Real-life observational study on niraparib in older patients with primary tubo-ovarian cancer: a focus on safety and efficacy

546P - AVAPLUS: Impact of geriatric assessment on first-line treatment duration (TD) and progression free survival (PFS) in mCRC patients ≥ 70 years

BackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and good performance status. However, there is no consensus regarding the treatment of older patients with stage III NSCLC. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate treatment outcomes and safety of CCRT in older patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC compared with those in younger patients.MethodsWe retrospectively examined all patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC treated with CCRT between 2012 and 2023 at four Korean hospitals. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between patients aged ≥70 years (older) and those aged <70 years (younger). We also analyzed data for age cutoffs of 60, 65, and 75 years.ResultsAmong 131 participants, 47 were classified as older patients and 84 as younger patients. Baseline characteristics, including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comorbidities, were mostly similar. In multivariable-adjusted models, older and younger patients had similar PFS [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–2.48]; the median PFS in older and younger patients was 9.9 and 12.9 months, respectively (P=0.94). However, in multivariable-adjusted models, older patients had worse OS (aHR, 2.33; 95% CI: 1.27–4.27); the median OS in older and younger patients was 24.1 and 27.2 months, respectively (P=0.36). AEs of any grade and those of grade ≥3 were not significantly different between older and younger groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC undergoing CCRT, older patients aged ≥70 years had similar PFS and AE rates compared with those aged <70 years. However, OS was worse in older patients. Considering age as a crucial factor in CCRT outcomes, efforts should be made to provide a more meticulous and careful approach for older patients.

ALL in Older Adults

Liposomal irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer - A subgroup analysis of the pivotal NAPOLI-1 trial.

Bevacizumab (BV) plus chemotherapy is broadly used in advanced ovarian cancer (OC). However, the efficacy of BV-based regimens for advanced OC patients is not satisfactory. Therefore, it is urgent to explore the predictive genetic biomarkers for BV.Tumor tissues from advanced OC patients receiving BV-based regimens were analyzed with a 150-gene targeted panel for next generation sequencing. The associations between gene alterations or clinicopathology features and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier curves or Cox regression. The association of the genetic alteration in potential predictive genes and expressions of 11 vascular endothelial growth factor-related genes were analyzed in The Cancer Genome Atlas cohort using 292 OC cases.Sixty two Chinese advanced OC patients treated with BV-based therapy were included. The median PFS of was 6.9 months, and objective response rate was 14.5%. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, the status of endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR) (hazard ratio = 6.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25–18.13, P < .001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (hazard ratio = 3.58, 95% CI 1.27–10.08, P = .016) were significantly correlated with PFS. MYC Proto-Oncogene amplification seemed to have a positive trend (hazard ratio = 0.21, 95% CI 0.05–1.02, P = .052). Moreover, EGFR and HER2 alterations were not prognostic factors of overall survival for OC in The Cancer Genome Atlas OC cohort. The vascular endothelial growth factor-related signature analysis indicated vascular endothelial factor A expression was upregulated with EGFR alterations (P = .034) which may be involved in BV resistance, and HER2 alterations were associated with hypoxia inducible factor 1 subunit alpha overexpression significantly (P = .029).EGFR or HER2 alterations are negative predictors of PFS for OC patient treated with BV plus chemotherapy. Therefore, the clinicians may consider to use alternative regimens such as anti-EGFR or anti-HER2 targeted therapy instead of BV-based regimens on these patients when standard care fail.

411 Background: Many medical oncologists are still reluctant to use the standard sunitinib regimen in older patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) because of concerns about tolerance. We assessed the routine use of first-line sunitinib in mRCC pts aged ≥70 yrs. Methods: We reviewed the clinical files of 154 pts aged ≥70 yrs with mRCC treated with first-line sunitinib in sixteen Italian Oncology Units from February 2006 to April 2011. Sunitinib 50 mg/d 4 wk on/2 wk off was considered the standard regimen (SR). All alternative schedules of sunitinib administration were considered as adapted regimens (AR). After univariate analysis a multivariate analysis was carried out by Cox regression model and included the following variables: age (&lt;75 vs ≥75 yrs), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS; 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of comorbidities (0 vs ≥1), lymphocytopenia (&lt;1,000/microL vs &gt;1,000/microL), prognostic score for VEGF-targeted agents according to Heng 2009 (good + intermediate prognosis vs poor prognosis), and treatment schedule (SR vs AR). Results: Median age was 74 yrs (range, 70-88 yrs). One hundred six pts (68.8%) received a SR and 48 (31.2%) received an AR consisting of 37.5 mg/d 4 wk on/2 wk off (32 cases, 67%), 25 mg/d 4 wk on/2 wk off (12 cases, 25%) and 37.5 mg continuous once-daily dosing in (4 cases, 8%). Pts treated with an AR were older than those treated with the SR (≥75 yrs, 56% vs 32%, respectively, p=0.008); with no differences for the other variables. Pts received a median of 4 sunitinib cycles with either SR or AR. Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 65% of SR and 42% of AR (p=0.008); dose reductions were required in 64% and 40%, respectively (p=0.005); discontinuations due to therapy-related adverse events occurred in 23% and 21%, respectively (p=0.967). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.6 months (95% CI 8.7-15.3) and median overall survival (OS) was 20.1 months (95% CI 15.5-not reached). In multivariate analysis, only PS and the Heng score were predictors of either PFS or OS. Conclusions: Sunitinib is active and feasible in pts with mRCC aged ≥70 yrs. AR does not appear to influence PFS and OS and has a favorable impact on toxicity.

