Associations of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins and adiponectin with disease progression and mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance)

3035

Background: Energy balance-associated biomarkers such as insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) and IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs) have been associated with risk and prognosis of various malignancies. Their relationship to disease progression and mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) requires further study. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, baseline plasma IGFBP-3, IGFBP-7, C-peptide, IGF-I, and adiponectin were measured at trial registration among 1,086 patients participating in a National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trial of first-line therapy for mCRC. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for confounders and examine associations of biomarkers with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Higher plasma IGFBP-3 was associated with longer OS (adjusted Ptrend < .001) and PFS (adjusted Ptrend = .003). Compared to patients in the lowest IGFBP-3 quintile, patients in the highest quintile experienced an adjusted HR for all-cause mortality of 0.58 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.78) and for disease progression or mortality of 0.60 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.82). Higher plasma IGFBP-7 was associated with shorter OS (adjusted Ptrend < .001) and PFS (adjusted Ptrend = .02). Compared to patients in the lowest IGFBP-7 quintile, patients in the highest quintile experienced an adjusted HR for all-cause mortality of 1.52 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.88) and for disease progression or mortality of 1.28 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.57). C-peptide and IGF-I were not significantly associated with patient outcomes (adjusted Ptrend = .73 and .30 for OS). Adiponectin was not associated with OS; there was a U shaped association between adiponectin and PFS, wherein low and high values were associated with shorter PFS ( Pnon-linear trend = .03). Conclusions: In patients with mCRC, high plasma IGFBP-3 and low IGFBP-7 were associated with reduced risk of disease progression and mortality. These data suggest that energy-balance associated biomarkers may offer prognostic and biologic insights into mCRC. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, BMS, Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

Association of RAS mutations with race in metastatic colorectal cancer: CALGB/SWOG 80405 (ALLIANCE)

638

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease with distinct molecular subtypes in part based on RAS mutational status. It is plausible that RAS mutations are differentially distributed between CC and AA and may contribute to poor outcomes in AAs with CRC. Methods: We did a retrospective analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial patients. We divided the entire cohort into 2 groups: a) Common RAS: mutation in KRAS exon 2, codon 12 or 13; b) Extended RAS: any NRAS mutations or mutation in KRAS except those listed above. We then analyzed these two subgroups for association between RAS mutations and race (3 categories: Caucasian, AA, Others) using chi-square test for univariate analyses and logistic regression for multivariate analysis. We also analyzed the effect of extended RAS testing on prognosis of metastatic CRC by estimating the overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox proportional-hazard model was used for multivariate analyses. Results: There were 1729 CRC patients in common RAS group of which 357 (20.6%) had mutations present. Extended RAS group had 621 patients of which 95 (15.5%) had mutations present. There was no significant difference in the rate of common RAS mutations between CC and AA (20.5% vs. 24%, p=0.22). However, extended RAS mutations were significantly more in AA as compared to CC (25% vs. 14%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiation confirmed higher odds of extended RAS mutation in AA compared to CC (adjusted OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.23; p=0.02). The median OS in patients with an extended RAS mutation was shorter as compared to those without extended RAS mutation (25.3 vs. 31.9 months; HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.99-1.62; p=0.05). Multivariate analyses adjusted for age, gender, race, prior adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiation showed a trend towards longer OS in patients without extended RAS mutation as compared those with extended RAS mutation (adjusted HR= 1.24, 95% CI, 0.97-0.1.58, p=0.08). Conclusions: Extended RAS mutations are significantly more common in AA as compared to CC. Additionally, presence of extended RAS mutation may confer a poor prognosis in CRC patients.

Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Combining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Cetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response.

RESULTS

Among 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progression-free survival was 10.5 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0%-9.0%, P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with KRAS wt untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850.

A secondary analysis of PSA response in NRG Oncology/RTOG 9902: A phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with androgen suppression and radiation for high-risk prostate cancer (CaP)

5078

Background: RTOG 9902 was a randomized controlled trial of the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT; paclitaxel, oral etoposide, and estramustine x4 cycles) to 24 mo of androgen suppression (AS) and radiation (RT) for patients (pts) with high-risk CaP., beginning with an initial 4 mo of AS; RT began after 2 mo. 9902 accrued 397 pts and closed early due to excess toxicity. At a median follow-up of 9.2 years, there was no benefit to CT, but it is hypothesized that a subset analysis by post-RT PSA identifies pts that benefit from treatment intensification with CT. Methods: Post-RT PSA status was dichotomized at > 0.2 ng/mL within 1 mo of RT. Landmark analysis redefined starting times for disease-free survival (DFS), time to distant metastasis (TDM) and overall survival (OS) at 16 weeks post-RT (36 weeks post-randomization) when CT was planned to complete. Pts were excluded if they did not get RT or assigned CT, or experienced DFS events/lost to follow-up < 36 wks post-randomization. Hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and PSA-by-treatment interaction were estimated by Cox or competing-risks regression. Results: 333 pts were analyzed: 190 without and 143 with CT. 37% of pts had a post-RT PSA ≤0.2, 34% > 0.2, and 29% no recorded PSA in the defined interval. CT was associated with improved DFS for pts with PSA > 0.2 (HR 0.59, 0.38-0.91), but not for those with PSA ≤0.2 (HR 0.94, 0.60-1.46; interaction p = 0.13). This association, for those with PSA > 0.2, persisted in those pts who received the full course of CT and trended in the same direction for pts receiving 1-3 cycles. CT was associated with a trend toward improved TDM in the PSA > 0.2 group (HR 0.56, 0.23-1.35) and not in the PSA≤0.2 group (HR 1.31, 0.36-4.70), based on 32 pts with metastases. OS did not show the same pattern (PSA > 0.2: HR 0.98, 0.55-1.77; PSA≤0.2: HR 0.57, 0.29-1.13). Conclusions: This analysis suggests that men with high-risk CaP and suboptimal response to AS+RT, as identified by post-RT PSA > 0.2, may benefit from adjuvant CT. Prospective trials using contemporary CT (e.g. docetaxel) will help optimize treatment for these men. NRG-GU002, recently activated, is addressing this issue.

