CONTESSA: A multinational, multicenter, randomized, phase III registration study of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine in patients (pts) with HER2-, hormone receptor + (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) who have previously received a taxane

TPS1107

Background: Chemotherapy treatments with robust efficacy that preserve quality of life are needed. Tesetaxel (T) is a novel, oral taxane that has potential advantages over currently available taxanes, including: oral administration with a low pill burden and Q3W dosing regimen; no observed hypersensitivity reactions; preclinical evidence of CNS penetration; and improved activity against chemotherapy-resistant tumors. Over 600 pts have been treated with T in clinical studies. T had robust monotherapy activity in a Phase 2 study in 38 pts with HER2-, HR+ MBC who received T Q3W, with a confirmed ORR per RECIST 1.1 of 45% and median PFS of 5.4 mo. The confirmed ORR in taxane-pretreated pts was 45%. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that reducing the dose of capecitabine (C) in combination with a taxane may result in reduced toxicity without reduction in efficacy. Preclinical data also suggest that T may penetrate the brain at clinically relevant concentrations. CONTESSA investigates T plus a reduced dose of C as an all-oral regimen in HER2-, HR+ LA/MBC, with revised eligibility criteria to allow inclusion of pts with CNS metastases. Methods: CONTESSA is a 600-pt, multinational, multicenter, randomized (1:1), Phase 3 registration study comparing T (27 mg/m2 on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus a reduced dose of C (1,650 mg/m2/day on Days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) to the approved dose of C alone (2,500 mg/m2/day on Days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle) in pts with HER2-, HR+ LA/MBC previously treated with a taxane in the (neo)adjuvant setting. The protocol was newly amended to allow pts with known CNS metastases. The primary endpoint is PFS assessed by an Independent Radiologic Review Committee (IRC). CONTESSA is 90% powered to detect a 42% improvement in PFS (HR = 0.71). Secondary endpoints are OS, ORR, and disease control rate. Enrollment began in Dec 2017. Following review in Jan 2019, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the Study continue as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03326674.

Real-world effectiveness of palonosetron-based antiemetic regimens: preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Aim: To evaluate real-world effectiveness of guideline-recommended palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens in patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis used records of adults receiving first-line chemotherapy and a three-drug palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for HEC or palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimen for MEC (carboplatin). Results: A total of 1587 records were evaluated. For HEC and MEC, respectively, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) occurred in 40 versus 44% of patient cycles (p = 0.01), and unscheduled iv. antiemetics in 41 versus 35% (p < 0.05). A total of 48% of HEC patients versus 42% of MEC patients had CINV-related clinic visits (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Palonosetron-containing antiemetic regimens may provide insufficient CINV control. Alternative regimens may improve patient quality of life and reduce healthcare resource utilization.

Psychosocial distress and access to resources: Preliminary findings from Immunotherapy & Me

91

Background: Immunotherapy & Me ( IO & Me) is an innovative program of supportive resources developed by Cancer Support Community to investigate and support the unique needs of immunotherapy patients. Here, we describe psychosocial distress and confidence accessing resources among a sample of program participants. Methods: IO & Me is recruiting at 4 community clinics and 1 academic center. Eligible patients must be on an anti-cancer immunotherapy. At enrollment, participants consent, provide demographic/clinical history, and report level of confidence accessing cancer treatment information and resources related to treatment decision making (TDM) and managing symptoms/side effects (SEs). Distress is reported with CancerSupportSource (CSS), a tool where patients rate level of concern on 15 items. Once enrolled, participants can access educational resources (print materials, SE tracker, eLearning courses) and a toll-free helpline staffed by licensed mental health professionals (Cancer Support Helpline). Follow-up surveys are available every 30 days for 6 months. We present data from 68 participants at enrollment and 22 at first follow-up. Results: Participants were 87% White; 69% male; mean age = 65 years (SD = 13). 43% had lung cancer; 22% melanoma; 9% kidney cancer. At baseline, the frequency who felt very or extremely confident accessing resources related to: TDM = 68%; managing SEs = 60%; treatment information = 75%. For distress, top concerns were: fatigue (35% of participants); health insurance/money worries (34%); exercise/physical activity (32%). After 30 days, the frequency who felt confident accessing resources for: TDM = 100%; managing SEs = 91%; treatment information = 100%. Top concerns were: changes/disruptions in work, school, or home life (14%); feeling irritable (9%); sleep problems (9%). Conclusions: Preliminary results show greater variability in distress and confidence accessing resources at baseline than 1-month into the program, at which time few endorse cancer-related concerns and most feel confident accessing resources. These findings highlight the utility of providing patients with educational/support resources and the value of customizable programs like IO & Me. Clinical trial information: NCT03347058.

