Search

Objective: Side effects due to chemotherapy were frequently reported and some of them require immediate treatment. Cervical cancer, breast cancer, and ovarian cancer are types of cancer that are often found in Dr. Moewardi Surakarta Hospital and 45% of the three types of cancer used the chemotherapy regimen of carboplatin-paclitaxel. Carboplatin-paclitaxel was chosen because it is a regimen that has fewer side effects. Methods: This study aims to identify the type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) neurotoxicity, percentage, and severity, as well as to determine the risk factors for the occurrence of ADRs such as age, gender, type of cancer, number of cycles, length of stay, and types of comorbidities in cancer patients using carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy regimen in RSUD Dr. Moewardi Surakarta for the period September to December 2019. This study was an observational study with a cross-sectional design through prospective data searches. The inclusion criteria in this study were adult cancer patients on carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy who were willing to be research subjects. Results: The incidences of ADRs in patients using the carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy regimen in this study were sensory peripheral neuropathy (77.69%); motor peripheral neuropathy (3.31%); joint pain (53.72%); and muscle weakness (37.19%) The instrument to measure the severity in this study used common terminology criteria for adverse events with the results of ADRs with grade 1 (35.08%), grade 2 (61.02), grade 3 (2.88%), and at grades 4 and 5 (0%). Risk factors for gender, age, length of stay, type of cancer, number of cycles, and comorbidities did not affect the incidence of neurotoxicity in cancer patients with the carboplatin-paclitaxel therapy regimen.

Purpose: To explore efficacy of short-course olanzapine with or without low-dose dexamethasone for prevention of delayed emesis in gynecologic cancer patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel. Methods: This was a prospective study in 81 chemo-naive patients receiving 0.25 mg intravenous palonosetron, 16 mg dexamethasone, and 10 mg oral olanzapine before chemotherapy. On days 2 and 3, patients randomly received 10 mg olanzapine (arm A; n=27), 10 mg olanzapine plus 4 mg dexamethasone (arm B; n=27), or 8 mg dexamethasone (reference arm C; n=27). The primary endpoint was total control (TC; no vomiting, no rescue antiemetics, and no nausea) on days 2–5, using a diary. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with no emesis impact on daily life using the Functional Living Index–Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire, and patient’s satisfaction with antiemetic coverage. Results: Fifty-two percent of patients in arm A ( P=0.406), 59% in arm B ( P=0.779), and 67% in arm C had a delayed TC. Secondary analyses showed no significant difference across arms in any efficacy endpoint. FLIE scores as well as mean satisfaction scores were similar across arms. Conclusions: In this exploratory study with a small sample size, we did not find any clue about better control of delayed emesis with either olanzapine regimen in gynecologic cancer patients treated with carboplatin/paclitaxel and receiving the same prophylaxis for acute emesis.

Many patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) are old or fragile and, despite deserving rapid and deep responses due to symptoms or a high tumor burden, they are not candidates for the current standard in the first-line setting of pembrolizumab plus platinum-5-FU. Other chemoimmunotherapy combinations substituting the 5-FU infusion by a taxane, may allow for less toxic effects without the need for a central venous catheter placement while maintaining efficacy. We present the case of an oral cavity cancer progressing with bulky disease to first-line cetuximab-paclitaxel in a frail and malnourished patient, where second-line treatment with pembrolizumab and reduced-dose 3-weekly carboplatin-paclitaxel achieved a deep and durable response. This is, to our knowledge, the first reported case of such combination being used in the R/M setting of SCCHN. Clinical trials should try to investigate the feasibility of this potentially less toxic and convenient combination in patients with SCCHN.

Purpose To determine the efficacy and toxicity of two standard chemotherapy regimens used concurrent with radiation for the treatment of esophageal cancer: cisplatin/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and carboplatin/paclitaxel. Materials and methods We prospectively reviewed records of 364 patients with histologically confirmed stage I to IVA esophageal cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without resection. All patients received surgical evaluation and imaging at presentation as well as following completion of their course of CRT. Treatment and prognostic variables were compared across the two chemotherapy regimens. Results We identified 261 patients treated with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 133) or cisplatin/5-FU (n = 128). Weight loss during CRT was lower in patients receiving carboplatin/paclitaxel (median: 7.0 pounds; 4.1% body weight) vs. cisplatin/5-FU (median: 11.0 pounds; 6.5% body weight) (p < 0.01). In 117 patients receiving trimodality therapy, post-operative death rates within one month of resection were similar. Pathologic complete response was better with carboplatin/paclitaxel vs. cisplatin/5-FU, 29.6% vs. 21.8% (p = 0.03), respectively. In the multivariable analysis, there was no association between chemotherapy regimen and overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS), though there was a trend toward improved OS with carboplatin/paclitaxel with a HR = 0.75 (p = 0.08). Further analysis revealed that trimodality therapy and stage were predictors for improved OS and PFS while female gender and grade predicted for improved PFS. Conclusions Carboplatin/paclitaxel was associated with decreased weight loss and improved pathologic response for trimodality patients when compared to cisplatin/5-FU. We observed no differences in OS, PFS, or post-operative death by chemotherapy regimen for both the entire cohort and trimodality patients.