Associations of physical activity with survival and progression in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from CALGB 80405 (Alliance)

659

Background: Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with reduced risk of recurrence and mortality in non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Its influence on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is largely unexplored. Methods: 1231 patients participating in CALGB 80405 (first-line phase III chemotherapy trial for mCRC) completed questionnaires that included self-report on PA at time of chemotherapy initiation and total metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours/week were determined based on responses. The primary endpoint of the clinical trial and this companion study was overall survival (OS), with progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint. To minimize confounding by poor and rapidly declining health, we excluded patients who experienced progression or died within 60 days of activity assessment and adjusted for known prognostic factors, comorbid illness, and weight loss over the previous six months. Results: Compared with patients engaged in less than three MET-hours/week of PA, patients engaged in 18 or more MET-hours/week experienced an adjusted hazard ratio for OS of 0.81 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98, P for trend 0.03) and for PFS of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.00, P for trend 0.03). Greater nonvigorous PA and walking duration were both associated with improved OS ( P for trend 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). Conclusions: In mCRC patients from CALGB 80405, greater total PA was associated with improved PFS and OS, while greater walking duration and non-vigorous PA were associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00265850 [Table: see text]

CALGB/SWOG 80405: Phase III trial of irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6) with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET) for patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC)

LBA3

Background: Irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin/5-FU/leucovorin (mFOLFOX6), combined with bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (CET), are first-line treatments for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum (MCRC). The optimal antibody combination is unknown. Methods: Patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt)(codons 12 and 13) MCRC and performance status 0-1 received FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 (MD/pt choice at enrollment) and randomized to either CET 400 mg/m2 X 1, then 250 mg/m2 qw or BV 5 mg/kg q2w. The original study included unselected MCRC pts receiving FOLFIRI or mFOLFOX6 and randomized to CET, BV, or both. After 1,420 pts accrued the study amended as follows: only pts with KRAS wt tumors (codon 12 and 13) were included and the combination CET + BV arm was deleted. Rx continued until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, curative surgery; treatment holidays of 4 wks permitted. Subsequent Rx not mandated. Accrual goal was 1,142 pts. One° endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: Between November 2005 and March 2012, 3,058 unselected pts enrolled, 2,334 KRAS wt pts randomized; final N =1137 (333 pre-amend eligible retrospective KRAS test, 804 post-amend), median f/u = 24 mos; Median age – 59 y; 61% male. Chemo/BV – 559; chemo/CET – 578. FOLFIRI = 26.6%, mFOLFOX6 = 73.4%. OS analysis planned at 849 events; efficacy futility boundary crossed at 10th interim analysis on 1/29/14. OS - chemo/BV v. chemo/CET = 29.04 (25.66 - 31.21) v. 29.93 (27.56 - 31.21) mos; HR = 0.92 (0.78, 1.09) (p value = 0.34). PFS (by investigator): chemo/BV v. chemo/CET: 10.84 (9.86 - 11.4) v. 10.45 (9.66 - 11.33) mos. There were 94 pts free of disease following surgery, median f/u 40 mos (range 8.0 - 86.0). Outcomes similar by gender. On-study toxicity and deaths as expected. Analyses underway: Expanded RAS, FOLFOX v. FOLFIRI, subsequent therapies, long-term survivors, correlates. Conclusions: Chemo/CET and chemo/BV equivalent in OS in pts KRAS wt (codons 12 + 13) MCRC; either is appropriate in first line. Overall OS of 29 + mos and 8% long-term survivors confirms progress in MCRC. The preference for FOLFOX limits chemotherapy comparison. Expanded RAS and other molecular and clinical analyses may identify subsets of pts who get more or less benefit from specific regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT00265850.

RTOG 0825: Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating bevacizumab (Bev) in patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM)

1

Background: Chemoradiation (CRT) with temozolomide (TMZ/RT→TMZ) is the standard of care for newly diagnosed GBM. This trial determined if the addition of Bev to standard CRT improves survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in newly diagnosed GBM. Methods: This phase III trial was conducted by the RTOG, NCCTG, and ECOG. Neurologically stable pts > 18 yrs with KPS ≥ 60, and > 1cm3 tumor tissue block, were randomized to Arm 1: standard CRT + placebo or Arm 2: standard CRT plus Bev (10 mg/kg iv q 2wks). Experimental treatment began at wk 4 of radiation then thru 6-12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. Protocol specified co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS, with significance levels of .023 and .002, respectively. At progression, treatment was unblinded and pts allowed to crossover or continue Bev. Symptom, QOL and neurocognitive (NCF) testing was performed in the majority of pts. Secondary analyses evaluated impact of MGMT methylation (meth) and prognostic 9 gene signature status. Results: From 978 registered pts, 637 were randomized. Inadequate tissue (n=105) and blood on imaging (n=40) were key reasons for non-randomization. No difference was found between arms for OS (median 16.1 vs. 15.7 mo, p = 0.11). PFS was extended for Arm 2 (7.3 vs. 10.7 mo, p = 0.004). Pts with MGMT meth had superior OS (23.2 vs. 14.3 mo, p < 0.001) and PFS (14.1 vs. 8.2 mo, p < 0.001). Neither the 9 gene signature nor MGMT predicted selective benefit for Bev treatment, but best prognosis pts (MGMT meth, favorable 9-gene), had a worse survival trend with Bev (15.7 vs 25 mo p = 0.08). To date, 128 pts were unblinded on Arm 1 (salvage Bev in 86) and 87 pts on Arm 2 (continued Bev in 39). Increased grade ≥ 3 toxicity was seen with Bev, mostly neutropenia, hypertension, and DVT/PE. Conclusions: The addition of Bev for newly diagnosed GBM did not improve OS, did improve PFS but did not reach the significance criterion. MGMT and 9 gene profile did not identify selective benefit, but risk subset results suggested strongly against the upfront use of Bev in the best prognosis pts. Full interpretation of the PFS results incorporating symptom burden, QOL, and NCF is ongoing. Support: NCI U10 CA 21661, U10 CA37422, and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

Molecular predictors of outcome and response to bevacizumab (BEV) based on analysis of RTOG 0825, a phase III trial comparing chemoradiation (CRT) with and without BEV in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM)

LBA2010

Background: RTOG 0825 evaluated the addition of BEV to standard CRT in the treatment of GBM and included molecular stratification that assessed the degree of mesenchymal (MES) gene enrichment. We investigated the ability of the MES signature to predict response to BEV. Methods: Sufficient FFPE tissue for molecular analysis was available for 650 registered, eligible patients. TaqMan PCR was performed prospectively using the molecular stratifier on all patients and an expanded 43 member MES set on 234 cases. A subset of specimens was subjected to whole genome expression profiling (GEP). Predictive models were evaluated for their ability to predict survival (overall, OS, and progression-free, PFS) in the training cohort of the BEV arm after adjusting for prognostic factors and treatment arm. Unsupervised clustering of GEP data was used to identify molecular subsets and gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) performed to evaluate for MES enrichment. Results: We observed a significant association between increasing MES signature and worse PFS and OS in the BEV arm (p=0.036 and p=0.032, respectively). Based on the association between high MES expression and poor outcome in the BEV arm, we sought to optimize a predictor using an expanded set of MES genes. Unbiased gene selection from a total of 43 genes followed by radial basis machine modeling identified a 10-gene predictor of outcome in the BEV arm (p<0.001/HR 4.04 for OS and p<0.001/HR 2.21 for PFS). To further support the association of MES enrichment and poor outcome in the BEV arm, we performed GEP. Unsupervised clustering identified a subtype of tumors with MES enrichment associated with the 10-gene predictor survival probability (p=0.0124, t-test). Ongoing studies will determine the extent to which this represents a predictive marker for BEV. Conclusions: We developed a 10-gene predictor specific to BEV treatment and suitable for FFPE that may serve to identify subsets of patients with newly diagnosed GBM who benefit from BEV. Supported by RTOG grant U10 CA21661, CCOP grant U10 CA37422, and Brain SPORE P50 CA127001 from the NCI and Genentech. Clinical trial information: NCT00884741.

