Search

Highlights • Complete resection is a potentially curative treatment for pancreatic cancer. • This report studies neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiation. • The addition of radiation was associated with improved complete resection rates. • The addition of radiation was associated with improved pathologic down staging., Purpose Margin-negative (R0) resection is the only potentially curative treatment for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Pre-operative multi-agent chemotherapy alone (MAC) or MAC followed by pre-operative radiotherapy (MAC + RT) may be used to improve resectability and potentially survival. However, the optimal pre-operative regimen is unknown. Methods Patients with non-metastatic PDAC from 2006 to 2016 who received pre-operative MAC or MAC + RT before oncologic resection were identified in the National Cancer Database. Univariable and multivariable (MVA) associates with R0 resection were identified with logistic regression, and survival was analyzed secondarily with the Kaplan Meier method and Cox regression analysis. Results 4,599 patients were identified (MAC: 3,109, MAC + RT: 1,490). Compared to those receiving MAC, patients receiving MAC + RT were more likely to have cT3-4 disease (76% vs 64%, p

Background TAS-102, a novel antimetabolite, is approved for treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study sought to determine whether the addition of TAS-102 to oxaliplatin (TAS-OX) was safe and effective in metastatic CRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. Methods This investigator-initiated, open-label, single-arm phase 1b study enrolled patients with metastatic CRC previously treated with 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin. In dose escalation, TAS-102 was given at 3 dose levels: 25, 30, and 35 mg/m2 twice daily on day 1 to day 5 with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of dose escalation was the recommended dose for expansion, and in dose expansion, the primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1). Results Forty-one patients were treated with TAS-OX. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in the 11 patients treated in escalation. The recommended dose for expansion was 35 mg/m2 TAS-102 twice daily on day 1 to day 5 in combination with 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 in 14-day cycles. In the intention-to-treat population, the ORR was 2.4% (95% CI, 0%-12.9%) with 1 of 41 patients having a partial response, although 12 (29%) had tumor shrinkage. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.4-4.8 months) and median overall survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7-10 months). Conclusions TAS-OX is safe with no unexpected toxicities at standard doses of each agent. The combination did not result in a clinically meaningful ORR, although progression-free survival and overall survival were encouraging in this heavily pretreated population. Lay summary For metastatic colorectal cancer, the treatment combination of TAS-102 and oxaliplatin was found to be well-tolerated and revealed no unexpected side effects. Twelve of 41 patients had reductions in the size of their tumor, and the study treatment delayed the time to tumor growth as opposed to what would be expected.

PURPOSE Pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) degrades hyaluronan (HA) and, in combination with chemotherapy, prolongs survival in preclinical models. The activity of PEGPH20 with modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) was evaluated in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients had untreated mPC, a performance status of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function. Tumor HA status was not required for eligibility. After a phase Ib dose-finding study of mFOLFIRINOX plus PEGPH20, the phase II open-label study randomly assigned patients (1:1) to the combination arm or to mFOLFIRINOX alone (n = 138). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS PEGPH20 dosages of 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks were more tolerable than twice-weekly dosages used in the phase I study, so 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks was the phase II dosage. An amendment instituted enoxaparin prophylaxis in the PEGPH20 combination arm as a result of increased thromboembolic (TE) events. The planned interim futility analysis when 35 deaths (of 103 analyzable patients) occurred resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 2.07 that favored the control arm, and the study was closed to accrual. The treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity was significantly increased in the PEGPH20 combination arm relative to control (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.1). The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX arm was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 15.7 months) versus 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 9.3 months) in the PEGPH20 combination arm. CONCLUSION Addition of PEGPH20 to mFOLFIRINOX seems to be detrimental in patients unselected for tumor HA status. This combination caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and resulted in decreased treatment duration compared with mFOLFIRINOX alone. The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX control arm (14.4 months) is, to our knowledge, the longest yet reported and can be considered for patients with good PS.