A multispecialty approach to immuno-oncology education for community providers

80

Background: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Immuno-Oncology Institute was developed in 2015 to prepare all members of the multidisciplinary cancer care team for the complex implementation of immuno-oncology in the community setting. Today, with more than 50 cancer immunotherapy indications and over 2,500 clinical trials with cancer immunotherapies, the challenges and issues related to recognizing and managing immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have grown even more complex for community practitioners. Methods: The ACCC Immuno-Oncology Institute assembled 4 working groups focused on addressing the diverse issues around the delivery and management of patients on cancer immunotherapies. The working groups were divided by 4 topics: staff training and education; multispecialty care coordination and communication; telemedicine; and big data. A detailed systemic review of the literature was conducted for each topic in the context of immuno-oncology, to determine the current landscape of information and available resources. The findings were then shared with the working group members and collaborative discussions ensued over 12 virtual committee meetings. The 19 working group members are diverse by discipline, including specialties such as emergency medicine, dermatology, primary care, survivorship, pathology, and academic researchers. Results: The ACCC Working Group Summit convened in September 2018 to develop innovative educational opportunities for community practitioners related to managing irAEs across the 4 topic areas. Eight unique action plans were developed by working group members. Conclusions: For each of the 4 key areas, working group members identified a list of opportunities that would improve how clinicians are managing irAEs for patients being treated with immunotherapy. It is critical for future educational interventions to encompass the multispecialty team perspective related to the management of irAEs.

Abstract OT1-01-02: An open-label, randomized, multi-center phase 2 study evaluating the activity of lasofoxifene relative to fulvestrant for the treatment of postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2 - breast cancer (MBC) with an ESR1 mutation

Endocrine based therapy is the standard treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) MBC. Agents targeting the ER pathway including aromatase inhibitors (AIs), fulvestrant and tamoxifen along with CDK 4/6 inhibitors are considered standard for first and 2nd line treatment. However, endocrine resistance develops in nearly all patients and the optimal systemic therapy after progression on a CDK 4/6 inhibitor is unknown.

Lasofoxifene is a third generation SERM previously investigated for the treatment of osteoporosis and vulvo-vaginal atrophy (VVA). In a large phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy of lasofoxifene for the postmenopausal treatment of osteoporosis, lasofoxifene significantly reduced the incidence of ER+ breast cancer. Further unpublished preclinical data have demonstrated significant in vitro and in vivo efficacy in non-clinical breast cancer models including models with and without ESR1 mutants. Moreover, lasofoxifene significantly reduced metastases in ESR1 mutated models. These non-clinical and clinical data provide a strong rationale to pursue a phase 2 clinical trial in women with ER+, ESR1 mutated MBC.

This open-label, multi-center study will compare the efficacy and tolerability of lasofoxifene (5 mg orally daily) to fulvestrant (IM 500 mg D1,15,29 and then q30 D) in a 1:1 randomization. Inclusion criteria include postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer; progression on a non-steroidal AI in combination with a CDK 4/6 inhibitor; and a known ESR1 mutation. Approximately 90 patients with measurable or evaluable disease (i.e. bone only) will be recruited to have at least 40 patients per treatment arm. The primary endpoint will be progression free survival (PFS) with secondary endpoints of objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of response (DoR) and time to response (TTR). It is assumed that lasofoxifene will double the median PFS compared to fulvestrant in this ESR1 mutation patient population for a hazard ratio 0.5 and a power of 89% to reach a 1-sided p of &lt;0.05.

The study will commence in 4Q2018 and will complete recruitment in 1 year. It is anticipated that 25-30 centers in the US will be participating.

Citation Format: Plourde PV, Schwartzberg LS, Greene GL, Portman DJ, Komm BS, Jenkins SN, Liu P-Y, Portman MD, Goetz MP. An open-label, randomized, multi-center phase 2 study evaluating the activity of lasofoxifene relative to fulvestrant for the treatment of postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic ER+/HER2 - breast cancer (MBC) with an ESR1 mutation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-01-02.

Abstract P2-08-66: Outcomes among metastatic breast cancer patients with characteristics that confer a less favorable prognosis

Background: Recent advances in the treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have contributed to increased overall survival (OS). Despite advances, MBC remains incurable and there is a subset of patients with clinical features that are associated with poorer prognosis. This study described the patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of a cohort of US patients with HR+, HER2- MBC as a function of various factors associated with poor prognosis, including presence (vs. absence) of liver metastases (LM).

