Search

Current bevacizumab-based regimens have failed to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. To improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated bevacizumab + BKM120, an oral pan-class I PI3K inhibitor, in this patient population. A brief phase I study established the optimal BKM120 dose to administer with standard-dose bevacizumab. BKM120 60 mg PO daily + bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks in 28-day cycles was then administered to patients with relapsed/refractory glioblastoma in the phase II portion. Eighty-eight patients enrolled (phase I, 12; phase II, 76). In phase I, BKM120 80 mg PO daily produced dose limiting toxicity in 3 of 6 patients; a BKM120 dose of 60 mg PO daily was established as the maximum tolerated dose. In phase II, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.4, 5.4), PFS at 6 months was 36.5%, and the overall response rate was 26%. Forty-two patients (57%) experienced one or more serious treatment related toxicities. The most common CNS toxicities included mood alteration (17%) and confusion (12%); however, these were often difficult to classify as treatment- versus tumor-related. The efficacy seen in this study is similar to the efficacy previously reported with single-agent bevacizumab. This regimen was poorly tolerated, despite the low daily dose of BKM120. Further development of this combination for the treatment of glioblastoma is not recommended.

BACKGROUND Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. Until recently, a standard of care was concurrent chemoradiation alone. Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death 1 antibodies have demonstrated improved OS. This trial evaluated pembrolizumab as consolidation therapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with unresectable stage III disease. METHODS Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and etoposide, cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and paclitaxel and 59.4 to 66.6 Gy of radiation. Patients with nonprogression of disease were enrolled and received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 12 months). The primary endpoint was the time to metastatic disease or death (TMDD). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS The median follow-up for 93 patients (92 for efficacy) was 32.2 months (range, 1.2-46.6 months). The median TMDD was 30.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 months to not reached), which was significantly longer than the historical control of 12 months (P

The mission of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care. Toward fulfillment of this goal and at the direction of its board of directors, the ASCOValue in Cancer Care Task Force set out to develop a framework that would enable a physician and patient to assess the value of a particular cancer treatment regimen given the patient’s individual preferences and circumstances. The rationale that served as the impetus for this initiative is many faceted. Substantial progress has been made in translating our knowledge of the biologic characteristics of cancer into novel therapies. Some of these therapies have led to major improvements in outcomes for specific diseases, and others have produced only modest advances. There is now a wide array of choices for treating many cancer types, and these treatment choices often differ by only small degrees in clinical effectiveness and toxicity. Yet, there is often a wide disparity in cost to patients and payers. Because patients are often confronted with enormous expenses when receiving cancer care, the goal of describing a relationship between the cost of an agent or regimen and the clinical benefits it delivers takes on great importance. As the primary advisor to the patient, the oncologist has an important role in providing a comparative assessment of the various treatment options available; in the spirit of shared decision making, the patient should have transparent information about the clinical impact that can be expected from the different options presented and their relative financial implications. The value framework has been constructed as a conceptual model that incorporates the elements of clinical benefit, toxicity, and symptom palliation as derived from a comparative clinical trial and combines these elements into a score termed the net health benefit (NHB). Ultimately, deployment of the framework as a software application is planned, enabling a patient to modify the weight attributed to any of the elements included in the NHB depending on his or her personal preferences and circumstances. The final NHB will therefore reflect the priorities that are most important to the patient and will be arrived at through guidance from the physician. Information on the cost of the regimens will also be presented so the patient can consider the relative financial impact of his or her treatment options. Two versions of the framework have been created: one for advanced disease and the other for potentially curable (adjuvant therapy) clinical presentations. The original framework versions are shown in Appendix Tables A1 and A2 (online only). The key elements included in the framework— namely, clinical benefit and toxicity—are also those that are regularly reported in the scientific literature when discussing the outcome of a clinical trial that compares two or more therapies. The importance of relying on high-quality, quantifiable evidence cannot be overstated, and this is most often provided by a well-designed, well-conducted prospective randomized trial. The task force recognizes that a limitation of this approach is that it does not readily permit cross-trial comparisons. Such analyses are important to patients and remain a goal for future versions of the value framework. The task force is well aware that there are many elements that might be important to individual patients in assessing the relative value of their treatment options that are not taken into account in our model. These include the convenience of receiving therapy, the avoidance of interrupting the flow of activities of daily living, and the impact of a treatment on quality of life