RTOG 0825: Phase III double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating bevacizumab (Bev) in patients (Pts) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM)

1

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Molecular predictors of outcome and response to bevacizumab (BEV) based on analysis of RTOG 0825, a phase III trial comparing chemoradiation (CRT) with and without BEV in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM)

LBA2010

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June, 2, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

NSABP B-38: Definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (DD) AC→paclitaxel (P) plus gemcitabine (G) with DD AC→P and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer

LBA1000

Background: The primary aims were to determine whether adjuvant DD AC→PG will be superior to DD AC→P as well as to TAC in DFS and to compare the relative DFS of TAC and DD AC→P. Secondary endpoints include survival and toxicity. Methods: From Nov 3, 2004 to May 3, 2007, 4894 women were randomized; 1630 to TAC (docetaxel [T] 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin [A] 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide [C] 500 mg/m2 q3 wks x 6), 1634 to DD AC→P (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 followed by P 175 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4), and 1630 to DD AC→PG (A 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q2 wks x 4 → P 175 mg/m2 + G 2000 mg/m2q2 wks x 4). Primary G-CSF support was required and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) were used at investigator discretion. 52% were postmenopausal, 65% had 1 - 3 positive nodes, and 80% had HR+ breast cancer. Log-rank tests were used for pair-wise comparisons of the primary (DFS) and secondary (OS) endpoints among the three treatment arms. Results: With 64 months median follow-up, 5-year DFS in DD AC→PG group was 80.6% compared with 82.2% in DD AC→P group (HR=1.1; p=0.27) and 80.1 % (HR=0.97; p=0.71) in TAC group. 5-year OS was 90.8% in DD AC→PG group as compared with 89.1% (HR=.89; p=0.25) in DD AC→P group and 89.6 % (HR=0.90; p=0.32) in TAC group. HR for DFS and OS of DD AC→P vs. TAC were 0.89 (p=0.14) and 1.01 (p=0.92) respectively. Toxicities for TAC, DD AC→P, DD AC→PG, respectively: febrile neutropenia (Gr 3/4: 9%, 4%, 4% [p<0.001]), sensory neuropathy (Gr 3/4: <1%, 7%, 6% [p<0.001]), diarrhea (Gr 3/4: 8 %, 2%, 2% [p<0.001]). Hgb was <10 in 12%, 26%, 33% with ESA use in 35.2%, 47%, 51.6% and transfusions in 3.7%, 6.3%, 9.4%. Deaths on treatment: N=13, 5, 7 (p=0.2). AML/MDS: N=5, 8, 11. All cycles completed in 91% for TAC and 88% for DD regimens. Conclusions: Addition of G to DD AC→P did not improve outcomes. No significant differences in efficacy endpoints were identified between DD AC→P and TAC, though toxicity profiles differed. Funding: NCI PHS U10-CA-37377, -69974, -12027, -69651 and NCCTG U10-CA25224, with additional funding from Eli Lilly & Company, and Amgen, Inc.

Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-41

LBA506

Background: The purposes of this trial are to determine the effect of substituting lapatinib (L) for trastuzumab (T) in combination with weekly paclitaxel (WP) following AC as well as adding L to T with WP following AC on pathologic complete response (pCR) rates. Methods: Women with HER2-positive operable breast cancer received standard AC q3wks x 4 cycles followed by WP (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 q28 days x 4 cycles. Concurrently with WP, patients received either T (4 mg/kg load, then 2 mg/kg) weekly until surgery, L (1250 mg) daily until surgery, or weekly T plus L (750 mg) daily until surgery. Following surgery, patients received trastuzumab to complete 52 wks of HER2-targeted therapy. The primary endpoint is pCR breast. For each of the two primary comparisons, the Fisher’s exact test was used to test the equality of pCR rates. A Hochberg-type step-up procedure was applied to address multiple testings and to control the family-wise error rate at 0.05. Results: 51% were clinically node positive and 63% had HR+ tumors. pCR assessments were available from 519 of 529 patients. pCR percentage was 52.5% for AC→WP+T, 53.2% (p=0.9) for AC→WP+L, and 62% (p=0.075) for AC→WP+TL. pCR percentages in the HR+ subset were 46.7%, 48% (p=0.85), and 55.6% (p=0.18), respectively, and were 65.5%, 60.6% (p=0.57), and 73% (p=0.37) in the HR- cohort. The corresponding pCR breast and nodes percentages were 49.1%, 47.4% (p=0.74), and 60.4% (p=0.04). Grade 3/4 toxicities include diarrhea in 2%, 20%, 27% (p<0.001), and symptomatic Gr 3/4 left ventricular systolic dysfunction in 4%, 4%, and 2% (p=0.49). Conclusions: Substitution of lapatinib for trastuzumab in combination with the chemotherapy program employed in this study resulted in similar high percentages of pCR in both HR+ and HR- cohorts. Combined HER2-targeted therapy produced a numerically higher pCR percentage than single agent HER2-directed therapy, but the difference was not statistically significant. Central review of HER2 and ER is being conducted to determine if subsets benefiting from the combined HER2-targeted therapy can be identified. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline.

Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2+ operable breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-41

LBA506

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 3, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

A phase III clinical trial to compare trastuzumab (T) given concurrently with radiation therapy (RT) to RT alone for women with HER2+ DCIS resected by lumpectomy (Lx): NSABP B-43

TPS657

Background: Asignificant amount of DCIS is ER negative and/or overexpresses HER2. This provides an opportunity to test molecular therapy in DCIS. In xenograft models and cell lines, T boosts RT effectiveness. In T-treated HER2+ patients, apoptosis occurs within 1 wk of single agent T use, with T found in ductal aspirates. Ample safety evidence for T exists. T given during whole breast irradiation (WBI) may improve results for Lx-resected HER2+ DCIS. A trial to examine this question will enhance the understanding of breast tumor biology and the prevention of such tumors and could possibly extend breast-conserving surgery benefits for women with DCIS. Methods: After Lx for pure DCIS, each patient’s DCIS lesion is centrally tested for HER2 by IHC analysis. HER2 2+ tumors undergo FISH analysis. HER2 3+ or FISH+ patients can be randomly assigned to 2 doses of T, 3 weeks apart during WBI or to WBI alone. Women ≥18 yrs. with a margin-clear Lx for pure DCIS, with ECOG status 0/1 who are and clinically or pathologically node negative are eligible. Centrally tested DCIS must be HER2 +. ER and/or PR status must be known before randomization. Primary aims are to determine if T decreases ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence, ipsilateral skin cancer recurrence, or ipsilateral DCIS. Secondary aims are to determine the benefit of T in preventing regional or distant recurrence and contralateral invasive breast cancer or DCIS. B-43 will determine if DFS, recurrence-free interval, and OS can be improved with the use of T. 2000 patients will be accrued over 7.9 yrs, with a definitive analysis of primary endpoints performed at163 ipsilateral breast cancer events (7.5 - 8 yrs. after protocol initiation) with an 80% power to detect a hazard reduction of 36%, from 1.73 ipsilateral breast cancer events per 100 pt-yrs to 1.11 events per 100 pt-yrs. The 36% observed reduction in the hazard of IIBCR-SCR-DCIS on the T arm is based on a projection of 40% hazard reduction if the compliance were perfect, with a 10% noncompliance rate. As of 12-31-11, 763 patients have been randomized. NCT00769379 Grant support: PHS NCI-U10-CA-69651, -12027, and NCI P30-CA-14599 from the US NCI and Genentech, Inc.

