Search

Ibrutinib has superior progression-free survival compared with bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) in older CLL patients, however, differences in treatment duration, six monthly BR cycles versus continuous ibrutinib, complicate adverse event (AE) comparisons. We introduce the AE burden score (AEsc) to compare AEs, calculated for each patient by summing over products of reporting period length and grade for each all-cause grade 1-4 AE and dividing by the length of time over which AEs are assessed. A total of 176 patients received BR and 361 ibrutinib alone or with six cycles of rituximab. At 38 months median follow-up, 64% remained on ibrutinib. Median AEsc was higher with BR versus ibrutinib in the first six cycles (7.2 versus 4.9, p < 0.0001). Within ibrutinib arms, median AEsc decreased significantly to 3.7 after six cycles (p < 0.0001). 10% and 14% of BR and ibrutinib patients discontinued treatment for AEs. In ibrutinib arms, cumulative incidence of grade 3 or higher atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and infection (AEs of clinical interest) at 12 months was 4.5%, 17.5%, and 12.8%, respectively, and increased more slowly thereafter to 7.7%, 25.4%, and 20.5% at 36 months. Analytical tools including the AEsc and cumulative incidence of AEs can help to better characterize AE burden over time. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an oral anti-angiogenic. In the primary analysis of this phase II study, combination cediranib/olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. This updated analysis was conducted to characterize overall survival (OS) and update PFS outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients were enrolled to this randomized, open-label, phase II study between October 2011 and June 2013 across nine United States-based academic centers. Data cut-off was 21 December 2016, with a median follow-up of 46 months. Participants had relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer of high-grade serous or endometrioid histology or had a deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). Participants were randomized to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily until disease progression. RESULTS: In this updated analysis, median PFS remained significantly longer with cediranib/olaparib compared with olaparib alone (16.5 versus 8.2 months, hazard ratio 0.50; P = 0.007). Subset analyses within stratum defined by BRCA status demonstrated statistically significant improvement in PFS (23.7 versus 5.7 months, P = 0.002) and OS (37.8 versus 23.0 months, P = 0.047) in gBRCA wild-type/unknown patients, although OS was not statistically different in the overall study population (44.2 versus 33.3 months, hazard ratio 0.64; P = 0.11). PFS and OS appeared similar between the two arms in gBRCAm patients. The most common CTCAE grade 3/4 adverse events with cediranib/olaparib remained fatigue, diarrhea, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Combination cediranib/olaparib significantly extends PFS compared with olaparib alone in relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Subset analyses suggest this margin of benefit is driven by PFS prolongation in patients without gBRCAm. OS was also significantly increased by the cediranib/olaparib combination in this subset of patients. Additional studies of this combination are ongoing and should incorporate analyses based upon BRCA status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT0111648

The PI3K/Akt/mTOR (PAM) axis is constitutively activated in multiple lymphoma subtypes and is a promising therapeutic target. The mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus (TEM) and the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide (LEN) have overlapping effects within the PAM axis with synergistic potential. This multicenter phase I/II study evaluated combination therapy with TEM/LEN in patients with relapsed and refractory lymphomas. Primary endpoints of the phase II study were rates of complete (CR) and overall response (ORR). There were 18 patients in the phase I dose-finding study, and TEM 25 mg weekly and LEN 20 mg on day 1 through day 21 every 28 days was established as the recommended phase II dose. An additional 93 patients were enrolled in the phase II component with three cohorts: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, n=39), follicular lymphoma (FL, n=15), and an exploratory cohort of other lymphoma histologies with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) comprising the majority (n=39 total, n=20 with cHL). Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of four (range, 1-14) prior therapies and one-third with relapse following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT); patients with cHL had a median of six prior therapies. The FL cohort was closed prematurely due to slow accrual. ORR were 26% (13% CR) and 64% (18% CR) for the DLBCL and exploratory cohorts, respectively. ORR for cHL patients in the exploratory cohort, most of whom had relapsed after both brentuximab vedotin and ASCT, was 80% (35% CR). Eight cHL patients (40%) proceeded to allogeneic transplantation after TEM/LEN therapy. Grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AE) were common. Three grade 5 AE occurred. Combination therapy with TEM/LEN was feasible and demonstrated encouraging activity in heavily-pretreated lymphomas, particularly in relapsed/refractory cHL (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT01076543).

Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background Targeting the PI3K/Akt/mTOR axis in relapsed lymphomas is of interest based on constitutive activation in many lymphoma subtypes, and has had varying degrees of success. We previously showed that the first generation mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus (TEM), has activity across histologies with an acceptable toxicity profile (Smith, et al., JCO 2010). Lenalidomide (LEN) is currently approved for use in indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and has several potential synergistic and overlapping targets with PI3K/mTOR/Akt inhibition. We designed this phase I/II clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of TEM and LEN in relapsed/refractory lymphomas. Methods The phase I dose-finding study utilized a standard "3+3" design and was open to all patients with mature B-cell malignancies. TEM was 25 mg IV weekly for all dose levels. LEN was dosed orally on D1-D21 every 28 days at three dose levels: 15 mg, 20 mg, and 25 mg. The phase II study accrued patients in a two-stage "minimax" design with stratification into three histologically-defined cohorts: diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and other lymphomas. Primary endpoints of the phase II study were rates of complete (CR) and overall response (ORR), and secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results In the phase I study, 18 patients were enrolled and available for toxicity assessment. Patients were treated to intolerance, progression, or discontinuation at physician discretion. Of these, 15 patients were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment. At dose level 3, there were 2 DLTs: grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 HSV mucositis. Dose level 2 was thus established as the recommended phase II dose: TEM 25 mg weekly and LEN 20 mg on D1-D21 every 28 days. Of the 18 patients, there were 5 partial responses, 4 stable disease, 3 progressive disease, 4 on active treatment, and 2 not adequately assessed. The phase II study enrolled an additional 93 patients (Table 1): 39 DLBCL, 15 FL, and 39 other lymphomas which included 20 relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients. The median number of prior treatments was 4 (range, 1-14), and 31 patients (33%) had relapsed following prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The median number of cycles delivered was 4 (range, 1-21). The FL cohort closed prematurely due to slow accrual. The ORR were 25.6% (12.8% CR) and 64.1% (17.9% CR) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). The ORR for HL patients in the other lymphoma cohort, the majority of whom had relapsed after brentuximab vedotin (BV) and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), was 80% (35% CR). Eight HL patients (40%) proceeded to allogeneic transplantation after TEM and LEN therapy. The high response rate in the other lymphoma cohort was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of a 30% response rate under the minimax design. Median PFS was 7.0 mo (90% CI 3.5-8.0) and 7.0 mo (90% CI 4.6-9.9) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median OS was 9.1 mo (90% CI 6.0-16.0) and 25.5 mo (90% CI 10.8-60.6) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median DOR was 13.8 mo (90% CI 4.1-19.0) and 5.5 mo (90% CI 2.6-23.7) for DLBCL and other lymphoma cohorts, respectively (Table 2). Median PFS, OS and DOR for HL patients in the other lymphoma cohort were 9.2 mo (90% CI 4.6-25.5), 39.6 mo (90% CI 17.4-NR), and 8.1 mo (90% CI 5.1-38.3), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves are displayed in Figure 1. Grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events (AE) related to treatment were uncommon, with no cases of pneumonitis and one grade 3 thromboembolism. Grade ≥3 hematologic AEs were common and reversible. Three Grade 5 AEs occurred (colonic perforation, myocardial infarction and sepsis). Conclusions Combination therapy with TEM and LEN demonstrated encouraging activity in heavily-pretreated and relapsed/refractory lymphomas. Survival in the other lymphoma cohort was primarily driven by favorable activity in relapsed/refractory HL. TEM and LEN may be a suitable option for treatment of HL after BV and ASCT, including as a bridge to allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Further study of PI3K/Akt/mTOR inhibition in combination with lenalidomide is warranted, particularly in relapsed HL. Disclosures Kline: Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Kimball:Amgen: Current Employment; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Petrich:Daiichi-Sankyo: Current Employment; AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Temsirolimus is FDA-approved for renal cell carcinoma.

