Search

1086 Background: The impact of the interval of radiological assessment on the magnitude of benefit observed in randomized trials (RCTs) in metastatic breast cancer is undefined. Methods: All RCTs investigating anti-neoplastic drugs for metastatic breast cancer published between 2006 and 2019 were identified. Intervals for restaging were categorized as short ( < 9 weeks) or long (≥9 weeks). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall-survival (OS) were pooled in a meta-analysis and compared between trials employing short and long restaging intervals assessed as subgroup analyses. Analyses were repeated for pre-specified subgroups according to disease subtype, drug type, whether experimental therapy was added to or replaced standard treatment and whether HR for PFS was < 1 or ≥1. Results: Eighty-nine studies comprising 95 comparisons and 44,901 patients were included. The magnitude of PFS benefit was non-significantly larger in trials which employed short compared to long restaging intervals (HR 0.79 vs. 0.86, p = 0.15). Short restaging interval was associated with significantly higher magnitude of effect on PFS in pre-specified subgroups including non-first line studies (HR 0.78 vs. 0.92, p = 0.04), studies with drugs replacing standard treatment (HR 0.86 vs. 1.04, p = 0.02) and studies performed exclusively in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR 0.72 vs. 0.90, p = 0.02). Restaging interval was not associated with OS for all included studies (HR 0.92 vs. 0.93, p = 0.66) or for any of the pre-specified subgroups. Conclusions: Shorter restaging intervals are associated with a higher magnitude of effect of PFS, but not OS. Awareness of the impact of the restaging interval on quantification of intermediate endpoints such as PFS is important for the design and interpretation of RCTs.

6571 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee (ASCO-CRC), the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-VF), and the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) are validated tools quantifying the clinical benefit for cancer drugs. Here, we assess the overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL) and magnitude of clinical benefit of trials supporting breast cancer drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the last 25 years. Methods: We searched Drugs@FDA website for all breast cancer drug approvals from January 1, 1995 to December 30, 2020. Drug labels and reports of registration trials were reviewed. We collected data on trial characteristics, efficacy, toxicity and QoL. When more than one study supported a single indication, we preferred efficacy-oriented endpoints (typically OS) to QoL. We excluded trials supporting accelerated-approval indications if these were converted to regular approval during the study period. We scored clinical benefit using the ASCO-CRC in palliative setting, and ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS in both curative and palliative setting. Substantial clinical benefit was defined as: OS gains ≥2.5 months and progression-free survival gains ≥ 3 months for ASCO-CRC criteria; ASCO-VF scores ≥ 45 and grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and 4 or 5 for those of non-curative intent using ESMO-MCBS. Trends over time were assessed using Chi-squared test for trend. Results: We identified 51 trials supporting the approval of 32 individual drugs for 51 indications; 12 (24%) were in the curative setting and 39 (76%) in the palliative setting. At the time of approval, 8 (16%) trials reported significant improvement in OS. QoL was reported in 22 trials (43%). Among these, 8 (36%) showed improvement in QoL. For curative intent, we applied ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS score to 11 (92%) trials, finding clinical benefit in 10 (91%) and 2 (18%) trials, respectively. In the palliative setting, we used ASCO-CRC, ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores to rate 32 (82%), 33 (85%) and 38 (97%) trials. Substantial clinical benefit was observed in 20 (63%), 12 (36%) and 7 (19%) trials, respectively. Over time, there has been a decrease in the number of trials supporting approval based on OS (1996-2003 50% vs 2004-12 38% vs 2013-20 13%, P trend = 0.033). There were no statistically significant changes over time in QoL, ASCO-CRC, ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS scores. Conclusions: For palliative intent, most trials supporting FDA approval of breast cancer drugs do not meet the ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS criteria for substantial clinical benefit. There is substantial inter-framework variability in the assessment of clinical benefit in the curative setting. Over time, there has been a substantial shift towards use of surrogate endpoints as the basis for approval without a clear improvement in substantial clinical benefit.