Cetuximab in combination with an irinotecan‐containing regimen is a standard treatment in patients with KRAS wild‐type (KRAS WT), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated the addition of the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib to cetuximab + irinotecan (CETIRI) based on preclinical evidence that activation of the MET pathway may confer resistance to anti‐EGFR therapy. Previously treated patients with KRAS WT advanced or mCRC were enrolled. The phase 1, open‐label 3 + 3, dose‐escalation study evaluated the safety and maximally tolerated dose of tivantinib plus CETIRI. The phase 2, randomized, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled study of biweekly CETIRI plus tivantinib or placebo was restricted to patients who had received only one prior line of chemotherapy. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). The recommended phase 2 dose was tivantinib (360 mg/m2 twice daily) with biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m2) and irinotecan (180 mg/m2). Among 117 patients evaluable for phase 2 analysis, no statistically significant PFS difference was observed: 8.3 months on tivantinib vs. 7.3 months on placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–1.33; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses trended in favor of tivantinib in patients with MET‐High tumors by immunohistochemistry, PTEN‐Low tumors, or those pretreated with oxaliplatin, but subgroups were too small to draw conclusions. Neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and rash were the most frequent severe adverse events in tivantinib‐treated patients. The combination of tivantinib and CETIRI was well tolerated but did not significantly improve PFS in previously treated KRAS WT mCRC. Tivantinib may be more active in specific subgroups., What's new? Is there a way to head off drug‐resistant colorectal cancer? A new study investigates whether a new drug, tivantinib, can improve survival by staving off tumor cells' resistance to chemotherapy. Previous results have shown that the MET signaling pathway contributes to the spread of cancer and the onset of resistance. The authors added the MET inhibitor tivantinib to the regimen of cetuximab and irinotecan. The tivantinib did not improve survival times, but the drug might yet prove effective among specific tumor subgroups.

Purpose: Additional targeted therapeutics are needed for the treatment of lymphoma. Abexinostat is an oral pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) displaying potent activity in preclinical models. We conducted a multicenter phase I/II study (N = 55) with single-agent abexinostat in relapsed/refractory lymphoma. Experimental Design: In phase I, 25 heavily pretreated patients with any lymphoma subtype received oral abexinostat ranging from 30 to 60 mg/m2 twice daily 5 days/week for 3 weeks or 7 days/week given every other week. Phase II evaluated abexinostat at the maximum tolerated dose in 30 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma or mantle cell lymphoma. Results: The recommended phase II dose was 45 mg/m2 twice daily (90 mg/m2 total), 7 days/week given every other week. Of the 30 follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma patients enrolled in phase II, 25 (14 follicular lymphoma, 11 mantle cell lymphoma) were response-evaluable. Tumor size was reduced in 86% of follicular lymphoma patients with an investigator-assessed ORR of 64.3% for evaluable patients [intent-to-treat (ITT) ORR 56.3%]. Median duration of response was not reached, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 20.5 months (1.2–22.3+). Of responding follicular lymphoma patients, 89% were on study/drug >8 months. In mantle cell lymphoma, the ORR was 27.3% for evaluable patients (ITT ORR 21.4%), and median PFS was 3.9 months (range, 0.1–11.5). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (phase II) with ≥10% incidence were thrombocytopenia (20%), fatigue (16.7%), and neutropenia (13.3%) with rare QTc prolongation and no deaths. Conclusions: The pan-HDACi, abexinostat, was overall well tolerated and had significant clinical activity in follicular lymphoma, including highly durable responses in this multiply relapsed patient population. Clin Cancer Res; 22(5); 1059–66. ©2015 AACR.