e20004 Background: IB is a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor that showed superior progression-free survival compared with BR in CLL patients (pts) 65 years or older in a randomized phase 3 trial (Woyach et al, NEJM 2018). Pts receiving IB had higher rates of atrial fibrillation (AFIB) and hypertension (HTN); BR pts had higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Differences in treatment duration for BR (6 cycles) and IB (until progression) complicated adverse event (AE) comparisons. Here we use an exploratory approach to compare toxicity burden between arms and provide assessment of AFIB, HTN and infections (INF). Methods: AEs were reported for each of cycles 1-6 and then every 3 cycles until progression or nonprotocol CLL therapy. Only grade (gr) 3-4 AEs were reported thereafter until death. A simple global AE score was calculated for each pt by summing grades of all gr 1-4 AEs and dividing by the number of cycles over which AEs were submitted. Results: 537 pts began therapy (176 BR, 361 IB). 68% on BR completed all 6 cycles. At a median follow-up of 38 months, 64% remained on IB. Treatment discontinuation for AE occurred in 10% and 14% of BR and IB pts. Overall, median AE score was 1.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-3.3) and 3.8 (IQR 2.3-5.9) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). For cycles 1-6, median AE score was 6.2 (IQR 3.8-9.0) and 4.8 (IQR 3.0-7.2) in BR and IB arms (p < 0.01). In the IB arm, median AE score post 6 cycles decreased significantly to 3.4 (IQR 1.9-5.6) (p < 0.01). Gr 3 or higher cumulative rates of AFIB, HTN, and INF over time appear in the table. 100 pts (26/176 BR, 74/361 IB) had 137 severe INF (39% respiratory: 16 BR, 37 IB; 25% skin: 3 BR, 31 IB; 12% GU: 3 BR, 13 IB; 25% other: 12 BR, 22 IB). There were 7 gr 5 INF (3 BR, 4 IB), none confirmed fungal. Conclusions: There was no difference in treatment discontinuation rates for AE. Overall toxicity burden was significantly higher for IB, although IB toxicity burden decreased after 6 cycles. Toxicity burden was significantly higher in cycles 1-6 for pts receiving BR. Risk of severe AFIB, HTN, and INF is highest in the first year of IB. A simple AE score provides valuable information, especially when evaluating regimens of varying length. Clinical trial information: NCT01886872 . Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Pharmacyclics; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01886872. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) since 2016 but has not been compared with chemoimmunotherapy. We conducted a phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, relative to chemoimmunotherapy. METHODS: Patients 65 years of age or older who had untreated CLL were randomly assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, ibrutinib, or ibrutinib plus rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board made the decision to release the data after the protocol-specified efficacy threshold had been met. RESULTS: A total of 183 patients were assigned to receive bendamustine plus rituximab, 182 to receive ibrutinib, and 182 to receive ibrutinib plus rituximab. Median progression-free survival was reached only with bendamustine plus rituximab. The estimated percentage of patients with progression-free survival at 2 years was 74% with bendamustine plus rituximab and was higher with ibrutinib alone (87%; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.58; P

To improve long-term outcomes for Burkitt leukaemia/lymphoma (BL) or aggressive lymphomas in adults, we assessed the benefit of adding rituximab and filgrastim support to a dose-dense modified chemotherapy regimen from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9251 trial. One hundred and five patients (aged 19-79 years) were enrolled; 27% were >60 years old; 47% had high or high-intermediate risk by International Prognostic Index (IPI) criteria. Common severe toxicities included stomatitis/upper gastrointestinal toxicity (69%), renal insufficiency (10%), neurological events (25%) and pulmonary events (18%). Seven died from treatment-related causes (one central nervous system bleed, four infections, two respiratory failure); five were >60 years old. Results in this adult population are encouraging as complete response (CR) was observed in 83% and 4-year event-free (EFS) and overall survivals (OS) were 74% and 78%, respectively. Results compare favourably to our prior chemotherapy alone study (CALGB 9251) but despite this, high-risk patients still had worse outcomes. In conclusion, short duration, intensive chemo-immunotherapy is feasible and should be considered in adults with BL as it results in high remission rates and durable remissions.

Introduction: The most effective initial therapy for older adults with CLL has not yet been established due to the lack of comparison of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) and targeted therapy with the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib. CIT has been the gold standard since studies showing that addition of CD20 antibody to chemotherapy prolongs survival. Bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is one standard, more aggressive CIT regimen for patients (pts) age 65 or older. While ibrutinib has been FDA approved for untreated CLL since 2016, it has only been compared to chlorambucil, which is relatively ineffective, and never before to aggressive CIT. Additionally, the benefit of the addition of rituximab to ibrutinib in this setting has not been prospectively studied in a phase 3 trial. As part of a randomized phase 3 trial, the Alliance sought to answer these important clinical questions. Pts and Methods: Alliance A041202 is a multicenter NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to CIT in terms of PFS. Additionally, this study sought to determine if adding rituximab to ibrutinib would prolong PFS over ibrutinib alone. At time of progression, pts on Arm 1 could cross over to Arm 2. Eligible pts were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl ≥ 40 mL/min, bilirubin ≤ 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified based upon Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. With 166 pts per arm, the trial was powered to detect an improvement in 2-year PFS from 61% in Arm 1 to 75% in Arms 2 or 3 (HR=0.586) using two one-sided log-rank tests with type I error rate of 2.5% and 90% power. The Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board approved the data release after meeting the protocol-defined efficacy threshold at a planned interim analysis with a one-sided critical value of 0.001538. These data were locked July 2, 2018; updated results will be presented at the meeting. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were registered and randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Median age was 71 years and 67% of pts were men. High-risk Rai stage (stage III/IV) was seen in 54%, unmethylated Zap-70 in 53%, and del(17p) or del(11q) by local FISH in 28%. Local vs centralized FISH was performed for del(11q) and del(17p) with agreement between local and central results in 94% (Kappa=0.80) and 97% (Kappa=0.76) of pts, respectively. 525 (96%) pts were eligible and included in the primary PFS analysis (Arms 1: 176, 2: 178, and 3: 171). With median follow-up of 32 months (mo), median PFS was 41 mo in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 (HR comparing Arm 2 to 1 is 0.40 with one-sided p Conclusions: This international phase 3 trial demonstrates that ibrutinib produces superior PFS to standard CIT in older pts with CLL and justifies it as a standard of care treatment for pts age 65 and older. The addition of rituximab does not prolong PFS with ibrutinib. While ibrutinib represents a major therapeutic advance, toxicities and also cost justify future efforts to reduce the need for long-term continuous treatment. Support: K23CA178183, R01CA183444, U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01886872 Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Bartlett:Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; ImaginAB: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck & Co: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Brander:BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Barr:AbbVie, Gilead: Consultancy. Parikh:Gilead: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Coutre:Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lozanski:Novartis: Research Funding; BI: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Stem Line: Research Funding; Coulter: Research Funding; Beckman: Research Funding. Larson:Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Erba:Amgen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; MacroGenics: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: grant; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, Data and Safety Monitoring Committee. Owen:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Teva: Honoraria. Abramson:Bayer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy.