NSABP B-38: Definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (DD) AC followed by paclitaxel (P) plus gemcitabine (G) with DD AC followed by P and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer

LBA1000

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Comparative effectiveness of sphincter-sparing surgery (SSS) versus abdomino-perineal resection (APR) in rectal cancer: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from NSABP R-04

3545

Background: R-04 is a trial of pre-surgical RT and either capecitabine or 5-FU with or without oxaliplatin in patients (Pts) with resectable rectal cancer. PROs were measured before treatment, post-RT, and 1 yr post-op. We compare PROs at 1 yr by type of surgery with hypothesis that APR Pts would have worse quality of life (QOL). Methods: Pts completed the FACT-C and EORTC-CR38 at all times. Baseline and 1 yr were compared within groups (SSS and APR) with paired t-test, and between groups at 1 yr, with adjustment for covariates of age, gender, clinical stage, baseline score, and surgery intent in a general linear model. These secondary/exploratory hypotheses were significant if p < 0.05. Results: 1,608Pts were randomized and 1405 completed baseline QOL form after consent, prior to treatment. 1,003 completed QOL form 1 yr post-op: 6 were ineligible, 10 did not have surgery, leaving 987 Pts. 615 had SSS and 372 had APR. 66.6% were male, 61.5% stage II, and almost all had post-surgical adjuvant chemotherapy. SSS Pts were significantly younger (60.3% vs. 53.5% < 59 yr, p=0.04). FACT-C total and subscale scores were not significantly different by surgery type at 1 yr, with only minimal decline from baseline in both groups. For SSS Pts, EORTC-CR38 scores significantly worsened for body image, sexual function, sexual enjoyment (all p <0.0001), while future perspective improved (p<0.0001) at 1 yr from baseline. All symptom subscales except weight loss and micturition showed worsened symptoms (GI tract, chemo side effects, defecation problems, sexual problems) all p < 0.0001 at 1 yr from baseline. Compared to APR Pts, SSS had less severe functional problems and symptoms, especially in sexual enjoyment, weight loss, GI symptoms, and body image, all significant. Conclusions: Contrary to prediction, there were no significant differences in FACT-C scores for SSS vs. APR. Symptoms and functional problems were detected by the EORTC-CR38, reflecting expected differences. The largest differences between the surgical treatments were for GI symptoms and body image. Information from these PROs may be useful in counseling Pts anticipating surgery for rectal cancer.

OT1-02-05: A Phase III Clinical Trial Comparing Trastuzumab Given Concurrently with Radiation Therapy to Radiation Therapy (RT) Alone for Women with HER2−Positive DCIS Resected by Lumpectomy: NSABP B-43

Background

Because a substantial portion of DCIS is ER negative and overexpresses HER2, therapy targeting this protein is a promising strategy for HER2−overexpressing DCIS.

Preclinical studies have shown that trastuzumab (T) boosts the effectiveness of RT in xenograft models and in cell lines with no detrimental effect on irradiated HER2−normal cells. Studies correlating clinical response with molecular markers in T-treated patients show that apoptosis occurs within 1 wk of starting singleagent T, with little effect on proliferation. Shorter duration treatments with this agent require investigation. Adjuvant trials using T during breast irradiation have already provided ample safety evidence. Will T administered during WBI improve lumpectomy + WBI results in women with HER2−positive DCIS? This trial will allow us to better understand the biology of breast cancer and its prevention and will extend the benefits of breast-conserving surgery for women with DCIS.

Trial Design: Post lumpectomy for DCIS without evidence of an invasive component, a central review of each patient's pure DCIS lesion is carried out for HER2 by IHC analysis. If the HER2 is 2+, FISH analysis is done, and patients whose tumors are HER2 3+ or FISH positive can be randomly assigned to receive 2 doses of T 3 wk apart during WBI or to receive WBI alone.

Eligibility criteria: Women 18 years or older with an ECOG status of 0 or 1 who have undergone a margin-clear lumpectomy for DCIS and whose tumors are clinically or pathologically node negative are eligible. DCIS must be HER2 positive by central testing. ER and/or PR status must be known before random assignment.

Specific aims: The primary aim is to determine if T given concurrently with WBI is more beneficial in preventing IBC recurrence, ipsilateral skin cancer recurrence, or ipsilateral DCIS compared with WBI alone for HER2−positive DCIS resected by lumpectomy. Secondary aims are to compare the possible benefit of T given during WBI to that of WBI alone in preventing regional or distant recurrence and contralateral invasive or DCIS breast cancer. B-43 will determine if invasive or DCIS DFS, recurrence-free interval, and OS can be improved with the addition of T to WBI. The effects of T on ovarian function in premenopausal women will also be assessed.

Statistical methods and accrual: Our design calls for accrual of 2000 patients during a 7.9-year period. As of May 31, 2011, 578 patients have been entered. A definitive analysis of primary endpoints will be performed when 163 ipsilateral breast cancer events occur (7.5 and 8 years after protocol initiation). This number of events affords 80% power to detect a hazard reduction of 36%, from 1.73 ipsilateral breast cancer events per 100 patient-years to 1.11 events per 100 patient-years. The 36% observed reduction in the hazard of IIBCR-SCR-DCIS on the T arm is based on a projection of 40% hazard reduction if the compliance were perfect, with a 10% noncompliance rate.

Supported by PHS grants NCI-U10-CA-69651, NCI-U10-CA-12027, and NCI P30-CA-14599 from the US NCI and Genentech, Inc.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-02-05.

