Search

Background Icrucumab (ICR) and ramucirumab (RAM) bind vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. This open-label, randomized phase II study evaluated their efficacy and safety in combination with capecitabine (CAP) in patients with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive CAP (1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily, days 1-14) alone or in combination with RAM (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV], days 1 and 8) (RAM + CAP) or ICR (12 mg/kg IV, days 1 and 8) (ICR + CAP) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), tumor response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Results Of 153 patients randomized, 150 received treatment. Median PFS (95% confidence interval) was 22.1 (12.1-36.1) weeks on RAM + CAP, 7.3 (6.3-13.0) weeks on ICR + CAP, and 19.0 (12.1-24.3) weeks on CAP (hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.691, p = .1315, RAM + CAP versus CAP; 1.480, p = .0851, ICR + CAP versus CAP). Median OS was 67.4 weeks on RAM + CAP, 62.1 weeks on ICR + CAP, and 71.6 weeks on CAP (HRs: 1.833, p = .0283, RAM + CAP versus CAP; 1.468, p = .1550, ICR + CAP versus CAP). There was no statistically significant difference in PFS or OS between either combination arm and CAP. Treatment-related adverse events more frequent (by ≥10%) on RAM + CAP than on CAP were constipation, decreased appetite, headache, epistaxis, and hypertension. Those more frequent (by ≥10%) on ICR + CAP than CAP were anemia, increased lacrimation, periorbital edema, nausea, vomiting, peripheral edema, facial edema, dehydration, and dyspnea. Conclusion Combining RAM or ICR with CAP did not improve PFS in the targeted study population. The Oncologist 2017;22:245-254 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Icrucumab and ramucirumab are recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies that bind vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. VEGFR-1 activation on endothelial and tumor cell surfaces increases tumor vascularization and growth and supports tumor growth via multiple mechanisms, including contributions to angiogenesis and direct promotion of cancer cell proliferation. Strong preclinical and clinical evidence suggests key roles for VEGF and angiogenesis in breast cancer growth, invasion, and metastasis. This randomized phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of each antibody in combination with capecitabine in patients with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Despite recent advances, follicular lymphoma (FL) remains incurable for most patients. Relapsed/refractory (r/r) FL is associated with decremental treatment responses, accumulating toxicity, and poor survival among early failures of 1st line chemoimmunotherapy. Underscored by the recent approvals of idelalisib, copanlisib, and duvelisib, targeting B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling produces ORR of ~50% in r/r patients; however, new agents with a better therapeutic index over long-term administration are needed. SYK is a key regulator of BCR signaling (upstream of BTK and PI3K), and its inhibition results in clinical activity in FL. Compared with unaffected nodes, lymph nodes from FL patients have greater numbers of follicular helper T cells that express high levels of IL-4, which may support the tumor via the JAK1/3 pathway. Cerdulatinib, an oral, reversible inhibitor of SYK and JAK kinases (JAK1, JAK3, TYK2), previously reported a ~45% overall response rate (ORR) in r/r FL as a single agent. Xenograft studies suggest cerdulatinib may combine with rituximab to enhance antitumor activity. We report updated results from a phase 2a study of single-agent cerdulatinib and initial results in combination with rituximab in r/r FL. Methods: This phase 2a study confirmed the safety and efficacy of cerdulatinib 30 mg BID in r/r B- and T-cell lymphoma patients. Dose reductions were permitted to 15 mg BID. Response was assessed by Lugano criteria. Results: A planned interim analysis was performed on July 18, 2019, in which enrollment was 40 patients in the single-agent cohort and 19 patients in the rituximab combination cohort. For the single-agent cohort, median age (range) was 64 (42-81) years and median prior therapies (range) was 3 (1-9). Ninety-five percent of patients had prior anti-CD20 therapy, and 25% had prior therapy with BCR pathway inhibitors. For the combination cohort, median age (range) was 67 (47-85) years and median prior therapies (range) was 3 (1-10). Eighty-eight percent of patients had prior anti-CD20 therapy, and 32% had prior therapy with BCR pathway inhibitors. The safety profile appeared similar in both cohorts. The most common treatment-emergent grade 3+ adverse events in ≥5% of patients for both cohorts were lipase increase (27%), neutropenia (18%), diarrhea (12%), amylase increase (10%), hypertension (8%), nausea (7%), and pneumonia (5%). Grade 3+ infections occurred in 17.5% of single-agent cohort patients and 15.8% of combination cohort patients. Amylase and lipase increases generally were not associated with abdominal pain or pancreatitis. In addition, to date there has been no evidence of cumulative toxicity. The ORR was 45% as a single agent (12.5% complete response [CR], 32.5% partial response [PR], with 25% stable disease [SD] and 5% progressive disease [PD] in 40 evaluable patients) and 59% in the combination cohort (11.7% CR, 47% PR, with 27.8% SD and no PD in 17 evaluable patients). Responses typically occurred after 2 cycles, generally improved over time, and were durable in the single-agent cohort, with 10 patients on drug for >1 year. Enrollment in the combination cohort is ongoing. Updated safety and efficacy will be presented. Conclusion: The recommended cerdulatinib phase 2 dose of 30 mg BID was tolerable and efficacious in heavily pretreated r/r FL. The cerdulatinib + rituximab combination appears to be well tolerated, with tumor reductions in all evaluable patients. The safety profile and unique mechanism of action of cerdulatinib support further combination studies in FL. Disclosures Smith: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding. Munoz:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Stevens:Astellas: Consultancy. Smith:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Feldman:Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ye:MingSight: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Onyx: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. de Vos:Verastem: Consultancy; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy. Miller:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Birrell:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Leeds:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Coffey:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Conley:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Michelson:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Curnutte:Portola Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Purpose To provide recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent. Methods To update the 2006 guideline of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration Library. An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating. Results There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: nine systematic reviews (three included meta-analyses) and five randomized controlled trials. After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted. Recommendations Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography scans, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