Introduction: Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Preclinical data suggest that enzastaurin and bevacizumab may have complementary effects in inhibiting angiogenesis. Methods: Eligibility criteria: ≥18 years of age, chemonaive, stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1. Patients were randomized to placebo or enzastaurin 500 mg orally daily (after a loading dose), plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 , carboplatin area under the curve 6, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, intravenously, every 21 days for four cycles. Patients without progression received maintenance therapy with bevacizumab and placebo or enzastaurin. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS). Planned sample size was 90 patients, one-sided alpha of 0.20, with two interim analyses: one for safety and the second for futility, with a PFS hazard ratio of 0.8857. Results: Forty patients were randomized. No unique safety concerns were noted at the first interim analysis. The early stopping rule for futility was met at the second interim analysis. Median PFS was 3.5 months and 4.3 months (hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.49–2.21), and response rates were 20% and 30% ( p = 0.462) for enzastaurin and placebo, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 toxicity was similar between the two arms. Two patients died on study because of respiratory arrest and pulmonary embolism. An additional patient died of sepsis secondary to a gastrointestinal perforation >30 days after study treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Enzastaurin does not improve efficacy when combined with pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab. This combination does not warrant further study in NSCLC.

Background Sorafenib, an inhibitor of B-raf, VEGFR2, and PDGFR-β, has activity against pancreatic cancer in preclinical models. In a phase I trial of gemcitabine plus sorafenib, 57% of pancreatic cancer patients achieved stable disease. Patients and methods We conducted a multi-center phase II trial of sorafenib plus gemcitabine in chemo-naive patients with histologically-confirmed, advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28 day cycle. Results Seventeen patients enrolled at 4 centers; 13 were evaluable for response. There were no objective responses; 18% had stable disease. Median overall survival was 4.0 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9); median progression-free survival was 3.2 months (95% CI: 1.6, 3.6). Grade 3/4 toxicities included thrombosis in 18% of patients, dehydration or hand-foot syndrome in 12%, and hypertension or gastrointestinal bleeding in 6%. Conclusion Gemcitabine plus sorafenib is inactive in advanced pancreatic cancer.

The humanized anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab is an effective therapy for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). We examined the impact of alemtuzumab treatment after initial fludarabine treatment for feasibility and safety. Patients (N = 85) with previously untreated symptomatic CLL received fludarabine (25 mg/m(2)/day) for 5 days every 4 weeks for four cycles followed by 2 months of observation. Patients with stable disease or better response then received alemtuzumab 30 mg three times weekly for 6 weeks either intravenously (IV; cohort 1; N = 39) or subcutaneously (SC; cohort 2; N = 20). Of the 85 evaluable patients enrolled on our study, four (5%) attained a complete response (CR) and 43 (51%) attained a partial response after fludarabine induction for an overall response rate (ORR) of 55%. Thirty-nine patients received IV alemtuzumab for consolidation with improvement in CR to 27% and ORR to 73%. Twenty patients received SC alemtuzumab consolidation with improvement in CR to 17% and ORR to 69%. Toxicity from IV alemtuzumab included infusion-related reactions and infection. Mild local inflammation was common from SC alemtuzumab but there were virtually no systemic side effects. Nine of 59 (15%) patients had cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections; one patient died. The administration of alemtuzumab as consolidation therapy following an abbreviated fludarabine induction is feasible but requires close monitoring for CMV infection and other infectious events.

BACKGROUD: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B evaluated oral topotecan administered at 2 schedules and doses for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated primary or therapy-related MDS were eligible. Patients with refractory anemia (RA), RA with ringed sideroblasts, or refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD) were eligible only if they were dependent on erythrocyte transfusion, had a platelet count

Purpose Sonic hedgehog (SHH), an activating ligand of smoothened (SMO), is overexpressed in > 70% of pancreatic cancers (PCs). We investigated the impact of vismodegib, an SHH antagonist, plus gemcitabine (GV) or gemcitabine plus placebo (GP) in a multicenter phase Ib/randomized phase II trial and preclinical PC models. Patients and Methods Patients with PC not amenable to curative therapy who had received no prior therapy for metastatic disease and had Karnofsky performance score ≥ 80 were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to GV or GP. The primary end point was progression-free-survival (PFS). Exploratory correlative studies included serial SHH serum levels and contrast perfusion computed tomography imaging. To further investigate putative biologic mechanisms of SMO inhibition, two autochthonous pancreatic cancer models (KrasG12D; p16/p19fl/fl; Pdx1-Cre and KrasG12D; p53R270H/wt; Pdx1-Cre) were studied. Results No safety issues were identified in the phase Ib portion (n = 7), and the phase II study enrolled 106 evaluable patients (n = 53 in each arm). Median PFS was 4.0 and 2.5 months for GV and GP arms, respectively (95% CI, 2.5 to 5.3 and 1.9 to 3.8, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.21; P = .30). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.9 and 6.1 months for GV and GP arms, respectively (95% CI, 5.8 to 8.0 and 5.0 to 8.0, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.58; P = .84). Response rates were not significantly different. There were no significant associations between correlative markers and overall response rate, PFS, or OS. Preclinical trials revealed no significant differences with vismodegib in drug delivery, tumor growth rate, or OS in either model. Conclusion The addition of vismodegib to gemcitabine in an unselected cohort did not improve overall response rate, PFS, or OS in patients with metastatic PC. Our preclinical and clinical results revealed no statistically significant differences with respect to drug delivery or treatment efficacy using vismodegib.

Purpose Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a key role in the biology and prognosis of pancreatic cancer. Inhibitors of VEGF suppress the growth of pancreatic cancer in preclinical models. The objectives of this phase II study were to assess the response rate and overall survival of pancreatic cancer patients who received gemcitabine with the recombinant humanized anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic cancer received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days. Bevacizumab, 10 mg/kg, was administered after gemcitabine on days 1 and 15. Tumor measurements were assessed every two cycles. Plasma VEGF levels were obtained pretreatment. Results Fifty-two patients were enrolled at seven centers between November 2001 and March 2004. All patients had metastatic disease, and 83% had liver metastases. Eleven patients (21%) had confirmed partial responses, and 24 (46%) had stable disease. The 6-month survival rate was 77%. Median survival was 8.8 months; median progression-free survival was 5.4 months. Pretreatment plasma VEGF levels did not correlate with outcome. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included hypertension in 19% of the patients, thrombosis in 13%, visceral perforation in 8%, and bleeding in 2%. Conclusion The combination of bevacizumab plus gemcitabine is active in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Additional study is warranted. A randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus bevacizumab versus gemcitabine plus placebo is ongoing in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B.