Abstract S6-3: Four vs 6 Cycles of Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide (AC) or Paclitaxel (T) as Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer in Women with 0-3 Positive Axillary Nodes: CALGB 40101 — A 2x2 Factorial Phase III Trial: First Results Comparing 4 vs 6 Cycles of Therapy

Background: Four cycles of chemotherapy are frequently used as standard adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with low-risk primary breast cancer, though other regimens such as CAF, CMF, and TAC frequently are given for 6 cycles. Using a phase 3 factorial design we attempted to define whether 6 cycles of one chemotherapy regimen are superior to 4 cycles in patients with low-risk primary breast cancer. We also sought to determine if T would be equally efficacious as compared to AC, with reduced toxicity. Methods: The study enrolled women with operable breast cancer and 0-3 positive nodes. Study stratifiers were ER/PgR, HER2, and menopausal status. When the study was activated in May 2002, AC (60 and 600 mg/m2) was administered every 3 wks for 4 or 6 cycles, and T (80mg/m2) weekly for 12 or 18 wks. In 2003 (after 570 enrolled patients) treatment schedule was changed to every 2 wks for both AC and T (175 mg/m2), each given for 4 or 6 cycles. In 2008 accrual to the 6-cycle regimens was permanently closed due to slow accrual, with 3173 patients enrolled. The primary endpoint for this comparison was the superiority of 6 vs 4 cycles in relapse-free survival (RFS). The study was powered to have 567 RFS events. Data comparing AC with T are not yet available. Results: This report describes the impact of treatment duration and includes the 3173 patients randomized to 6- versus 4-cycles of chemotherapy, 93% of whom had node-negative disease. At a median follow-up of 4.6 years (2.5 - 8 yrs), the number of RFS events is 288 (with 138 on 4 cycles vs 150 on 6 cycles). The 4-yr RFS was 91.6% and 91.8% for 6 and 4 cycles, respectively. The Hazard Ratio of 6 to 4 cycles was 1.10 (95% CI = 0.87-1.39, p=0.42). Four-year OS was 95.3% and 96.4% for 6 and 4 cycles, respectively, with a HR of 6 to 4 cycles of 1.31 (95% CI = 0.95-1.82, p=0.097). Based on the present data the Bayesian predictive probability of concluding superiority of 6 cycles [a primary goal of the study] with 567 RFS events is only 0.001. There was no interaction between the number of cycles and type of chemotherapy, ER/PgR status, or HER2 status. In particular, the effect of number of cycles on RFS and OS was similar for both AC and T.

Conclusions: For women with primary breast cancer and 0-3 positive nodes, we found no evidence that extending chemotherapy from 4 to 6 cycles improves clinical outcome.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S6-3.

NSABP B-30: definitive analysis of quality of life (QOL) and menstrual history (MH) outcomes from a randomized trial evaluating different schedules and combinations of adjuvant therapy containing doxorubicin, docetaxel and cyclophosphamide in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer

Abstract #76

Background: QOL and MH outcomes were integrated into the NSABP B-30 trial as secondary outcomes to the efficacy analyses which are being presented separately. Explicit secondary aims of the NSABP B-30 study were 1) to compare toxicities among the regimens, 2) to compare QOL, and 3) to examine differences in amenorrhea and its relationship to symptoms, QOL, and efficacy. Here we examine the secondary aims of the study as a companion to the efficacy results that are presented separately.&#x2028; Materials and Methods: 5351 pts with cT1-3, N0-1, M0 were enrolled from 3/1/99 to 3/31/2004. 2170 were enrolled on the QOL study, and 2449 were enrolled on the MH study and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: Group 1 [doxorubicin (A) 60 mg/m2 and C 600 mg/m2 q 3 weeks (wks) x 4 followed by docetaxel (T) 100 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4; Group 2 [A 50 mg/m2 and T 75 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4]; Group 3 [A 50 mg/m2 T 75 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide (C) 500 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4]. All patients with ER-positive tumors received hormonal therapy after completing chemotherapy. Preliminary results from Group 1 have been reported previously (Swain, et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2008).&#x2028; Results: The protocol specifies that 800 deaths are required for the definitive analysis of treatment, QOL, and MH outcomes, which are expected to occur by fall 2008. For this final report, results from a comparison of the three arms will be analyzed and presented.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 76.

Phase II study of bortezomib in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial tract transitional cell carcinoma: CALGB 90207

BACKGROUND

There is no standard second-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC). Response rates to second-line chemotherapy for advanced UC are low and response duration is short. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with preclinical activity against UC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment consisted of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) i.v. twice weekly for two consecutive weeks, followed by a 1-week break. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response + partial response) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Secondary end points included safety, toxicity, and progression-free and overall survival.

RESULTS

In all, 25 patients with advanced UC previously treated with combination chemotherapy were enrolled in a multi-institutional single-arm trial from December 2003 through April 2005. Only 29% of patients had node-only metastases. Grade 3/4 drug-related toxic effects included thrombocytopenia (4%), anemia (8%), lymphopenia (8%), sensory neuropathy (6%), hyperglycemia (4%), hypernatremia (4%), fatigue (4%), neuropathic pain (6%), dehydration (4%), and vomiting (4%). No objective responses were observed [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0-12]. The median time to progression was 1.4 months (95% CI = 1.1-2.0 months), and the median survival time was 5.7 months (95% CI = 3.6-8.4 months). There were no treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSION

Although bortezomib is well tolerated, it does not have antitumor activity as second-line therapy in UC.

Phase II trial of irinotecan/gemcitabine as second-line therapy for relapsed and refractory small-cell lung cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 39902

BACKGROUND

This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the irinotecan/gemcitabine combination in patients with relapsed/refractory small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with measurable tumor who had received one previous chemotherapy or chemotherapy/radiation regimen were eligible. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) was administered i.v. over 30 min followed immediately by irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) i.v. over 90 min, both on days 1 and 8 every 21 days. Patients were stratified based on response to initial treatment [i.e. primary sensitive disease with progression >or=3 months (group A), or refractory disease (group B)].

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were enrolled but one never received treatment and one ineligible patient did not have SCLC. Median patient ages of the remaining patients were 61 and 63 years in groups A (n = 35) and B (n = 36), respectively, with performance status of 0 or 1 in 85% of 71 patients. Primary grade 3/4 toxic effects in groups A versus B were neutropenia (36% versus 43%), thrombocytopenia (36% versus 26%), nausea (12% versus 11%), vomiting (0 versus 11%), diarrhea (12% versus 9%), and pulmonary (12% versus 12%). Two patients had fatal events including pneumonitis (n = 1) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (n = 1). Responses occurred in 11 group A [two complete responses and nine partial responses (PRs)] and four group B (all PRs) patients, for response rates of 31% [95% confidence interval (CI) 17%, 49%) and 11% (95% CI 3%, 26%), respectively. Median survival and progression-free survival times were 7.1 (95% CI 6, 10.5) versus 3.5 (95% CI 3.1, 5.7) months, and 3.1 (95% CI 1.6, 5.3) versus 1.6 (95% CI 1.4, 2.8) months for group A versus B.

CONCLUSION

The irinotecan/gemcitabine combination is active and well tolerated as second-line therapy in SCLC patients. Additional studies are warranted as second-line therapy in patients who progressed 90 days or more after first-line therapy. However, the observed efficacy results in refractory SCLC patients indicate that this regimen should not be further explored in this population.

Does an oral analgesic protocol improve pain control for patients with cancer? An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is highly prevalent and commonly undertreated. This study was designed to determine whether dissemination of a clinical protocol for pain management would improve outcomes in community oncology practices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A pain management protocol was developed based on accepted guidelines. After baseline assessment, oncology practices were randomly assigned to 'analgesic protocol' (AP) sites, where oncologists implemented the guidelines in a group of lung or prostate cancer patients, or to 'physician discretion' (PD) sites, where customary treatment was continued. Patients treated on protocol and a comparison group of patients with pain due to breast cancer or myeloma were monitored for change in pain using the Brief Pain Inventory, and for change in other symptoms or mood.