9032 Background: Consolidation checkpoint inhibitor therapy (CPI) for up to 1 year following chemoradiation (CRT) is a current standard of care for pts with inoperable stage III NSCLC. However, some pts are not able to complete 1 year of CPI due to immune-related adverse events (irAES). In multiple retrospective studies, pts with stage IV NSCLC treated with CPI who experience irAEs generally receive fewer cycles of CPI without a significant detrimental effect on efficacy. The association between irAEs and outcomes with consolidation CPI after CRT has never been reported. Here we report the association between irAEs and efficacy outcomes from the HCRN LUN 14-179, a single-arm phase II trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent CRT in pts with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Methods: After completion of CRT eligible pts with stage III NSCLC without PD received pembrolizumab 200 mg IV q 3 wks for up to 1 yr. Demographics, disease characteristics, and number of cycles of pembrolizumab received were reported in pts who had any grade irAEs (except pneumonitis which included grade >2 only) [Group A] and those without irAEs (except grade 1 pneumonitis) [Group B]. Chi-square test (or Fisher's Exact test) were used for comparisons for categorical variables and Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze time to metastatic disease (TMDD), PFS, and OS. A log-rank test was used to compare groups. Results: 92 eligible pts for efficacy analysis were enrolled from March 2015 to November 2016. 4 yr OS estimate for all pts is 46.2%. Any grade irAEs (except grade I pneumonitis) (n = 37 pts) included pneumonitis (18.5%), colitis (3.3%), increased creatinine (5.4%), elevated transaminases (3.3%), hyperthyroidism (7.6%), hypothyroidism (13.0%). Grade ≥ 2 irAEs (n = 32 pts) included pneumonitis (18.5%), hypothyroidism (10.8%), and colitis (3.3%). Group A/B: male (21/38), female (16/17), current or former smoker (35/52), stage IIIA (20/35), stage IIIB (17/20), non-squamous (21/30), squamous (16/25). Median number of pembrolizumab cycles received in Group A/B pts were 9 vs 15 (p = 0.0942) respectively. 4 yr efficacy endpoints in Groups A/B were TMDD 35.3% vs 41.3% (p = 0.83), PFS 27.8% vs 28.7% (p = 0.97), OS 43.5% vs 47.9% (p = 0.99), respectively. Conclusions: Despite receiving fewer cycles of consolidation pembrolizumab, pts who experienced any grade irAEs (excluding grade 1 pneumonitis) did not have significantly reduced efficacy outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT02343952.

Health care costs in the United States present a major challenge to the national economic well being. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has projected that US health care spending will reach $4.3 trillion and account for 19.3% of the national gross domestic product by 2019.1 This growth in spending—both in absolute terms and as a proportion of our gross domestic product—has not been accompanied by commensurate improvements in health outcomes, despite expenditures far exceeding those of other countries.2–4 One of the fastest growing components of US health care costs is cancer care, the cost of which is now estimated to increase from $125 billion in 2010 to $158 billion in 2020.1 Although cancer care represents a small fraction of overall health care costs, its contribution to health care cost escalation is increasing faster than those of most other areas because of several factors: the increasing prevalence of cancer due to the overall aging of the population and better control of some causes of competing mortality; the introduction of costly new drugs and techniques in radiation therapy and surgery; and the adoption of more expensive diagnostic tests. In some cases, the adoption of newer, more expensive diagnostic and therapeutic interventions may not be well supported by medical evidence, thereby raising costs without improving outcomes.5 Coupled with, or even driving, some of these rising costs are sometimes unrealistic patient and family expectations that lead clinicians to offer or recommend some of these services, despite the lack of supporting evidence of utility or benefit.6 Historically, most individuals in the United States were shielded from the acute economic impact of expensive care because they had health insurance. However, current trends suggest that patients will find themselves increasingly responsible for a greater proportion of the cost of their health care. Cost shifting or sharing can occur through the increased use of high-deductible policies and larger copayments. These increased costs are already commonplace and may not be affordable for many families. Indeed, health care expenditures are cited as a major cause of personal bankruptcy,7 and the term financial toxicity has entered the vernacular as a means of describing the financial distress that now often accompanies cancer treatment.8 Like other toxicities of cancer treatment, financial toxicity resulting from out-of-pocket treatment expenses can reduce quality of life and impede delivery of high-quality care.9,10 Patients experiencing high out-of-pocket costs have reported reducing their spending on food and clothing, reducing the frequency with which they take prescribed medications, avoiding recommended procedures, and skipping physician appointments to save money.10,11 These unintended consequences risk an increase in health disparities, which runs counter to some of the key goals of health care reform. In many communities, the high costs associated with cancer care have created a difficult situation for patients and the oncologists who care for them. Addressing this situation will require greater understanding of all the risks and benefits of various treatment options as well as the consequences of specific choices. In this regard, studies have shown that patients specifically want financial information about treatment alternatives along with information about medical effectiveness and treatment toxicity. However, they often do not receive it. Closing this knowledge gap will require educated providers who are able to sensitively initiate a dialogue about the cost of care with their patients when appropriate.12,13 Patients with cancer are often surprised by and unprepared for the high out-of-pocket costs of treatments. They also overestimate the benefits of treatments that sometimes extend life by only weeks or months or not at all. Oncologists are generally aware of this conundrum but uncertain about whether and how the cost of care should affect their recommendations.14 Although raising awareness of costs and providing tools to assess value may help to manage costs while maintaining high-quality care, some oncologists see this as being in conflict with their duty to individual patients.15 Recent American Society of Clinical Oncology Efforts Motivated by our responsibility to help oncologists deliver the highest-quality care to patients everywhere, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) formed the Task Force on the Cost of Cancer Care in 2007. Its mission includes educating oncologists about the importance of discussing costs associated with recommended treatments, empowering patients to ask questions pertaining to the anticipated costs of their treatment options, identifying the drivers of the rising costs of cancer care, and ultimately developing policy positions that will help Americans move toward more equal access to the highest-quality care at the lowest cost.16 In 2012, through the work of the Task Force, ASCO responded to the Choosing Wisely Campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and identified specific instances of overuse in the delivery of cancer care. ASCO used a deliberative consensus process to identify five common clinical practices that are not supported by high-level evidence. A second list of five was developed using the same process and submitted to the Choosing Wisely Campaign in 2013. ASCO amplified the evidence basis for both top-five lists in two publications17,18 and is now developing measures to evaluate the use of these practices as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative. These exercises have provided opportunities to develop a rigorous but flexible approach to assessing efficacy across diagnostic and treatment domains.