Purpose: To explore the efficacy and safety of three regimens of weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin as initial therapy and the feasibility of subsequent maintenance therapy versus observation in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: Four hundred one patients were randomly assigned to one of the following arms: arm 1, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] = 6) on day 1; arm 2, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 and carboplatin (AUC = 2) weekly for 3 of 4 weeks; or arm 3, paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 cycle 1 and 100 mg/m2 cycle 2 and carboplatin (AUC = 2) weekly for 6 of 8 weeks. Patients who responded (n = 130) at week 16 were randomly assigned to either weekly paclitaxel therapy (70 mg/m2, 3 of 4 weeks; n = 65) or observation (n = 65). Results: For the 390 assessable patients, the objective response rates observed with initial therapy were 32% for arm 1, 24% for arm 2, and 18% for arm 3. The median time to progression and median survival times were 30 and 49 weeks for arm 1, 21 and 31 weeks for arm 2, and 27 and 40 weeks for arm 3, respectively. The 1-year survival rates were 47% for arm 1, 31% for arm 2, and 41% for arm 3. Conclusion: Arm 1, paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks with carboplatin (AUC = 6) administered on day 1, demonstrates the most favorable therapeutic index in patients with advanced NSCLC.

5535 Background: We previously reported that the combination of cediranib (ced) and olaparib (olap) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rates (ORR) in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive (plat-sens) high-grade serous (HGS) or BRCA-related ovarian cancer (OvCa) (NCT 01116648). We conducted an updated PFS and overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: Patients (pts) across 9 centers were randomized 1:1 in this Ph 2 open label study to Olap (olap 400 mg capsules BID) or Ced/Olap (olap 200 mg capsules BID; ced 30 mg daily), stratified by BRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Eligibility included pts with recurrent plat-sens HGS or BRCA-related OvCa. Pts had measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, PS 0 or 1, and the ability to take POs. No prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor was allowed. PFS was defined as time from randomization to radiographic progression or death. OS was defined as time from randomization to death. Results: Pts were enrolled from Oct 2011 to Jun 2013: 46 to Olap, 44 to Ced/Olap. 48 pts were known BRCA carriers (25 Olap; 23 Ced/Olap). As of Dec 21, 2016, 67 pts had a PFS event, and 52 pts had an OS event. Updated median PFS was 8.2 mos for Olap and 16.5 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.83, p=0.007). Median OS was 33.3 mos for Olap and 44.2 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.11, p=0.11). Within known germline BRCA mut carriers, updated PFS was 16.5 vs 16.4 mos (HR 0.75, p=0.42), and OS was 40.1 vs 44.2 mos (HR 0.79, p=0.55) for Olap and Ced/Olap, respectively. In pts without known germline BRCA mut, updated PFS was 5.7 vs 23.7 mos (HR 0.32, p=0.002), and OS was 23.0 vs 37.8 mos (HR 0.48, p=0.074). Conclusions: Updated PFS results consistently demonstrated that Ced/Olap significantly extended PFS compared to Olap in the overall population of women with plat-sens OvCa. In this Phase 2 study not powered to detect OS diferences, there was a trend towards OS improvement with Ced/Olap, particularly in pts without a known germline BRCA mutation. Results from ongoing studies of this oral combination in OvCa are of clinical interest. Clinical trial information: NCT 01116648.

Summary Background Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Methods In our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1 /2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648. Findings Between Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7–not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7–16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23–0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none). Interpretation Cediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy. Funding American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Background: mTOR inhibitors, including temsirolimus (TEM), have demonstrated activity in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (rel/ref) lymphomas (J Clin Oncol 2010;28(31):4740). Lenalidomide (LEN) is an immunomodulatory agent with activity in a number of lymphoma subtypes with potential additive or synergistic effects. We previously reported phase I results of TEM/LEN in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphomas and showed good tolerability and evidence of clinical activity (J Clin Oncol 2012;30 suppl; abstract 8075). Recommended phase II doses of TEM 25 mg weekly and LEN 20 mg daily (D1-21, q28D) were tested in 3 histology-based cohorts with final results presented here. Methods: Pts with rel/ref lymphomas having received > 1 cytotoxic regimen were eligible. Other criteria included ANC > 1000/uL, platelets > 75,000/uL, and normal renal and hepatic function. Pts were enrolled into 3 cohorts: DLBCL (cohort A), FL (cohort B), and other lymphomas (cohort C). CLL/SLL was excluded due to poor single-agent TEM activity. TEM was administered at 25 mg IV weekly, and LEN at 20 mg PO daily (D1-21, q28D). Pts received therapy for up to 1 year, or until disease progression or development of toxicities requiring treatment cessation. All pts received ASA prophylaxis. Response assessments were performed after cycle 2, and every 3 months thereafter. Results: 93 pts (31 female, 62 male), mean age 57 years (range, 23-78 years) were enrolled onto cohort A (n=39 DLBCL), cohort B (n=15 FL), or cohort C (n=39; 20 HL, 9 T-NHL, 5 MCL, 4 MZL, 1 WM). The median number of prior treatments was 4 (range, 1-14). 28 pts had relapsed following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The median number of cycles delivered was 4 (range, 1-12). Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic adverse events (AE) were uncommon with only fatigue and hypokalemia occurring in >10% of pts; ≥ grade 3 hematologic toxicity included anemia (n=27), lymphopenia (n=40), neutropenia (n=44) and thrombocytopenia (n=42). Three grade 5 AEs were observed (colonic perforation, myocardial infarction and sepsis). The overall response rates (ORR) were 25.6% (5 CR; 5 PR), 46.6% (5 CR; 2 PR), and 64.1% (7 CR; 18 PR) for pts in cohorts A, B, and C, respectively. Of note, cohort B (FL) was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for pts in cohorts A and C was 6.0 months (95% CI 3.1 - 8.0 months), and 7.3 months (4.2 - 10.8 months), and median duration of response (DOR) was 11.3 months (2.6 months - not reached) and 5.5 months (2.3 months - not reached), respectively. Median overall survival (OS) for pts in cohorts A and C was 10.2 months (5.9 - 20.6 months), 25.5 months (10.1 - not reached), respectively. Among 20 heavily-treated HL pts in cohort C (median prior treatments 6, range 3-14), all of whom progressed on brentuximab vedotin (BV), and 13 of whom had received a prior ASCT, the ORR was 80% (7 CR; 9 PR), and the median PFS, DOR and OS was 9.2 months, 8.1 months, and 25.5 months, respectively. Conclusions: The combination of TEM/LEN therapy was well-tolerated and showed encouraging activity in pts with rel/ref lymphomas. The most significant activity was observed in rel/ref HL, with an 80% response rate, including in pts with prior BV exposure and in those relapsed after ASCT. For DLBCL, the addition of LEN did not improve ORR compared to historical experience with single-agent TEM, but we note a provocative prolongation of both PFS and DOR for this otherwise aggressive disease. Further evaluation of mTOR pathway inhibition and immunomodulatory agents in relapsed HL patients is warranted based on these results. This study was conducted through the University of Chicago Phase II Consortium, supported by NCI contract N01-CM-2011-00071C Disclosures Kline: Vasculox: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding. Petrich:AbbVie: Employment. Rao:Novocure: Consultancy. Smith:TGTX: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Purpose: This study sought to determine the efficacy and safety profile of lapatinib in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Experimental Design: This phase II multiinstitutional study enrolled patients with recurrent/metastatic SCCHN into two cohorts: those without (arm A) and those with (arm B) before exposure to an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor. All subjects were treated with lapatinib 1,500 mg daily. Primary endpoints were response rate (arm A) and progression-free survival (PFS; arm B). The biologic effects of lapatinib on tumor growth and survival pathways were assessed in paired tumor biopsies obtained before and after therapy. Results: Forty-five patients were enrolled, 27 in arm A and 18 in arm B. Diarrhea was the most frequent toxicity occurring in 49% of patients. Seven patients experienced related grade 3 toxicity (3 fatigue, 2 hyponatremia, 1 vomiting, and 1 diarrhea). In an intent-to-treat analysis, no complete or partial responses were observed, and stable disease was the best response observed in 41% of arm A (median duration, 50 days, range, 34–159) and 17% of arm B subjects (median, 163 days, range, 135–195). Median PFS was 52 days in both arms. Median OS was 288 (95% CI, 62–374) and 155 (95% CI, 75–242) days for arms A and B, respectively. Correlative analyses revealed an absence of EGFR inhibition in tumor tissue. Conclusion: Lapatinib as a single agent in recurrent/metastatic SCCHN, although well tolerated, appears to be inactive in either EGFR inhibitor naive or refractory subjects. Clin Cancer Res; 18(8); 2336–43. ©2012 AACR.

