Search

Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP’s contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU–generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and intermediate-term efficacy of percutaneous microwave (MW) ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all CRLM treated with MW ablation from 3/2011 to 7/2020 (102 tumors; 72 procedures; 57 patients). Mean age was 60 years (range, 36–88) and mean tumor size was 1.8 cm (range, 0.5–5.0 cm). The patient population included 19 patients with extra-hepatic disease. Chemotherapy (pre- and/or post-ablation) was given in 98% of patients. Forty-five sessions were preceded by other focal CRLM treatments including resection, ablation, radiation, and radioembolization. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) and multivariate analysis (Cox Proportional Hazards model) was used to test predictors of OS. RESULTS: Technical success (complete ablation) was 100% and median follow-up was 42 months (range, 1–112). There was a 4% major complication rate and an overall complication rate of 8%. Local tumor progression (LTP) rate during the entire study period was 4/98 (4%), in which 2 were retreated with MW ablation for a secondary LTP-rate of 2%. LTP-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 93%, 58%, and 39% and median LTP-free survival was 48 months. OS at 1, 3, and 5 years was 96%, 66%, 47% and median OS was 52 months. There were no statistically significant predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: MW ablation of hepatic colorectal liver metastases appears safe with excellent local tumor control and prolonged survival compared to historical controls in selected patients. Further comparative studies with other local treatment strategies appear indicated.

Background: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. Results: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center’s EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. Conclusions: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.

Introduction: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. Methods: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. Results: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. Conclusion: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.

Tumor heterogeneity is predicted to confer inferior clinical outcomes, however modeling heterogeneity in a manner that still represents the tumor of origin remains a formidable challenge. Sequencing technologies are limited in their ability to identify rare subclonal populations and predict response to the multitude of available treatments for patients. Patient-derived organotypic cultures have significantly improved the modeling of cancer biology by faithfully representing the molecular features of primary malignant tissues. Patient-derived cancer organoid (PCO) cultures contain numerous individual organoids with the potential to recapitulate heterogeneity, though PCOs are most commonly studied in bulk ignoring any diversity in the molecular profile or treatment response. Here we demonstrate the advantage of evaluating individual PCOs in conjunction with cellular level optical metabolic imaging to characterize the largely ignored heterogeneity within these cultures to predict clinical therapeutic response, identify subclonal populations, and determine patient specific mechanisms of resistance.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.

Purpose: Use of oral chemotherapy is expanding and offers advantages while posing unique safety challenges. ASCO and the Oncology Nursing Society jointly published safety standards for administering chemotherapy that offer a framework for improving oral chemotherapy practice at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Methods: With the goal of improving safety, quality, and uniformity within our oral chemotherapy practice, we conducted a gap analysis comparing our practice against ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society guidelines. Areas for improvement were addressed by multidisciplinary workgroups that focused on education, workflows, and information technology. Recommendations and process changes included defining chemotherapy, standardizing patient and caregiver education, mandating the use of comprehensive electronic order sets, and standardizing documentation for dose modification. Revised processes allow pharmacists to review all orders for oral chemotherapy, and they support monitoring adherence and toxicity by using a library of scripted materials. Results: Between August 2015 and January 2016, revised processes were implemented across the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center clinics. The following are key performance indicators: 92.5% of oral chemotherapy orders (n = 1,216) were initiated within comprehensive electronic order sets (N = 1,315), 89.2% compliance with informed consent was achieved, 14.7% of orders (n = 193) required an average of 4.4 minutes review time by the pharmacist, and 100% compliance with first-cycle monitoring of adherence and toxicity was achieved. Conclusion: We closed significant gaps between institutional practice and published standards for our oral chemotherapy practice and experienced steady improvement and sustainable performance in key metrics. We created an electronic definition of oral chemotherapies that allowed us to leverage our electronic health records. We believe our tools are broadly applicable.

Background KRAS mutations are clinically important predictors of resistance to EGFR-directed therapies in colorectal cancer (CRC). Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling cascade mediates proliferation independent of growth factor signaling. We hypothesized that targeting MEK with selumetinib could overcome resistance to cetuximab in KRAS mutant CRC. Methods A phase I study (NCT01287130) was undertaken to determine the tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of the combination of selumetinib and cetuximab, with an expanded cohort in KRAS-mutant CRC. Results 15 patients were treated in the dose escalation cohort and 18 patients were treated in the expansion cohort. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. One grade 3 acneiform rash and one grade 4 hypomagnesemia occurred. The most common grade 1 and 2 adverse events included rash, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. The maximum tolerated dose was established at selumetinib 75 mg PO BID and cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly following a 400 mg/m2 load. Best clinical response in the dose escalation group included 1 unconfirmed partial response in a patient with CRC and stable disease (SD) in 5 patients (1 squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil, 1 non-small cell lung cancer, and 3 CRC), and in the KRAS-mutant CRC dose expansion cohort, of the 14 patients who were evaluable for response, 5 patients had SD and 9 patients had progressive disease. Conclusions The combination of selumetinib and cetuximab is safe and well tolerated. Minimal anti-tumor activity was observed in KRAS-mutant refractory metastatic CRC. Further investigations might be warranted in other cancer subtypes.