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy with cetuximab is the standard of care for relapsed or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). The aim of this trial was to investigate whether cetuximab and paclitaxel/carboplatin can achieve similar progression-free survival (PFS) with standard cetuximab and 5-FU/platinum-based chemotherapy. Standard chemotherapy treatment for SCCHN is related to severe toxicity and new, less toxic regimens are needed. Methods: In this multicentre, randomized, controlled, phase 2 trial, 85 patients with relapsed or metastatic SCCHN were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cetuximab and 5-FU/cisplatin or carboplatin (arm A) vs. cetuximab and paclitaxel/carboplatin (arm B). Eligibility criteria included age &ge, 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0&ndash, 1, and adequate organ functions. The primary endpoint was to investigate whether PFS in arm B is significantly worse than PFS in arm A. Results: Median PFS in arm A was 4.37 months (95% CI: 2.9&ndash, 5.9 m) and 6.5 months (95% CI: 4.8&ndash, 8.2 m) in arm B, (p = 0.064). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months (95% CI: 5.3&ndash, 11.5 m) in arm A and 10.2 months (95% CI: 5.4&ndash, 15 m) in arm B, (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43&ndash, 1.16). PFS HR for arm B was not significantly worse than arm A (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.41&ndash, 1.03). Adverse events &ge, grade 3 were more frequent in arm A than arm B (60% vs. 40%, p = 0.034). Conclusion: Cetuximab and paclitaxel/carboplatin was found to have similar efficacy and less toxicity compared to cetuximab and 5-FU/cisplatin or carboplatin. The experimental arm is easier to administer rendering it a favorable alternative to standard therapy.

Significant advances in understanding the genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) together with the coupling discovery of key oncogenic drivers and the development of effective targeted and immunotherapeutic agents have revolutionized the management of this malignancy. Although these therapies have resulted in improved outcomes for a subgroup of patients, their benefit may not necessarily be reflected by conventional response assessment criteria, because these therapeutic agents differ in their mechanism of action and response time compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here the authors review available therapies in NSCLC and the utility of PET in therapeutic response assessment.

Background: The biological mechanisms underlying early- and advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancers (EOCs) are still poorly understood. This study explored kinase-driven metabolic signalling in early and advanced EOCs, and its role in tumour progression and response to carboplatin–paclitaxel treatment. Methods: Tumour epithelia were isolated from two independent sets of primary EOC (n=72 and 30 for the discovery and the validation sets, respectively) via laser capture microdissection. Reverse phase protein microarrays were used to broadly profile the kinase-driven metabolic signalling of EOC with particular emphasis on the LBK1–AMPK and AKT–mTOR axes. Signalling activation was compared between early and advanced lesions, and carboplatin–paclitaxel-sensitive and -resistant tumours. Results: Advanced EOCs were characterised by a heterogeneous kinase-driven metabolic signature and decreased phosphorylation of the AMPK–AKT–mTOR axis compared to early EOC (P

Background: Despite the widespread introduction of screening programs, cervical cancer remains an important health problem, particularly in developing countries. Treatment options for patients with metastatic cancer and persistent or recurrent disease after curative therapy are limited and represent an unmet medical need. Patients and Methods: We report three clinical cases of metastatic cervical cancer in women treated with the combination of carboplatin, paclitaxel and bevacizumab. We also discuss current and future therapy for metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer, including ongoing investigations into the addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy and the role of bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. Results and Conclusion: All three women received clinical benefit from the combination, including one complete and two partial responses. The tolerability of bevacizumab was excellent. Carboplatin/paclitaxel appears to be an acceptable and better tolerated alternative to cisplatin/paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent/persistent disease, and the carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab combination is under investigation for metastatic, recurrent or persistent cervical cancer in clinical trials such as the CECILIA trial (NCT02467907); the awaited results will add to the evidence for the use of this combination chemotherapy regimen in advanced cervical cancer.