Purpose Novel approaches are needed for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (UC). This trial assessed the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine (CGB) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic UC. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable UC received cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1, gemcitabine 1,000 to 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1, every 21 days. Results Forty-three patients with performance status of 0 (n = 26) or 1 (n = 17) and median age of 66 years were evaluable for toxicity and response. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity included neutropenia (35%), thrombocytopenia (12%), anemia (12%), and neutropenic fever (2%). Grade 3 to 5 nonhematologic toxicity included deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21%), hemorrhage (7%), cardiac (7%), hypertension (5%), and proteinuria (2%). Three treatment-related deaths (CNS hemorrhage, sudden cardiac death, and aortic dissection) were observed. Best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was complete response in eight patients (19%) and partial response in 23 patients (53%), for an overall response rate of 72%. Stable disease lasting ≥ 12 weeks occurred in four patients (9%), and progressive disease occurred in six patients (14%). With a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 3.5 to 40.9 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 10.3 months) with a median overall survival (OS) time of 19.1 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 22.7 months). The study-defined goal of 50% improvement in PFS was not met. Conclusion CGB demonstrates promising OS and antiangiogenic treatment-related toxicities in the phase II setting of metastatic UC. The full risk/benefit profile of CGB in patients with metastatic UC will be determined by an ongoing phase III intergroup trial.

Purpose Pemetrexed is a standard treatment against recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and cetuximab has single-agent activity against NSCLC. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of the combination of these agents in patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with recurrent NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were entered. Patients on the phase I portion of the study received cetuximab 400 mg/m 2 intravenously (IV) on day −7 followed by weekly doses of cetuximab at 250 mg/m 2 IV with escalating doses of pemetrexed every 3 weeks (dose levels: 500, 600, 750, 900 mg/m 2 ) in a standard 3 + 3 design. Once the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination was determined, patients were enrolled on the phase II portion. The primary end point was to determine the median time to disease progression (TTP) (null hypothesis 12 weeks, alternative hypothesis 24 weeks). Results Thirty-six patients were enrolled (phase I: n = 13, phase II: n = 23). Patient characteristics included 60.6% men, median age 64 years (range, 37–80 years), 57.6% had performance status 0 and 54.6% had adenocarcinoma histology. The median number of previous regimens was 2 (range, 1–6). The maximum tolerated dose of pemetrexed in combination with cetuximab was determined to be 750 mg/m 2 . The median TTP was 14.6 weeks. The median survival time was 42 weeks and 1-year survival was 38.5%. Conclusion The combination of pemetrexed at 750 mg/m 2 every 21 days with weekly cetuximab at 250 mg/m 2 was feasible; however, in this unselected patient population, the combination regimen does not seem to improve TTP compared with historical controls of either single agent.

Summary Background Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a validated target in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, but in patients with recurrent or metastatic disease, EGFR targeting agents have displayed modest efficacy. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated angiogenesis has been implicated as a mechanism of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. In this multi-institutional phase I/II study we combined an EGFR inhibitor, erlotinib, with an anti-VEGF antibody, bevacizumab. Methods Between April 15, 2003, and Jan 27, 2005, patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck were enrolled from seven centres in the USA and were given erlotinib (150 mg daily) and bevacizumab in escalating dose cohorts. The primary objectives in the phase I and II sections, respectively, were to establish the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity of bevacizumab when administered with erlotinib and to establish the proportion of objective responses and time to disease progression. Pretreatment serum and tissues were collected and analysed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunofluorescence quantitative laser analysis, respectively. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055913. Findings In the phase I section of the trial, ten patients were enrolled in three successive cohorts with no dose-limiting toxic effects noted. 46 patients were enrolled in the phase II section of the trial (including three patients from the phase I section) on the highest dose of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). Two additional patients were accrued beyond the protocol-stipulated 46, leaving a total of 48 patients for the phase II assessment. The most common toxic effects of any grade were rash and diarrhoea (41 and 16 of 48 patients, respectively). Three patients had serious bleeding events of grade 3 or higher. Seven patients had a response, with four showing a complete response allowing rejection of the null hypothesis. Median time of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) were 7·1 months (95% CI 5·7–9·0) and 4·1 months (2·8–4·4), respectively. Higher ratios of tumour-cell phosphorylated VEGF receptor-2 (pVEGFR2) over total VEGFR2 and endothelial-cell pEGFR over total EGFR in pretreatment biopsies were associated with complete response (0·704 vs 0·386, p=0·036 and 0·949 vs 0·332, p=0·036, respectively) and tumour shrinkage (p=0·007 and p=0·008, respectively) in a subset of 11 patients with available tissue. Interpretation The combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab is well tolerated in recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A few patients seem to derive a sustained benefit and complete responses were associated with expression of putative targets in pretreatment tumour tissue. Funding National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA (grant number N01-CM-17102) and the University of Chicago Cancer Research Center, Chicago, IL, USA (grant number P30 CA14599).

There is no effective therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who fail initial therapy with gemcitabine. Arsenic trioxide has potent antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in pancreatic cancer cell lines. We conducted a multicenter phase II trial in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who experienced disease progression on or after a gemcitabine-containing regimen.Arsenic trioxide 0.3 mg/kg was administered intravenously over 1 hour daily for 5 consecutive days every 28 days. Restaging computed tomography scans were obtained every 2 cycles.Thirteen patients were enrolled between December 2002 and November 2003. Twenty-four cycles were administered (median 2; range 1-2). There were no grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities; grade 1/2 anemia and leukopenia occurred in 50% and 25% of patients, respectively. Grade 3 toxicities included fatigue and thrombosis in 17% of patients. Only 1 patient developed a prolongation of the QTc interval. There were no objective responses. Median progression-free survival was 1.6 months (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.9). Median survival was 3.8 months (95% confidence interval, 1.6-6.8).Despite promising in vitro data, arsenic trioxide has no activity in pancreatic cancer patients who develop progressive disease after gemcitabine. Multicenter phase II trials are feasible in this patient population, and novel agents are clearly needed.