Background The MORPHEUS platform comprises multiple randomized Phase Ib/II trials to identify early safety and efficacy signals for treatment combinations across cancers. Seli interacts with CD40 on antigen presenting cells, resulting in activation and priming of CD8 T-cells. Atezo (anti-PD-L1)+seli (CD40 agonist) was evaluated with gem+nabP for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or with bev for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods MORPHEUS-PDAC, MORPHEUS-TNBC and MORPHEUS-CRC enrolled 1L metastatic (m) PDAC, 2L locally advanced or mTNBC or 3L mCRC patients, respectively. Experimental arm patients received atezo (840 mg IV q2w) and seli (16 mg SC on D1 every 28-day cycle for C1-4 and every third cycle thereafter). Patients also received gem (1000 mg/m2) and nabP (1000 mg/m2, 125 mg/m2 respectively, IV on D1, 8, 15 every 28-day cycle) in PDAC or bev (10 mg/kg IV q2w) in TNBC and CRC. Control treatments were gem+nabP in PDAC, capecitabine in TNBC, and regorafenib in CRC. Primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR; investigator-assessed RECIST 1.1). PD-L1 and CD8/panCK IHC were tested in all biopsies. Results All treated patients were safety evaluable. MORPHEUS-PDAC (20-week interim analysis): 9 patients received atezo+seli+gem+nabP and 4 received control. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were seen in all. Treatment-related serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 6 patients (67%) receiving atezo+seli+gem+nabP and 1 (25%) receiving control. Confirmed ORRs: 44% (95%CI:14–79) and 25% (95%CI:6–81), respectively. MORPHEUS-TNBC (27-week interim analysis): 6 patients received atezo+seli+bev and 24 received control. TRAEs were seen in 5 patients (83%) receiving atezo+seli+bev and 18 (75%) receiving control. Treatment-related SAEs occurred in 1 patient in each arm (17% and 4%, respectively). Confirmed ORRs: 17% (95%CI:0.4–64) and 21% (95%CI:7–42), respectively. All 6 patients receiving atezo+seli+bev were PD-L1 negative (SP142 IHC assay) at baseline; the only patient with partial response (PR) showed upregulation of PD-L1 expression at week 3. MORPHEUS-CRC (18-week interim analysis): 6 patients received atezo+seli+bev and 13 received control. TRAEs were seen in all patients receiving atezo+seli+bev and 12 (92%) receiving control. Treatment-related SAEs occurred in 3 patients (50%) receiving atezo+seli+bev and 1 (8%) receiving control. No responses occurred in either study arm. Paired biopsies for 3 patients (60%) receiving atezo+seli+bev suggest on-treatment increases in CD8 T-cell infiltration into tumors. Conclusions Toxicities related to the atezo+seli combinations were consistent with individual study treatments. Preliminary efficacy was observed for atezo+seli+gem+nabP in PDAC. Together with preliminary evidence of on-treatment pharmacodynamic effects in CRC and TNBC tumor samples, CD40 agonist strategies warrant further investigation. Trial Registration MORPHEUS-PDAC: NCT03193190; MORPHEUS-TNBC: NCT03424005; MORPHEUS-CRC: NCT03555149. Ethics Approval The trial was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written informed consent. Protocol approval was obtained from independent review boards or ethics committees at each site.

Purpose:We examined cabazitaxel, a novel next-generation taxoid, in patients with metastatic gastric cancer in a multicenter phase II study.Patients and Methods:Patients who have progressed on one or more prior therapies for locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic disease were eligible, and prior taxane therapy was allowed. Taxane-naïve and pretreated cohorts were analyzed independently for efficacy. The primary endpoint for both cohorts was progression-free survival (PFS) using RECIST 1.1, using a Simon's two-stage design (10% significance and 80% power) for both cohorts. Comprehensive molecular annotation included whole exome and bulk RNA sequencing.Results:Fifty-three patients enrolled in the taxane-naïve cohort (Arm A) and 23 patients in the prior-taxane cohort (Arm B), from January 8, 2013, to April 8, 2015: median age 61.7 years (range, 35.5–91.8 years), 66% male, 66% Caucasian. The most common adverse events included neutropenia (17% Arm A and 39% Arm B), fatigue/muscle weakness (13%), and hematuria (12%). In Arm A, the 3-month PFS rate was 28% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17%–42%] and did not meet the prespecified efficacy target. The 3-month PFS rate in Arm B was 35% (95% CI, 16%–57%) and surpassed its efficacy target. HER2 amplification or overexpression was associated with improved disease control (P = 0.003), PFS (P = 0.04), and overall survival (P = 0.002). An M2 macrophage signature was also associated with improved survival (P = 0.031).Conclusions:Cabazitaxel has modest activity in advanced gastric cancer, including in patients previously treated with taxanes. Her2 amplification/overexpression and M2 high macrophage signature are potential biomarkers for taxane efficacy that warrant further evaluation.