Purpose To develop recommendations about endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor (HR) –positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of evidence from 2008 through 2015 to create recommendations informed by that evidence. Outcomes of interest included sequencing of hormonal agents, hormonal agents compared with chemotherapy, targeted biologic therapy, and treatment of premenopausal women. This guideline puts forth recommendations for endocrine therapy as treatment for women with HR-positive MBC. Recommendations Sequential hormone therapy is the preferential treatment for most women with HR-positive MBC. Except in cases of immediately life-threatening disease, hormone therapy, alone or in combination, should be used as initial treatment. Patients whose tumors express any level of hormone receptors should be offered hormone therapy. Treatment recommendations should be based on type of adjuvant treatment, disease-free interval, and organ function. Tumor markers should not be the sole criteria for determining tumor progression; use of additional biomarkers remains experimental. Assessment of menopausal status is critical; ovarian suppression or ablation should be included in premenopausal women. For postmenopausal women, aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are the preferred first-line endocrine therapy, with or without the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor palbociclib. As second-line therapy, fulvestrant should be administered at 500 mg with a loading schedule and may be administered with palbociclib. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus may be administered with exemestane to postmenopausal women with MBC whose disease progresses while receiving nonsteroidal AIs. Among patients with HR-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive MBC, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapy plus an AI can be effective for those who are not chemotherapy candidates.

7511Background: Cerdulatinib is a selective, potent inhibitor of SYK, JAK1, JAK3, and TYK2. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that combined SYK/JAK inhibition may have activity in B- and T-cell...

Breast cancer may recur through 15 years and beyond after diagnosis; thus, breast cancer patients require long-term follow-up after adjuvant treatment to detect recurrent disease. History taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are still the foundation of appropriate breast cancer follow-up in the adjuvant setting. Clearly, breast MRI has a role in certain high-risk patients, but in moderate-risk patients, the decision to use MRI must be based on the complexity of the clinical scenario. Other routine imaging studies (CT, positron emission tomography, and bone scans) and laboratory testing--including tumor marker assessments--in asymptomatic patients have not demonstrated an improvement in survival, quality of life, toxicity, or cost-effectiveness. Survivorship issues are also an inherent part of breast cancer follow-up; physicians should make every effort to address supportive care issues unique to breast cancer survivors including hot flashes, bone health, neuropathy, and risk-reduction strategies.

Ovarian suppression has been used to treat hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer in premenopausal women for over 100 years and is currently under continued evaluation for treatment in the adjuvant setting. In this article, ovarian suppression by surgery, radiation, and pharmacological therapy is discussed, including the risks, benefits, and efficacy of each strategy. The role of ovarian suppression in premenopausal women with early and advanced stages of breast cancer will be reviewed. It is hoped that this review will assist clinicians and their patients in selecting the appropriate therapy if ovarian suppression is indicated.