RESULTS

The protocol terminated early because of poor accrual. We compared groups using proportions of patients who had no or mild pain at follow-up. Although measures of protocol adherence did not suggest the occurrence of major practice change, the proportion of lung or prostate cancer patients with no or mild pain increased significantly from baseline for those treated at AP sites compared with those treated at PD sites. There was no significant difference between the breast and myeloma patients treated at AP sites versus those treated at PD sites.

CONCLUSION

A protocol for cancer pain management can improve pain control. Diffusion of these benefits to other patients was not confirmed. Given the small sample size, these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.

Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23

PURPOSE

Uncertainty about the relative worth of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) and cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/fluorouracil (CMF), as well as doubt about the propriety of giving tamoxifen (TAM) with chemotherapy to patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes, prompted the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project to initiate the B-23 study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 2,008) were randomly assigned to CMF plus placebo, CMF plus TAM, AC plus placebo, or AC plus TAM. Six cycles of CMF were given for 6 months; four cycles of AC were administered for 63 days. TAM was given daily for 5 years. Relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and survival (S) were determined by using life-table estimates. Tests for heterogeneity of outcome used log-rank statistics and Cox proportional hazards models to detect differences across all groups and according to chemotherapy and hormonal therapy status.

RESULTS

No significant difference in RFS, EFS, or S was observed among the four groups through 5 years (P =.96,.8, and.8, respectively), for those aged < or = 49 years (P =.97,.5, and.9, respectively), or for those aged > or = 50 years (P =.7,.6, and.6, respectively). A comparison between all CMF- and all AC-treated patients demonstrated no significant differences in RFS (87% at 5 years in both groups, P =.9), EFS (83% and 82%, P =.6), or S (89% and 90%, P =.4). There were no significant differences in RFS, EFS, or S between CMF and AC in patients aged < or = 49 or > or = 50 years. No significant difference in any outcome was observed when chemotherapy-treated patients who received placebo were compared with those given TAM. RFS in both groups was 87% (P =.6), 87% in patients aged < or = 49 (P =.9), and 88% and 87%, respectively (P =.4), in those aged > or = 50 years.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the outcome of patients who received AC or CMF. TAM with either regimen resulted in no significant advantage over that achieved from chemotherapy alone.

Paclitaxel/ifosfamide or navelbine/ifosfamide chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: CALGB 9532

In order to explore non-cisplatin containing regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, Cancer and Leukemia Group B conducted a randomized Phase-II study of two novel combinations, paclitaxel/ifosfamide and vinorelbine/ifosfamide. Both regimens were active with a 38% response rate (95% CI: 24%, 53%) and 31% (95% CI: 18%, 47%), respectively. Median survivals were 8.5 and 7.4 months. Toxicity, mostly neutropenia, was acceptable. These two combinations establish a 'proof of principle' that non-cisplatin containing regimens also have activity in this setting.

Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-25

PURPOSE

In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.

Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil (FU+LV) with that of fluorouracil and levamisole (FU+LEV) or with the combination of FU+LV and levamisole (FU+LV+LEV).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 1989 and December 1990, 2,151 patients with Dukes' B (stage II) and Dukes' C (stage III) carcinoma of the colon were entered onto National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowl Project protocol C-04. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FU+LV (weekly regimen), FU + LEV, or the combination of FU+LV+LEV. The average time on study was 86 months.

RESULTS

A pairwise comparison between patients treated with FU+LV or FU+LEV disclosed a prolongation in disease-free survival (DFS) in favor of the FU+LV group (65% v 60%; P =.04); there was a small prolongation in overall survival that was of borderline significance (74% v 70%; P =.07). There was no difference in the pairwise comparison between patients who received FU+LV or FU+LV+LEV for either DFS (65% v 64%; P =.67) or overall survival (74% v 73%; P =.99). There was no interaction between Dukes' stage and the effect of treatment.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon, treatment with FU+LV seems to confer a small DFS advantage and a borderline prolongation in overall survival when compared with treatment with FU+LEV. The addition of LEV to FU+LV does not provide any additional benefit over and above that achieved with FU+LV. These findings support the use of adjuvant FU+LV as an acceptable therapeutic standard in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon.

Comparative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Dukes' B versus Dukes' C colon cancer: results from four National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project adjuvant studies (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04)

PURPOSE

Although the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly established in patients with Dukes' C colon cancer, such benefit has been questioned in patients with Dukes' B disease. To determine whether patients with Dukes' B disease benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and to evaluate the magnitude of the benefit, compared with that observed in Dukes' C patients, we examined the relative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy according to Dukes' stage in four sequential National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trials (C-01, C-02, C-03, and C-04) that compared different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens with each other or with no adjuvant treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The four trials included Dukes' B and C patients and were conducted between 1977 and 1990. The eligibility criteria and follow-up requirements were similar for all four trials. Protocol C-01 compared adjuvant semustine, vincristine, and fluorouracil (5-FU) (MOF regimen) with operation alone. Protocol C-02 compared the perioperative administration of a portal venous infusion of 5-FU with operation alone. Protocol C-03 compared adjuvant 5-FU and leucovorin (LV) with adjuvant MOF. Protocol C-04 compared adjuvant 5-FU and LV with 5-FU and levamisole (LEV) and with the combination of 5-FU, LV, and LEV.

RESULTS

Forty-one percent of the patients included in these four trials had resected Dukes' B tumors. In all four studies, the overall, disease-free, and recurrence-free survival improvement noted for all patients was evident in both Dukes' B and Dukes' C patients. When the relative efficacy of chemotherapy was examined, there was always an observed reduction in mortality, recurrence, or disease-free survival event, irrespective of Dukes' stage, and in most instances, the reduction was as great or greater for Dukes' B patients as for Dukes' C patients. When data from all four trials were examined in a combined analysis, the mortality reduction was 30% for Dukes' B patients versus 18% for Dukes' C patients. The mortality reduction in Dukes' B patients occurred irrespective of the presence or absence of adverse prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with Dukes' B colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and should be presented with this treatment option. Regardless of the presence or absence of other clinical prognostic factors, Dukes' B patients seem to benefit from chemotherapy administration.

Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The B-20 study of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) was conducted to determine whether chemotherapy plus tamoxifen would be of greater benefit than tamoxifen alone in the treatment of patients with axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

METHODS

Eligible patients (n = 2306) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups following surgery. A total of 771 patients with follow-up data received tamoxifen alone; 767 received methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (MFT); and 768 received cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen (CMFT). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-free survival, distant disease-free survival, and survival. Reported P values are two-sided.