PURPOSE In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-407 study, the addition of pembrolizumab to carboplatin-paclitaxel/nab-paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate in patients with previously untreated metastatic squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with little impact on severe toxicity. We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-407. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 cycles of pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo once every 3 weeks plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel, followed by pembrolizumab or placebo for an additional 31 cycles. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was evaluated using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer Module 13 (QLQ-LC13). Key PRO endpoints were change from baseline to weeks 9 and 18 (during and after platinum therapy) in the QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) score and time to deterioration in the composite endpoint of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea from the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Two-sided, nominal P values are provided. RESULTS A total of 554 and 553 patients completed ≥ 1 QLQ-C30 or ≥ 1 QLQ-LC13 assessment, respectively. GHS/QoL score improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (least squares [LS] mean [95% CI] change from baseline: week 9, 1.8 [−0.9 to 4.4]; week 18, 4.3 [1.7 to 6.9]) and deteriorated in the placebo-combination group (week 9, −1.8 [−4.4 to 0.7]; week 18, −0.57 [−3.3 to 2.2]). Between-group differences were improved for the pembrolizumab-combination group (difference in LS mean scores: week 9, 3.6 [95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9], nominal P = .0337; week 18, 4.9 [1.4 to 8.3], nominal P = .0060). Median time to deterioration in cough, chest pain, or dyspnea was not reached in either group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.06]; nominal P = .125). CONCLUSION Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy maintained or improved HRQoL measurements relative to baseline and improved HRQoL versus chemotherapy alone at weeks 9 and 18. These results support use of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy for metastatic squamous NSCLC.

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) are responsible for genital and oral cancers associated with the expression of the E6/E7 HPV oncogenes. Therapeutic vaccines targeting those oncogenes can only partially control tumor progression, highlighting the necessity to investigate different treatment strategies. Using the genital orthotopic HPV16 TC-1 model, herein we sequentially investigated in progressively more stringent settings the effects of systemic administration of carboplatin/paclitaxel (C + P) chemotherapy combined with HPV16-E7 synthetic long peptide (E7LP) vaccination, followed by intravaginal immunostimulation with the synthetic toll-like-receptor-9 agonist CpG. Our data show that systemic delivery of C + P prior to E7LP vaccination significantly increased mice survival. This survival benefit was associated with both reduced genital tumor growth at the time of vaccination, and a decreased infiltration of Ly6G myeloid cells and tumor-associated macrophages. Adding intravaginal CpG, which results in increased E7-specific CD8 T cells locally, to E7LP vaccination and the chemotherapy formed a tri-therapy, which significantly increased mice survival as compared to any of the dual treatments. When the tri-therapy was further refined by using a recently optimized nanoparticle-conjugated E7LP vaccine, even larger end-stage genital-TC-1 tumors responded, with 90% of mice showing a survival benefit as compared to 30% of mice with the tri-therapy involving the traditional E7LP ‘liquid’ vaccine. C + P is commonly used to treat cervical cancer patients and its combination with E7/E6 vaccination is currently being tested in a phase I/II trial (NCT02128126). Our data suggests that new vaccine formulations combined with local immunostimulation and standard-of-care chemotherapy have promise to further benefit patients with HPV-associated cancer. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0593-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

1078 Background: Ipatasertib (ipat) is an AKT inhibitor which has shown efficacy in combination with paclitaxel and atezolizumab in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). In previous trials, ipat was given 21 days on 7 days off due to gastrointestinal toxicities. The current trial was designed to test the safety and efficacy of ipat continuous dosing in combination with carboplatin (carbo) or carboplatin/paclitaxel (carbo/taxol). The trial was later amended to include an additional arm using ipat 21 days on 7 days off with capecitabine/atezolizumab (cape/atezo) to explore the safety of the combination. Methods: Patients with metastatic TNBC and up to 2 lines of prior chemotherapy were enrolled to receive the following: Arm A, ipat 400 mg daily, carbo AUC 2 and taxol 80 mg/m2 IV days 1, 8, 15, every 28 days; Arm B, ipat 400 mg daily, carbo AUC 2 IV days 1, 8, 15, every 28 days; Arm C, ipat 300 mg daily 21 days on 7 days off, cape 750 mg/m2 7 days on 7 days off, atezo 840 mg IV every 28 days. Ipat continuous dosing was used for Arms A and B. Ipat 21 days on 7 days off dosing was used for Arm C. The primary endpoint is safety and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints are response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-three patients with median age 49 (29-75) were enrolled from 04/2019 to 12/2020, with 9 in Arm A, 10 in Arm B, and 4 in Arm C. A total of 15/23 (65%) had dose delay and 10/23 (43%) had dose modification. 3/4 (75%) of patients in Arm A had dose limiting toxicities (DLT) including diarrhea and gastric pain, which led to de-escalation to dose -1 with ipat (300 mg daily). 5 more patients were treated at dose -1 of Arm A with only 1 DLT (maculo-papular rash). No DLTs were observed in Arm B. Of the 4 patients treated in Arm C, 1 had DLT (maculo-papular rash). The RP2D for Arms A and B are: ipat 300 mg/carbo AUC2/taxol 80 mg/m2; ipat 400 mg/carbo AUC2. RP2D for Arm C has not been determined and accrual is ongoing. There were no clinically significant G4 toxicities in Arm A; G3 toxicities included 4/9 (44%) diarrhea, 1/9 (11%) hypertension, 1/9 (11%) stomach pain, and 1/9 (11%) neutropenia. For Arm B, G3 toxicities included 2/10 (20%) diarrhea, 1/10 (10%) anemia, 1/10 (10%) maculo-papular rash, and 1/10 (10%) hyperglycemia. For Arm C, there was 1/4 (25%) G3 maculo-papular rash. Best overall responses for Arm A were: 2/9 (22%) PR, 4/9 (44%) SD, and 3/9 (33%) PD. Best responses for Arm B were 2/10 (20%) PR, 6/10 (60%) SD, and 2/10 (20%) PD. For Arm C, best responses were 3/4 (75%) SD, and 1 not evaluable (repeat biopsy showed HER2+ disease). With a median follow up of 8.1 months, the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI [2.6, 5.3]). Conclusions: Continuous dosing of ipatasertib in combination with carbo or carbo/taxol is well-tolerated with modest efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT03853707 .