8500Background: Concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) has been the standard Rx for pts with unresectable stage III NSCLC. A recent phase III trial (PACIFIC) of consolidation durvalumab [PDL-1 inhibitor] ...

A phase II combination chemotherapy protocol combining methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin was designed to evaluate tumor response and survival in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Thirty patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma were assigned to chemotherapy treatment at 4-week intervals with methotrexate 30 mg/m 2 iv Days 1, 15, and 22; vinblastine 3 mg/m 2 iv Days 2, 15, and 22; doxorubicin 30 mg/m 2 iv Day 2; and cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 iv Day 2. After a median of four cycles (maximum number two cycles beyond complete regression: minimum six cycles for stable partial regression), we observed objective regressions in 20 patients (67%) (95% CI, 50, 84) with complete regression in 8 patients (27%) and partial regression in 12 patients (40%). Median overall survival was 9.9 months (range, 0.3-34.2), and median survival of responders was 11.0 months (range, 2.6-34.2) from initial date of response. Toxicity was substantial with two treatment-related deaths and consisted predominantly of neutropenia (grade 3 or greater in 93% of the patients), alopecia, nausea, emesis, stomatitis, and azotemia. In conclusion, MVAC is a highly active outpatient chemotherapy regimen in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma, achieving a high complete and partial response rate. Toxicity is substantial in this elderly patient population.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

Purpose: To determine the safety and efficacy of two docetaxel doublets in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients and to examine the prognostic role of polymorphisms in host genes important to docetaxel metabolism and transport. Experimental Design: Sixty-four chemotherapy-naive patients with HRPC were randomized to docetaxel and vinorelbine (D, 20 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8; V, 25 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8) or docetaxel and estramustine phosphate (D, 60-70 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; E, 280 mg oral thrice daily days 1-5) administered q21d. Primary end point was clinically significant toxicity. A pharmacogenetic analysis of host genes was done in patients who received at least one cycle of docetaxel therapy. Results: Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 15.6% of DV patients and in 28.6% DE patients. Neither arm exceeded the threshold of clinically significant toxicity. In the DV arm, objective response rate was 33%, prostate-specific antigen response rate was 20%, and median survival was 16.2 months. In the DE arm, objective response rate was 67%, prostate-specific antigen response rate was 43%, and median survival was 19.7 months. Pharmacogenetic analyses showed a significant association between survival beyond 15 months and the ABCG2 421 C>A (Q141K) polymorphism compared with the wild-type (C/C) genotype (66% versus 27%; P = 0.05). Conclusions: DV and DE doublets are active with a tolerable toxicity profile in patients with HRPC; however, efficacy does not seem superior to standard single-agent docetaxel. The ABCG2 421 C>A (Q141K) polymorphism may be an important predictor of response and survival in HRPC patients treated with docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