Background RO4929097 is an oral inhibitor of γ -secretase that results in Notch signaling inhibition. Prior work has demonstrated that Notch signaling inhibition enhances chemotherapy sensitivity of cancer cells. This phase I study was conducted to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities and efficacy of RO4929097 and capecitabine in advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with refractory solid tumors received capecitabine at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily with escalating doses of RO4929097 on a 21-day cycle in a 3 + 3 design. Capecitabine was administered for 14 days and the RO49029097 once daily, 3 days per week, both for a 21 day cycle. Results Thirty patients were treated on six dose levels (20 to 150 mg). The maximally tolerated dose was not reached. One dose limiting toxicity was observed at each level 3 through 6 (hypophosphatemia, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting). Three confirmed partial responses were observed: two patients with fluoropyrimide-refractory colon cancer and one patient with cervical cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was demonstrated with increasing dose levels and duration. Conclusions The recommended phase 2 dose is capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1 through 14 with RO4929097 20 mg orally once daily on days 1–3, 8–10 and 15–17 with a 21 day cycle. Clinical benefit was observed in cervical and colon cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was seen both with increasing cycle number and increasing dose. Plasma concentrations of RO4929097 were above those needed for Notch inhibition.

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

Purpose: Pazopanib is a potent, multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor; however, there is limited information regarding the effects of liver function on pazopanib metabolism and pharmacokinetics. The objective of this study was to establish the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and pharmacokinetic profile of pazopanib in patients with varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction. Experimental Design: Patients with any solid tumors or lymphoma were stratified into four groups based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria. Pazopanib was given orally once a day on a 21-day cycle. A modified 3+3 design was used. Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled. Patients in the mild group tolerated 800 mg per day. The moderate and severe groups tolerated 200 mg per day. Pharmacokinetic data in the mild group were similar to the data in the normal group. Comparison of the median Cmax and area under the curve [AUC(0–24)] in the moderate or severe groups at 200 mg per day to the values in the normal and mild groups at 800 mg per day indicated less than dose–proportional systemic exposures in patients with moderate and severe hepatic impairment. This suggests that the lower maximum-tolerated dose in the moderate and severe group is not due to a decrease in drug clearance or alteration in the proportion of metabolites. Conclusions: In patients with mild liver dysfunction, pazopanib is well tolerated at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved dose of 800 mg per day. Patients with moderate and severe liver dysfunction tolerated 200 mg per day. Clin Cancer Res; 19(13); 3631–9. ©2013 AACR.

As treatment strategies for patients with colorectal cancer advance, there has now become an ever-increasing need for multidisciplinary teams to care for these patients. Recent investigations into the timing and duration of perioperative therapy, as well as, the rise of molecular profiling have led to more systemic chemotherapeutic options. The most efficacious use, in terms of timing and patient selection, of these therapies in the setting of modern operative and radiotherapy techniques requires the generation of care teams discussing cases at multidisciplinary conferences. This review highlights the role of multidisciplinary team conferences, advances in perioperative chemotherapy, current clinical biomarkers, and emerging therapeutic agents for molecular subtypes of metastatic colon cancer. As our understanding of relevant molecular subtypes increases and as data becomes available on treatment response, the treatment of colorectal cancer will become more precise and effective.

Purpose: The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib undergoes oxidative hepatic metabolism. This study (NCI-6432; NCT00091117) was conducted to evaluate bortezomib pharmacokinetics and safety in patients with varying degrees of hepatic impairment, to inform dosing recommendations in these special populations. Experimental Design: Patients received bortezomib on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles. Patients were assigned to four hepatic function groups based on the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group classification. Those with normal function received bortezomib at the 1.3 mg/m2 standard dose. Patients with severe, moderate, and mild impairment received escalating doses from 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 mg/m2, respectively, up to a 1.3 mg/m2 maximum. Serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours postdose on days 1 and 8, cycle 1, for bortezomib plasma concentration measurements. Results: Sixty-one patients were treated, including 14 with normal hepatic function and 17, 12, and 18 with mild, moderate, and severe impairment, respectively. Mild hepatic impairment did not alter dose-normalized bortezomib exposure (AUC0-tlast) or Cmax compared with patients with normal function. Mean dose-normalized AUC0-tlast was increased by approximately 60% on day 8 in patients with moderate or severe impairment. Conclusions: Patients with mild hepatic impairment do not require a starting dose adjustment of bortezomib. Patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment should be started at a reduced dose of 0.7 mg/m2. Clin Cancer Res; 18(10); 2954–63. ©2012 AACR.