Sorafenib is the only standard treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but it provides modest survival benefits over placebo, necessitating predictive biomarkers of the response to sorafenib. Serum samples were obtained from 115 consecutive patients with HCC before sorafenib treatment and analyzed by multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (MRM-MS) and ELISA to quantify candidate biomarkers. We verified a triple-marker panel to be predictive of the response to sorafenib by MRM-MS, comprising CD5 antigen-like (CD5L), immunoglobulin J (IGJ), and galectin-3-binding protein (LGALS3BP), in HCC patients. This panel was a significant predictor (AUROC > 0.950) of the response to sorafenib treatment, having the best cut-off value (0.4) by multivariate analysis. In the training set, patients who exceeded this cut-off value had significantly better overall survival (median, 21.4 months) than those with lower values (median, 8.6 months; p = 0.001). Further, a value that was lower than this cutoff was an independent predictor of poor overall survival [hazard ratio (HR), 2.728; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.312-5.672; p = 0.007] and remained an independent predictive factor of rapid progression (HR, 2.631; 95% CI, 1.448-4.780; p = 0.002). When applied to the independent validation set, levels of the cut-off value for triple-marker panel maintained their prognostic value for poor clinical outcomes. On the contrast, the triple-marker panel was not a prognostic factor for patients who were treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The discriminatory signature of a triple-marker panel provides new insights into targeted proteomic biomarkers for individualized sorafenib therapy.

Safety and Efficacy of BCMA-Targeted CAR-T Therapy in Geriatric Patients with Multiple Myeloma

A Comparison of the Timing of Treatment Initiation for Older Versus Younger Patients with Follicular Lymphoma

Background: Despite the high rates of neutropenia observed in the PALOMA studies, the incidence of neutropenic fevers remained low. The safety analysis from the PALOMA-3 trial showed no difference in PFS among pts who had dose reductions or delays secondary to neutropenia. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the impact of dose delays and reductions on toxicity and progression free survival (PFS) in pts receiving palbociclib as standard of care. Methods: Pts with metastatic ER positive breast cancer receiving palbociclib in any line of therapy were identified from a cohort at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Clinical, demographic, baseline labs, comorbidities and recurrence data were collected. Dose delays, dose reductions, and toxicities were recorded up to the first 6 cycles of palbociclib. Early dose delays and reductions were defined as events occurring during the first 2 cycles of palbociclib while late events were defined as cycles 3-6. Data was analyzed using Fischer's exact test for categorized variables and T test/Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. PFS was analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method and Cox model was used to analyze factors associated with PFS. Results: 344 pts who met eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. Pts receiving palbociclib on clinical trial were excluded. 109 (31.6%) pts received dose reductions and 153 (44.4%) experienced dose delays. The rate of neutropenic fever was low, occurring in 2.3% of all pts. There was a significant association between pts experiencing dose reductions and Hispanic race, baseline ANC, history of adjuvant endocrine therapy, adjuvant radiation therapy (XRT), and heart disease. History of adjuvant XRT, baseline ANC, and heart disease were associated with dose delays. Toxicities, including neutropenic fever, infections requiring antibiotics, and hospitalizations, were associated with dose reductions and dose delays. Median PFS for the cohort was 263.5 days. There was no significant association between early dose reductions or delays with PFS. Pts experiencing late dose delays (hazard ratio [HR], 0.4, P=0.0001) and reductions (HR, 0.4, P=0.0005) had a significantly longer PFS. Median PFS for pts without late dose delays was 228 days compared to 313.5 days for pts with late dose delays. Median PFS for pts without late dose reductions was 246 days compared to 305.5 days for pts with late dose reductions. In the multivariable analysis, liver metastasis, metastatic line, and higher tumor grade were associated with worse PFS. Pts receiving palbociclib and fulvestrant were found to have worse PFS than pts receiving palbociclib and letrozole. Conclusions: Similar to the PALOMA trials, this study found that while the rate of toxicities such as neutropenic fever were low, dose reductions and delays were common. In pts receiving palbociclib as standard of care, pts with late dose reductions and delays had a longer PFS than those without dose reductions and delays. It is reassuring that the PFS was not negatively affected in pts with dose reductions and delays. As use of palbociclib as standard of care becomes more common, further larger retrospective studies are warranted to examine the impact of dose delays and reductions. Citation Format: Clifton KK, Kimmel J, Yi M, Chad B, Litton J, Debu T, Meghan K. The impact of dose delays and reductions on toxicity and progression free survival (PFS) in patients receiving palbociclib [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 P3-11-03.

Low-Dose Lenalidomide Maintenance after Induction Therapy in Older Patients with Primary CNS Lymphoma

P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1 positive microparticles in allogeneic stem cell transplantation of hematologic malignancies

BackgroundIn post-PA studies in the use of erlotoinib, it was observed that the favourable clinical situation benefited the response to treatment.PurposeTo compare the effectiveness and safety of erlotinib, according to...

In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50-74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04-13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4-13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6-26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5-17·4]). To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal.

M. LYCKE, MSC, Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Kortrijk, L. POTTEL, MSC, PHD, Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Kortrijk, T. BOTERBERG, MD, PHD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, L. KETELAARS, MSC, Department of Psycho-oncology, General Hospital Groeninge, Kortrijk, H. WILDIERS, MD, PHD, Department of General Medical Oncology & Leuven Cancer Institute, Leuven University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium, P. SCHOFIELD, DIPN, PGDIPED, RGN, PHD, Centre for Positive Ageing, University of Greenwich, London, D. WELLER, MBBS(ADEL), MPH, PHD, FRACGP, FRCGP, FAFPHM, FRCP(EDIN), Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, & P.R. DEBRUYNE, MD, PHD, MSC, FRCP(GLASG), FCP, Cancer Centre, General Hospital Groeninge, Kortrijk Belgium, & Centre for Positive Ageing, University of Greenwich, London, UK