The article presents the results of pharmacoeconomic study concerning different approaches to treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer and mutations in the EGFR gene. We have compared two common therapy regimens, which are used in routine practice in this group of patients, nowadays: the standard chemotherapy - carboplatin/paclitaxel combination and targeted therapy, using gefitinib. The results of the study demonstrate the clinical and economic benefits of gefitinib, proved by preferable cost-effectiveness ratio and reduced financial costs taking into account the effective treatment ratio patients/months.

239 Background: After trastuzumab (T) approval for advanced HER2-positive E/GEJ-AC, HER2 testing has increased in patients (pts) with resectable disease. Neoadjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel chemoradiation (nCP-CRT) is a common therapy approach. We performed the largest evaluation, to our knowledge, of the prognostic impact of HER2 in E/GEJ-AC pts treated with nCP-CRT. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all trimodality-eligible (T2+ or N+) pts with E/GEJ-AC who started nCP-CRT (usually 50.4 Gy) with planned surgery at Mayo Clinic (2014-2019). HER2 was tested using standard criteria for HER2 positivity (ie, immunohistochemistry 3+ or amplification by in situ hybridization). Clinicopathologic data and time to recurrence (TTR), disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and pathologic complete response (pCR – ie, no residual tumor in primary or nodes) were collected. Kaplan Meier and multivariate Cox analysis were used. Results: Of 161 consecutive eligible pts, HER2 status was available in 107 pts (HER2-positive n=26, HER2-negative n=81) of whom n=82 had surgery and n=19 had pCR. Most tumors were clinical T3 (80%) or N+ (81%), histologic grade 3 of 3 (62%). HER2 positivity was significantly associated with lower grade, but not with age, clinical T or N, or ECOG performance status (PS). A similar proportion of HER2-positive ( vs negative) pts had surgery. Among pts who had surgery, pCR rates were lower in HER2-positive ( vs negative) pts (11% [2/19] vs 27% [17/63]). After a median follow up of 23 mo, DFS and TTR were significantly shorter in HER2 positive ( vs negative) pts, independent of other pretreatment covariables (Table). Yet OS was comparable. Lung recurrence was enriched in HER2 positive ( vs negative) pts. Among pts with recurrence, SAR was longer in HER2-positive vs -negative pts. A total of 53% (10/19) of previously HER2-positive pts received T-based therapy after recurrence, and these pts were the drivers of favorable SAR (median 22 mo in n=10 HER2-positive pts who received T vs 11 mo in n=9 HER2-positive pts who did not receive T vs 11 mo in n=40 HER2-negative pts; P log-rank=.01). Conclusions: HER2 positivity ( vs negativity) is independently associated with shorter TTR and DFS, but more comparable OS. The adverse association of HER2 on tumor response and TTR may have been largely overcome through enhanced survival after recurrence, although OS data are maturing. These data may have implications for the design of endpoints in future curative-intent anti-HER2 trials. [Table: see text]

