOS and this association persisted when survival analysis was adjusted for age, sex, performance status and presence of distant metastases. Conclusions: This study provides a useful benchmark for outcomes achieved in a real-world setting for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC treated with chemotherapy in the immediate pre-immunotherapy era.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P =.34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

e13554 Background: The value of real-world evidence derived from the care of patients managed outside the context of clinical trials is well recognised. However, the ability to link data from multiple centres, especially those from different countries, is complicated by complex legal and information governance differences. The Oncology Evidence Network is a collaboration of large hospital centres, with strong clinical informatics capabilities in six countries in Europe and Asia working with the support of an industrial partner to provide high quality, real world data reflecting routine clinical care. We have developed an efficient workflow based on a study-specific common data model (CDM) clinically validated at each site and analysed with a single analysis script, which embeds a set of data quality rules. Local implementation allows each centre to generate analytical outputs aligned across the different sites without the need for any patient level data to leave the participating site. This approach has been designed and tested in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC) patients. Methods: A CDM was agreed using expert advisors from each centre. Clinical alignment was achieved through iterative assessment of clinical vignettes, to ensure common definitions of clinical assessment, prognosis, and treatment algorithms in EOC patients. A data guide detailing variable level derivations and validation rules, general data coding principles, and conversions/codes from international coding systems was developed. The analysis scripts were implemented as a bespoke package (OpenOvary) in R. The package includes functions to validate the data against the CDM, and generate a standard output including tables, numerical summaries and Kaplan-Meier analysis of progression and overall survival. Results: 2,925 patient records from 6 centres across 6 countries were included in the study with 27 key data items curated by each centre. Treatment data is available detailing relevant surgical procedures and their outcomes, and regimens of SACT throughout patients’ care from diagnosis to death. Data completeness was generally high for key data items, with missing data ranging from 0-16% for FIGO stage at diagnosis and 0-14% for tumour morphology. The CDM and R script will be made publicly available for other centres to adopt and facilitate analysis of their local data. Conclusions: This collaboration has brought together a substantial body of data describing the care and outcomes for EOC patients. A CDM and flexible shared analysis approach enabled unified analysis and reporting whilst avoiding the transfer of patient level data and its pooling into a common database. The process of clinical and data alignment has generated a replicable model for rapid extension to other study centres to join the EOC study, or application to other disease areas.

5531 Background: Few major studies have examined and compared the management and outcomes of patients from diagnosis to death between countries. We have established an international collaboration across Europe and South Korea to compare treatment and outcomes in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer (EOC). Methods: Patients diagnosed with EOC between January 2012 and December 2018 (age ≥18), were included for analysis. Data from medical records from five European and a single South Korean treatment centre were extracted, standardised to a common data model and analysed at each centre using a common script developed in R. Time to each progression/recurrence event (defined as time to next treatment) and overall survival have been estimated using Kaplan Meier methodology and outcomes stratified by categories of interest. Changes in the use of anti-cancer therapies over time and the incidence of BRCA mutations and incidence/timing of second breast cancers have also been examined. Results: A total cohort of 2925 patients was identified with a median age at each centre of 53 to 67 years. Advanced disease (FIGO stage III - IV) (range 57% to 84%) and high-grade serous morphology (38% to 70%) were most common at each centre. The timing of surgery (primary, interval debulking or delayed) and the proportion of patients undergoing surgery varied with stage. Patients with stage I disease where most likely to undergo surgery (range 73% to 100%) and stage IV the least (range 39% to 84%). Median overall survival for high grade serous cancers ranged from 1.9 to 4.9 years, and for the whole cohort from 2.1 to 5.5 years. Median time to next treatment at first relapse for the whole cohort ranged from 14 to 22 months. Second breast cancers were noted in 6 to 17% of patients and the majority of these occurred before the diagnosis of EOC at a median time of 96 to 118 months prior to diagnosis of EOC. Additional data on treatment pathways, BRCA status and outcomes by line of therapy for each centre will be presented. Conclusions: Preliminary analysis of results across this network suggests a variation in patient populations between sites and substantial differences in both treatments and outcomes. The establishment of a common data model and the use of a common analytic script between sites across six different countries allows for detailed exploration of the factors influencing differences in patient management and treatment outcomes in ovarian cancer patients.