TPS8619 Background: Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-δ,γ isoforms are preferentially expressed in leukocytes, have significant roles in normal B and T cell function, and are central to the growth a...

3508 Background: Tivantinib (ARQ 197) selectively inhibits the MET receptor tyrosine kinase, which is implicated in tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Resistance to EGFR inhibitors has been associated with activation of alternative pathways including MET. Methods: Pts with advanced KRAS WT CRC that progressed on or after 1 prior line of chemotherapy and no previous treatment with an EGFR inhibitor were eligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive cetuximab (500 mg/m2) and irinotecan (180 mg/m2) on days 1 and 15 every 28 days, plus oral tivantinib (360 mg twice daily [BID]) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); additional endpoints include safety, objective response rate, overall survival (OS) and exploratory biomarker analyses. Results: Between Jul 2010 and Feb 2012, 122 pts were randomized; 117 pts were eligible for analysis (60 tivantinib, 57 placebo). Mean age was 57 years (range, 27-79 years); ECOG PS 0/1 55%/45%; and 81% received prior oxaliplatin. Median PFS was 8.3 months in the tivantinib arm vs 7.3 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Objective response rate (95% CI) was 45% (33%-58%) in the tivantinib arm and 33% (23%-46%) in the placebo arm. Median OS has not yet been reached but is trending in favor of tivantinib vs placebo (HR = 0.67). Among pts with prior oxaliplatin therapy, median PFS was 8.4 months for tivantinib and 7.2 months for placebo (HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.44-1.00; P= 0.1). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events (≥ 10%) were neutropenia, diarrhea, and nausea. Correlation of clinical outcomes with additional factors including mutation status and immunohistochemical analysis of tumor MET expression will be presented. Conclusions: Outcomes in this trial trended towards improvement with tivantinib (360 mg BID) plus cetuximab and irinotecan, particularly in the subgroup who had previous oxaliplatin. Further studies are needed to identify the CRC population most likely to benefit from addition of tivantinib to standard therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01075048.