Purpose To update the 2006 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs). Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee and conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews from October 2005 through September 2014. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by the Update Committee. Results Changes to previous recommendations include the addition of tbo-filgrastim and filgrastim-sndz, moderation of the recommendation regarding routine use of CSFs in older patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and addition of recommendations against routine dose-dense chemotherapy in lymphoma and in favor of high–dose-intensity chemotherapy in urothelial cancer. The Update Committee did not address recommendations regarding use of CSFs in acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes in adults. Recommendations Prophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and no other equally effective and safe regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on the basis of age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense regimens that require CSFs should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total-body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death as a result of injury to other organs, include the prompt administration of CSFs.

The article by Grunfeld et al in this issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology is a landmark article for women with breast cancer and their health care providers. It shows conclusively that the health outcomes for women after primary treatment of breast cancer are the same if they are followed by their family physicians or cancer center specialists. Medical, psychosocial, and all other measured outcomes were the same. There really is no other conclusion that can be drawn. This is not one study; this relates to conclusions from years of research. Grunfeld et al previously showed that in Great Britain, follow-up by a generalist physician led to the same health outcomes as did follow-up by a specialist surgeon, with no change in quality of life, better patient satisfaction, and no change in health care expenditures. Another randomized trial in Great Britain showed that twice as many patients preferred simpler, less frequent follow-up by telephone. There is no a priori reason to expect that patients in the United States would choose differently, and Loprinzi et al demonstrated that the demand for medically inappropriate testing can be reduced by patient education about the specificity, sensitivity, and usefulness of the available tests. In fact, this conclusion corresponds with the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines for surveillance of breast cancer patients. Data suggest that current follow-up procedures could be improved. Lash and Silliman followed 303 stage I or II breast cancer patients aged 55 years or older diagnosed at five Boston hospitals, with patient interviews and medical record abstracts. Over 4 years, of the 303 women, 279 had some surveillance testing; the most common test was a mammogram (average, 3.9 in 4 years). Younger women, those treated at a breast cancer center with a unified patient chart, and women who worked, were more likely to complete surveillance; those 75 to 90 years old were less likely to complete guideline-approved surveillance. Mille et al at Centre Regional Leon Berard showed that implementation of clinical practice guidelines on follow-up of patients with localized breast cancer standardized care and a one-third decrease in cost per patient. Earle et al showed that patients followed up by a primary care physician and their oncologist were more likely to receive recommended preventive health services than those followed by their oncologists alone; with more and more survivors each year, this will become increasingly important. With all that evidence, why are we still uneasy with allocating surveillance care to primary care physicians, without oncology routine follow-up? There are substantial issues that have not yet been addressed. This study looked at the most important medical events, such as recurrence and new primary cancers. Are there data that show how frequently oncologists or primary care physicians inquire about some of the “softer” but important issues of body image, sexuality, sexual functioning, adaptation back to normal life, cognitive dysfunction, neuropathic pain, bone health, depression, menopause, or the myriad symptoms left after modern treatment? We know these issues are important, and we know we can fix some of them; we just don’t know in everyday practice how frequently they are addressed and controlled. A prospective study of a onepage follow-up check list would give the answers. Do patient outcomes for specific symptoms due to treatment, such as chronic breast pain, sexual function, menopause symptoms, depression, and so on vary between the two groups? The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and 36-item short form (SF-36) are good instruments for global function, but are not designed for breast cancer survivor symptoms. Are there data to suggest that any practitioner group is better? We do know that oncologists are not very good at assessing emotional health. For example, in a study of 204 patients and five oncologists, patients reported many more symptoms than their oncologists perceived, and the oncologists had better sensitivity and specificity for physical symptoms than psychosocial. The oncologists had sensitivity rates up to 80% for fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and hair loss, but recognized only 17% of the patients with anxiety and only 6% of those with clinical depression. Do patient outcomes for important issues such as genetic testing and secondary chemoprevention vary between the two groups? No data are provided. Are there data to suggest that oncologists provide good care in this regard? Data from our institution suggest underreferral of patients with potentially detectable genetic changes associated with breast and colorectal cancer for genetic consultation (personal communication, Joann N. Bodurtha, MD, MPH, October 23, 2005) compared with national recommendations, so there is work to be done. Are there data on the diffusion of new knowledge, such as adding letrozole after 5 years of primary treatment with tamoxifen, JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 24 NUMBER 6 FEBRUARY 2

