Search

PURPOSE 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is an active radiotherapeutic for neuroblastoma. The primary aim of this trial was to identify which of three MIBG regimens was likely associated with the highest true response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients 1-30 years were eligible if they had relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma, at least one MIBG-avid site, and adequate autologous stem cells. Patients received MIBG 18 mCi/kg on day 1 and autologous stem cell on day 15. Patients randomly assigned to arm A received only MIBG; patients randomly assigned to arm B received intravenous vincristine on day 0 and irinotecan daily on days 0-4; patients randomly assigned to arm C received vorinostat (180 mg/m2/dose) orally once daily on days 1 to 12. The primary end point was response after one course by New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy criteria. The trial was designed with 105 patients to ensure an 80% chance that the arm with highest response rate was selected. RESULTS One hundred fourteen patients were enrolled, with three ineligible and six unevaluable, leaving 105 eligible and evaluable patients (36 in arm A, 35 in arm B, and 34 in arm C; 55 boys; and median age 6.5 years). After one course, the response rates (partial response or better) on arms A, B, and C were 14% (95% CI, 5 to 30), 14% (5 to 31), and 32% (18 to 51). An additional five, five, and four patients met New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy Minor Response criteria on arms A, B, and C, respectively. On arms A, B, and C, rates of any grade 3+ nonhematologic toxicity after first course were 19%, 49%, and 35%. CONCLUSION Vorinostat and MIBG is likely the arm with the highest true response rate, with manageable toxicity. Vincristine and irinotecan do not appear to improve the response rate to MIBG and are associated with increased toxicity.

10038 Background: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) is one of the most active salvage therapies for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) high-risk neuroblastoma (HRNB). Preclinical neuroblastoma studies show cooperative effects when radiation is combined with anti-GD2 monoclonal antibody (mAb). We hypothesized that MIBG would synergize with the anti-GD2 mAb dinutuximab to provide improved anti-tumor responses. The primary aims of Part A of this study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of MIBG administered with dinutuximab in children with R/R HRNB and to define and describe the toxicities. Methods: Patients 1-29 years of age with R/R HRNB who had MIBG uptake in ≥ 1 site were eligible. Prior anti-GD2 mAb therapy was allowed provided it was not administered with MIBG and not permanently discontinued due to toxicity. One prior MIBG therapy was allowed. MIBG was administered on day 1 at one of three dose levels (DLs): 12, 15, and 18 mCi/kg (DL1-DL3, respectively) with an expansion cohort at the RP2D. Doses were escalated using a rolling six design starting at DL1. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during course 1. Dinutuximab (17.5 mg/m2/dose) was administered intravenously on days 8-11 and 29-32 and GM-CSF (250 mcg/m2/dose) subcutaneously on days 8-17 and 29-38. Autologous peripheral blood stem cells were infused to all patients on day 15 (+/- 2 days). A maximum of 2 courses per patient were allowed. Response rate was defined as the proportion of patients with a complete or partial response. Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. Fourteen were evaluable for dose escalation (4 on DL1, 4 on DL2, and 6 on DL3); 5 evaluable patients were treated in the DL3 expansion. The median age was 7.4 years (range: 3.1 – 22.0) and 20 (65%) were male. Twenty-seven (87%) patients had previously received a median of 8.5 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (range: 2 – 21). Eight patients previously progressed while receiving anti-GD2 mAb including 7 in DL3. Five (16%) patients had previously received MIBG. No patient at any dose level experienced DLT. Common grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities were expected hematologic toxicities attributable to MIBG and non-hematologic toxicities attributable to dinutuximab or GM-CSF. Among 26 response-evaluable patients, the centrally-confirmed response rate was 31% across all dose levels: 2/6 (33%) in DL1, 3/5 (60%) in DL2, and 3/15 (20%) in DL3. There were 3 minor responses, 1 in DL2 and 2 in DL3. Conclusions: The RP2D of MIBG in combination with standard doses of dinutuximab and GM-CSF is 18 mCi/kg. This radioimmunotherapy regimen is well-tolerated without additive toxicity. Preliminary efficacy data are encouraging in this heavily pre-treated patient population. A phase 2 trial of this regimen is planned in patients with R/R HRNB. Clinical trial information: NCT03332667.