Purpose/objective(s) Following presentation of the CALGB 80803 trial, which demonstrated notably high pathologic complete response (pCR) rates with induction FOLFOX followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT), our institution more routinely incorporated induction chemotherapy (IC) into the management of LA-EC patients. However, improvements in progression-free (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with this regimen compared to pre-operative CRT alone have not yet been shown. We hypothesized IC-CRT would lead to an improvement in OS and PFS when compared to CRT. Materials/methods Patients with operable LA-EC were eligible for analysis if they received CRT between 2013-2019. The cohort was stratified into two groups, IC-CRT vs. CRT. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS. The cumulative incidences of local recurrence (LR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and distant metastasis (DM) were reported. The impact of treatment group on pathologic response and surgical outcomes were assessed by Chi-square. Results 95 patients were included for analysis (IC-CRT n = 58; CRT n = 37). Baseline characteristics included median Karnofsky Performance Status 80, median weight loss 5% (IQR 0-9%), with the majority being adenocarcinoma histology (81%), T3-T4 (60%), N+ (79%), located in the distal esophagus or gastroesophageal junction (89%). Patients receiving IC-CRT were more likely to have been treated after 2016 (64% vs 38%, P = 0.021). IC was most commonly FOLFOX (74%) for a median of 3 (IQR 1-3) cycles. CRT was delivered to a median dose of 50 Gy in 25-28 fractions. Surgery was attempted in 60% and 68% of the IC-CRT and CRT cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up was 26 months. ICRT and CRT were associated with similar 2-year OS (66% [95% CI 51-78%] vs 70% [95% CI 52-83%]) and PFS (47% [95% CI 33-59%] vs 48% [95% CI 30-63%]). In the adenocarcinoma subset (n = 77), 2-year OS was 69% (95% CI 52-81%) in the IC-CRT cohort vs 61% (95% CI 40-77%) with CRT. 2-year PFS was 46% (95% CI 31-60%) and 38% (95% CI 20-56%), respectively. IC-CRT was not associated with an OS or PFS benefit among any patient subgroup. Recurrence rates were similar between the cohorts (47%) and first recurrence was most commonly DM (61% IC-CRT vs 65% CRT). Patients receiving IC-CRT compared to CRT had numeric but not statistically significant improvement in pCR (45% vs 29%, P = 0.24) and N-stage regression (72% vs 58%, P = 0.28). There was no difference in the rate of R0 resection, hospitalization, surgical complications, or treatment-related death with use of IC-CRT. Conclusion IC-CRT was not associated with improved OS or PFS in this small and perhaps underpowered cohort study. Further investigations are needed to explore the impact of IC-CRT on quality of life, symptom burden, and to see if meaningful trends develop with time.

395 Background: Toxicities associated with FOLFIRINOX have prompted use of modifications, despite absence of prospective data validating comparable efficacy and improved tolerability. To determine the impact of attenuated doses of irinotecan and bolus 5FU on efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a prospective phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX in advanced PC. The efficacy of a FOLFIRINOX regimen has not been previously examined in locally advanced PC (LAPC). Previous studies in LAPC have compared chemo vs chemoRT with median OS in the 9-12 mo range (Loehrer et al, Chauffert et al, Hammel et al). Methods: Previously untreated pts with MPC or LAPC received modified FOLFIRINOX with pegylated filgrastim. Irinotecan and bolus FU were reduced by 25%. AEs were compared to historical control (Conroy et al NEJM 2011). Objective RR in MPC was compared to historical control. PFS and OS were calculated for both cohorts. Results: 31 and 44 pts with LAPC and MPC enrolled. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 AEs were diarrhea (16.2%), neutropenia (12.2%), fatigue (12.2%), thrombocytopenia (9.5%), anemia (5.4%). Neutropenia (p < 0.0001), vomiting (p = 0.001), and fatigue (p = 0.01) were significantly decreased compared to historical control patients. In MPC, the RR (35.1%) was similar to the historical control group (36.3%; p 0.82); median PFS and OS were 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.19 to 8.31) and10.2 months (95% CI, 7.65 to 14.32) respectively. In LAPC, the RR was 17.2% and median PFS and OS were 17.8 mo (95% CI, 11.0 to 23.9) and 26.6 mo (95% CI, 16.7, NA) respectively. 13 pts went on to surgical resection with 10 now alive and 6 without recurrence. We found no significant association between early metabolic response by FDG-PET imaging and PFS and OS. Conclusions: In this first prospective study of modified FOLFIRINOX, the regimen was well tolerated and associated with decreased incidence of AEs compared to historical control of standard FOLFIRINOX. In MPC pts, the efficacy of the modified regimen appear uncompromised. In this first prospective study of a FOLFIRINOX regimen in LAPC, the PFS and OS surpasses that of previously studied regimens in LAPC. Clinical trial information: NCT01523457.