Methods: This retrospective study used US community oncology electronic health record data from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse. Eligible women who received systemic treatment for MBC, had a diagnosis of MBC in 2008 or later, and had completed at least three Patient Care Monitor (PCM) surveys, (a patient-reported outcomes survey collected as a part of clinical care), were included. OS was measured from the start of the first three regimen-based lines (1L, 2L and 3L) of treatment; patients without evidence of death were censored at the last observed visit. The statistical significance of differences in categorical and continuous variables between LM positive (LM+) and LM negative (LM-) were evaluated with chi-square (X2) tests, and t-tests, respectively. Kaplan-Meier and Cox analyses were applied to evaluate differences in OS by LM status and by line of therapy at the start of MBC treatment (unadjusted for treatment).

Results: A total of 378 women, 98.4% residing in the South and 40.5% African-American, were included; 295 (78.0%) were LM- at the time of diagnosis. Following 1L, approximately 82.8% and 60.8% of patients received 2L and 3L, respectively. Patients with a LM+ status had a lower mean age (mean: 57.2, SD: 13.8 vs. 61.2, 13.1; p=0.016) and a higher percentage had a grade 3 tumor (36.1 vs. 24.7%; p=0.039) compared to patients with LM-status. Table 1 shows the OS results for 1L-3L. For all 3 lines, median OS for LM+ was shorter than the LM- median OS. LM+ patients had a poorer prognosis as they were more likely to have an OS event across 1L-3L compared to LM- patients.

Conclusions: Among this community oncology cohort, median OS in 1L was 14 months shorter in LM+ patients compared to LM- patients. It is important to note that the sample size and selection criteria may limit generalizability of these results. Despite progress in treating women with MBC, treatment options are lacking for patients with less favorable prognosis, including those with LM. Other potential indicators of poor prognosis, such as high tumor grade, are being explored.

Table 1.OS (months) by regimen-based line of therapy Measure Liver Mets (LM+) No Liver Mets (LM-) HR p-value 1L, # of Events/ # of Patients55/83168/295  Median (95% CI)23.9 (15.5-28.6)35.2 (30.1-42.3) &lt;0.0001* Cox Hazard Ratio  1.93&lt;0.0001 2L, # of Events/ # of Patients48/72149/241  Median (95% CI)16.6 (12.0-22.6)24.2 (21.3-29.0) 0.002* Cox Hazard Ratio  1.490.040 3L, # of Events/ # of Patients35/52118/178  Median (95% CI)11.5 (7.0-21.0)17.4 (14.7-20.0) 0.038* Cox Hazard Ratio  1.540.060CI=Confidence Interval; *p-value was derived using log rank test.

Citation Format: Saverno K, Cuyun Carter G, Dufour R, Price G, Li L, DeLuca A, Nash Smyth E, Battiato L, Gable J, Walker MS, Huang Y-J, Hannas S, Schwartzberg LS. Outcomes among metastatic breast cancer patients with characteristics that confer a less favorable prognosis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-08-66.

Treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, health resource utilization, and cost in patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic breast cancer treated in community oncology settings

PURPOSE

This retrospective study of community oncology patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA)-mutated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) examined treatment outcomes and health resource utilization (HRU) and costs for a sample of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative disease who were either hormone receptor positive (HR+) or triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODS

Evidence from the Vector Oncology Data Warehouse, a repository of electronic medical records/billing data and provider notes, was analyzed. Treatment outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from start of first-line therapy in the metastatic setting. HRU and cost measures were collected from the time of MBC diagnosis to end of the record. HRU included hospitalizations, emergency room visits, infused/parenteral supportive care drugs, and outpatient visits. Costs were computed both as total and monthly costs.

RESULTS

57 HR+ and 57 TNBC patients (2013-2015) met inclusion criteria. Eight TNBC patients did not get treatment. HR+ patients had median first line PFS of 12.1 months and TNBC patients had 6.1 months. HR+ patients had median OS from start of first line of 38.4 months, and TNBC patients had 23.4 months. Rate of use of infused/parenteral supportive care drugs was 25.5% overall and 36.7% among TNBC patients with 15.8% among HR+ patients.

CONCLUSION

There is an unmet need in BRCA-mutated patients with MBC, including those with HR+ and TNBC disease. The unmet need among TNBC patients was most evident in that 12% were not treated and TNBC patients appeared to have poor treatment outcomes.