7052 Background: Initial drug approval is often based on surrogate endpoints. Definitive outcomes like Overall Survival (OS) or Quality of life (QoL) may not be available. Here, we evaluate changes in the magnitude of clinical benefit using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) comparing the time of approval to the most recent available data for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2006 and 2015. Methods: We examined data on trials supporting FDA accelerated (AA) and regular (RA) cancer drug approvals between January 2006 and December 2015. We performed a systematic search of Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify updated OS and/or QoL data, with follow up through April 2019. For AA drugs we analysed initial and confirmatory trials as follow-up. ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS grades were applied for trials at approval and after marketing. We explored variables associated with improved clinical benefit scores using multivariable logistic regression. Results: We identified 102 trials supporting the approval of 59 drugs for 96 solid tumour indications. Of these indications, 22 (23%) were granted AA and 21 (95%) were converted to RA. At time of approval, 38% of trials showed improved OS and 17% improved QoL. Substantial clinical benefit was observed in 26% of initial approval trials using ESMO-MCSB and in 34% using ASCO-VF. After a median post-marketing period of 3.3 years, updated results changed substantial clinical benefit in 20 trials with ESMO-MCBS (19 upgrades, 1 downgrade) and in 23 trials using ASCO-VF (19 upgrades, 4 downgrades). For 25% of trials no updated information was found. In the palliative setting, multivariable analysis showed association between improved ASCO-VF scores and initial approvals based on single-arm trials (OR 9.21, 95%CI 1.36-62.29, P=0.023), drugs with companion diagnostics (OR 4.95, 95%CI 1.01-24.22, P=0.049) and second or later lines (OR 7.80, 95%CI 1.35-45.02, P=0.022) while for ESMO-MCBS, drugs with companion diagnostics (OR 6.86, 95%CI 1.82-25.86, P=0.004) and immunotherapy drugs (OR 6.42, 95%CI 1.27-32.59, P=0.025) were associated with greater clinical benefit. Conclusions: Drugs with companion diagnostic tests, immunotherapy as well as approved based on single-arm trials were associated with increased clinical benefit after marketing approval. For a quarter of trials there were no updated data in the post-marketing period.

1582 Background: Despite the use of clinical eligibility criteria and mutation predictive models, a great proportion of families are negative for germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes. Traditionally, risk assessment of inconclusive results included the recommendation of high-risk surveillance protocol, the update of incident cancer cases in the family and the consideration of additional testing to rule out the possibility of phenocopy. More recently, next generation sequencing multigene panels have become a standard practice in cancer genetics clinics worldwide. We addressed the value of multigene panel retesting of BRCA1/2 negative HBOC families in our institution. Methods: After genetic counseling session and informed consent, a total of 137 individuals (119 probands and 18 extra cancer-affected relatives) from distinct BRCA1/2 negative families were retested using a panel containing 11 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes ( BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, PTEN, TP53, STK11, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D). Results: According to the BOADICEA model, the remaining probability of mutation in BRCA1/2 or PALB2 genes in our cohort was 5.5% (0.1-61). The reasons for considering retesting were the addition of any incident cancer diagnosis in 33 cases (24%), a prior study with a low sensitivity screening technique (dHPLC) in 6 families (5%) and the expansion of the study to other putative breast and ovarian susceptibility genes in 98 families (71%). Overall, 3 pathogenic (2 BRCA2, 1 CHEK2) and 8 likely pathogenic variants (1 BRCA2, 4 CHEK2 and 3 ATM) were found. The prevalence was 8%. The detection rate among 19 families with a > 10% remaining probability of mutation in BRCA1/2 and PALB2 genes was 26%. The 3 clinically significant variants in BRCA2 were detected in 2 families and 1 updated cancer family history (BOADICEA remaining probability of 59, 61 and 12%, respectively). Cascade testing was subsequently done in 15 relatives resulting 8 in mutation carriers and 9 true negatives. Conclusions: Our results support the value of updating cancer incident cases and considering expanded panels in selected families.