RESULTS

Through 5 years of follow-up, chemotherapy plus tamoxifen resulted in significantly better disease-free survival than tamoxifen alone (90% for MFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .01]; 89% for CMFT versus 85% for tamoxifen [P = .001]). A similar benefit was observed in both distant disease-free survival (92% for MFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .008]; 91% for CMFT versus 87% for tamoxifen [P = .006]) and survival (97% for MFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .05]; 96% for CMFT versus 94% for tamoxifen [P = .03]). Compared with tamoxifen alone, MFT and CMFT reduced the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after lumpectomy and the risk of recurrence at other local, regional, and distant sites. Risk of treatment failure was reduced after both types of chemotherapy, regardless of tumor size, tumor estrogen or progesterone receptor level, or patient age; however, the reduction was greatest in patients aged 49 years or less. No subgroup of patients evaluated in this study failed to benefit from chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this and other NSABP studies indicate that patients with breast cancer who meet NSABP protocol criteria, regardless of age, lymph node status, tumor size, or estrogen receptor status, are candidates for chemotherapy.

Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22

PURPOSE

The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) initiated a randomized trial (B-22) to determine if intensifying but maintaining the total dose of cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan, Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, Princeton, NJ) in a doxorubicin (Adriamycin, Pharmacia, Kalamazoo, MI)-cyclophosphamide combination (AC), or if intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide improves the outcome of women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (N = 2,305) were randomized to receive either four courses of standard AC therapy (group 1); intensified therapy, in which the same total dose of cyclophosphamide was administered in two courses (group 2); or intensified and increased therapy, in which the total dose of cyclophosphamide was doubled (group 3). The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival were determined using life-table estimates.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in DFS (P = .30) or overall survival (P = .95) among the groups through 5 years. At 5 years, the DFS of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (62% v 60%, respectively; P = .43) and to that of women in group 3 (62% v 64%, respectively; P = .59). The 5-year survival of women in group 1 was similar to that of women in group 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .86) and to that of women in group 3 (78% v 77%, respectively; P = .82). Grade 4 toxicity increased in groups 2 and 3. Failure to note a difference in outcome among the groups was unrelated to either differences in amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide or to dose delays and intervals between courses of therapy.

CONCLUSION

Intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide failed to significantly improve either DFS or overall survival in any group. It was concluded that, outside of a clinical trial, dose-intensification of cyclophosphamide in an AC combination represents inappropriate therapy for women with primary breast cancer.

Recruiting cancer patients to participate in motivating their relatives to quit smoking. A cancer control study of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9072)

BACKGROUND

A diagnosis of cancer provides a teachable moment in which a physician can counsel or teach the patient. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B hypothesized that this teachable moment could also be used to encourage counseling of the patients' relatives who smoke. The authors' first study sought to determine the feasibility of such an intervention, the cooperation of the patients, and the compliance of relatives who were smokers. The long-range goal is to recruit by mail a large population of adult smokers into an intervention program and to assist them in quitting cigarette smoking.

METHODS

Oncologists and their clinical research associates asked recently diagnosed cancer patients to identify their relatives who were smokers and assist in persuading them to quit. Consenting patients spoke to relatives and mailed them a personalized motivational leaflet along with a list of the benefits of quitting smoking. Intervention was continued only with relatives who were contacted in this manner. The participating physicians then wrote to the smokers, advising them to quit; enclosed with each physician's letter were the National Cancer Institute booklet "Clearing the Air," which is about quitting smoking, and a questionnaire determining "stage of change" (the stage of the smoker's inaction or action regarding quitting smoking). After 6 months, a postintervention questionnaire was mailed to the relatives.

RESULTS

Written consent was obtained from 89% of 144 eligible patients solicited. Eighty percent of patients involved in the study contacted relatives. Sixty-three percent of contacted relatives returned the first questionnaire and 40% answered the second. Nine percent of all contacted relatives reported having quit smoking after the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention proved to be feasible and will lead to the next study, which will randomize relatives who smoke within a more intensive intervention over 12 months and compare the results with nonintervention controls.

Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil

PURPOSE

To compare sequential methotrexate (M) and fluorouracil (F) (M-->F) with surgery (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-13) and cyclophosphamide (C), M, and F with M-->F (NSABP B-19), in patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors and negative axillary nodes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 760 patients were randomized to B-13; 1,095 patients with the same eligibility requirements were randomized to B-19. Disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and survival were determined using life-table estimates.

RESULTS

A significant benefit in overall DFS (74% v 59%; P < .001) was demonstrated at 8 years in all B-13 patients who received M-->F (69% v 56% [P = .006] in those <or= 49 years of age, and 81% v 63% [P = .002] in those >or= 50 years). A survival advantage was evident in older patients (89% v 80%; P = .03). In B-19, through 5 years, an overall DFS advantage (82% v 73%; P < .001) and a borderline survival advantage (88% v 85%; P = .06) were evident with CMF. The DFS (84% v 72%; P < .001) and survival (89% v 84%; P = .04) benefits from CMF were greater in women aged <or= 49 years. M-->F or CMF after lumpectomy and breast irradiation resulted in a low probability of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). In B-13, the frequency of IBTR was 2.6% following M-->F versus 13.4% in women treated by lumpectomy; it was 0.6% following CMF in B-19. Toxicity >or= grade 3 was more frequent among CMF patients in B-19. The age-related difference in CMF benefit was not related to amount of drug received.

CONCLUSION

M-->F and CMF are effective for node-negative patients with ER-negative tumors. The incidence of local-regional or distant metastases and IBTR decreased after either therapy. The benefit from either therapy was evident in all patients, but the CMF advantage was greater in those <or= 49 years. Because it is less toxic, M-->F may be used in patients with medical problems that would preclude CMF administration.

Leucovorin and high-dose fluorouracil in metastatic prostate cancer. A phase II trial of the piedmont Oncology Association

We performed a Phase II trial of oral leucovorin and high-dose fluorouracil (5FU) in hormone refractory patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had not had prior chemotherapy. 5FU was given as a 24-hour infusion at a dosage of 4 g/m2 and oral leucovorin at a dosage of 50 mg every 6 hours for four doses, starting with the infusion of 5FU. Fifteen patients were treated and three were not evaluable for response. There were no complete (CR) or partial responses (PR) in 12 evaluable patients (95% confidence interval for CR+PR of 0 to 26%). Three patients had stable disease and the remainder progressed. Toxicities were generally mild to moderate, but one patient died of sepsis while neutropenic. This dose and schedule of leucovorin and 5FU is not better than single-agent 5FU in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Tamoxifen versus high-dose oral medroxyprogesterone acetate as initial endocrine therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer: a Piedmont Oncology Association study

PURPOSE

To determine in a prospective randomized trial whether high-dose orally administered medroxy-progesterone acetate (MPA) was superior to tamoxifen in patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no prior endocrine therapy in either the adjuvant or advanced setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients initially received either tamoxifen 20 mg/d orally or MPA 1 g/d orally. At the time of disease progression, patients were crossed over to the other regimen. Eligibility required patients to be age > or = 18 years, performance status 0 to 3, and estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive or unknown.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-two eligible patients were entered and 166 were assessable for response. Complete plus partial response rates for tamoxifen and MPA were 17% and 34%, respectively (P = .01). Patients with bone metastases had a significantly higher partial response rate with MPA compared with tamoxifen (33% v 13%). Median time to treatment failure was 5.5 months for tamoxifen and 6.3 months for MPA (P = .48). The median survival duration was 24 months for tamoxifen and 33 months for MPA (P = .09). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment significantly influenced response rate, but not time to treatment failure or survival. After treatment failure following MPA, six of 42 patients (14%) treated with tamoxifen responded, compared with six of 49 (12%) treated with MPA following tamoxifen. Both agents were associated with minimal toxicity, but 35% of patients on MPA gained more than 20 lb as opposed to only 2% on tamoxifen.