MICRO ABSTRACT

Reviewed medical records for outcomes, resource utilization, and costs in 114 community patients with BRCA mutated metastatic breast cancer. 57 hormone positive (HP); 57 triple negative (TN).

RESULTS

median PFS: 12.1 months HP; 6.1 TN. HP OS was 38.4; TN 23.4. Rate of infused supportive care drugs: 25.5% HP; 36.7% TN. Patients with TN disease need better therapeutic options.

Real-world efficacy: intravenous palonosetron three-drug regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

AIM

Real-world palonosetron effectiveness was evaluated in an antiemetic regimen with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PATIENTS & METHODS

In this Phase IV, prospective, multicenter observational study, HEC-treated cancer patients received palonosetron, a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone. Primary objective was to assess complete response (CR) for acute (≤24 h), delayed and overall (≤120 h) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

Of 159 patients, 65.4% had breast cancer, 64.8% received anthracycline (doxorubicin)-plus-cyclophosphamide-containing chemotherapy; 155 completed one HEC cycle. CR was 60.0% acute, 39.4% delayed and 34.8% overall, and then increased (all phases) in 69 patients completing four HEC cycles. Anthracycline (doxorubicin) plus cyclophosphamide-receiving patients had especially low CR.

CONCLUSION

Even within a recommended three-drug antiemetic regimen, palonosetron may provide suboptimal chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting control with HEC in real-world settings.

Evolving role of neurokinin 1-receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

To examine pharmacologic and clinical characteristics of neurokinin 1 (NK₁)-receptor antagonists (RAs) for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, a literature search was performed for clinical studies in patients at risk of CINV with any approved NK₁ RAs in the title or abstract: aprepitant (capsules or oral suspension), HTX019 (intravenous [IV] aprepitant), fosaprepitant (IV aprepitant prodrug), rolapitant (tablets or IV), and fixed-dose tablets combining netupitant or fosnetupi-tant (IV netupitant prodrug) with the 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5HT₃) RA palonosetron (oral or IV). All NK₁ RAs are effective, but exhibit important differences in efficacy against acute and delayed CINV. The magnitude of benefit of NK₁-RA-containing three-drug vs two-drug regimens is greater for delayed vs acute CINV. Oral rolapitant has the longest half-life of available NK₁ RAs, but as a consequence should not be administered more frequently than every 2 weeks. In general, NK₁ RAs are well tolerated; however, IV rolapitant was recently removed from US distribution, due to hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, and IV fosaprepitant is associated with infusion-site reactions and hypersensitivity presumed related to its polysorbate 80 excipient. Also, available NK₁ RAs have potential drug–drug interactions. Adding an NK₁ RA to 5HT₃ RA and dexamethasone significantly improves CINV control vs the two-drug regimen. Newer NK₁ RAs offer more formulation options, higher acute-phase plasma levels, or improved tolerability, and increase clinicians’ opportunities to maximize benefits of this important class of antiemetics.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy among patients with nonmyeloid cancer receiving filgrastim vs a filgrastim biosimilar

Background

Filgrastim and other granulocyte colony-stimulating factors are recommended to decrease febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Data comparing biosimilar filgrastim-sndz with reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) are limited outside of clinical trials in the US.

Objective

To compare the incidence of FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 between patients treated with filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with nonmyeloid cancer enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage plans from March 2015 to June 2016 and receiving filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during ≥1 completed chemotherapy cycle. Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, pregnant patients, and those with missing data were excluded. FN was identified using the diagnosis codes for neutropenia + fever, neutropenia + bacterial/fungal infection, and neutropenia + infection + fever. Equivalence testing for FN incidence at the cycle level across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 was conducted for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref after adjusting for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results were considered equivalent if the 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ±6.0%.

Results

The analysis included 3,459 patients (162 filgrastim-sndz and 3,297 filgrastim-ref). Before weighting, the filgrastim-sndz cohort was younger than filgrastim-ref and had a higher proportion of men, a higher proportion with commercial insurance, and lower proportions with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis or metastatic cancer. After weighting, baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts. Adjusted FN incidence was equivalent for filgrastim-sndz vs filgrastim-ref, respectively: neutropenia + fever, 0.81% vs 0.61% (difference [90% CI]=0.20 [-0.57 to 1.56]); neutropenia + infection, 1.21% vs 1.33% (difference [90% CI]=-0.12 [-1.17 to 2.28]); neutropenia + infection + fever, 0.0% vs 0.14% (difference=-0.14; CI not calculated because filgrastim-sndz had 0 events).