6513 Background: The Breakthrough Therapy program was established in July 2012 to expedite drug development and approval by the FDA. We compared the characteristics of clinical trials leading to FDA approval as well as the magnitude of clinical benefit and value framework scores of breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Methods: We searched the Drugs@FDA website for cancer drug approvals from July 2012 and December 2017. For each indication, we applied the value frameworks and used thresholds of high clinical benefit developed by American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO VF v2; scores ≥45), the ASCO Cancer Research Committee (OS gains ≥2.5 months PFS gains ≥3 months), the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1; grade of A or B for trials of curative intent and 4 or 5 for those of non-curative intent), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks (scores of 4 and 5). Trial characteristics and value framework scores were compared using Chi squared or Mann Whitney U tests. Results: We identified 106 pivotal trials supporting the approval of 52 individual drugs for 96 indications. Of these indications, 38 (40%) received breakthrough designation. Compared with trials for non-breakthrough drugs (n = 62), trials for breakthrough drugs (n = 44) had smaller sample size (median 373 vs 612, P= .03), were less often randomized (57% vs 86%; P= .001) and more likely to be open-label (84% vs 53%, P= .001). Trials for breakthrough drugs were more likely to demonstrate high clinical benefit using ASCO VF (68% vs 31%, P= .002) and NCCN Evidence Blocks (86% vs 56%, P= .002). A similar proportion of trials supporting breakthrough and non-breakthrough drugs demonstrated high clinical benefit using the ASCO Cancer Research Committee (82% vs 68%, P= .25) and ESMO-MCBS (35% vs 33%; P= .87) frameworks. Conclusions: In patients with advanced solid tumors, cancer drugs approved under breakthrough therapy designation were more likely to demonstrate high clinical benefit as defined by the ASCO VF and NCCN value frameworks. A similar proportion of approved breakthrough and non-breakthrough therapy drugs met the high benefit thresholds using the ASCO Cancer Research Committee and ESMO-MCBS frameworks.

6638 Background: Given rising cancer drug costs, Medicare recently proposed to tie some US drug prices to average prices paid by comparable countries. To understand the potential scope of this policy, we assessed differences in cancer drug prices in the US and selected European countries. We also evaluated the correlation between drug prices and their clinical benefit, as measured by two value frameworks: the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework v2 (ASCO VF) and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale v1.1 (ESMO-MCBS). Methods: We identified all new drugs for adult solid and hematologic cancers, approved by the FDA from 2009-2017 and that have also been approved by the EMA by December 31, 2018. US average sales prices (and if not available, wholesale acquisition costs) were extracted as of February 1, 2019, and compared to comparable currency-adjusted ex-factory drug costs in England, France, Germany, and Switzerland. ASCO VF and ESMO-MCBS scores were assessed for pivotal trials supporting solid tumor drugs; in case of multiple trials, we focused on the highest score. Consistent with the developers of the rating scales, “high benefit” was defined as scores of A-B (neo/adjuvant setting) and 4-5 (palliative setting) on the ESMO-MCBS scale and scores≥45 on the ASCO VF. Linear regression models and non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test and were used to assess the association between drug prices and benefit scores. Results: The study cohort included 63 drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA during the study period. 46 (73%) were approved for solid tumors, and 17 (27%) were approved for hematologic malignancies. Overall, median cancer drug prices in included European countries were 52% (interquartile range: 37-72%) lower than US prices. There was no statistically significant association between monthly treatment cost and ASCO-VF or ESMO-MCBS scores in any country. There was also no association between price differential between US and median European drug prices and either ASCO-VF (P = 0.599) or ESMO-MBCS (P = 0.321) scores. Conclusions: Cancer drug prices in the US were significantly higher than in the compared European countries. Drug prices of cancer drugs were not associated with clinical benefit in the US or in European countries.