To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and maximum tolerated dose of bortezomib in patients with renal impairment and to develop dosing guidelines for such a patient population.Sixty-two adult cancer patients received intravenous bortezomib at 0.7-1.5 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by 24-h creatinine clearance (CrCl) normalized to body surface area (BSA) 1.73 m(2) into five cohorts: normal renal function (≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); mild dysfunction (40-59 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); moderate dysfunction (20-39 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); severe dysfunction (20 ml/min/1.73 m(2)); and dialysis. Dose escalation was planned for the four cohorts with renal dysfunction. Plasma bortezomib concentrations and blood 20S proteasome inhibition were assayed.Bortezomib escalation to the standard 1.3 mg/m(2) dose was well tolerated in all patients with CrCl ≥ 20 ml/min/1.73 m(2); 0.7 mg/m(2) was tolerated in three patients with severe renal dysfunction (20 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Bortezomib dose escalation was well tolerated in nine dialysis patients, including to 1.3 mg/m(2) in four patients. Decreased CrCl did not affect bortezomib pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. Bortezomib-related side-effects were neither more common nor severe in patients with renal dysfunction versus those with normal renal function.Bortezomib 1.3 mg/m(2) is well tolerated, and dose reductions are not necessary in patients with renal dysfunction. Extrapolation from clinical and pharmacologic data suggests patients with severe renal dysfunction, including dialysis patients, can receive bortezomib at the full dose established to be clinically effective in the general patient population.

Purpose: To characterize the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxaliplatin in cancer patients with impaired renal function. Experimental Design: Thirty-four patients were stratified by 24-h urinary creatinine clearance (CrCL) into four renal dysfunction groups: group A (control, CrCL, ≥60 mL/min), B (mild, CrCL, 40-59 mL/min), C (moderate, CrCL, 20-39 mL/min), and D (severe, CrCL, Results: Plasma ultrafiltrate platinum clearance strongly correlated with CrCL (r2 = 0.712). Platinum elimination from plasma was triphasic, and maximal platinum concentrations (Cmax) were consistent across all renal impairment groups. However, only the β-half-life was significantly prolonged by renal impairment, with values of 14.0 ± 4.3, 20.3 ± 17.7, 29.2 ± 29.6, and 68.1 h in groups A, B, C, and D, respectively (P = 0.002). At a dose level of 130 mg/m2, the area under the concentration time curve increased in with the degree of renal impairment, with values of 16.4 ± 5.03, 39.7 ± 11.5, and 44.6 ± 14.6 μg·h/mL, in groups A, B, and C, respectively. However, there was no increase in pharmacodynamic drug-related toxicities. Estimated CrCL using the Cockcroft-Gault method approximated the measured 24-h urinary CrCL (mean prediction error, −5.0 mL/min). Conclusions: Oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics are altered in patients with renal impairment, but a corresponding increase in oxaliplatin-related toxicities is not observed.

Purpose: To determine the toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and maximally tolerated doses of oxaliplatin in patients with hepatic impairment and to develop formal guidelines for oxaliplatin dosing in this patient population. Experimental Design: Sixty adult cancer patients with variable hepatic function received i.v. oxaliplatin ranging from 60 to 130 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Patients were stratified by levels of total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and alkaline phosphatase (AP) into five cohorts based on the degree of hepatic dysfunction: control group A [bilirubin, AST, and AP ≤ upper limit of normal (ULN)], mild dysfunction group B (bilirubin ≤ ULN, ULN < AST ≤ 2.5 × ULN, or ULN < AP ≤ 5 × ULN), moderate dysfunction group C (ULN < bilirubin ≤ 3.0 mg/dL, AST > 2.5 × ULN, or AP > 5 × ULN), severe dysfunction group D (bilirubin > 3.0 mg/dL, any AST, and any AP), and liver transplantation group E (any bilirubin, any AST, and any AP). Doses were escalated in cohorts of three patients, and urine and plasma ultrafiltrates were assayed for platinum concentrations. Results: Dose escalation of single-agent oxaliplatin to 130 mg/m2 was well tolerated in all cohorts. Platinum clearance did not correlate with any liver function test. Two of 56 assessable patients with a diagnosis of laryngeal carcinoma and cervical adenocarcinoma experienced partial responses lasting 3 and 5.5 months. Conclusions: Oxaliplatin at 130 mg/m2 every 3 weeks was well tolerated in all patients with impaired liver function. Dose reductions of single-agent oxaliplatin are not indicated in patients with hepatic dysfunction.