CONCLUSION

In this trial, initial treatment with MPA of endocrine-naive metastatic breast cancer patients was associated with a significantly higher response rate but not with improvement in time to treatment failure or survival, when compared with initial treatment with tamoxifen. Further randomized trials in patients with bone metastases are warranted to determine if high-dose progestin therapy is superior to tamoxifen in these patients.

High-dose 24-hour infusion of 5-fluorouracil in metastatic prostate cancer. A phase II trial of the Piedmont Oncology Association

Thirty-two patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate refractory to endocrine therapy were entered on trial. No patient entered in the study had prior chemotherapy. Patients were treated with 5-fluorouracil given at a dosage of 4 gm/m2 over a 24-hour period every 2 weeks. Of the 27 patients evaluable for response, there were no complete or partial remissions, but 9 (33%) had a stable disease. The 95% confidence interval for complete and partial response in this series (0 of 27 patients) is 0.0-12%. Myelosuppression and gastrointestinal toxicity was moderate. Two patients, however, experienced major but completely reversible neurotoxicity, including 1 with cerebellar ataxia and 1 with memory loss and stroke-like symptoms. These data indicate that high-dose fluorouracil used in this dosage and schedule is ineffective in the therapy of advanced carcinoma of the prostate.

A phase II trial of high-dose cytarabine and cisplatin in previously untreated non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. A Piedmont Oncology Association Study

Thirty-seven chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were treated with cytarabine (3 g/m2 intravenously [IV] during 3 hours) after IV bolus cisplatin (100 mg/m2 repeated every 3 weeks). Aside from nausea and vomiting, the principal toxicity was hematologic, with Grade IV myelosuppression in 32% and Grade III in 14%. Four patients died while on study. One complete and four partial responses were observed for an overall response rate of 14%. Responses were limited to lymph node and lung metastases and occurred in two of 17 adenocarcinomas, two of 12 squamous cell carcinomas, and one of eight large cell carcinomas. At this dose, the plasma level of cisplatin is only 3 micrograms/ml and the plasma level of cytarabine is 10 to 50 micrograms/ml, compared with the levels of 10 micrograms/ml and 1000 micrograms/ml, respectively, required for in vitro synergy. The severity of myelotoxicity observed indicates that, even at these levels, cisplatin enhances cytarabine activity. The combination may prove useful in malignancies that are sensitive to cytarabine, but is not of benefit in cytarabine-resistant malignancies such as NSCLC.

Amelioration of vincristine neurotoxicity by glutamic acid

Neurotoxicity is the principal limiting side effect of the widely used antitumor agent, vincristine. Following evaluation of glutamic acid as a potential modifier of vincristine toxicity in preclinical studies in mice and a preliminary clinical trial, a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted by the Piedmont Oncology Association. Of 87 patients entered into the study, 84 were evaluable, including 42 patients who were randomly assigned to receive vincristine 1.0 mg/m2 weekly for six doses and 42 patients who were assigned to receive glutamic acid 500 mg orally three times daily plus vincristine. The following neurotoxic signs and symptoms were evaluated before each dose of vincristine: reflex changes, paresthesias, constipation, strength, and mental changes. Loss of the Achilles tendon reflex, an objective parameter, was noted in 19 percent of patients receiving glutamic acid and 42 percent of control subjects (p = 0.03). Development of moderate to severe paresthesias, a subjective parameter, occurred in 19 percent of the glutamic acid group and 36 percent of the placebo group (p = 0.09). Overall moderate neurotoxicity (6 units or more), determined by adding the grade of each neurotoxic parameter for the weekly clinic visit in which maximum neurotoxicity occurred, was observed in 21 percent of patients receiving glutamic acid and 43 percent of those in the control group (p = 0.04). Hematologic and gastrointestinal side effects occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. The administration of glutamic acid has decreased vincristine-induced neurotoxicity without any attendant side effects.

Phase I study of high-dose cytosine arabinoside and etoposide in patients with advanced malignancies

Cytosine arabinoside (ara-C) and etoposide (VP-16) display synergy in the laboratory. Twenty-six patients participated in a phase I study of high-dose ara-C in combination with VP-16. The dose of VP-16 was held constant at 50 mg/m2 as an intermittent infusion over 33 h; escalating doses of ara-C were given as infusions during hours 9-12 and 21-24. Myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity and occurred with doses considerably less than those expected from studies of the two drugs as single agents. The suggested initial doses for phase II trials with this schedule are 750 mg/m2 X 2 doses of ara-C and 50 mg/m2 of VP-16. Nonhematologic toxicity was minimal; therefore, further dose escalation is feasible in patients in whom myelosuppression is acceptable.

Clinical trial of pyridoxine to reduce vincristine neurotoxicity

In a murine model system, pyridoxine has demonstrated protective properties during administration of lethal doses of vincristine (VCR). Subsequently, pyridoxine has been evaluated in patients receiving VCR during an adjuvant chemotherapy program for stage II carcinoma of the breast. The toxicities, cumulative VCR dosage, and percentage of ideal dosage observed in 24 patients receiving pyridoxine have been compared to those observed in 88 patients who previously received VCR without pyridoxine in the same chemotherapy program. All patients ideally were to receive VCR 1.0 mg/m2 weekly for 6-weeks with dose modification for neurotoxicity. Treatment patients received pyridoxine 1.5 grams p.o. daily in three divided doses during the 6-week course. The degree of neurotoxic manifestations of VCR was similar in the treatment and comparison patients. Absent to mild neurotoxicity was observed in approximately 70% of patients in both groups; moderate or greater neurotoxicity occurred in about 30% of patients in both groups. Full dosage (6.0 mg/m2) was attained in 8 (33%) treatment patients and 18 (24%) comparison patients (p = 0.28). The mean percentage of ideal dosage of VCR was 84.6 +/- 10.8 in patients receiving pyridoxine and 81.9 +/- 21.6 in those given only VCR (p = 0.59). Gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities were similar in both groups. Pyridoxine in this dose and schedule afforded no protection from the neurotoxic side effects of VCR.

Phase I study of high-dose cytarabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced malignancy

Nineteen patients with advanced malignancy participated in a phase I trial of high-dose cytarabine (ara-C) and cisplatin in combination. Dose and schedule were based on laboratory data indicating synergy for concurrent use of these drugs. Cisplatin (100 mg/m2) was administered during the 2nd and 3rd hours of a 3-hour ara-C infusion. The ara-C dose was escalated in subsequent patients following a starting dose of 1 g/m2. Two brief responses were noted. The study was terminated prematurely due to protracted (several weeks) nausea, occasional vomiting, and severe lassitude.