Purpose: Many US academic centers have acquired community practices to expand their clinical care and research footprint. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether the acquisition and integration of community oncology practices by Yale/Smilow Cancer Hospital improved outcomes in quality of care, disease team integration, clinical trial accrual, and patient satisfaction at network practice sites. Methods: We evaluated quality of care by testing the hypothesis that core Quality Oncology Practice Initiative measures at network sites that were acquired in 2012 were significantly different after their 2016 integration into the network. Clinical and research integration were measured using the number of tumor board case presentations and total accruals in clinical trials. We used Press-Ganey scores to measure patient satisfaction pre- and postintegration. Results: Mean Quality Oncology Practice Initiative scores at Smilow Care Centers were significantly higher in 2016 than in 2012 for core measures related to improvement in tumor staging ( z = 1.33; P < .05), signed consent and documentation plans for antineoplastic treatment ( z = 2.69; P < .01; and z = 2.36; P < .05, respectively), and appropriately quantifying and addressing pain during office visits ( z = 2.95; P < .05; and z = 3.1; P < .01, respectively). A total of 493 cases were presented by care center physicians at the tumor board in 2017 compared with 45 presented in 2013. Compared with 2012, Smilow Care Center clinical trial accrual increased from 25 to 170 patients in 2017. Last, patient satisfaction has remained at greater than the 90th percentile pre- and postintegration. Conclusion: The process of integration facilitates the ability to standardize cancer practice and provides a platform for quality improvement.

Background Pembro, a PD-1 inhibitor, confers durable benefit in many tumor types but has limited efficacy in non–microsatellite instability–high (MSI-high)/pMMR mCRC. Chemotherapies that include 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin and irinotecan, which are commonly used to treat mCRC, may modulate intrinsic tumor immunogenicity and sensitize tumors to immunotherapy agents. In the phase 1b KEYNOTE-651 study (NCT03374254), pembro + mFOLFOX7 (cohort B) or pembro + FOLFIRI (cohort D) was evaluated in patients with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC. Methods Patients were ≥18 years with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no prior systemic chemotherapy for stage IV mCRC (cohort B) or 1 prior therapy including a fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin-based regimen (cohort D). Patients received pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) + mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort B) or pembro 200 mg Q3W + FOLFIRI (irinotecan [180 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort D). Primary objectives were safety/tolerability and establishment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); the secondary objective was objective response rate. Results At data cutoff (Feb 18, 2019), 15 patients in cohort B and 16 in cohort D started treatment; median follow-up was 6.8 months (cohort B) and 5.7 months (cohort D). Treatment was discontinued in 4 patients (27%) in cohort B (adverse event [AE], n = 1 [7%]; PD, n = 3 [20%]) and 9 patients (56%) in cohort D (AEs, PD, patient withdrawal; n = 3 [19%] each). There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity in cohort D: grade 3 small-intestinal obstruction. See RP2Ds for cohorts B and D in the Methods section. All patients had ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 8 patients each in cohort B (53%) and cohort D (50%), most commonly anemia and neutropenia (13% each) in cohort B and neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and leukopenia (13% each) in cohort D. There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Efficacy results will be presented. Conclusions Pembro in combination with mFOLFOX7 or FOLFIRI was safe and tolerable in patients with mCRC. Clinical trial identification NCT03374254; Release date: December 15, 2017. Editorial acknowledgement Jacqueline Kolston, PhD, of the ApotheCom pembrolizumab team (Yardley, PA, USA); Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Disclosure R. Kim: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai. J. Kortmansky: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. L. Wong: Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc./Astellas US, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): BeiGene, Ltd; Research grant / Funding (institution): Exelixis, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): NovoCure, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pierre Fabre Medicament; Research grant / Funding (institution): PledPharma AB; Research grant / Funding (institution): SynCore Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Halozyme, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pharmacyclics, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): TESARO; Research grant / Funding (institution): EMD Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Array. M. Tehfe: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Taisho. J.J. Li: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. M. Lee: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. C. Mayo: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. P. Marinello: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. E. Chiorean: Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy: Halozyme; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Five Prime; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Incyte; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Halozyme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta/Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Stemline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Macrogenetics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Evaluate safety of a novel influenza vaccination strategy in patients with plasma cell disorders. (2) Measure laboratory-confirmed influenza infection rates following a novel influenza vaccination strategy in patients with plasma cell disorders. (3) Evaluate clinical correlates of response following a novel influenza vaccination strategy in patients with plasma cell disorders. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a double-blind, randomized study over the 2015–16 flu season, comparing 2 doses of Fluzone® High-Dose influenza vaccination (separated by 30 d) to the current standard of care influenza vaccination. Patients were allocated to the experimental arm in 2:1 ratio compared with standard of care arm. Standard of care influenza vaccination was considered single age-based vaccination (standard dose for those ® high-dose vaccine. Median age was 67 years (range 42–90). This 2-dose vaccination strategy was safely tolerated in all patients with no grade 2 adverse events attributed to vaccine. With close clinical follow-up, only 4% of patients receiving 2 vaccine doses developed laboratory confirmed influenza Versus 8.3% of those receiving single vaccine. When compared to the expected CDC influenza infection rate of 10%–15%, 1 sample, 2-tailed binomial testing revealed patients receiving 2 vaccines experienced a significantly lower rate of infection than the expected rate (pp=0.38). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This randomized study demonstrates that the 2 dose strategy of Fluzone® high-dose influenza vaccine is safely tolerated in patients with plasma cell disorders and associated with significantly less than expected laboratory-confirmed influenza infections. The results suggest that this novel vaccination strategy may have a clinical benefit in reducing influenza infections in plasma cell disorder patients and thus may have practice changing implications. Final analyses of serologic responses, clinical correlates of response, and cell-mediated immune correlates may provide valuable insights into in vivo “immune-competence” in patients with plasma cell disorders.