Background This phase II trial examined the activity and toxicity of second-line treatment with pazopanib after failure of first-line single-agent treatment with sunitinib or bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. Patients and Methods Fifty-five patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma who had previously received first-line treatment with sunitinib (39 patients) or bevacizumab (16 patients) were enrolled. Patients received pazopanib 800 mg orally daily and were evaluated for response after 8 weeks of treatment. Responses were measured using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.0, and confirmed with repeated scans after 8 weeks. Patients with objective response or stable disease continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Results Fifteen of 55 patients (27%) had objective response to pazopanib. An additional 27 patients (49%) had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 76%. After a median follow-up of 16.7 months, the median progression-free survival for the entire group was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval, 5.4-9.4 months). Similar progression-free survival was observed regardless of whether previous treatment was with sunitinib or bevacizumab. The estimated overall survival rate for the entire group at 24 months was 43%. Conclusion Pazopanib is an active agent for the treatment of advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, even after failure of sunitinib or bevacizumab. Treatment with pazopanib should be considered early in the sequence of therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

Purpose The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has policies and procedures for endorsing practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. Methods The Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) Guideline on Adjuvant Ovarian Ablation (OA) in the Treatment of Premenopausal Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists. An ad hoc review panel of experts reviewed the content. Results The ASCO ad hoc OA guideline review panel concurred that the recommendations are clear, thorough, based on the most relevant scientific evidence in this content area, and present options that will be acceptable to patients. According to the CCO guideline: one, OA should not be routinely added to systemic therapy with chemotherapy, tamoxifen, or the combination of tamoxifen and chemotherapy; two, OA alone is not recommended as an alternative to any other form of systemic therapy, except in the specific case of patients who are candidates for other forms of systemic therapy but who, for some reason, will not receive any other systemic therapy (eg, patients who cannot tolerate other forms of systemic therapy or patients who choose no other form of systemic therapy); and three, when chemical suppression using luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonists is the chosen method of OA, in the opinion of the Breast Cancer Disease Site Group, monthly injection is the recommended mode of administration. The mode of administration in nearly all of the available trials has been monthly administration. Conclusion The ASCO review panel agrees with the recommendations as stated in the CCO guideline, with the qualification that ongoing research studies may alter the recommendations of the panel.

Most cancer patients do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment despite documented adverse outcomes. Few decision aids have been developed to assist the difficult discussions of palliative management. We developed decision aids for people with advanced incurable breast, colorectal, lung, and hormone-refractory prostate cancers facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. We recruited patients from our urban oncology clinic after gaining the permission of their treating oncologist. We measured knowledge of curability and treatment benefit before and after the intervention. Twenty-six of 27 (96%) patients completed the aids, with a mean age of 63, 56% female, 56% married, 56% African American, and 67% with a high school education or more. Most patients (14/27, 52%) thought a person with their advanced cancer could be cured, which was reduced (to 8/26, 31%, P = 0.15) after the decision aid. Nearly all overestimated the effect of palliative chemotherapy. No distress was noted, and hope did not change. The majority (20/27, 74%) found the information helpful to them, and almost all (25/27, 93%) wanted to share the information with their family and physicians. It is possible to give incurable patients their prognosis, treatment options, and options for improving end-of-life care without causing distress or lack of hope. Almost all find the information helpful and want to share it with doctors and family. Research is needed to test the findings in a larger sample and measure the outcomes of truthful information on quality of life, quality of care, and costs.

Oncologists often do not give honest prognostic and treatment-effect information to patients with advanced disease. One of the primary reasons stated for witholding this information is to "not take away hope." We could find no study that tested if hope was influenced by honest clinical information.We tested decision-aids in 27 patients with advanced cancer who were facing first-, second-, third-, and fourth-line chemotherapy. These aids had printed estimates of treatment effect and the patient's chance of survival and being cured (always zero). We measured hope using the Herth Hope Index, which ranks patients' responses to 12 questions and yields a maximum score of 48.The scores on the Herth Hope Index did not change and the patients remained uniformly hopeful about their future. The pretest score was 44.2 (SD 3.9), and it increased to 44.8 (SD 3.86; P = .55 by paired Student's t-test).Hope is maintained when patients with advanced cancer are given truthful prognostic and treatment information, even when the news is bad.

While there is no generally accepted medical definition of "futile care," many factors may play a role in the delivery of chemotherapy to patients who are unlikely to benefit. In this review, we consider the roles of both the patient and the physician in driving the provision of "futile care" and offer practical steps the oncologist can take to avoid it.

9501 Background: Zoledronic acid (ZA) given monthly for 24 months (mo) reduces bone pain and skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients (pts) with bone metastases. We tested whether ZA every 3 mo wo...