When considering treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), molecular profiling has become a pivotal component in guiding clinical decisions. FOLFOX and FOLFIRI (fluorouracuil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or ininotecan, respectively) are the standard base regimens used for the treatment of mCRC. Biologic agents, such as the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapies, cetuximab and panitumumab and the vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, are safe and effective in the first-line setting. The most efficacious use of these agents in terms of timing and selection of the right patient population continues to be debated. Here we review multiple investigations into the effectiveness of treatment options as a function of the mutations present in colon cancers. Early studies have reported that KRAS mutations at exon 2 predict resistance to EGFR targeted therapies. More recently the data have expanded to include KRAS mutations at exons 3 and 4 and NRAS mutations at exons 2, 3 and 4 as well as other biomarkers including BRAF and PIK3CA, leading to the evolution of the treatment of mCRC to a more precision-based approach. As our understanding of relevant biomarkers increases, and data from both molecular profiling and treatment response become more readily available, treatment options will become more precise and their outcomes more effective.

Background The objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of LR-103, a Vitamin D analogue, in patients with advanced cancer. Methods In Step A, patients received oral LR-103 once daily in 14-day cycles with intra-patient dose escalation per accelerated dose escalation design. Dose limiting toxicity for Step A was defined as ≥grade 2 hypercalcemia and/or >grade 2 other toxicities. Starting dose was 5 µg/day. Step B used a 3+3 design starting at Step A maximum tolerated dose with 28-day cycles. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as ≥grade 3 hypercalcemia or any grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity, except hypercalciuria. Results Twenty-one patients were enrolled; eight were treated in Step A. At dose level 3 (15 µg/day), two patients had dose limiting toxicity. One had grade 4 hyperuricemia. The other had grade 4 GGT plus grade 3 alkaline phosphatase, fatigue and urinary tract infection (UTI). Dose level 2 (10 µg/day) was the maximum tolerated dose for Step A and was starting dose for Step B. The dose was escalated to dose level 5 (30 µg/day) with a patient experiencing grade 3 dose limiting toxicity of hypercalcemia. The study was discontinued before reaching the maximum tolerated dose due to sponsor decision. Modest increases in serum osteocalcin and calcium and decrease in parathyroid hormone were noted. Best response was stable disease; four patients were on therapy for six months or longer. Conclusion Step A dose limiting toxicities limited accelerated dose escalation. The maximum tolerated dose of LR-103 was not reached prior to study termination and this agent is no longer being developed.

Chemotherapy has yielded minimal clinical benefit in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. A high-dose, short course capecitabine schedule with oxaliplatin, has shown some efficacy with a lower incidence of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Achieving high exposures of the targeted agent sorafenib may be possible with this shorter schedule of capecitabine by avoiding dermatologic toxicity. All patients had pancreatic or biliary tract cancer. Patients in both cohorts received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 followed by capecitabine 2250 mg/m2 PO every 8 hours × 6 doses starting on days 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle, or 2DOC (2 Day Oxaliplatin/Capecitabine). Cohort 1 used sorafenib 200 mg BID, and cohort 2 used sorafenib 400 mg BID. Sixteen patients were enrolled. Across all cycles the most common grade 1 or 2 adverse events were fatigue (10 pts), diarrhea (10 pts), nausea (9 pts), vomiting (8 pts), sensory neuropathy (8 pts), thrombocytopenia (7 pts), neutropenia (5 pts), and hand-foot syndrome (5 pts). Grade 3 toxicites included neutropenia, mucositis, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea. Cohort 1 represented the MTD. Two partial responses were seen, one each in pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. The recommended phase II dose of sorafenib in combination with 2DOC is 200 mg BID. There were infrequent grade 3 toxicities, most evident with sorafenib at 400 mg BID.

Lessons Learned Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors versus carcinoid tumors should be examined separately in clinical trials. Progression-free survival is more clinically relevant as the primary endpoint (rather than response rate) in phase II trials for low-grade neuroendocrine tumors. Background. The most common subtypes of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are pancreatic islet cell tumors and carcinoids, which represent only 2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have already been shown to suppress tumor growth and induce apoptosis in various malignancies. In NET cells, HDAC inhibitors have resulted in increased Notch1 expression and subsequent inhibition of growth. We present here a phase II study of the novel HDAC inhibitor panobinostat in patients with low-grade NET. Methods. Adult patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic, low-grade NETs and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 were treated with oral panobinostat 20 mg once daily three times per week. Treatment was continued until patients experienced unacceptable toxicities or disease progression. The study was stopped at planned interim analysis based on a Simon two-stage design. Results. Fifteen patients were accrued, and 13 were evaluable for response. No responses were seen, but the stable disease rate was 100%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.9 months, and the median overall survival was 47.3 months. Fatigue (27%), thrombocytopenia (20%), diarrhea (13%), and nausea (13%) were the most common related grade 3 toxicities. There was one grade 4 thrombocytopenia (7%). These results did not meet the prespecified criteria to open the study to full accrual. Conclusion. The HDAC inhibitor panobinostat has a high stable disease rate and reasonable PFS in low-grade NET, but has a low response rate.