Purpose Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A phase II study by the Southwest Oncology Group using consolidation docetaxel after cisplatin (P), etoposide (E), and radiation (XRT) resulted in a median survival time (MST) of 26 months. This randomized phase III trial evaluated whether consolidation docetaxel was responsible for this improved survival. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, baseline performance status of 0 to 1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥ 1 L, and less than 5% weight loss. Patients received P 50 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 and E 50 mg/m2 IV on days 1-5 and 29-33 concurrently with chest XRT to 59.40 Gy. Patients who did not experience progression were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV every 21 days for three cycles versus observation. The primary end point was to compare overall survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Results On the basis of evidence of futility, a data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination after an analysis of the initial 203 patients. Patient characteristics (n = 203) were as follows: 34% female; median age, 63 years; 39.4% stage IIIA; and 60.6% stage IIIB. One hundred forty-seven (72.4%) of 203 patients were randomly assigned to docetaxel (n = 73) or observation (n = 74). Grade 3 to 5 toxicities during docetaxel included febrile neutropenia (10.9%) and pneumonitis (9.6%); 28.8% of patients were hospitalized during docetaxel (v 8.1% in observation arm), and 5.5% died as a result of docetaxel. The MST for all patients (n = 203) was 21.7 months; MST was 21.2 months for docetaxel arm compared with 23.2 months for observation arm (P = .883). Conclusion Consolidation docetaxel after PE/XRT results in increased toxicities but does not further improve survival compared with PE/XRT alone in patients with stage III inoperable NSCLC.

Background The epothilone B analog, BMS-247550, is a non-taxane microtubulin-stabilizing agent with preclinical activity in taxane-resistant cell lines and phase I activity in colorectal cancer. We conducted a phase II study of single-agent BMS-247550 in advanced colorectal cancer patients who had disease progression following treatment with irinotecan–5-fluorouracil–leucovorin (IFL). Patients and methods Patients were required to have histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer; progressed on or after chemotherapy with IFL; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1; peripheral neuropathy grade ≤1; and adequate laboratory parameters. BMS-247550 40 mg/m2 was administered intravenously over 3 h every 3 weeks. Patients were evaluated for response every 6 weeks. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled; all were evaluable for toxicity and 23 were evaluable for response. There were no complete or partial responses. Thirteen patients (56%) had stable disease after two cycles of therapy; five patients (20%) received six or more cycles. The median time to progression was11 weeks; median overall survival was 36 weeks. There was considerable grade 3/4 hematological toxicity, including neutropenia (48%) and leukopenia (36%). Grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicities included grade 3 hypersensitivity reaction (12%) and peripheral neuropathy (20%). Conclusions Single-agent BMS-247550 (40 mg/m2) administered every 21 days demonstrated no activity in advanced colorectal cancer. Peripheral neuropathy was treatment-limiting.

LBA5500 Background: PARP inhibitors and anti-angiogenics are clinically active in recurrent ovarian cancer (OvCa). Preclinical studies suggest these agents can synergize, and a phase 1 study showed that the combination of cediranib (ced) and olaparib (olap) is well-tolerated. We therefore compared the activity of olap alone (Olap) to combined ced and olap (Ced/Olap) in treatment of recurrent platinum-sensitive (plat-sens) high-grade serous (HGS) or BRCA-related OvCa (NCT 01116648). Methods: Patients (pts) across 9 centers were randomized 1:1 in this Ph 2 open label study to Olap (olap 400 mg capsules BID) or Ced/Olap (olap 200 mg capsules BID; ced 30 mg daily), stratified by BRCA status and prior anti-angiogenic therapy. Eligibility included pts with recurrent plat-sens HGS or BRCA-related OvCa. Pts had measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, PS 0 or 1, and the ability to take POs. No prior anti-angiogenics in the recurrent setting or prior PARP inhibitor was allowed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as time from randomization to radiographic progression or death. With a target N=90 pts, the study was powered to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.75 (median PFS 6 vs 10.5 mo). Results: Pts were enrolled from Oct 2011 to Jun 2013: 46 to Olap, 44 to Ced/Olap. 48 pts were known BRCA carriers (25 Olap; 23 Ced/Olap). At a planned interim analysis the DSMB recommended release of data. As of Jan 7, 2014, 41 pts had a PFS event. Median PFS was 9.0 mos for Olap and 17.7 mos for Ced/Olap (HR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.6, p = 0.001). There were 2 complete responses (CR) and 21 partial responses (PR) in pts on Olap (56% objective response rate, ORR) and 3 CRs and 33 PRs in pts on Ced/Olap (84% ORR, p = 0.008). The overall rate of Gr3/4 toxicity was higher for pts on Ced/Olap (70%) than on Olap (7%). Differentially occurring toxicities included fatigue (27% Ced/Olap vs 7% Olap), diarrhea (23% vs 0%), and hypertension (39% vs 0%). Updated efficacy and exploratory subgroup analyses will be presented. Conclusions: Combined Ced/Olap significantly extended PFS and ORR compared to Olap in plat-sens OvCa. Further studies of this oral combination in plat-sens OvCa are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT01116648.

4022 Background: Sonic Hh (SHh), the ligand for the Hh pathway, is over-expressed in >80% of PC. V, a small molecule antagonist of the Hh signaling pathway, has activity in preclinical PC models. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, placebo-controlled, phase IB/randomized phase II trial of GV or GP. Eligible pts, KPS 80-100, had previously untreated metastatic PC, or had completed adjuvant therapy > 6 months (mo) prior. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS). Correlatives: serial SHh serum levels; serial contrast perfusion CT imaging. To allow for early stopping due to lack of efficacy, a planned interim analysis was performed after approximately 50% of the expected number of PFS events occurred. The protocol stipulated that the trial would be terminated if the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis were the trial to continue (conditional power) was 2 over 30 minutes, days (D) 1, 8, 15, Q28D. Pts, stratified by KPS (80 v 90/100), and disease status (newly-diagnosed/recurrent), were randomized to V (150 mg PO daily) or P. For pts on P, cross-over was allowed at progression. Results: 70 evaluable pts (V/P 35/35) enrolled at 12 sites 2/10-6/11. Pt characteristics: median age 63/63 (range 49-79/48-82); KPS 80: 8/8; 90: 12/14; 100: 15/13. Grade 3/4 toxicity (%pts): neutropenia 20/26; hyponatremia 3/11; fatigue 9/6; hyperglycemia 14/6; elevated alkaline phosphatase 9/11. Response (%): complete 0/3, partial 0/11, stable disease 49/31. Median PFS: 3.7/2.4 mo (95% CI: 2.4-4.6/1.9-3.7; adjusted HR 0.92 [0.52-1.64]). Upon progression/unblinding, 23 GP pts crossed over to GV. Median overall survival (OS): 6.3/5.4 mo (95% CI:4.9-7.8/4.2-8.0, adjusted HR 0.97, [0.47-2.01]). 1-year survival (%): 24/24. Laboratory and radiological correlatives will be presented. Conclusions: GV has an acceptable toxicity profile. This trial did not meet criteria for futility at this interim analysis. The study is expected to complete accrual of 112 pts in February 2012. The final analysis will be reported after 90 events. Funded by NCI N01-CM-62201.

4541 Background: Initial results of CGB therapy in metastatic UC patients demonstrated encouraging response and overall survival results with concerning rates of toxicity (Hahn et al ASCO 2008, abs...