Conclusion

Filgrastim-sndz and filgrastim-ref are statistically equivalent for preventing FN across chemotherapy cycles 1-6 among patients with nonmyeloid cancer.

Myeloid Growth Factors, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Myeloid growth factors (MGFs) are given as supportive care to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of neutropenia. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for MGFs focuses on the evaluation of regimen- and patient-specific risk factors for the development of febrile neutropenia (FN), the prophylactic use of MGFs for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced FN, and assessing the risks and benefits of MGF use in clinical practice.

Safety of Polysorbate 80 in the Oncology Setting

Polysorbate 80 is a synthetic nonionic surfactant used as an excipient in drug formulation. Various products formulated with polysorbate 80 are used in the oncology setting for chemotherapy, supportive care, or prevention, including docetaxel, epoetin/darbepoetin, and fosaprepitant. However, polysorbate 80, like some other surfactants, is not an inert compound and has been implicated in a number of systemic and injection- and infusion-site adverse events (ISAEs). The current formulation of intravenous fosaprepitant has been associated with an increased risk of hypersensitivity systemic reactions (HSRs). Factors that have been associated with an increased risk of fosaprepitant-related ISAEs include the site of administration (peripheral vs. central venous), coadministration of anthracycline-based chemotherapy, number of chemotherapy cycles or fosaprepitant doses, and concentration of fosaprepitant administered. Recently, two polysorbate 80-free agents have been approved: intravenous rolapitant, which is a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist formulated with the synthetic surfactant polyoxyl 15 hydroxystearate, and intravenous HTX-019, which is a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist free of synthetic surfactants. Alternative formulations will obviate the polysorbate 80-associated ISAEs and HSRs and should improve overall management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.Funding Heron Therapeutics, Inc.

Clinical Outcomes of Treatment with Filgrastim Versus a Filgrastim Biosimilar and Febrile Neutropenia-Associated Costs Among Patients with Nonmyeloid Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors such as filgrastim are used to decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) among patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy treatment. Although the biosimilar filgrastim-sndz has been approved in the United States since 2015, limited real-world comparisons of filgrastim-sndz versus reference filgrastim (filgrastim-ref) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FN incidence and assess overall FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among U.S. patients with non-myeloid cancer who received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims analysis of patients with non-myeloid cancer who were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance plans from March 2015 through June 2016 and received filgrastim-sndz or filgrastim-ref during their first observed chemotherapy cycle. Patients with evidence of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or pregnancy and those with missing demographic information were excluded. FN was defined on the basis of diagnosis codes for neutropenia and fever (N/F); neutropenia and infection (N/I); and neutropenia, infection, and fever (N/I/F). Cohorts were adjusted for differences in baseline patient characteristics using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method, and equivalence testing was used to compare the proportion of patients who developed FN between weighted cohorts. On the basis of the range of neutropenic fever incidence found in the PIONEER clinical trial, FN incidence was considered equivalent if 90% CIs for between-cohort differences were within ± 6%. Mean FN-related health care resource utilization and total FN-related medical costs were calculated for the overall study population.

RESULTS

A total of 3,542 patients were included in the study (172 filgrastim-sndz; 3,370 filgrastim-ref; mean ages 62.1 years and 64.7 years, respectively). After IPTW, there were 162 patients in the filgrastim-sndz cohort and 3,297 in the filgrastim-ref cohort (mean age 64.5 years for both). FN incidence in the weighted filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref cohorts, respectively, was 1.4% versus 0.9% for N/F, 2.3% versus 1.7% for N/I, and 0.0% versus 0.3% for N/I/F; FN incidence was statistically equivalent between treatment cohorts. Among patients in either treatment cohort who developed FN, the proportion with FN-related inpatient stays during the first chemotherapy cycle ranged from 35.0% for N/I to 70.0% for N/I/F. Mean (SD) FN-related total medical costs across all patients who developed FN were $11,977 ($18,383) for N/F, $8,040 ($14,809) for N/I, and $21,733 ($30,003) for N/I/F, in 2015 U.S. dollars. For all 3 definitions of FN, the largest proportions (73.5%-93.4%) of medical costs were inpatient related.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study of patients with nonmyeloid cancers undergoing chemotherapy, the incidence of FN was statistically equivalent between individuals treated with filgrastim-sndz versus filgrastim-ref during their first chemotherapy cycle. FN-related health care resource utilization and medical costs among patients who developed FN were substantial.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Sandoz, which participated in the study design, data interpretation, writing and revision of the manuscript, and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Balu and Campbell are employees of Sandoz, which is the manufacturer of the filgrastim biosimilars Zarzio and Zarxio. DeLeon was an employee of Sandoz at the time this study was conducted. Lal, Brekke, Elliott, and Korrer are employees of Optum, which was contracted by Sandoz to conduct this study.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Antiemesis, Version 2.2017

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Antiemesis address all aspects of management for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Antiemesis, specifically those regarding carboplatin, granisetron, and olanzapine.