4554 Background: Induction chemotherapy with PET-directed CRT and surgery is the standard treatment for locally advanced EA at our institution. Following results of the CALGB 80803 trial, FOLFOX has recently replaced CP as the preferred induction regimen. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with locally advanced EA treated with induction CP vs FOLFOX, followed by trimodality therapy between January 2010 and June 2019. Patients treated with CP with RT followed by surgery without induction chemo were also included. We compared pathological complete response (pCR) and near pCR (ypN0 with ≥90% response) rates in the induction FOLFOX group to the induction CP and no-induction groups. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to adjust for confounding factors. Disease-free survival (DFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using max-combo weighted log rank test. Results: 445 patients were included. Patients in the induction FOLFOX group had significantly higher pCR and near pCR rates vs induction CP patients. Notably, pCR rate was 38% among FOLFOX PET responders vs 19% in non-responders. In multivariable analysis, compared to induction CP, induction FOLFOX administration was an independent predictor of near pCR (OR: 2.22, 95%CI: 1.20-4.20, p = 0.012). Compared to 24% pCR rate among no-induction patients, induction FOLFOX pCR rate was slightly higher at 32%. DFS by 2-years was higher in induction FOLFOX compared to no-induction-treated patients (62% vs. 42%, p = 0.05). Postoperative complication rates were similar among the three groups. Conclusions: PET-directed CRT with FOLFOX instead of CP improves pCR and near pCR rates. Improved DFS was observed in the FOLFOX vs no-induction patients. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm any survival benefits. [Table: see text]

1091 Background: In BROCADE3 (NCT02163694), addition of PARP inhibitor V to CP resulted in improved progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.57−0.88], p=0.002) in patients (pts) with advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and g BRCA1/2 mutation. A subset of pts transitioned to V/placebo (PL) monoTx at an intensified dose/schedule after CP discontinuation prior to progression (investigator discretion). Here, we evaluate the impact of this transition on efficacy and safety. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to CP with V (n=337) or PL (n=172). V (120 mg po BID) or PL was given on Days (D) −2 to 5, C (AUC 6) on D1, and P (80 mg/m2) on D1, 8, and 15 (21-day cycles). Pts who transitioned to monoTx received V/PL 300-400mg BID daily until progression. A Cox model with a time varying covariate indicating transition from V/PL with CP to V/PL monoTx was fit to estimate treatment effect during combination and monoTx phases. PFS by cycles of CP prior to monoTx and AEs during monoTx are summarized. Results: A subgroup of 136 (40%) and 58 (34%) pts on the V and PL arms, respectively, received monoTx. When a Cox model with a time-varying covariate was fit for PFS (per investigator), the nominal P-value for treatment by covariate interaction was 0.038. The HRs (95% CI) for V vs PL during combination therapy and monoTx were 0.81 (0.62–1.06) and 0.49 (0.33–0.73). The Table summarizes PFS by cycles of C and/or P prior to monoTx. Common AEs (>20% of pts) during V or PL monoTx were nausea (52%/10%), fatigue (23%/12%), headache (21%/17%), and diarrhea (21%/9%). Seizures (2.2%/0%) were reported during monoTx. Rates of cytopenias for V or PL monoTx were: anemia 12%/14%; neutropenia 13%/12%; and thrombocytopenia 10%/5%. Conclusions: These analyses suggest that pts treated with V + CP derive benefit from both combination therapy as well as V monoTx after CP discontinuation. Pts receiving V monoTx after ≤ 6 cycles of VCP experienced a similar benefit to those who transitioned to monoTx after 7–12 cycles of VCP, suggesting that V maintenance therapy may be suitable following a limited duration of combination therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02163694 . [Table: see text]

Background:The phase III VELIA trial (NCT02470585) demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS per investigator (INV) for V added to CP and continued as maintenance (CPV-V) vs. CP alone in pts with newly diagnosed HGSC in the BRCA mutated (BRCAm), homologous recombination deficient (HRD), and whole populations. Here we present pre-specified analyses of PFS per BICR.Methods:Pts with Stage III-IV HGSC received V or Placebo (PL) with CP (6 cycles) and as maintenance (30 additional cycles). Primary analysis of PFS by INV compared CPV-V to CP alone in the BRCAm, HRD, and whole populations. Exploratory analyses of PFS in BRCA wildtype (wt) and non-HRD HGSC were performed. Radiologic tumor assessments were also prospectively submitted to an independent central reviewer for blinded assessment per RECIST v 1.1. PFS per BICR and rates of concordance between INV and BICR for determination of disease progression were analyzed. Safety data from the primary analysis were previously reported.Results:1140 total pts were enrolled (CPV-V 382; CP 375). In the whole population, 26% of HGSCs were BRCAm and 55% were HRD. Concordance rates between INV and BICR were 68-85% by arm for each population. Analyses of PFS per BICR and per INV were consistent (Table). PFS was prolonged in the CPV-V vs. CP arm in all primary and exploratory populations assessed.Conclusions:Analyses of PFS per BICR supported the primary analysis of PFS per INV in the BRCAm, HRD, and whole populations, as well as exploratory BRCAwt and non-HRD populations. Median PFS per BICR was longer compared to PFS per INV assessments in all populations and in both arms. These findings support the reliability of PFS by INV in ovarian cancer trials. Alternate strategies like audits may be appropriate to support PFS by INV with less time and expense than full BICR. Clinical trial information: NCT02470585