Abstract 55 Background: Abexinostat (PCI-24781) is a novel oral pan-HDACi that has previously demonstrated potent preclinical activity in lymphoma cell lines and animal models (Evens et al, Clin Ca Res 2009) as well as a tolerable safety profile in phase I solid tumor clinical studies (Undevia et al, ASCO 2008). In a phase I single-agent clinical trial in patients (pts) with multiply relapsed/refractory lymphoma and leukemia, anti-tumor activity was noted in FL and MCL; 4/4 FL pts showed durable clinical benefit with median time on treatment of >8 months; 1 of 2 MCL pts had a complete remission (CR) and remains on treatment for >3 years. Based on these encouraging single-agent abexinostat data, a phase II extension study was completed in relapsed/refractory FL and MCL. Methods: The primary objective of this phase II study was objective response rate (ORR, complete [CR] and partial remission [PR]), while reduction in tumor size (CR + PR + stable disease) and safety were also examined. Abexinostat was given orally twice daily at 45mg/m2 on a 4-week cycle for 7 days/week every other week, which is the previously established dose and schedule identified in the phase I study. For pharmacodynamic correlative analyses, tubulin and histone acetylation were measured in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) at pre-dose and 4 hours after the first dose of abexinostat. Results: A total of 30 pts were enrolled (n=16 FL and n=14 MCL pts) of which 25 were response-evaluable. The median age was 67 years (36–81) and the median prior therapies were 3 (1–5), 77% of which were rituximab-containing and one-third (33%) had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplant (31% FL, 36% MCL). The ORR in all pts was 48% (12/25). A reduction in tumor size was observed in 86% (12/14) of FL pts, while the ORR in FL was 64% (9/14); the FL intent-to-treat ORR was 56%. With a median follow-up of 10.3 months (1.2–20.9), the progression-free probability was 86% in FL pts. Furthermore, the median duration of response (DOR) in FL pts has not been reached, as 5 responders remain on study. Notably, 4 FL pts were on treatment for over 16 months. Among MCL pts, reduction in tumor size was noted in 27% (3/11), while the ORR was similar at 27% (3/11). The median progression-free survival (PFS) in MCL pts was 4 months (1–12), while the DOR in the 3 responding patients were 2+, 3, and 6+ months. Therapy was overall well tolerated. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade (> 20% incidence) include: nausea (60%), fatigue (57%), diarrhea (50%), thrombocytopenia (37%), vomiting (30%), anemia (27%), decreased appetite (23%), dysgeusia (20%) and neutropenia (20%). The most common grade 3/4 related AEs (> 5% incidence) were thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (13%), fatigue (13%), and anemia (7%). There were no deaths reported on the study. Pharmacodynamic analyses revealed that a majority of pts had increased tubulin acetylation in PBMCs, however this finding did not correlate with response or toxicity. Conclusion: In this phase II study, the novel pan-HDACi, abexinostat, was clinically active and overall well tolerated in relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma. The safety profile was consistent with this class of agents with Disclosures: Off Label Use: PCI24781 is not FDA approved; it is an investigational agent. Plasencia:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sirisawad:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Yue:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Luan:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Siek:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Zhou:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Balasubramanian:Pharmacyclics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

4085 Background: Diarrhea associated with carcinoid syndrome has been attributed to tumor production of serotonin. Telotristat etiprate, (LX1032, LX1606), is an oral inhibitor of peripheral serotonin synthesis. This study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of telotristat etiprate in carcinoid patients with octreotide-refractory diarrhea. Methods: Carcinoid patients with ≥4 bowel movements (BMs)/day on octreotide were randomized 3:1 to receive telotristat etiprate or placebo as double-blind treatment. Patients enrolled in sequential, escalating dose cohorts of 150, 250, 350, or 500 mg tid, followed by a 500 mg tid expansion cohort. Patients were followed for toxicity, 24-hr urinary 5-HIAA (u5-HIAA), BM frequency, and self-reported bowel-related symptoms. Subjects were asked “In the past 7 days, have you had adequate relief of your carcinoid syndrome bowel complaints such as diarrhea, urgent need to have a bowel movement, abdominal pain or discomfort?” Responses (yes or no) were analyzed as categorical variables. Results: 16 patients enrolled in the 4 escalating dose cohorts and 7 in the expansion cohort; 18 on telotristat etiprate and 5 on placebo. Median age: 62 yrs; mean 6.3 BMs/day (range, 4-10). AEs included primarily mild-moderate diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal discomfort. In treated subjects, adequate relief was reported as: Week 1 - 6/18 (33.3%), Week 2 - 5/16 (31.3%), Week 3 - 5/15 (33.3%), and Week 4 - 6/13 (46.0%). No placebo subjects reported improvement at any timepoint. Biochemical response (≥50%reduction in u5-HIAA) and BM response (≥30% reduction in daily BMs for 2 weeks) were associated with reporting of adequate relief. For evaluable telotristat etiprate-treated patients, 9/16 (56%) experienced a biochemical response and 5/18 (28%) experienced a clinical (BM) response; no placebo subjects achieved either biochemical or clinical response. Conclusions: Treatment with telotristat etiprate was associated with decreases in u5-HIAA and BM frequency, and with self-reported relief of bowel related symptoms. Treatment in an extension phase with open-label telotristat etiprate is ongoing.