The University of Wisconsin Chemotherapy Council (UWCC) monitors the uniformity and appropriateness of chemotherapy administration at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics through a peer-review process. One aspect involves approval of "patient specific requests" (PSRs) that involve treatments not included in the institution's core regimens. Providers are asked to submit published evidence, information regarding pt. comorbidities, and clinical justification to support the application. However there is no current stipulation regarding demonstration of value, although implicit in this review process is to avoid futile, expensive or potentially harmful treatments. Given the ever burgeoning chemotherapeutic choices available for patients with any stage of disease, and the complexity of selecting an optimal therapeutic regimen, we hypothesized that some approved PSRs might have provided limited benefit to the pts who received them. Therefore, we undertook an analysis of PSRs specifically submitted for patients with leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM) between 1/1/2011 and 7/31/2014 to exam reasons for the submission as well as outcomes after the new therapy was initiated. METHODS: A total of 307 PSRs were reviewed by the UWCCC during this time period. Forty-one were specifically submitted and approved for patients with leukemia or MM. Reason for PSR, status at initiation, previous transplant, and days of hospitalization after PSR and 1 year survival were calculated. Table 1.DiagnosisNumberStatus at time of PSRPrevious TransplantMedian No previous regimensReason for PSR submissionPSR RegimenMean Survival After PSR starts1 yr. survivalAML, relapsed 8Refractory relapse88%3No SOC1Various236d (range 88-575d)12%AML, other2Remission01Nonstandard Transplant regimenTransplant regimen533 d100%CML, relapsed2RefractoryNo3Failed all previous regimensTransplant regimen289d50%ALL, newly diagnosed5UntreatedNA0Adult treated on pediatric regimen (n=3); elderly (n=2)Various551d (range 365-981d)100%ALL, relapsed5Relapsed20%3 (range 1-8)No SOC1CVP2, TKI3 based;, BFM4408d (range 167-735d)40%MM15Relapsed, refractory (n=15) 100%73% (auto)7 (range 2-10)Not core regimen (n=13) Rare subtype(n=2)PCP5 (n=3); CRD6 (n-4) other272 d ( range 74-661)60%APL4untreatedN/AN/ANot Core RegimenATRA/Arsenic, other788d (range 692-910d)100% 1SOC; 2cyclophosphamide, vincristine prednisone; 3tyrosine kinase inhibitor; 4Berlin/Frankfurt/Munich; 5Pomalidomide, cyclophosphamide, prednisone; 6carfilzomib, lenalidomide dexamethasone RESULTS: A total of 41 PSRs were examined. The most common reasons for submission of the PSR was request for a non-core regimen including a recently FDA approved use of an agent (n= 11); no current SOC established (n=13); salvage therapy with older regimen ((n=2). Median 1 yr. survival varied from 12% to 100% depending on diagnosis. Not surprisingly, APL pts displayed the best overall survival, followed by AML, transplanted with a nonstandard conditioning regimen. AML patients relapsing after previous allogeneic transplant had the worst survival, regardless of salvage regimen; only 1 pt. survived longer than 6 months. The median length of hospital stay in these patients following start of PSR was 43 d (range 14-54). Relapsed ALL pts also fared poorly, with 1 year survival of 40% and median days of hospitalization after PSR of 48d (range 0-117). Relapsed refractory MM pts had a variable outcome, with some pts surviving more than 3 years and others for only several months. CONCLUSION: Use of peer reviewed PSRs resulted in reasonable outcomes in most patients with leukemia and myeloma. However, pts with AML relapsing after allogeneic transplant and those with relapsed ALL fared particularly poorly despite treatment with a peer reviewed treatment plan, presumably chosen for best outcome. Furthermore, these salvage treatments were associated with lengthy hospital stays. Such patients are unlikely to benefit from any currently available regimens and may be more appropriately considered for clinical trials or supportive/ palliative care at time of relapse. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

BACKGROUND Satraplatin is an oral platinum analog with demonstrated activity in a range of malignancies. The current study was designed to evaluate the effect of varying degrees of renal impairment on the safety and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of satraplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced solid tumors, refractory to standard therapies, were eligible. The study included four cohorts of patients with varying levels of renal function, and eight patients per cohort: Group 1 (G1) = normal renal function; G2 = mild renal impairment [creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50-80 ml/min]; G3 = moderate impairment (CrCl 30 to

Introduction. Notch1 has been shown to be a tumor suppressor in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Previous in vitro studies in NET cell lines have also suggested that valproic acid (VPA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, can induce Notch1 and that Notch1 activation correlates with a decrease in tumor markers for NETs. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the role of VPA in treating NETs and to determine whether VPA induced the Notch signaling pathway signaling in vivo. Patients and Methods. Eight patients with low-grade NETs (carcinoid and pancreatic) were treated with 500 mg of oral VPA twice a day with dosing adjusted to maintain a goal VPA level between 50 and 100 μg/mL. All patients were followed for 12 months or until disease progression. Results. Notch1 signaling was absent in all tumors prior to treatment and was upregulated with VPA. One patient had an unconfirmed partial response and was noted to have a 40-fold increase in Notch1 mRNA levels. Four patients had stable disease as best response. Tumor markers improved in 5 out of 7 patients. Overall, treatment with VPA was well tolerated. Conclusion. VPA activates Notch1 signaling in vivo and may have a role in treating low-grade NETs.