TPS6107 Background: Carboplatin-paclitaxel is considered standard systemic anticancer therapy for recurrent or advanced EC for which surgery and/or radiation are not curative. Dostarlimab (TSR-042) is an anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 humanized monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with recurrent or advanced EC in the GARNET trial. The RUBY trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel in recurrent or primary advanced EC compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. Methods: This is a global, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Eligible pts must have first recurrent or primary stage III or stage IV EC with a low potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery alone or in combination. Pts with carcinosarcoma are eligible for enrollment. 470 pts will be enrolled from approximately 160 sites in the ENGOT countries, United States, and Canada. Stratification factors are microsatellite instability (MSI) status (MSI-high [MSI-H] or microsatellite stable [MSS]), prior external pelvic radiotherapy (yes or no), and disease status (recurrent, primary stage III, or primary stage IV). Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive combination dostarlimab 500 mg or placebo + carboplatin AUC 5 + paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg or placebo monotherapy every 6 weeks for up to 3 years in the absence of progressive disease, death, unacceptable toxicity, or patient/physician decision to withdraw from the study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by the investigator in the all-comers population and the MSI-H population per RECIST version 1.1. Secondary efficacy endpoints are PFS assessed by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03981796.

Background: While neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT) with subsequent surgery is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or node-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCC) suitable for surgery, patients who are unsuitable for surgery or who refuse surgery should be treated with definite chemoradiation therapy (dCRT). Purpose of this study was to compare toxicity and oncologic outcome of dCRT with either cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil (CDDP/5FU) or carboplatin and paclitaxel (Carb/TAX) in patients with SCC.Methods: Twenty-two patients who received dCRT with carboplatin (AUC2, weekly) and paclitaxel (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area, weekly) were retrospectively compared to 25 patients who were scheduled for dCRT with cisplatin (20 mg/m(2)/d) and 5-fluoruracil (500 mg/m(2)/d) on day 1-5 and day 29-33. For the per-protocol (PP) analysis, PP treatment was defined as complete radiation therapy with at least 54Gy and at least three complete cycles of Carb/TAX or complete radiation therapy with at least 54Gy and at least one complete cycle of CDDP/5FU. While patients who were scheduled for dCRT with Carb/TAX received a significantly higher total radiation dose (median dose 59.4Gy vs. 54Gy, p < 0.001) than patients who were scheduled for dCRT with CDDP/5FU, no significant differences were seen for other parameters (age, sex, TNM-stage, grading and tumor extension).Results: Forty-seven patients (25 patients treated with CDDP/5FU and 22 patients treated with Carb/TAX) were evaluated for the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and 41 of 47 patients (23 patients treated with CDDP/5FU and 18 patients treated with Carb/TAX) were evaluated for the PP analysis. Severe myelotoxicity (>= III degrees) was seen in 52% (CDDP/5FU) and 55% of patients (Carb/TAX), respectively (p = 1.000). In the univariate binary logistic regression analysis, patients age was the only factor associated with an increased risk of >= III degrees myelotoxicity (hazard ratio 1.145, 95% CI 1.035; 1.266; p = 0.009). Regarding treatment efficiency, no significant differences were seen for overall survival (OS) and freedom from relapse (FFR) between both treatment groups.Conclusion: Myelotoxicity and oncologic outcome under dCRT were not different for patients with SCC of the esophagus treated with either CDDP/5FU or Carb/TAX. The putative equivalence of dCRT with Carb/TAX in this setting should be further investigated in prospective trials. However, our data reveal that the risk of significant myelotoxicity increases with patient age and therefore other chemotherapy regimens might be evaluated in elderly patients.