Abstract 2081 Poster Board II-58 AZD6244 is an orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of the MEK kinase. MEK is downstream of the RAS/RAF pathway, which is activated by mutations occurring in RAS as well as mutations and/or overexpression of upstream receptor tyrosine kinases such as FLT3 and c-KIT in AML. In addition, elevated levels of phosphorylated-ERK (p-ERK), the only known substrate of MEK, have been demonstrated in >75% of patients(pts) with AML, and MEK inhibition of primary AML cells in vitro results in growth arrest. AZD6244 was well tolerated in phase I trials in advanced solid tumors and had a favorable pharmacokinetic profile; the recommended phase II dose was 100mg twice daily. We hypothesized that in AML, a MEK inhibitor would lead to inhibition of RAS-mediated signal transduction, with subsequent antiproliferative effects and inhibition of the leukemia clone. We report our experience with the first clinical trial utilizing a MEK inhibitor in advanced AML. Methods: 47 pts were enrolled on a Phase II multicenter study of AZD6244 in relapsed/refractory AML. Median age was 69 years (range, 26-83 yrs) with 57% males. ECOG performance status at baseline was 0, 1 and 2, respectively, in 12, 27 and 8 pts. 14 pts (30%) were previously untreated for AML and >60 yrs; 11 of these pts had received prior therapy for an antecedent hematologic disorder (AHD); 1 had therapy-related AML (t-AML) and only 2 pts (4%) had previously untreated de novo AML. 6 pts (13%) had AML in first relapse, 14 (30%) had AML beyond first relapse, and 13 (27%) had primary refractory disease. 4% had good risk cytogenetics, 28% intermediate risk, 49% poor risk, and 19% had other or unknown cytogenetics. Overall, 53% had AML that had evolved from an AHD and/or t-AML. Ten pts had a FLT3 ITD or TKD, 36 had no FLT3 mutation detected, and FLT3 mutational status was unknown in 1. Median number of prior therapies for AML and/or MDS was 2 (range, 0-6). AZD6244 was given at 100mg twice daily without interruption; cycles were repeated every 28 days. Dose modifications and/or delays occurred for grade 3&4 non-hematologic toxicities, or prolonged grade1&2 toxicities. Peripheral blood and/or marrow samples were obtained at baseline for mutational analysis (RAS/c-KIT/FLT3), and at serial time points to measure p-ERK. Results: Daily AZD6244 was tolerable. 42 pts are evaluable for efficacy and safety. Median number of cycles administered was 1 (range, 1-9). 19 pts (40%) received ≥2 cycles. 4 pts required dose reduction. The most common drug-related toxicities were grade 1&2 diarrhea, nausea, fatigue and vomiting, occurring in 43%, 36%, 31% and 24%, respectively. Grade 3&4 adverse events possibly related to AZD6244 included fatigue, nausea and dehydration, occurring in 7%, 5% and 5%, respectively. 4 pts had a minor response (defined as >50% decline in peripheral blood and/or marrow blasts lasting 4 weeks). 2 additional patients also had >50% decline in marrow blasts but did not have a follow up confirmatory biopsy. In 1 of these pts, the decline in blasts was associated with sustained improvement in platelets (>100K/uL) lasting 4 months. 6 additional pts had evidence of disease stabilization, lasting a median of 34 days (range, 21-222+ days). Analysis of p-ERK by flow cytometry has just been intiated, and in the first 3 pts analyzed, baseline p-ERK levels were low, and none of these pts responded. In contrast, p-mTOR levels (downstream of the PI3 Kinase pathway) were significantly elevated in these same pts. Conclusions: Administration of the oral MEK inhibitor AZD6244 is feasible in AML. Modest evidence of antileukemic activity has been observed, consistent with the predicted cytostatic activity of this class of drugs. Analysis of the effect of AZD6244 on p-ERK and signaling intermediates of the PI3 Kinase pathway such as p-mTOR is ongoing. Given its modest toxicity profile, AZD6244 should be investigated further in combination with drugs that target other critical signaling pathways and/or dysregulated transcriptional pathways in AML. Sponsored by NCI grant NO1-CM-62201 Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

5018 Background: Despite CG therapy, most metastatic UC patients die from their disease. Novel approaches are needed. Combining anti-angiogenic therapy with chemotherapy has improved outcomes in other malignancies, offering hope for similar improvements in UC patients. Methods: Metastatic or unresectable chemonaive UC patients (pts) with an ECOG performance status of 0–1 received C 70 mg/m2 iv d1, G 1,000–1,250 mg/m2 iv d1, 8, and B 15 mg/kg iv d1 on a q21d cycle for up to 8 cycles. Gemcitabine was reduced to 1,000 mg/m2 iv d1, 8 for all subsequent pts after 7 thromboembolic events were noted in the first 17 pts. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The trial was designed to detect a 33% improvement in PFS from 7.5 months with traditional CG therapy to 11.25 months with CGB. Results: By December 2008, 45 pts were enrolled, with 43 evaluable for toxicity, 36 for response. Demographics include: 33 (77%) male, 10 (23%) female; median age 66 (Range: 41 - 78); 26 (60%) and 17 (40%) ECOG 0/1; 19 (44%) and 24 (56%) lymph node only / visceral metastases. PFS will be evaluated in May 2009 when all pts will have more than 6 month follow-up data. 14 (33%) and 6 (14%) pts experienced grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity (4 pts - thrombocytopenia, 2 pts - neutropenic fever). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity was observed in 24 (56%) and 9 (21%) pts (DVT/PE - 9 pts, CNS hemorrhage/proteinuria/hypertension - 1 pt each) Best RECIST response was: complete response 6 pts (17%, 95% CI 6–33%), partial response 18 pts (50%, 95% CI 33–67%); with overall response rate of 67% (95% CI 51–82%). Stable disease lasting at least 12 weeks was observed in 10 pts (28%, 95% CI 14–45%) and progressive disease in 2 pts (5%, 95% CI 1–19%). Conclusions: CGB demonstrates significant clinical activity in the first-line treatment of metastatic UC patients at the expense of considerable toxicity. The durability of disease control will be determined by assessment of PFS. A phase III trial to further define the toxicity risk vs. clinical benefit of bevacizumab addition to platinum-based doublets is planned in this population. [Table: see text]

7698 Background: Both pemetrexed (P) and cetuximab (C) have single agent activity in NSCLC, non-overlapping toxicities and different mechanisms of action, making the combination of P and C an attractive option to evaluate. This study evaluates the feasibility of combining these agents, and tests the activity and toxicity of this regimen in pts with recurrent NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, previously treated ≥ 1 prior platinum containing regimen, PS 0–1. Prior use of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors was permitted. The phase I portion determined the MTD (Bedano Proc ASCO et al., 2006). The primary endpoint of the phase II portion was to estimate TTP using Kaplan-Meier analysis (5% alpha, 80% beta), requiring 25 pts to demonstrate a TTP of ≥ 24 weeks vs. historical control of 12 weeks. Following a loading dose of C at 400 mg/m2 on week 1, pts received P at 750 mg/m2 iv q3wks and C at 250 mg/m2 iv weekly. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. After completing at least 4 cycles, pts with non-progressive disease (PD) were allowed to continue C alone until PD. Results: Eligible and treated phase II pts (n=23) received a median of 4 cycles (range 1–12). Pt characteristics: M:F 57%:43%; median age 64 (range 43–80), stage IIIB: IV 17%:83%; adeno:squamous cell 61%:30%; smoking status: current/former/never: 29%/62%/10%. Prior regimens, median 2 (range 1–6). G3/4/5 toxicities included: 4.3% neutropenia, 13% infection, 4.3% hemorrhage, 22% skin. There were no G3/4 episodes of anemia, TCP, febrile neutropenia, liver toxicity or diarrhea. Response data was available for 18 patients. Partial responses were seen in 2 pts (8.7 %), SD in 8 patients (34.8%). Median TTP was 25 weeks. Conclusion: It is feasible and safe to combine P at 750 mg/m2 every 21 days and C at 400 mg/m2 week 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly thereafter. This combination resulted in longer TTP when compared with historical controls of P at 500 mg/m2 alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