Background. Low-grade neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) respond poorly to chemotherapy; effective, less toxic therapies are needed. Glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3β has been shown to regulate growth and hormone production in NETs. Use of lithium chloride in murine models suppressed carcinoid cell growth, reduced GSK-3β levels, and reduced expression of chromogranin A. This study assessed the efficacy of lithium chloride in patients with NETs. Design. Eligible patients had low-grade NETs. A single-arm, open-label phase II design was used. Lithium was dosed at 300 mg orally three times daily, titrated to serum levels of 0.8–1.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, GSK-3β phosphorylation, and toxicity. Results. Fifteen patients were enrolled between October 3, 2007 and July 17, 2008, six men and nine women. The median age was 58 years. Patient diagnoses were carcinoid tumor for eight patients, islet cell tumor for five patients, and two unknown primary sites. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores were 0 or 1. Two patients came off study because of side effects. The median progression-free survival interval was 4.50 months. There were no radiographic responses. Because of an early stopping rule requiring at least one objective response in the first 13 evaluable patients, the study was closed to further accrual. Patients had pre- and post-therapy biopsies. Conclusions. Lithium chloride was ineffective at obtaining radiographic responses in our 13 patients who were treated as part of this study. Based on the pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies, lithium did not potently inhibit GSK-3β at serum levels used to treat bipolar disorders.

Purpose We present the results of a randomized multicenter clinical trial of adjuvant zoledronic acid (ZA) in postmenopausal women with high-risk breast cancer. The primary objective was change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck at 1 year. Secondary objectives included change in calcaneal BMD, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Patients and Methods Postmenopausal women with stage II/III breast cancer diagnosed up to 5 years previous were eligible and randomized to either observation or ZA 4 mg intravenous every 3 months. Bone mineral density testing was performed at 0, 6, and 12 months. Results Sixty-eight women were enrolled (36 ZA and 32 observation). The population was a median of 2 years from diagnosis and the majority received tamoxifen during the study. There was a significant difference in the mean change from baseline to 1 year follow-up for lumbar spine (increased by 4.28% ± 0.62%; P = .01), total femur (increased by 1.9% ± 0.4%; P = .03), trochanter (increased by 2.97% ± 0.69%; P = .03), and calcaneal BMD (increased by 2% ± 0.57%; P = .01) in favor of the ZA arm. No significant difference in the mean change for the femoral neck was seen. No significant differences in DFS or OS were observed. Conclusion Zoledronic acid significantly improved the BMD at multiple skeletal sites in postmenopausal women largely on tamoxifen. No new safety signals were noted. There were insufficient events to comment on DFS or OS.

Capecitabine has shown similar efficacy to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU); a regimen containing 2 weeks of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx) has demonstrated noninferiority to infusional 5-FU/oxaliplatin/leucovorin (FOLFOX) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II study explores the efficacy and safety of a 2-day course of oxaliplatin/capecitabine (2DOC), with oxaliplatin given on day 1 and capecitabine given orally every 8 hours in high doses over 6 doses, mimicking FOLFOX6.This phase II study was conducted by the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center. Eligible patients with mCRC received oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) over 2 hours followed by leucovorin 20 mg/m2 I.V. bolus and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 I.V. bolus on day 1 and day 15. Capecitabine was administered at 1500 mg/m2 orally every 8 hours over 6 doses starting on day 1 and day 15.A total of 45 patients were enrolled; 44 were evaluated for response. Seventeen patients (39%) had objective responses. Median time to progression was 6.8 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 17.5 months. The most common side effects were grade 1/2 neuropathy, fatigue, and nausea. Severe hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was rare.The overall response rate with the 2DOC regimen is similar to published CapOx regimens, and time to progression and OS are similar. The incidence of HFS, diarrhea, and mucositis were lower compared with published results of 2-week schedules of capecitabine. The 2DOC regimen merits further study as a more convenient regimen than infusional 5-FU with less HFS when compared with a 2-week administration of capecitabine.

