Search

648 Background: The oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor Cabozantinib (CABO) is frequently used to treat patients with metastatic RCC. Polypharmacy is common in elderly pts, thus several drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with cabozantinib may ensue. Methods: ZEBRA /MEET-URO 9 was a prospective, real world trial enrolling pts ≥ 70 years with mRRC treated with CABO at 13 Italian Oncology Centers. All concomitants drugs administered to pts were collected and categorized according to active principles and indication. DDIs were identified through a dedicated software (Lexicomp), scientific databases (Sider4.1) and published articles. Results: we enrolled 104 pts, median age 75.8 years (range 70.2-87.4 yrs). Overall, 91.4% of the cohort was treated at a reduced dose either upfront or due to side effects. Pts took a median of 6 concomitant drugs (IQR: 4-9), for a total of 131 active principles. Software analysis identified 4 DDIs (warfarin, apixaban, diltiazem and furosemide); whereas scientific reports allowed us to identify 15 additional DDIs involving metoprolol, nebivolol, olmesartan, amiloride, simvastatin, rosuvastatin, polyenoic omega-3 fatty acids, loperamide, metoclopramide, metformin, dutasteride, dexamethasone, prednisone, cetirizine and doxazosin. Seventy pts with potential DDIs experienced a trend for higher rate of grade 3-4 adverse events compared to other pts, although difference was not statistically significant (48.7% v 23.5 %, p=0.485). The table summarizes the main DDIs and suggestions to avoid or mitigate their effects Conclusions: the risk of DDIs was not negligible in our cohort of elderly mRCC pts treated with CABO, although the frequent dose reductions of CABO probably confounded their impact on toxicities. Unremitting attention to concomitant medications in the elderly is thus warranted. [Table: see text]

647 Background: Cabozantinib (CABO) is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor registered for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) for the first or subsequent lines. Tolerability in real world elderly patients is poorly documented. G8 is a short test for vulnerability gaining increased interest as a screening tool for trials in geriatric oncology. Methods: ZEBRA/MEET-URO 9 was a prospective multicenter study of safety and activity of CABO administered to pts ≥70 years with mRCC, either in the first or subsequent lines of treatment, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. All pts underwent G8 score at baseline, with a cut-off for vulnerability of 14 or below. Data on tolerability and activity were collected prospectively after signature of informed consent. Results: A total of 104 pts started CABO at 13 Italian Centers, 38,5% as first line. Median age was 75.8 yrs (range 70.2-87.4 yrs, 26 pts ≥80 yrs), 73.1% males. IMDC score was good 19.2%, intermediate 53.9%, poor 26.9%. Primary tumor had been removed in 82.7% of pts, histology was clear cell 78.8%, papillary 8.7%, chromophobe 5.8%, unclassified 6.7%. G8 score was ≤14 in 65.4% of pts. Up-front dose reduction of CABO was more frequent in pts with low G8 score (79.4 vs 41.7%, p=0.003), but eventually the majority of pts (91.4%) underwent dose reductions of CABO. After a median treatment of 6.4 months (0.5-26.1 months), 38.4% of pts developed G3-4 toxicities, 22.1% interrupted treatment due to adverse events, 2.8% (3 pts) died due to cardiovascular or thromboembolic events. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI=5.8-12.6 months) in first line, 10.0 months (5.8-15.6) in second or further lines, median OS was 20.1 months (11.1-not reached) and 15.6 months (12.5-not reached), respectively. G8 score ≤14 did not correlate with rate of temporary interruptions >7 days, hospitalization, incidence of G3-5 toxicities, as well as with PFS. Pts with G8 score ≤14 had a trend for reduced OS, but difference was not statistically significant both in the first and further lines of treatment. Conclusions: Screening G8 test was positive in more than a half of pts, underlying the need for detailed geriatric assessment and increased clinical monitoring of such patients. A G8 score ≤14 correlated with up-front dose reduction of CABO but not with G3-5 toxicities probably due to the high rates of dose reductions in the whole cohort. Correlation between low G8 score and OS could not be demonstrated in this population.

218 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) showed high efficacy in both first and subsequent lines in metastatic colorectal cancer with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR-mCRC); however, they still fail in a minority of patients (pts). In non-preplanned analyses from previous studies, RAS mutations ( RASm) have been related to limited activity of ICI monotherapy (ICIm) as compared to ICI doublets (ICId) in dMMR-mCRC. Emerging data suggest different immunological features in presence of RASm, resulting in lower immunogenicity. Methods: NERDY is a retrospective, monocentric study designed to investigate the effect of ICIm and ICId on dMMR-mCRC basing on RASm. Pts with dMMR-mCRC treated with ICIm/ICId at our Institute were included. Clinical-pathological features for each patient were collected. On primary tumor specimens, proinflammatory pathways and CMS subgroup will be assessed by Nanostring and RNA-Seq respectively. The study is exploratory and no formal hypothesis has been postulated. Both PFS and OS were calculated with Kaplan-Meier. Cox proportional hazard model was adopted in the interaction tests. Primary objective was to assess OS and PFS according to RAS in dMMR-mCRC pts treated with ICIm or ICId. Secondary objectives were to describe the inflammatory infiltrate and TMB in dMMR-mCRC according to RAS status. Results: From June 2015 to January 2022, a total of 126 consecutive dMMR-mCRC pts treated with ICI were included, 33 RASm/93 RASwt. RASm pts were more frequently males (p=0.015) and younger (median age 47 vs 65). An imbalance was observed in sidedness (more right-CRC in RASwt than in RASm as BRAF effect, p=0.001) and timing of ICI (administered in later lines in RASm, p=0.013). No differences in ECOG-PS, histotype, disease burden, stage at diagnosis, treatment with ICIm vs ICId and best response. At a median follow up of 53.5 months (95%CI 34.7-56.9), a trend toward longer PFS in pts treated with ICId over ICIm was found in the overall population (HR 0.62; 95%CI 0.36-1.05; p=0.055), being significantly longer in RASm-only pts (HR 0.41; 95%CI 0.13-1.28; p=0.047) but not in RASwt-only pts (HR 0.64; 95%CI 0.34-1.20; p=0.139). No difference was observed in OS between ICId and ICIm in the overall population (HR 0.64; 95%CI 0.36-1.16; p=0.121), in RASwt (HR 0.59; 95%CI 0.29-1.20; p=0.132) nor in RASm pts (HR 0.59; 95%CI 0.19-1.78; p=0.275). Interaction test for RAS and ICI treatment type was not significant for PFS (HR 0.63; 95%CI 0.21-1.94; p=0.423) nor for OS (HR=1.00; 95%CI 0.29-3.41; p=0.999). Conclusions: Preliminary clinical results of the NERDY study suggest enhanced activity of ICId compared to ICIm in pts with RASm dMMR-mCRC. Further data are expected from pending translational analyses and a pre-planned adjunctive cohort from two other Italian centers will be used for external validation.