4608 Background: The ras oncogene is mutated in about 90% of PC, leading to constitutive activation of the Ras-Raf-MAPK signal transduction pathway. Sorafenib an inhibitor of B-raf, VEGFR2, and PDGFR-B, has in vitro activity against PC cell lines dependent on mutant Ras activation, and has anti-tumor activity in PC xenograft models. In a phase I trial of SG, 57% of PC patients (pts) had stable disease (SD) (Siu, 2003). Methods: We conducted a multi-center phase II trial of SG in advanced PC pts who had: no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, PS 0–1, measurable disease. Primary endpoint: response. The Simon 2-stage trial design required 1 response in 12 evaluable pts for 2nd stage. Pts received S 400 mg orally twice daily days (D) 1–28, and G 1000 mg/m2 over 30 minutes D 1, 8, 15 Q28D. CT scans: Q2 cycles. 17 pts enrolled at 4 sites 9/04–12/05. Pt characteristics: male 47%; median age 62 (range 50–85); PS 0 24% 1 76%; stage IV 94%; prior radiation 12%; liver metastases 81%. Results: 17 pts evaluable for toxicity, 13 for response. 61 cycles of SG have been given (median 2, range 1–12). There were no objective responses; 3 pts (23%) had SD. 1 pt with SD remains on treatment after 12 cycles. Median overall survival: 4.0 months (95% CI: 3.4, 5.9). Median progression-free survival: 3.2 months (95% CI: 1.6, 3.6). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities (% pts): neutropenia 29%; thrombocytopenia 6%; neutropenic fever 0%. Grade 3 non- hematologic toxicities: thrombosis 18%; fatigue 18%; rash 12%; dehydration 12%; nausea 12%; hand-foot syndrome 12%; hypertension 6%; diarrhea 6%; GI bleeding 6%. Conclusion: The study did not meet response criteria to proceed to a second stage of accrual. SG is inactive, though well-tolerated, in advanced PC pts. Supported by NCI grant N01-CM-62201. [Table: see text]

5568 Background: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have demonstrated reproducible activity in patients with R/M SCCHN. HER2 is the preferred dimerization partner for EGFR. Lapatinib is a dual EGFR and HER2 kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated promising preclinical activity in SCCHN models. Methods: This phase II multi-institutional study enrolls patients with R/M SCCHN into 2 cohorts: those without prior exposure to an EGFR inhibitor (arm A) and those with prior exposure to an EGFR inhibitor (arm B). All subjects were treated with lapatinib 1500mg OD. Primary endpoints were response rate (arm A) and progression-free survival (arm B). Results: 42 subjects have been enrolled (27 arm A, 15 arm B; 35 male, 7 female, median age 60 years). Toxicity was generally mild without any dose reductions or patient withdrawal due to adverse effects. Diarrhea was the most frequent toxicity occurring in 40% of patients. Other toxicities observed included fatigue (21%), rash (21%) and nausea (14%). 2 patients experienced grade 3 toxicity (1 diarrhea, 1 emesis). 1 patient had a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (60% to 40%) which was asymptomatic and recovered to baseline upon discontinuation of lapatinib. No objective responses were observed in either arm. In an intent-to-treat analysis stable disease was the best response observed in 37% of arm A and 20% of arm B subjects. Median PFS was 1.6 months in arm A and 1.7 months in arm B. Conclusions: Lapatinib as a single agent in R/M SCCHN, although well tolerated, appears to have little activity in either EGFR inhibitor naïve or refractory subjects. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

14050 Background: BMS-247550 is a semi-synthetic analog of epothilone B that induces mitotic arrest at G2M by microtubule stabilization. We previously reported (Proc ASCO 2003) a RR of 17% in HBC and present our final analysis. Methods: Pts with histologically confirmed hepatocellular cancer (HCC), gallbladder cancer (GB) and cholangiocarcinoma (C) were eligible. Pts had no prior chemotherapy, PS 0–2 and ≤ grade 1 neuropathy. Pts received BMS-247550 40mg/m2 intravenously over 3 hours every 21 days. A Simon, optimal two-stage design was employed. We proceeded to the 2nd stage of accrual after 3 confirmed PRs in the first 21 pts. Primary endpoint: Response rate (RR). Results: From 1/02–4/05, 54 pts (52% male) were enrolled, 53 pts evaluable for toxicity, 48 pts evaluable for response. 1 pt was ineligible due to incorrect diagnosis but evaluated for toxicity. Pt characteristics: median age 65 (range 19–88); ECOG performance status 0(48%), 1(48%), 2(4%); HCC (38%), GB (40%), C (22%); metastatic disease (75%); 129 cycles were administered (median 2; range 1–14). There were 3 Gr 5 toxicities: 1 pt died unexpectedly 48 hours within drug administration; 1 complication of neutropenic fever; 1 found unresponsive after fall. Gr 3–4 toxicities (% pts): neutropenia (39%), neutropenic fever (6%), anemia (6%), thrombocytopenia (2%), nausea (13%), transaminase elevation (9%), fatigue (7%), and hypersensitivity (4%). Neuropathy: Gr 3–4 (5%); Gr 1–2 (39%). 3 pts were removed from study due to persistent neuropathy. Responses: 8% PR (2 HCC, 1 GB, 1C); 56% SD. 4/7 HCC pts received ≥ 10 cycles. Median survival: 7 months [95% CI (5.0, 10.8)]; PFS: 2.6 months [95% CI [1.4, 4.1)]; Conclusions: Despite initial tumor responses and a few pts with prolonged SD in HCC, BMS-247550 does not appear to have clinically significant activity in HBC. Supported by NCI grant N01-CM-17102. [Table: see text]

4009 Background: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors are overexpressed in PC. In preclinical models, anti-VEGF antibodies suppress PC growth and potentiate the activity of g...

4114 Background: There is no effective chemotherapy for PC pts who progress after treatment with Gemcitabine. Novel agents with unique mechanisms of action are clearly needed for this chemo-refract...

BackgroundAdministration of paclitaxel on a weekly schedule in combination with carboplatin is associated with a lower incidence of neuropathy and myelosuppression. The authors conducted subgroup analysis of their randomized phase II study of three different schedules of weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin to determine the efficacy of each regimen in elderly patients (aged ≥ 70 years) with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to one of three different weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin regimens. After four cycles of chemotherapy, those with objective response or stable disease were randomized to weekly paclitaxel or observation as maintenance therapy. Four hundred three patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 111 (28%) were aged 70 years or older.ResultsThe treatment regimen of weekly paclitaxel (100 mg/m2 for 3 of 4 weeks) and carboplatin (area under the curve = 6 mg/ml/min once every 4 weeks) (arm 1) was associated with the best therapeutic index overall. The median survival and 1-year survival rates were 11.3 months and 50% for patients in the ≥70 years cohort versus 11.2 months and 46% for the