10500 Background: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) remains one of the most active agents for neuroblastoma. It is not clear if putative radiation sensitizers improve upon this activity. The primary aim of this trial was to identify the MIBG treatment regimen with highest response rate among: MIBG monotherapy (Arm A); MIBG/Vincristine/Irinotecan (Arm B); MIBG/Vorinostat (Arm C). The secondary aim was to compare toxicity across arms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized phase II trial. Patients 1-30 years with relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma were eligible with at least one MIBG-avid site and adequate autologous stem cells (ASCs). All patients received MIBG 18 mCi/kg on Day 1 and ASC on day 15. Patients on Arm A received only MIBG; patients on Arm B also received vincristine (2 mg/m2) IV on Day 0 and irinotecan (50 mg/m2) IV daily on Days 0-4; patients on Arm C also received vorinostat (180 mg/m2) orally once daily on days -1 to 12. The primary endpoint was response after one course according to NANT response criteria. The trial was designed as a pick-the-winner study with a maximum of 105 eligible and evaluable patients to ensure an 80% chance that the arm with highest response rate is selected, if that response rate is at least 15% higher than the other arms. Results: 114 patients enrolled. Three patients were ineligible and 6 eligible patients never received MIBG, leaving 105 eligible and evaluable patients (36 Arm A; 35 Arm B; and 34 Arm C; 55 boys; median age 6.5 years). 9 patients had received prior MIBG monotherapy, 65 prior irinotecan, and 7 prior vorinostat. After one course, the response rates (Partial Response or better) on Arms A, B, and C were 17% (95% CI 7-33%), 14% (5-31%), and 32% (18-51%). An additional 4, 4, and 7 patients met NANT Minor Response criteria [partial response in one disease category (e.g., bone marrow) and stable disease in other categories] on Arms A, B, and C, respectively. On Arms A, B, and C, rates of any grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity were 19%, 49% and 32%; rates of grade 3+ diarrhea were 0%, 11%, 0%; and rates of grade 3+ febrile neutropenia were 6%, 11%, and 0%. Conclusions: The combination of vorinostat/MIBG had the highest response rate, with manageable toxicity. Vincristine and irinotecan do not improve the response rate to MIBG and are associated with increased toxicity. These data provide response rates for MIBG monotherapy in a contemporary patient population assessed with current response criteria. Clinical trial information: NCT02035137.

10558Background: MYC drives polyamine expansion to support its oncogenic functions. Ornithine decarboxylase (Odc) is a direct MYC target that is rate-limiting for polyamine synthesis, and is itself...

Objective: The SEM Scanner is a medical device designed for use by healthcare providers as part of pressure ulcer prevention programs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater and inter-device agreement and reli- ability of the SEM Scanner. Methods: Thirty-one (31) volunteers free of pressure ulcers or broken skin at the sternum, sacrum, and heels were assessed with the SEM Scanner. Each of three op- erators utilized each of three devices to collect readings from four anatomical sites (sternum, sacrum, left and right heels) on each subject for a total of 108 readings per subject collected over approximately 30 min. For each combination of operator-device-anatomical site, three SEM readings were collected. Inter- operator and inter-device agreement and reliability were estimated. Results: Over the course of this study, more than 3000 SEM Scanner readings were collected. Agreement between operators was good with mean differences ranging from � 0.01 to 0.11. Inter-operator and inter-device reliability exceeded 0.80 at all anatomical sites assessed. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate the high reliability and good agreement of the SEM Scanner across different operators and different devices. Given the limitations of current methods to prevent and detect pressure ulcers, the SEM Scanner shows promise as an objective, reliable tool for assessing the pres- ence or absence of pressure-induced tissue damage such as pressure ulcers. a 2015 Bruin Biometrics, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/).