1077 Background: In Spain there is limited prospective data for unresectable locally advanced breast cancer (ULABC) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts) treated as per clinical practice. RegistEM study will provide epidemiological, pathological and clinical data, including treatments given for different disease stages. Understanding the real distribution of the different BC subtypes is the primary objective. Methods: This is a non-interventional cohort study enrolling approximately 1,400 pts with advanced disease diagnosed from January 2016 to December 2018, either after recurrence or as first diagnosis, in 38 Spanish sites. Biological samples (primary tumor, metastatic lesions, blood) are currently being collected. In this first analysis, we include 489 pts who met study criteria before October 31, 2017. All data are described in two subgroups: on the most recent tumor lesion or on the primary breast tumor. Results: At first diagnosis, 67.9%, 31.5% and 0.6% of pts had early BC (EBC), MBC and ULABC, respectively. In the total analysis population, median age at diagnosis of advanced disease was 59.6 years, most of pts were white (98.2%), female (99.4%) and postmenopausal (70%). Family history of BC and ovarian cancer was reported in 5.7% pts. In ~390 pts BC clinical subtypes distribution was luminal B(HER2-)-like (~55%), luminal B(HER2+)-like (~16%), luminal A-like or triple negative (TN) (~10% each) and HER2 enriched-like (~8%). Median time to recurrence (years) in EBC pts was: luminal A-like 5.8, luminal B(HER2-)-like 5.1, luminal B(HER2+)-like 3.9, HER2 enriched-like 2.7 and TN 1.7. Bone (59%), visceral (58%) and lymph node (27%) lesions were the most frequent metastatic locations. The two most frequent therapies in first line consisted in: endocrine therapy (ET) (47%) and ET+biological therapy (BT) (29%) for luminal A-like; ET (32%) and ET+BT (32%) for luminal B(HER2-)-like; chemotherapy (CT)+ET+BT (43%) and CT+BT (24%) for luminal B(HER2+)-like; CT+BT (68%) and CT (16%) for HER2 enriched-like; CT (59%) and CT+BT (34%) for TN. Conclusions: These first data confirm that luminal B (HER2-)-like subtype is the most predominant in MBC.

6582 Background: FDA advisory committees influence decisions relating to the regulatory approval of drugs in the United States. Little is known about whether ODAC members’ FCOIs affect the FDA’s on...

539 Background: Hormone receptor positive breast cancer is characterized by the potential for disease recurrence many years after initial diagnosis. Endocrine therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of such recurrence, but the optimal duration of endocrine therapy remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the relative and absolute benefits and harms of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (>5 years of therapy) compared with adjuvant tamoxifen (≤5 years of therapy). Odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), absolute risks, and the number needed to treat (NNT) were computed for pre-specified events including disease recurrence, distant recurrence, all-cause death, endometrial carcinoma, cardiovascular death and treatment discontinuation. Subgroup analyses by timing of recurrence and baseline lymph node and menopause status were carried out. Results: Six trials comprising 25,326 patients were included. Extended adjuvant tamoxifen was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of recurrence (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.04, p=0.14, NNT 74). Similar results were seen for distant recurrence (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-1.04, p=0.14, NNT 70). There was no association between extended adjuvant tamoxifen and all-cause death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.31, p=0.58). There was no reduction in risk during extended adjuvant therapy (i.e. between years 5 and 9), but a potential reduction in the risk of recurrence after completion of extended adjuvant tamoxifen (i.e. beyond 10 years after diagnosis). Subgroup analysis suggested benefit in lymph node positive patients. Endometrial carcinoma was substantially more frequent with extended adjuvant tamoxifen (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.45-2.25, p

550 Background: Obesity, commonly associated with inflammation, is associated with poor prognosis in BC. Previous research suggests CRP, an obesity-associated marker of systemic inflammation, may mediate the adverse prognostic effects of obesity and be associated with fatigue. We examined the association of hsCRP with obesity-related factors, fatigue and distant disease-free and overall survival (DDFS, OS) in an early BC cohort. Methods: 501 non-diabetic women with T1-3, N0-1, M0 BC diagnosed 1989-96 provided fasting blood (mean 7.7 ± 4.3 weeks after surgery, prior to systemic therapy, stored at -80°C) which was analyzed for hsCRP (Roche Elecsys immunochemistry). 359 women also completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 (mean 8 ± 3.9 weeks post-surgery). Women were followed prospectively to 2007. Data were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients (r) and Cox models. Results: Mean age was 50.5 ± 9.7 years; 282/159/24/36 subjects had T1/T2/T3/TX cancers; 350 were N0; 306 had ER+ and 278 PgR+ cancers (HER2 was not performed); 76/208/142 cancers were grade 1/2/3; adjuvant treatment involved radiation (369 subjects), chemotherapy (196), tamoxifen (107). Median hsCRP was 0.9 mg/L (25th/75th percentiles: 0.4/2.4 mg/L). hsCRP was correlated (all p < 0.0001) with age (r = 0.25), Body Mass Index (BMI, r = 0.6), insulin (r = 0.44), Homeostasis Model Assessment (r = 0.45) and leptin (r = 0.54), but not with EORTC fatigue (r = 0.02), T or N stage, grade or ER/PgR status (any + vs. both -). Median follow-up was 12 years. hsCRP was not associated with DDFS or OS in univariate analyses (Q4 vs. Q1 HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69-1.52, p = 0.9 and HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.86-1.86, p = 0.24 respectively) or multivariate analyses adjusting for age, T, N, grade, ER/PgR status, treatment (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.66-1.59, p = 0.93 and HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76-1.81, p = 0.48 respectively). Conclusions: hsCRP (measured post-op, prior to systemic therapy) was associated with age, BMI and obesity associated physiologic factors; it was not associated with fatigue, DDFS or OS. Funded by The Breast Cancer Research Foundation (New York), The Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (formerly The Canadian Breast Cancer Research Initiative).