Background The GINECO previously developed the GVS to identify geriatric vulnerability in oOC pts (Falandry, 2013). The derivation cohort was EWOT-3 database of 111 oOC pts treated with first line carboplatin. The GVS combines albumin (≥ or Methods Pts ≥70 yrs diagnosed with FIGO stage III/IV epithelial OC and no organ failure were screened for GVS. Those with GVS≥3 were proposed EWOC-1 randomized trial, evaluating 3 treatment regimens in the vulnerable pts. Other pts’ data were collected in the “EWOC-1 registry”. External validation of GVS was performed in the whole population (V1), in the EWOC-1 registry subgroup (V2), and in the subgroup of pts treated with carboplatin paclitaxel regimens (V3). Cross-validation analyses (calibration, discrimination, and performance analysis) were performed according current recommendations (Steyerber, 2014). Results From 12/2013 to 11/2018, 447 elderly patients were included, 120 (27%) in EWOC-1 trial and 327 in EWOC-1 registry (V1: n = 447, V2: n = 327, V3: n = 324). Patients’ cancer characteristics were similar in the validation cohorts compared to the derivation one. Median follow up was 22 mo; missing values were limited ( Conclusions GVS provides a reproducible and robust prediction model of vulnerability in oOC pts, independent of geographic and historic effect (V1), as well as treatment patterns (V3), validated on an international population. Clinical trial identification PROTOCOL EWOC-1 - ENGOT OV-23 - 2013-000266-11. Legal entity responsible for the study Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud. Funding Hospital Clinical Research Program (PHRC). Disclosure D. Lorusso: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: MERCK; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunogen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Licensing / Royalties, Full / Part-time employment: PharmaMar; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Licensing / Royalties, Full / Part-time employment: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Licensing / Royalties, Full / Part-time employment: Tesaro; Officer / Board of Directors, Spouse / Financial dependant, Non-remunerated activity/ies: GCIG. A. Floquet: Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Tesaro; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. O. Tredan: Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Lilly; Honoraria (self): BMS; Honoraria (self): MSD. E. Pujade-Lauraine: Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder /: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Licensing / Royalties, Full: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): Clovis; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time e: Tesaro; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): Genmab; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Leadership role, Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer. C. Falandry: Honoraria (self): Leo Pharma; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): MSD oncology; Honoraria (self): Teva; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Baxter; Honoraria (self): Eisai; Honoraria (self): Janssen; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (institution): Chugai Pharma; Honoraria (institution): Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (institution): Astellas Pharma. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

372 Background: Preoperative chemoRT is a standard-of-care as shown in the CROSS trial ( N Engl J Med 2012;366:2074-2084), Surgery is sometimes deferred in pts with clinical CR (cCR) based on lack of overall survival benefit ( J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2310-2317, J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1160-1168). Nivolumab has activity in advanced ESCC ( Lancet Oncol 2017;18:631-639), and adding it to chemoRT may improve outcomes. Methods: This phase I/II study was designed to assess the safety and tolerability and efficacy of nivolumab added to chemoRT (6 weekly carboplatin AUC 2, paclitaxel 50mg/m2, RT 50.4 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions 5/7 days) for pts with TanyN1-3 or T3-4N0M0 ESCC. The phase I primary endpoint is “unacceptable toxicity” at 28 days after the last dose of chemotherapy. The phase II primary endpoints are cCR (endoscopy + PET/CT) and pCR rates for pts undergoing surgery. Nivolumab is given q2W ×2, then concurrent chemoRT with nivolumab q2W x3. If no cCR, pt proceeds to esophagectomy, then adjuvant nivolumab q2W ×3; if cCR, pt has an option of no surgery but receives nivolumab q2W ×3. Results: From 7/20/17 to 12/27/18, 6 pts were enrolled. No unacceptable or grade 5 toxicities were observed. The most common grade 1/2 AEs in >1 pt were anorexia, myelosuppression, elevated AST and nausea. Grade 3/4 AEs in >1 pt were lymphopenia and leukocytopenia. 2 pts required hospitalizations (dyspnea 1, colitis 1). All pts completed therapy; 1 pt had dose delay due to grade 2 esophagitis; 2 pts progressed, 4 achieved cCR. Of 4 pts with cCR, 2 pts chose surgery and both achieved pCR. None of the 4 pts recurred. Conclusions: ChemoRT with nivolumab is tolerable with manageable toxicities in locally advanced ESCC. Enrollment to the phase II portion ended because of slow accrual. Adverse Events. Grade 1 &2 in > 1 pt: 4/6: Anorexia & Anemia 3/6: Leukocytopenia Neutropenia Thrombocytopenia Nausea & Elevated AST 2/6: Hypomagnesemia Hypokalemia Grade 3 & 4 in > 1 pt: 5/6: Lymphopenia, 2/6: Leukocytopenia