Background: A phase I study of high-dose capecitabine given over 2 days, along with oxaliplatin, bolus 5FU and leucovorin (LV), was designed to simulate FOLFOX6 without the need for infusional 5FU. Methods: Schedule A included oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2, 5FU 400 mg/m2, and LV 20 mg/m2 (all given IV on days 1 and 15, 28 day cycle). Capecitabine was administered orally every 8 h × 6 doses, days 1 and 15. Schedule B excluded 5FU and LV, maintaining oxaliplatin and capecitabine. Pharmacokinetics were performed for capecitabine for 6 patients on each schedule. Results: 36 patients were treated. The dose-limiting toxicities seen included nausea, dehydration, fatigue, hypotension and confusion. Minimal palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia was seen. Myelosuppression was common, but not a dose limiting toxicity. The pharmacokinetic parameters for capecitabine were unaltered. Conclusion: Using capecitabine to mimic FOLFOX6 is feasible and well tolerated with a toxicity profile that differs from standard 14-day capecitabine dosing, with less palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. The phase II dose for capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin, 5FU, and LV is 1,500 mg/m2/dose or 2,250 mg/m2/dose in the absence of bolus 5FU/LV.

To define dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of capecitabine with fixed-dose rate (FDR) gemcitabine.Eligible adults (advanced solid tumor; performance statusor=2) received capecitabine 500 mg/m(2) PO BID days 1-14 and FDR gemcitabine (400-1,000 mg/m(2) escalated by 200 mg/m(2) increments) at 10 mg/m(2)/min days 1 and 8 on a 21-day cycle. A traditional 3 + 3 cohort design was used to determine the MTD.Thirty patients (median age 59 years) were enrolled. The predominant gradeor=3 toxicity was myelosuppression, particularly neutropenia. At dose level 4 (1,000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), two out of five evaluable patients had a DLT (grade 4 neutropeniaor=7 days). At dose level 3 (800 mg/m(2) gemcitabine), one patient had a DLT (grade 3 neutropeniaor=7 days) among six evaluable patients. Therefore, the MTD and recommended phase II dose was designated as capecitabine 500 mg/m(2) PO BID days 1-14 with 800 mg/m(2) FDR gemcitabine days 1 and 8 infused at 10 mg/m(2) per min on a 21-day cycle. Partial responses occurred in pretreated patients with esophageal, renal cell and bladder carcinomas.This regimen was well tolerated and may deserve evaluation in advanced gastrointestinal and genitourinary carcinomas.

Purpose: To assess the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of continuous weekly-administered paclitaxel and BMS-214662, a novel farnesyl transferase inhibitor. Experimental Design: Patients were treated every week as tolerated with i.v. paclitaxel (fixed dose, 80 mg/m2/wk) administered over 1 h followed by i.v. BMS-214662 (escalating doses, 80–245 mg/m2/wk) over 1 h starting 30 min after completion of paclitaxel. Results: Twenty-six patients received 94 courses (one course, 21 days) of study treatment. Two patients received five courses of BMS-214662 as a weekly 24-h infusion (209 mg/m2/wk). The most common toxicities were grade 1 to 2 nausea/vomiting and/or diarrhea. DLTs observed at or near the MTD (200 mg/m2/wk) were grade 4 febrile neutropenia with sepsis occurring on day 2 of course 1 (245 mg/m2/wk), reversible grade 3 to 4 serum transaminase increases on day 2, and grade 3 diarrhea (200 and 245 mg/m2/wk). Objective partial responses were observed in patients with pretreated head and neck, ovarian, and hormone-refractory prostate carcinomas, and leiomyosarcoma. The observed pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel and BMS-214662 imply no interaction between the two. Significant inhibition (>80%) of farnesyl transferase activity in peripheral mononuclear cells was observed at the end of BMS-214662 infusion. Conclusions: Pretreated patients with advanced malignancies can tolerate weekly paclitaxel and BMS-214662 at doses that achieve objective clinical benefit. Due to multiple DLTs occurring at the expanded MTD, the recommended phase 2 dose and schedule is paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 over 1 h) and BMS-214662 (160 mg/m2 over 1 h) administered weekly.

It has previously been reported by the authors that the induction of a series of cytokines by 41.8 degrees C Whole Body Hyperthermia (WBH), i.e., interleukin (IL)-1 beta, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, tumour necrosis factor alpha, and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). As cytokine levels are known to fluctuate as a function of time, i.e. circadian rhythm, the influence of circadian time structure on specific haemotopoetic growth factors is studied, i.e. granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), G-CSF and IL-3. Samples derived from four cancer patients undergoing extracorporeal WBH resulted in the following observations: G-CSF is induced by WBH, but unaffected by circadian rhythm, IL-3 fluctuates with circadian rhythm, but is unaffected by WBH. Specifically, a biphasic temporal pattern of IL-3 (i.e. with a peak at 2:00 and 5:00 a.m. and a nadir concentration at 5:00 p.m.) was found by analysis of variance. GM-CSF was below the lower detection limit pre and post WBH. The data show the importance of measuring cytokines as a function of time to circumvent conflicting results in the inter-relationship of 'true' cytokine induction and circadian rhythm. The implications of the differential induction of G-CSF, GM-CSF, and IL-3 for myeloprotection after WBH are discussed.