3504Background: While both anti-VEGF(R) and EGFR antibodies have activity in metastatic RAS wild type CRC, the combination of the two appeared to be detrimental when combined with chemotherapy in u...

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) harbors frequent alterations in p16, resulting in cell cycle dysregulation. A phase I study of docetaxel and flavopiridol, a pan-cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, demonstrated encouraging clinical activity in PC. This phase II study was designed to further define the efficacy and toxicity of this regimen in patients with previously treated PC.Patients with gemcitabine-refractory, metastatic PC were treated with docetaxel 35 mg/m(2) followed by flavopiridol 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Tumor measurements were performed every two cycles. A Simon two-stage design was used to evaluate the primary endpoint of response.Ten patients were enrolled, and 9 were evaluable for response. No objective responses were observed; however, 3 patients (33%) achieved transient stable disease, with one of these patients achieving a 20% reduction in tumor size. Median survival was 4.2 months, with no patients alive at the time of analysis. Adverse events were significant, with 7 patients (78%) requiringor=1 dose reduction for transaminitis (11%), grade 4 neutropenia (33%), grade 3 fatigue (44%), and grade 3 diarrhea (22%).The combination of flavopiridol and docetaxel has minimal activity and significant toxicity in this patient population. These results reflect the challenges of treating patients with PC in a second-line setting where the risk/benefit equation is tightly balanced.

Purpose: Flavopiridol potently enhances the effect of irinotecan with cures in colorectal cancer xenografts, and is associated with modulation of several molecular targets, including p21, Differentiation-related gene 1 (Drg1), and p53. We initiated a phase I trial of the sequential combination of irinotecan followed by flavopiridol to determine the maximal tolerated dose of this combination therapy. Patients and Methods: Forty-five patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled. Irinotecan was administered first (100 or 125 mg/m2) followed 7 hours later by escalating flavopiridol (10-70 mg/m2) given weekly over 1 hour for 4 of 6 weeks. At the maximal tolerated dose, the pharmacokinetic analysis was expanded and pre- and posttreatment tumor biopsies were done. Results: At irinotecan 100 mg/m2, dose-limiting diarrhea and myelosuppression were observed with flavopiridol 70 mg/m2. At irinotecan 125 mg/m2, we observed dose-limiting hyperbilirubinemia, fatigue, and myelosuppression at flavopiridol 60 mg/m2. Peak flavopiridol concentrations of ≥2 μmol/L were achieved above flavopiridol 50 mg/m2. No significant pharmacokinetic interactions with irinotecan were noted. Baseline serum bilirubin significantly predicted cycle 1 dose-limiting toxicity and neutropenia. We observed partial responses in three patients and prolonged stable disease (i.e., >6 months) in 36% of patients including adrenocortical cancer and hepatocellular cancer. Patients with wild-type p53 and either no change or low posttreatment biopsy p21 and a decrease in Drg1 expression showed stable or responsive disease to the combination therapy. Conclusions: The recommended phase II dose with irinotecan 100 mg/m2 is flavopiridol 60 mg/m2 and with irinotecan 125 mg/m2 is flavopiridol 50 mg/m2. Toxicity can be predicted by baseline bilirubin. Clinical activity is encouraging and may correlate to changes in p21 and Drg1 levels in patients with wild type p53 tumors following therapy.