373 Background: Initial results of the NEOSCOPE trial comparing pre-operative CarPac vs OxCap based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction showed comparable toxicity and improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) in favour of the CarPacRT. Here we report survival after a median follow-up of 40.7 months (95% CI: 45.1-53.6). Methods: NEOSCOPE was an open, randomised, ‘pick a winner’ phase II trial. Patients with resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma ≥ cT3 and/or ≥ cN1 were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, 15, 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd on days of RT) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15, 22, 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Induction OxCap (2 cycles) was given prior to CRT. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after CRT.The primary endpoint was pCR, secondary endpoints were toxicity, PFS and OS. Results: Between Oct 2013 and Feb 2015, 85 patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. Median OS was not reached in the CarPacRT group and was 41.72 months (95% CI 19.58-.)in the OxCap group (HR 0.56[95% CI 0.29-1.07]; p=0.079). 3-year and 5-year OS rates were 74% (95% CI 58%-85%) and 54% (95% CI 34%-71%) (CarPacRT), and 52% (95% CI 35%-67%) and 39% (95% CI 21%-56%) (OxCapRT). Median PFS (not reached vs 35.3 months, HR=0.61 [95% CI 0.33-1.12]; p=0.111) and metastatic PFS (not reached vs 39.0 months, HR=0.61 [95% CI 0.32-1.14], p=0.118) both favoured the CarPacRT arm. Local recurrence rate was low (OxCapRT= 10%; CarPacRT= 7%). The OS benefit for CarPacRT was consistent across subgroups but not statistically significant. Conclusions: In this longer term analysis there was some evidence that induction OxCap followed by switch to CarPacRT was superior to continuing OxCapRT, with efficacy similar to that seen in other published studies such as ‘CROSS’ and ‘FLOT’. Taken together with the previously published pCR results CarPacRT rather than OxCapRT warrants inclusion in future trials. Funding: Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614). Clinical trial information: NCT01843829.

Objective The use of bevacizumab in advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial among elderly patients. This study aimed to compare overall survival for Medicare patients diagnosed with NSCLC and treated with either first-line bevacizumab–carboplatin–paclitaxel (BCP) or carboplatin–paclitaxel (CP). Methods Patients ≥65 years old, first diagnosed with non-squamous NSCLC stage IIIB/IV between 2006 and 2009, and treated with either first-line BCP or CP, were selected from the SEER-Medicare database that links cancer registry and US Medicare claims data. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to evaluate survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the effect of BCP versus CP on the hazard of death. Age-stratified analyses were conducted for patients aged 65–74 and ≥75 years. Results Of 1706 patients in the study sample, 592 (34.7%) received BCP and 1114 (65.3%) received CP; 692 (40.6%) were ≥75 years. Adjusted median survival time in the BCP versus CP cohorts was 10.5 versus 8.5 months ( p =0.008). The difference in median survival favoring the BCP cohort was statistically significant for both patients aged ≥75 years (2.8 months, p =0.019), and patients aged 65–74 years (1.5 months, p =0.018). The adjusted hazard of death did not differ between the cohorts (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86–1.06); however, during the first year of follow-up, when most deaths (>60%) occurred, the hazard of death was 18% lower for the BCP cohort (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.94). BCP patients also had 18% fewer hospital admissions than CP patients (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72–0.94) and 23% fewer inpatient days (IRR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65–0.91). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients in the SEER database, first-line therapy with BCP was associated with longer survival and fewer hospitalizations than CP.

e12559 Background: Platinum based regimens in the neoadjuvant (NA) setting for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) have resulted in a significant increase in the pathological response (pCR) rate but at the cost of worse hematological toxicities. Despite these data such NA regimens are not widely used as yet for TNBC. Currently, no real world evidence exist regarding the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment regimen. Methods: Patients treated with neoadjuvant carbo-pac-ddAC between December 2015 and May 2018 at Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust were identified via pharmacy records. Clinical records were reviewed, and clinico-pathological information and toxicity data were recorded. Data lock was January 16, 2019. Results: 53 female patients were identified with a median age of 48 years (IQR: 40.0-55.5). At presentation: Median tumour size 29mm (IQR: 20.0-40.0), 45% (24/53) were LN +, 8% (4/53) were ER+. Of 30 patients tested for germ line susceptibility, 23% (7/30) were found to have a BRCA mutation (full details to be presented). Delivery of planned CT : 4% (2/53) discontinued early for progressive disease or patient choice; of the remaining patients there were a total of 36 deferrals and 8 dose reductions. Surgical details: Breast: 42% (22/53) mastectomy & 58% (31/53) WLE, Ax management: 37% (19/51) Ax clearance & 63% (32/51) sentinel node biopsy (2 patients underwent previous axillary treatment for prior BC). Of 24 patients LN+ at presentation 58% (14/24) underwent Ax clearance; of these 64% (9/14) had no Ax involvement. pCR rate (ypT0/is, N0) (cases with prior ipsilateral Ax surgery excluded) was 53% (27/51) & pCR breast alone: 60% (31/52). Radiotherapy: 90% (47/52) received radiotherapy post-surgery. Outcome: At a median follow up 42.4 wks (IQR: 34.2-54.4), 6% (3/52) patients had disease recurrence resulting in 2 deaths. Conclusions: These initial real world data confirm the efficacy of NA therapy with carbo-pac-ddAC, with pCR rates consistent with literature. These results support the use of platinum based chemotherapy in the NA management of TNBC. Updated outcomes will be presented based on pCR versus no pCR; and BRCA status.