Background: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml−l intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m−2 intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. Results: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01). Conclusions: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study.

CT-2584 HMS, 1-(11-dodecylamino-10-hydroxyundecyl)-3,7-dimethylxanthine-hydrogen methanesulphonate, is a modulator of intracellular phosphatidic acid. We treated 30 patients as part of a Phase I and pharmacokinetic study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose of CT-2584 HMS, toxicity profiles, pharmacokinetic profile and antitumour effects at escalating dose levels. CT-2584 HMS was given as a continuous infusion for 6 hours for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Plasma samples for pharmacokinetic studies were analysed using a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay. Mean C max and AUC values for each dose group were similar on days 1 and 5 and increases in plasma concentration (C max and AUC) appeared proportional to the dose. CT-2584 HMS had a mean elimination half-life of 7.3 hours. Values of V d and clearance were independent of dose and duration of treatment. Dose escalation was halted at 585 mg/m2 because of malaise and lethargy, which was sometimes accompanied by nausea and headache. 26 patients were evaluable for response, one patient with pleural mesothelioma achieved a partial response to treatment confirmed by CT scanning. A dose level of 520 mg/m2 daily × 5 days would be suitable for Phase II testing. Alternative schedules of CT-2584 HMS to overcome the limiting toxicity of malaise would be worthy of examination. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Anthracyclines are amongst the most active drugs in the treatment of breast cancer. Stealth liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx, Doxil, Alza Pharmaceuticals Inc.) is a promising new agent under investigation for the treatment of breast cancer and other solid tumours. The liposomal encapsulation alters drug pharmacokinetics and leads to a marked change in toxicity profile compared to non-liposomal doxorubicin. The results of recently completed and ongoing clinical trials in breast cancer are reviewed.

97 Background: The median age of death from gastroesophageal (GO) cancer is 77 years. Palliative chemotherapy can improve survival and quality of life. Current standard combination regimens have been developed in trials involving patients of median age under 65 years with predominantly good performance status (PS). In light of audit and survey evidence of widespread use of arbitrarily modified chemotherapy schedules in frail and elderly patients, better evidence is needed to guide treatment. Based on our experience with the MRC FOCUS trial in colorectal cancer, 321GO aimed to test the feasibility of a randomised trial comparing chemotherapy in frail and elderly patients with advanced GO cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced GO cancer considered unfit for full-dose 3-drug chemotherapy, were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to 3, 2 or 1 drug chemotherapy at 80% dose of standard regimens with EOX: epirubicin 40mg/m2 d1, oxaliplatin 104mg/m2 d1, capecitabine 500mg/m2 bd x21d, OX: oxaliplatin 104mg/m2 d1, capecitabine 500mg/m2 bd x21d or X: capecitabine 1000mg/m2 bd d1-14, then 7 day rest. The primary endpoint for feasibility required 45 patients to be recruited over 18 months. Secondary endpoints included tolerability, treatment benefit and compliance with detailed health and quality of life (QoL) assessment. Results: 55 patients were recruited over an average of 18 months for each of the six recruiting centres; 17 to EOX, 19 to OX and 18 to X. The median age was 75. 37 (66%) patients were of WHO PS 0 or 1 and 18 (33%) were of PS 2. After 6-weeks, 12 (71%), 9 (47%) and 9 (50%) patients in the EOX, OX and X arms had experienced a treatment delay, dose reduction, grade 3 toxicity or stopped treatment. Treatment benefit (no radiological progression or clinical deterioration) at 12 weeks was seen in 8 (47%), 11 (58%) and 3 (16%) patients for EOX, OX and X respectively. Compliance with baseline health and QoL assessment was 98% at baseline and 69% at 12 weeks. Conclusions: A phase III trial randomising frail or elderly patients with advanced GO cancer to alternative chemotherapy regimens is feasible. EOX was associated with greater toxicity compared with OX; X offered no improvement in tolerability over OX.