Abstract 3975 Background: Bortezomib (btz, VELCADE®) is approved in the US for the treatment of patients (pts) with multiple myeloma, and for the treatment of pts with mantle cell lymphoma who have received at least one prior therapy. Btz is oxidatively metabolized by hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes to pharmacologically inactive deboronated metabolites. Thus, btz pharmacokinetics (PK) may be altered in pts with hepatic impairment (HI). This phase 1 study was undertaken to evaluate the PK and safety of btz in pts with varying grades of HI and to inform dosing recommendations in these subpopulations. Here we present the available interim results. Methods: Pts with advanced malignancies were assigned to four groups based on hepatic function (bilirubin and aspartate aminotransferase [AST] levels relative to the upper limit of normal [ULN]) using the classification developed for organ dysfunction studies by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Normal function was defined as bilirubin and AST ≤ULN. Pts with mild HI had bilirubin ≤ULN and AST >ULN, or bilirubin >1.0–1.5 × ULN (with any AST). Moderate and severe HI were defined as bilirubin >1.5–3 × ULN and >3 × ULN, respectively, with any AST. Pts received btz on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of 21-day cycles. Pts with normal hepatic function received btz at the standard dose of 1.3 mg/m2. Pts with severe, moderate, and mild HI received escalating doses of btz from starting doses of 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 mg/m2, respectively, via a standard 3+3 design to 1.3 mg/m2. Serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours post-dose on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 for measurement of btz plasma concentrations. Individual values of dose-normalized (DN) area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to the point of last quantifiable concentration (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) were calculated by noncompartmental analysis. PK parameters were summarized by hepatic function and subject to an analysis of variance to estimate the ratio of geometric means and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for each HI group relative to the control group. Results: A total of 53 pts were treated, 14 with normal hepatic function, and 16, 9, and 14 with mild, moderate, and severe HI, respectively. Median age was 62 years (range 30–85), 53% were female, 94% were white, and 11/58/30% had ECOG performance status 0/1/2. Dose escalation proceeded to 1.3 mg/m2 in pts with mild HI; data collection is ongoing at 1.0 mg/m2 in pts with moderate and severe HI. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (53%), nausea (42%), and dyspnea (32%). For most AEs, no association was apparent between increased incidence and poorer hepatic function; the incidence of elevated AST was 7, 25, 33, and 36% in the normal group and mild, moderate, and severe HI groups, respectively. PK data were available for 51 pts. Geometric mean DN AUC was 30.2, 23.0, 50.3, and 47.7 (ng.hr/mL)/(mg/m2) on day 1 and 52.2, 51.9, 83.4, and 80.3 (ng.hr/mL)/(mg/m2) on day 8 in pts with normal hepatic function and mild, moderate, and severe HI, respectively. Respective values for geometric mean DN Cmax were 56.7, 38.2, 66.0, and 84.2 (ng/mL)/(mg/m2) on day 1, and 88.9, 79.6, 59.2, and 96.1 (ng/mL)/(mg/m2) on day 8. Geometric least square mean ratios for DN AUC and DN Cmax between groups are shown in the table. Compared to pts with normal hepatic function, mild HI did not alter DN AUC and DN Cmax. However, mean DN AUC was increased by approximately 60% in pts with moderate or severe HI. Conclusions: Pts with mild HI do not require a starting dose adjustment and should be treated per the recommended dose of btz. Pts with moderate or severe HI should be started at a reduced dose of 0.7 mg/m2 during the first cycle, and a subsequent dose escalation to 1.0 mg/m2 or further dose reduction to 0.5 mg/m2 may be considered based on pt tolerance. These data have resulted in an update to the US Prescribing Information for VELCADE®. Comparison vs normal Geometric least square mean ratio (90% CI) Day 1 Day 8 DN AUC Mild HI 0.833 (0.603–1.151) 0.954 (0.664–1.371) Moderate HI 1.662 (1.136–2.430) 1.538 (0.969–2.440) Severe HI 1.578 (1.139–2.186) 1.477 (1.046–2.085) Average of moderate/severe HI 1.619 (1.199–2.186) 1.507 (1.075–2.113) DN Cmax Mild HI 0.697 (0.446–1.090) 0.879 (0.528–1.463) Moderate HI 1.162 (0.688–1.962) 0.612 (0.318–1.178) Severe HI 1.483 (0.947–2.323) 1.023 (0.633–1.653) Average of moderate/severe HI 1.313 (0.868–1.986) 0.791 (0.493–1.271) Disclosures: Venkatakrishnan: Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment. Off Label Use: Discussion of Velcade in patients with advanced non-hematologic malignancies is included. Takimoto:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neuwirth:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Parasuraman:Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. LoRusso:Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.