An open-label, dose-ranging study of Rolontis, a novel long-acting myeloid growth factor, in breast cancer

This randomized, open‐label, active‐controlled study investigated the safety and efficacy of three doses of Rolontis (eflapegrastim), a novel, long‐acting myeloid growth factor, versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients being treated with docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC). The primary efficacy endpoint was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during the first cycle of treatment. Patients who were candidates for adjuvant/neoadjuvant TC chemotherapy were eligible for participation. TC was administered on Day 1, followed by 45, 135, or 270 μg/kg Rolontis or 6 mg pegfilgrastim on Day 2. Complete blood counts were monitored daily when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) fell to <1.5 × 10⁹/L. Up to four cycles of TC were investigated. The difference in DSN (time from ANC <0.5 × 10⁹/L to ANC recovery ≥2.0 × 10⁹/L) between the Rolontis and pegfilgrastim groups was −0.28 days (confidence interval [CI]: −0.56, −0.06) at 270 μg/kg, 0.14 days (CI: −0.28, 0.64) at 135 μg/kg, and 0.72 days (CI: 0.19, 1.27) at 45 μg/kg. Noninferiority to pegfilgrastim was demonstrated at 135 μg/kg (P = 0.002) and 270 μg/kg (P < .001), with superiority demonstrated at 270 μg/kg (0.03 days; P = 0.023). The most common treatment‐related adverse events (AEs) were bone pain, myalgia, arthralgia, back pain, and elevated white blood cell counts, with similar incidences across groups. All doses of Rolontis were well tolerated, and no new or significant treatment‐related toxicities were observed. In Cycle 1, Rolontis demonstrated noninferiority at the 135 μg/kg dose and statistical superiority in DSN at the 270 μg/kg dose when compared to pegfilgrastim.

Enzalutamide for the Treatment of Androgen Receptor-Expressing Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose Studies suggest that a subset of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have tumors that express the androgen receptor (AR) and may benefit from an AR inhibitor. This phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of enzalutamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic AR-positive TNBC. Patients and Methods Tumors were tested for AR with an immunohistochemistry assay optimized for breast cancer; nuclear AR staining > 0% was considered positive. Patients received enzalutamide 160 mg once per day until disease progression. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included CBR at 24 weeks, progression-free survival, and safety. End points were analyzed in all enrolled patients (the intent-to-treat [ITT] population) and in patients with one or more postbaseline assessment whose tumor expressed ≥ 10% nuclear AR (the evaluable subgroup). Results Of 118 patients enrolled, 78 were evaluable. CBR at 16 weeks was 25% (95% CI, 17% to 33%) in the ITT population and 33% (95% CI, 23% to 45%) in the evaluable subgroup. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.7 months) in the ITT population and 3.3 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 4.1 months) in the evaluable subgroup. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI, 8.5 months to not yet reached) in the ITT population and 17.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 months to not yet reached) in the evaluable subgroup. Fatigue was the only treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse event with an incidence of > 2%. Conclusion Enzalutamide demonstrated clinical activity and was well tolerated in patients with advanced AR-positive TNBC. Adverse events related to enzalutamide were consistent with its known safety profile. This study supports additional development of enzalutamide in advanced TNBC.

Use of a web-based app to improve breast cancer symptom management and adherence for aromatase inhibitors: a randomized controlled feasibility trial

PURPOSE

For postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, long-term use of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) significantly reduces the risk of cancer recurrence and improves survival. Still, many patients are nonadherent due to adverse side effects. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to test the use of a web-based application (app) designed with and without weekly reminders for patients to report real-time symptoms and AI use outside of clinic visits with built-in alerts to patients' oncology providers. Our goal was to improve symptom burden and medication adherence.

METHODS

Forty-four women with early-stage breast cancer and a new AI prescription were randomized to either an App+Reminder (weekly reminders to use app) or an App (no reminders) group. Pre- and post-assessment data were collected from all participants.