10555 Background: There is growing evidence that topoisomerase II-alpha (TOPOIIα) is a marker for anthracycline-, and microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT) for taxane sensitivity. HER2 has been described as a marker of both anthracycline and taxane sensitivity.The goal of our study was to examine the predictive and prognostic value of TOPOIIα, MAPT and HER2 expression in breast cancer patients (pts) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) based on anthracycline-taxane regimens. We analyzed the relationship between these biomarkers and pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: Between November 1993-2009, 140 pts (mean age 52 years) with locally advanced breast cancer (T1-4, N0-3, M0) were retrospectively studied. The study contained 2 groups: group A included 85 pts who received NAC with an anthracycline-taxane regimen and group B included the last 55 pts who received NAC with only an anthracycline-based regimen. HER2 was tested by immunohistochemistry (IH) or FISH, TOPOIIα by CISH and MAPT by IH. Expression of these proteins was evaluated in core needle breast biopsy. Results: Overall, 12 pts (8.5%) had a pCR. TOPOIIα was amplified in 6 (4%) of the tumors. Among pts without amplification, 6 (4%) had deletion of the TOPOIIα, and 10 (7%) polysomia of chromosome 17. TOPOIIα gene aberrations (amplification, deletion, polysomia), which was present in 22 (25%) of the tumors, was a strong predictive factor for pCR (p=0.018) but showed no direct association with prognostic outcome in multivariate analysis. HER2 amplification, which was present in 16% (21) of the tumors, show no direct association with pCR, DFS or OS. Finally, differences by treatment arm or pCR in low versus high MAPT expression groups were not observed, indicating that MAPT is not a useful predictive marker for taxane-based chemotherapy. In multivariate analysis high MAPT expression was associated with longer DFS (p=0.002). Conclusions: TOPOIIα gene aberrations but not HER2 are highly predictive of pCR for anthracycline-based regimen. MAPT is not associated with response to taxanes but has a prognostic value.

1120 Background: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a widely used staging method for patients with early breast cancer. Neoadjuvant Therapy (NT) modifies the anatomical conditions in the breast and axilla, and thus reliability of SLNB after NT remains controversial. The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of this procedure in this particular group of patients. Methods: Between December 2007-2011, 69 patients (mean age 56 years) with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) were prospectively studied. Patients were T1-4, N0-1, M0. Prior to surgery, 61 patients received chemotherapy (CT) (adryamicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel) and 8 patients endocrine therapy (ET). Thirty nine patients were initially node-negative (cN0) and 30 patients had clinical/ultrasound node-positive confirmed by cytology (cN1) at presentation. All patients were clinical and ultrasound node-negative after NT. The study contained two groups of patients: group A (validation) included the first 29, associated with an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after NT, in order to validate the study, and group B included the last 40, only associated with an ALND when SLNB was positive or not found. Results: Whole SLNB identification rate was 89.9%, and no significant differences were found between patients initially cN0 (92%; 36/39) and initially cN1 (87%; 26/30). Four of 7 patients in whom SLNB was not found had residual nodal metastasis after NT (3 of them were initially cN1). Sentinel lymph nodes were successfully identified in 87% (7/8) of patients after ET and in 90% (55/61) of patients after CT. There was one false negative (FN) case after CT in group A (9% of overall false negative rate, initially cN0) and there were no FN cases after ET. Positive SLNB were higher in initially cN1 group (53%; 16/30) than in initially cN0 group (18%; 7/39). Conclusions: SLNB after NT (CT or ET) is safe and feasible in patients with LABC, not only in initially cN0 but also in initially cN1. It accurately predicts the status of the axilla and avoids unnecessary ALND.