TPS7619 Background: Personalizing therapy based on an individual patient’s molecular profile is a potentially promising approach to optimize efficacy with the available agents. Optimizing efficacy in the elderly is particularly relevant owing to their increased propensity to suffer therapy-induced toxicity. In this proposal we will attempt to demonstrate optimization of therapy in good performance EGFR mutation negative elderly patients by taking in to consideration the histology of the tumor, the ERCC1 (marker of platinum resistance), RRM1 (for gemcitabine resistance) and TS (for pemetrexed resistance) status. Methods: Untreated advanced stage NSCLC patients age >70 years with measurable disease will be enrolled. Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 randomization to experimental arm (A) or standard arm (B). In arm A, treatment with single or dual-agent chemotherapy will be selected based on histology, ERCC1 (E), RRM1(R) and TS (T) expression at the RNA level. The cut off for high (+, therefore resistant) or low (-, therefore sensitive) expression have been previously defined. Patients with squamousNSCLC who are E-R+ will be treated with single agent carboplatin, E+R- with gemcitabine, E-R- with carboplatin and gemcitabine and E+R+ with docetaxel or vinorelbine. In non-squamous NSCLC patients E-T+ will be treated with carboplatin, E+T- withpemetrexed, E-T- with carboplatin and pemetrexed, E+T+R- with gemcitabine and E+T+R+ with docetaxel or vinorelbine. In arm B treatment with single or dual-agent chemotherapy will be at the discretion of the care provider, i.e., standard of care. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). The tertiary endpoint is disease response. Treatment will continue to maximum of 6 cycles if tolerated or until disease progression. A sample size of 453 patients will give us 90% power to detect a three-month improvement in median survival (8 to 11 months; corresponding to a HR of 0.73) with the log rank test at a significance level of 5%(1-sided) allowing for a 10% failure rate in gene analyses.

312 Background: Diarrhea associated with carcinoid syndrome (CS) has been attributed to tumor production of serotonin. Telotristat etiprate, (LX1032, LX1606), is an oral inhibitor of peripheral serotonin synthesis. This study explored the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of telotristat etiprate in carcinoid patients with octreotide-refractory diarrhea. Methods: Carcinoid patients with >4 bowel movements (BM)/day on octreotide were randomized 3:1 to receive telotristat etiprate or placebo. Patients enrolled in sequential, escalating dose cohorts of 150, 250, 350, or 500 mg tid, followed by a 500 mg tid expansion cohort. Patients were followed for toxicity, 24-hr urinary 5-HIAA (u5-HIAA) secretion, BM frequency, and self-reported relief of bowel-related symptoms. Subjects were asked “In the past 7 days, have you had adequate relief of your carcinoid syndrome bowel complaints such as diarrhea, urgent need to have a bowel movement, abdominal pain or discomfort?” Responses (yes or no) were analyzed as categorical variables. Results: 16 patients enrolled in the 4 escalating dose cohorts and 7 in the expansion cohort; 18 on telotristat etiprate and 5 on placebo. Median age was 62 yrs with a mean 6.2 BMs/day (range 4-10). AEs included primarily mild-moderate diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal discomfort. In treated subjects, adequate relief was reported as follows: Week 1 – 6/18 (33.3%), Week 2 – 5/16 (31.3%), Week 3 - 5/15 (33.3%), and Week 4 – 6/12 (50.0%). No placebo subjects reported improvement at any timepoint. Biochemical response (>50%reduction in u5-HIAA) and BM response (>30% reduction in daily BM for 2 weeks) were associated with reporting of adequate relief. For evaluable telotristat etiprate-treated patients, 9/16 (56%) experienced a biochemical response and 5/18 (28%) experienced a clinical (BM) response; no placebo subjects achieved either biochemical or clinical response. Conclusions: Treatment with telotristat etiprate was associated with decreases in u5-HIAA and BM frequency, and with self-reported relief of bowel related symptoms. Treatment in an extension phase with open-label telotristat etiprate is ongoing.

TPS168 Background: Carcinoid tumors are associated with serotonin (5-HT) secretion. High levels of serotonin are thought to contribute to the flushing, diarrhea, and abdominal discomfort observed i...

In a TV fluoroscopic system it is generally accepted that there exists somewhat of an inverse relationship between lag and noise integration. This paper will demonstrate techniques used to reduce the appearance of quantum noise while maintaining acceptable lag performance in systems utilizing PlumbiconTM camera tubes.© (1993) COPYRIGHT SPIE--The International Society for Optical Engineering. Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.