RESULTS

Participants in the App+Reminder group had higher weekly app usage rate (74 vs. 38%, p < 0.05) during the intervention and reported higher AI adherence at 8 weeks (100 vs. 72%, p < 0.05). Symptom burden increase was higher for the App group compared to the App+Reminder group but did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekly reminders to use a web-based app to report AI adherence and treatment-related symptoms demonstrated feasibility and improved short-term AI adherence, which may reduce symptom burden for women with breast cancer and a new AI prescription.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

If short-term gains in adherence persist, this low-cost intervention could improve survival outcomes for women with breast cancer. A larger, long-term study should examine if AI adherence and symptom burden improvements persist for a 5-year treatment period.

Molecular profiling of advanced breast cancer tumors is beneficial in assisting clinical treatment plans

We used data obtained by Caris Life Sciences, to evaluate the benefits of tailoring treatments for a breast carcinoma cohort by using tumor molecular profiles to inform decisions. Data for 92 breast cancer patients from the commercial Caris Molecular Intelligence database was retrospectively divided into two groups, so that the first always followed treatment recommendations, whereas in the second group all patients received at least one drug after profiling that was predicted to lack benefit. The biomarker and drug associations were based on tests including fluorescent in situ hybridization and DNA sequencing, although immunohistochemistry was the main test used.

Patients whose drugs matched those recommended according to their tumor profile had an average overall survival of 667 days, compared to 510 days for patients that did not (P=0.0316). In the matched treatment group, 26% of patients were deceased by the last time of monitoring, whereas this was 41% in the unmatched group (P=0.1257). We therefore confirm the ability of tumor molecular profiling to improve survival of breast cancer patients. Immunohistochemistry biomarkers for the androgen, estrogen and progesterone receptors were found to be prognostic for survival.

Abstract P2-09-09: Polyligand profiling differentiates cancer patients according to their benefit of treatment

Introduction: Deconvolution of multi-nodal perturbations in cancer network architecture demands highly multiplexed profiling assays. We demonstrate the value of polyligand profiling of tumor systems states using libraries of single stranded oligodeoxynucleotides (ssODN) to distinguish between tumor tissue from breast cancer patients who did or did not derive benefit from treatment regimens containing trastuzumab.

Methods: This study included cases from women with invasive breast cancer who received chemotherapy+ trastuzumab (C+T) or trastuzumab monotherapy with available retrospective data on the time to next treatment (TTNT). A library of 2x1012 unique ssODN was exposed to FFPE tissues from patients who benefited (B) or not (NB) from trastuzumab-based regimens in several rounds of positive and negative selection. Two enriched libraries were screened on independent set of 42 B and 19 NB cases using a modified IHC protocol for detection of bound ssODNs. Poly-Ligand Profiles (PLP) were scored by a blinded pathologist. Two libraries, EL-NB and EL-B, showed significant p-values between groups of responders and non-responders. A Cox-PH model was fitted using either tumors' HER2 status or PLP test results as the independent variable. Median survival time was calculated from the Kaplan-Meier estimate. A separate group of 63 cases with TTNT data from chemotherapy without trastuzumab was used as a control to distinguish prognostic from predictive performance.

Results: The PLP scores of EL-NB and EL-B were assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and resulted in a combined AUC value of 0.81. EL-NB and EL-B were able to effectively classify B and NB patients with either HER2-negative/equivocal (AUC = 0.73) or HER2-positive cancers (AUC = 0.84). In contrast, HER2 status alone yielded an AUC value of 0.47. The combined PLP scores for the independent set of 63 patients treated with C excluding trastuzumab resulted in an AUC value of 0.53, indicating that the assay was predictive and not simply prognostic. Kaplan-Meier curves analysis shows that PLP+ cases have 429 days median TTNT, while PLP- cases have 129 days (HR = 0.38, log-rank p = 0.001). Analysis based on HER2 status showed no significant difference in TTNT between patients that were HER2+ (280 days) or HER2-negative/equivocal (336 days, HR = 1.27, log-rank p =0.45).

Summary: Performance of the PLP assay in differentiating patients who did or did not benefit from trastuzumab therapy outperforms the standard IHC assay for HER2 status. These results represent a promising step towards the development of a CDx to identify the 50-70% of HER2+ patients who will not benefit from trastuzumab. In addition, PLP also has the potential to identify the HER2-negative/equivocal patients who may benefit from trastuzumab-containing regimens.

Citation Format: Domenyuk V, Gatalica Z, Santhanam R, Wei X, Stark A, Kennedy P, Toussaint B, Levenberg S, Wang R, Xiao N, Greil R, Rinnerthaler G, Gampenrieder S, Heimberger AB, Berry DJ, Barker A, Demetri GD, Quackenbush J, Marshall JL, Poste G, Vacirca JL, Vidal GA, Schwartzberg LS, Halbert DD, Voss A, Miglarese MR, Famulok M, Mayer G, Spetzler D. Polyligand profiling differentiates cancer patients according to their benefit of treatment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-09.