Background: Plasma cell disorders (PCDs) are commonly associated with immune paresis and these patients are susceptible to common infections, including influenza, which are a major source of morbidity. Although seasonal influenza vaccination is routinely employed in patients with PCDs, the data about its efficacy is limited. One approach to enhancing the efficacy of influenza vaccination is the use of standard dose boosters, and a prior study with multiple myeloma patients suggested modestly improved seroprotection. Another approach may be increasing the amount of antigen in vaccines. Combining the use of higher antigen dose and a booster strategy, we recently reported a pilot study utilizing a two dose series of high-dose influenza vaccine in patients with plasma cell disorders (Branagan, et al, ASH 2015). Specifically, protective hemagglutination antibody inhibition (HAI) titers rose to 49% after one high-dose influenza vaccine and up to 66% following the second dose. These results compared favorably to historical rates of seroprotection achieved in only 5-19% of PCD patients following standard influenza vaccination. Based on these encouraging results, we designed the present randomized study to further evaluate this novel influenza vaccination strategy in PCD patients. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized clinical trial over the 2015-16 flu season, comparing two doses of Fluzone® High-Dose influenza vaccination (separated by 30 days) to the current standard of care influenza vaccination. Patients were allocated to the experimental arm in 2:1 ratio compared to standard of care arm. Standard of care influenza vaccination was considered single age-based vaccination (standard dose Results: 122 total plasma cell disorder patients were enrolled (97 with disease requiring therapy and 25 with asymptomatic gammopathy). Forty-eight patients received a single standard of care influenza vaccination and 74 patients received two doses of Fluzone® High-Dose vaccine. Median age was 67 years (range 42-90). This two-dose vaccination strategy was safely tolerated in all patients with no ³grade 2 adverse events attributed to vaccine. With close clinical follow-up, only 4% of patients receiving two vaccine doses developed laboratory confirmed influenza versus 8.3% of those receiving single vaccine. When compared to the expected CDC influenza infection rate of 10-15%, one sample, two-tailed binomial testing revealed patients receiving two vaccines experienced a significantly lower rate of infection than the expected rate (p Conclusions: This randomized study demonstrates that the two dose strategy of Fluzone® High-Dose influenza vaccine is safely tolerated in patients with plasma cell disorders and associated with significantly less than expected laboratory-confirmed influenza infections. The results suggest that this novel vaccination strategy may have a clinical benefit in reducing influenza infections in PCD patients and thus may have practice changing implications. Final analyses of serologic responses, clinical correlates of response, and cell-mediated immune correlates may provide valuable insights into in vivo "immune-competence" in PCD. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Purpose To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of erlotinib when administered concurrently with twice weekly gemcitabine and radiation therapy (RT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer, assess the safety and toxicity profile of this combination and secondarily evaluate response, time to tumor progression and overall survival. Methods Patients with untreated locally advanced pancreas cancer were treated with daily erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine 40 mg/m2/30 min twice weekly and RT delivered at 180 cGy/day in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks for a total of 5040 cGy. Erlotinib was dose escalated in successive cohorts (100 mg, 125 mg). When the MTD was determined, the cohort was expanded to better define toxicity and preliminarily efficacy. All patients were surgically staged. After chemoradiation, patients received maintenance weekly gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21 day cycle and daily erlotinib for four cycles. Results Three patients were treated at dose level 1 (erlotinib 100 mg) without limiting toxicity. Two of six patients at dose level 2 (erlotinib 125 mg) had dose-limiting toxicities, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, causing dose delay and elevated liver enzymes. The MTD for erlotinib in combination with twice weekly gemcitabine-based chemoradiation was 100 mg/day. Eleven additional patients were treated at dose level 1. All twenty patients were assessable for toxicity. Seventeen patients were assessable for response. The partial response rate was 35% and 53% had stable disease. The median survival for all patients was 18.7 months. Conclusion In combination with fixed dose gemcitabine at 40 mg/m2 twice weekly and radiation at 180 cGy/day, the MTD of erlotinib was found to be 100 mg/day. This is a relatively well tolerated, biologically active combination in a poor prognostic cancer.