In the search for better ftuoroscopic imaging, the TV camera tube performance has become more critical. Traditional camera tube test methods, which expose tubes to extreme conditions, have only marginal correlation to typical fluoroscopic usage. This paper compares these traditional measurements with test measurements made on a modern fluoroscopic digital system for two different types of TV camera tubes. The results obtained show how the x-ray system influences the importance of the TV camera tube parameters and which tube features are most relevant.

4568 Background: Docetaxel plus prednisone provides a modest survival benefit for men with HRPC. We evaluated the feasibility and toxicity of two docetaxel based combined microtubule inhibition doublets in men with HRPC. Methods: Patients with HRPC were randomized to one of two arms: Arm A - D 60 mg/m2 IV d2 + EMP 280 mg PO tid d1–5 q21d cycle with dose-escalation of D to 70 mg/m2 IV d2 after cycle 1; Arm B - D 25 mg/m2 IV d1,8 + VRB 20 mg/m2 IV d1,8 q21d cycle. The primary outcome measure was the rate of Grade 3 and 4 toxicity associated with each arm. Results: Patient characteristics: 64 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Toxicity: Nine of 32 patients (28.1%) (95% CI 6.4%, 39.8%) experienced grade 3 or 4 toxicity in Arm A compared to 5 of 32 patients (15.6%) (95% CI 5.0%, 32.0%) in Arm B. Response and Survival: Among patients with measurable disease in Arm A, 6 of 9 patients (66.7%) had a partial or complete response compared to 4 of 12 patients (33.3%) in Arm ...

Purpose Our objective was to evaluate the impact of high-dose therapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation as salvage treatment for recurrent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a defined group of patients from the Nebraska Lymphoma Study Group. Design Patients treated initially by oncologists from the Nebraska Lymphoma Study Group between January 1983 and July 1987 who subsequently underwent autologous bone marrow transplantation for recurrent or refractory disease were evaluated for treatment outcome. Patients Twenty-five patients with relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin's lymphoma underwent high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell infusion in the time period reviewed. An initial doxorubicin (Adriamycin)-containing chemotherapy regimen had failed in all patients. The most favorable subgroup included 17 patients who were less then 60 years of age and had received no chemotherapy beyond their initial doxorubicin-containing regimen when referred for bone marrow transplantation. Results The complete response rate to the highdose therapy was 52%, with an actuarial five-year disease-free survival of all patients treated of 40%. The overall survival at five years was 46%. Conclusions High-dose chemo-radiotherapy, followed by infusion of autologous hematopoietic stem cells, can effectively function as salvage therapy in a significant number of patients in whom primary chemotherapy regimens for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma fail. This treatment approach appears to offer superior results when compared with the reported outcome for patients treated with salvage chemotherapy administered at conventional doses.

A total of 109 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) was analyzed to determine the clinical and pathologic features of the five recently defined French-American-British Cooperative Group (FAB) subtypes, and to assess the utility of this classification system in predicting survival, evolution to acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (ANLL), and cause of death. All patients with MDS presented with anemia; additional cytopenias were present in patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and refractory anemia with excess blasts in transformation to ANLL (RAEB/Tr). Thirty-two patients received some form of antileukemic therapy for MDS. ANLL developed in 16 of the 77 remaining untreated patients, including 18% (2/11), 0% (0/21), 22% (5/23), 33% (2/6), and 44% (7/16) of patients with refractory anemia (RA), refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS), RAEB, CMML, and RAEB/Tr, respectively (P = 0.02). The FAB subtype was highly predictive of survival with median survivals ranging from 71 months for RARS to 5 months for RAEB/Tr (P = less than 0.0001). Patients with RAEB, CMML, and RAEB/Tr frequently died of direct consequences of MDS, while patients with RA and especially RARS generally survived or died from unrelated disorders (P = less than 0.0001). MDS encompass a spectrum of disorders. RA and RARS, are relatively indolent and often do not lead to the patient's demise. RAEB, CMML, and RAEB/Tr are aggressive disorders which are often responsible for the patient's death whether or not actual progression to overt leukemia occurs. FAB subtype predicts survival, evolution to ANLL, and cause of death, although the five morphologic subtypes appear to separate into only two disease groups, especially with regard to survival and cause of death.