e14552 Background: MEK/ERK pathway is considered one of the main controllers of cell proliferation and survival and its deregulation has been involved in several tumors. Different mechanisms have been described leading to ERK activation and nuclear translocation including mutations on genes encoding pathway constituents', or upstream factors overexpression. Little is known about the status of this pathway in GC. The aim of our study was to evaluate the expression of different factors of this pathway in GC and their correlation with patient outcome. Methods: Fifty-eight patients with localized stage Ib-III GC who underwent radical surgery followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected. ERK and its activated form (pERK) expression were analyzed by IHC, and KRAS and BRAF mutations were determined by PCR. Additionally, expression of upstream factors such as EGFR, HER2, VEGFR and downstream factor such as MST2 was evaluated by IHC. Finally, EGFR and HER2 copy number alterations were analyzed by FISH. Association of these markers to overall survival was assessed using the log rank test, and survival curves were plotted with Kaplan-Meier methodology. Results: Among the 58 tumors analyzed, 7% arose from the cardias and 33% corresponded to signet ring cell carcinomas. ERK and pERK expression was observed in the majority of tumors (86 and 64%, respectively, p=0.002). Cytoplasmic pERK expression did not show any association with the clinico-pathological characteristics. Notably, nuclear pERK (pERKnc) expression was observed in 12% of the cases and it showed a significant correlation with patient survival (p=0.05), conferring a worse prognosis. Moreover, EGFR overexpression (p=0.03) correlated with pERKnc. Finally, multivariate Cox analysis for survival confirmed that stage (HR 0.31, p=0.01) and pERKnc (HR 2.7, p=0.04) are unique independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: MEK/ERK pathway is commonly activated in localized GC, backed up by ERK and pERK being highly expressed in these tumors. Moreover, EGFR expression correlates with nuclear ERK expression, suggesting that ERK translocation to the nucleus could be mediated by this factor. More importantly, nuclear ERK has appeared as an independent marker of poor prognosis.

e20636 Background: Physicians and nurses had underestimated the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after both high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) (Grumberg, Cancer 2004;100:2261–8; Erazo Valle, Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2403–10). We have assessed if physicians and nurses’ perception of CNIV in their own practices after the introduction of Aprepitant was closer to reality. Methods: A prospective, observational unicenter study of adult patients receiving their first chemotherapy cycle was performed. Medical oncologists and oncology nurses also estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC. Eligible patients completed a 6-day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions. Results: Twenty-nine physicians and nurses and 95 patients (86.3% receiving HEC and 13.7%MEC) were recruited. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 2.4% respectively of HEC patients receiving Aprepitant, and delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 7.1% of these patients, respectively. Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute and delayed CINV after HEC patients receiving Aprepitant. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 22.2% and 0% respectively of MEC patients and delayed nausea and emesis in 33.3% and 22.2% of MEC patients, respectively. All physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of acute nausea and delayed nausea and emesis after MEC by 15, 28 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant in the prevention of CINV after HEC allows a better control of CINV that is perceived accurately by physicians and nurses. By contrary, physicians and nurses continue markedly underestimating the incidence of CINV after MEC. CINV still remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention and physicians and nurses must be aware about the real incidence of CNIV. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

21505 Background: Prognostic factors for GS used in available studies are the presence of metastasis, performance status and factors included in FIGO staging. The objective of this retrospective study was to analyze clinical and pathological prognostic factors, trying to improve the usual (FIGO) classification. Methods: We analyzed 75 patients with ovarian (11) or uterine sarcoma (64) diagnosed from 6/1983 to 12/2007. Pathology: 26 leiomyosarcoma, 35 carcinosarcoma, 10 endometrial stromal, 4 high-grade undifferentiated sarcoma. Results: Medium age was 57 (26–82) years. With a median follow-up of 30.4 months (6–305), 5-year and 10-year survival was 71% and 69%. Survival significant prognostic factors in the univariate analysis: histologic subtype (stromal 100%, leiomyo 69%, carcinosarcoma 64%, undifferentiated 50%, p=0.01); tumor grade (I=100%, II=80%, III=58%, p=0.0003); AJCC sarcoma staging (I=100%, II=71%, III=68%, IV=55%, p=0.005); FIGO staging (I=89%, II=67%, III=58%, IV=50%, p=0.004). Disease relapse...