RESILIENCE: Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind Trial Comparing Sorafenib With Capecitabine Versus Placebo With Capecitabine in Locally Advanced or Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic/antiproliferative activity. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, we assessed first- or second-line capecitabine with sorafenib or placebo in patients with locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to a taxane and anthracycline and with known estrogen/progesterone receptor status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 537 patients were randomized to capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice per day for days 1 to 14 every 21 days with oral sorafenib 600 mg/d or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were stratified according to hormone receptor status, previous chemotherapies for metastatic breast cancer, and geographic region.

RESULTS

Treatment with sorafenib with capecitabine, compared with capecitabine with placebo, did not prolong median PFS (5.5 vs. 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.973; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.779-1.217; P = .811) or overall survival (OS; 18.9 vs. 20.3 months; HR, 1.195; 95% CI, 0.943-1.513; P = .140); or enhance overall response rate (ORR; 13.5% vs. 15.5%; P = .515). Any grade toxicities (sorafenib vs. placebo) included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; 79.2% vs. 59.6%), diarrhea (47.3% vs. 37.8%), mucosal inflammation (15.4% vs. 6.7%), and hypertension (26.2% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3/4 toxicities included PPES (15.4% vs. 7.1%), diarrhea (4.2% vs. 6.4%), and vomiting (3.5% vs. 0.7%).

CONCLUSION

The combination of sorafenib with capecitabine did not improve PFS, OS, or ORR in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Rates of Grade 3 toxicities were higher in the sorafenib arm.

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulator in a Patient With Hormone-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Androgen receptors (ARs) are highly coexpressed in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. Their role in breast tumorigenesis has been postulated, but the mechanism is not yet well-characterized. Steroidal androgens were previously used as an anticancer strategy but fell out of favor because of toxicity and the discovery of alternative therapies. Recent attempts to modulate androgen pathway signaling have focused on AR inhibitors. This report discusses a case using a well-tolerated selective AR modulator to treat a highly pretreated patient with ER-positive breast cancer, which resulted in a durable partial response.

Effect of Brain Metastasis on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Advanced NSCLC Treated in Real-World Community Oncology Settings

INTRODUCTION

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might be affected by the presence of brain metastasis (BM). We report findings from a prospective observational study that examined HRQOL in patients newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC, with or without baseline BM, through 1 year of follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients starting first-line treatment of stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were prospectively enrolled and consented at 34 US-based community oncology practices. Data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected once per cycle during treatment, and at each visit after discontinuation. PROs included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and Lung Cancer Module (QLQ-LC13), the Lung Cancer Module of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-LC), and the Rotterdam Activity Level Scale (RALS). Linear mixed models were used to examine the effect of baseline BM, including differences in change over time.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients provided follow-up PRO data, comprising 1100 individual surveys and 32 PRO end points. The patient group was 58.6% (n = 85) male, and 86.2% (n = 125) Caucasian. Patients with baseline BM were younger (61.3 vs. 65.8 years; P = .040) with more concurrent radiotherapy (59.4% [n = 19] vs. 15.9% [n = 18]; P < .0001). Results showed minimal differences in baseline HRQOL. Of the 20 measures that showed significant group differences in HRQOL over time, 18 showed greater deterioration for patients with baseline BM. These 18 measures included all QLQ-C30 composite measures except Global Health Status, all MDASI-LC measures, and the RALS (all P < .05). For these measures, the average 1-year deterioration in patients with baseline BM was 19.4%.

CONCLUSION

Newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC patients with baseline BM experienced a significantly faster and clinically meaningful deterioration in PRO-based HRQOL compared with those without baseline BM.

Strategies for the Management of Early-Stage Breast Cancer in Older Women

Older patients with breast cancer (aged ≥65 years) are often undertreated with both locoregional and systemic therapies and have been shown to have higher breast cancer-specific mortality. These patients are also excluded from most clinical trials; therefore, treatment recommendations are extrapolated from younger populations. The data that do exist, however, show that older patients usually tolerate and respond well to conventional treatments. When selecting treatments for breast cancer, age should not be the chief consideration; comorbidities and functional status are also important, as is life expectancy. For patients with an estimated survival of less than 5 years, aggressive treatment may be discouraged; however, if the estimated survival is 5 years or more, treatment according to recurrence risk is recommended. In the curative setting, undertreatment should be avoided.