Purpose To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on breast cancer follow-up and management in the adjuvant setting. Methods An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed pertinent information from the literature through March 2006. More weight was given to studies that tested a hypothesis directly relating testing to one of the primary outcomes in a randomized design. Results The evidence supports regular history, physical examination, and mammography as the cornerstone of appropriate breast cancer follow-up. All patients should have a careful history and physical examination performed by a physician experienced in the surveillance of cancer patients and in breast examination. Examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter. For those who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy. Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed. Patients at high risk for familial breast cancer syndromes should be referred for genetic counseling. The use of CBCs, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography scanning, magnetic resonance imaging, or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine breast cancer follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination. Conclusion Careful history taking, physical examination, and regular mammography are recommended for appropriate detection of breast cancer recurrence.

Purpose To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF). Update Methodology The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. Recommendations The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.

Several major issues emerge when combining the “dismal science” of economics1 with the science of oncology. With rising healthcare costs yet limited resources, it becomes important to know how to factor economic considerations into the medical decision-making process. This task is made more difficult by the paucity of comparative studies of costs and outcomes (under the general term of cost-effectiveness) and quality of life; as a result, clinicians are left on their own to decide “who does what to whom, at what cost, and with whose money.”

Twenty years of research in controlling symptoms such as pain and nausea have shown persistent suboptimal performance by the US oncology system. The data suggest that some of the tools of palliative care programs can improve physical symptoms of seriously ill patients at a cost society can afford. To fix these problems will require recognition of the symptoms or concerns, a system such as an algorithm or care plan for addressing each, measurement of the change, and accountability for the change. Symptom assessment scales such as the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale or Rotterdam Symptom Check List work to make symptoms manifest. Listing symptoms on a problem list is a necessary step in addressing them. Physical symptoms such as pain can be improved by use of computer prompts, algorithms, dedicated staff time, team management, or combinations of these strategies. Less concrete problems such as medically appropriate goal-setting, integrating palliative care into anticancer care sooner, and informing patients about the benefits and risks of chemotherapy near the end of life require more complex solutions. We review what is known about symptom control in oncology, how and why some programs do better, and make suggestions for practice. Finally, we suggest a practical plan for using symptom assessment scales, listing the problems, and managing them according to algorithms or other predetermined plans.

8567 Background: Vemurafenib (vem) has been FDA approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E mutated melanoma since August 2011 based on results of a randomized phase III study (treatment-naive) and a single arm phase II study (previously treated). We report results of an expanded access study that allowed appropriate patients (pts) to receive vem until the drug was approved. Methods: Eligible pts had metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E mutation as detected by the cobas 4800 BRAFV600 Mutation Test. Enrolled pts received oral vem 960 mg b.i.d. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated for vem-related toxicities; tumor responses were assessed using RECIST 1.1. Results: 29 US sites screened 745 pts and enrolled 374 from December 2010 until October 2011. The following results are based on a median follow up time and treatment duration of 2 months. At baseline, mean age of pts was 54 y with 22% of pts ≥65 y; 75% had stage M1c disease; 29% had received radiotherapy for brain metastases. 19% of pts were ECOG PS 2 or 3; 71% of pts had prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma (21% 1 regimen; 50% ≥2 regimens). 50 pts had prior adjuvant treatment. At data cut-off, 243 pts had sufficient follow-up time for tumor assessment. In this group, the unconfirmed overall response rate was 52% (95% CI, 46 to 59). The median time to response was 1.8 months. Based on 240 pts with available ECOG PS status at time of analysis, response rate was 53% for pts with ECOG PS 0 or 1 (n=209), and 45% for pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (n=31). 370 pts were evaluable for safety analysis. The most common vem-related AEs were rash (36%), arthralgia (33%) and fatigue (21%) with the majority (~90%) of grade 1 or 2. 25 vem-related serious AEs were reported in 5.4% of pts with a slightly higher rate of pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (8.7%) compared to ECOG PS 0 or 1 (4.7%). 18% of pts missed at least one dose and 11% of pts required dose reduction of at least one level due to AEs. Conclusions: This expanded access study, with its limited follow-up time, confirms the established rapid and high tumor response rate with vem. No new safety signals were detected. Compared to the overall population, pts with an ECOG PS 2 or 3 demonstrated a similar benefit.

9108 Background: Most cancer patients who will die from their disease do not have an explicit discussion about prognosis and treatment options despite most wanting such information. Oncologists do ...

8139 Background: Erythropoetin (Epo) use in the practice of oncology is widespread and considered a standard of care in many settings. We designed a project to assess how effectively indigent pts i...