Search

Purpose:To assess the response to pexidartinib treatment in six cohorts of adult patients with advanced, incurable solid tumors associated with colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) and/or KIT proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase activity.Patients and Methods:From this two-part phase I, multicenter study, pexidartinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets CSF1R, KIT, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), was evaluated in six adult patient cohorts (part 2, extension) with advanced solid tumors associated with dysregulated CSF1R. Adverse events, pharmacokinetics, and tumor responses were assessed for all patients; patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) were also evaluated for tumor volume score (TVS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). CSF1 transcripts and gene expression were explored in TGCT biopsies.Results:Ninety-one patients were treated: TGCT patients (n = 39) had a median treatment duration of 511 days, while other solid tumor patients (n = 52) had a median treatment duration of 56 days. TGCT patients had response rates of 62% (RECIST 1.1) and 56% (TVS) for the full analysis set. PRO assessments for pain showed improvement in patient symptoms, and 76% (19/25) of TGCT tissue biopsy specimens showed evidence of abnormal CSF1 transcripts. Pexidartinib treatment of TGCT resulted in tumor regression and symptomatic benefit in most patients. Pexidartinib toxicity was manageable over the entire study.Conclusions:These results offer insight into outcome patterns in cancers whose biology suggests use of a CSF1R inhibitor. Pexidartinib results in tumor regression in TGCT patients, providing prolonged control with an acceptable safety profile.

Supplementary Data from Results from Phase I Extension Study Assessing Pexidartinib Treatment in Six Cohorts with Solid Tumors including TGCT, and Abnormal CSF1 Transcripts in TGCT

Summary Background Despite advances in the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is an unmet need for options to address disease progression during or after treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Pembrolizumab and lenvatinib are active as monotherapies in RCC; thus, we aimed to evaluate the combination of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients. Methods We report results of the metastatic RCC cohort from an open-label phase 1b/2 study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients aged at least 18 years with selected solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Oral lenvatinib at 20 mg was given once daily along with intravenous pembrolizumab at 200 mg once every 3 weeks. Patients remained on study drug treatment until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy was analysed in patients with clear cell metastatic RCC receiving study drug by previous therapy grouping: treatment naive, previously treated ICI naive (previously treated with at least one line of therapy but not with an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 ICI), and ICI pretreated (ie, anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1) patients. Safety was analysed in all enrolled and treated patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate at week 24 per immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (irRECIST) by investigator assessment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02501096 ) and with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT2017-000300-26), and is closed to new participants. Findings Between July 21, 2015, and Oct 16, 2019, 145 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had non-clear cell RCC and were excluded from the efficacy analysis (one in the treatment-naive group and one in the ICI-pretreated group); thus, the population evaluated for efficacy comprised 143 patients (n=22 in the treatment-naive group, n=17 in the previously treated ICI-naive group, and n=104 in the ICI-pretreated group). All 145 enrolled patients were included in the safety analysis. The median follow-up was 19·8 months (IQR 14·3–28·4). The number of patients with an objective response at week 24 by irRECIST was 16 (72·7%, 95% CI 49·8–89·3) of 22 treatment-naive patients, seven (41·2%, 18·4–67·1) of 17 previously treated ICI-naive patients, and 58 (55·8%, 45·7–65·5) of 104 ICI-pretreated patients. Of 145 patients, 82 (57%) had grade 3 treatment-related adverse events and ten (7%) had grade 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common grade 3 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (30 [21%] of 145 patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 36 (25%) patients, and there were three treatment-related deaths (upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sudden death, and pneumonia). Interpretation Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed encouraging antitumour activity and a manageable safety profile and might be an option for post-ICI treatment of metastatic RCC. Funding Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Background The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-targeted therapy as second-line treatment for metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC) has not been evaluated prospectively. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab following disease progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy in patients with mRCC. Design, setting, and participants IMmotion150 was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of patients with untreated mRCC. Patients randomized to the atezolizumab or sunitinib arm who had investigator-assessed progression as per RECIST 1.1 could be treated with second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Intervention Patients received atezolizumab 1200 mg intravenously (IV) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 wk following disease progression on either atezolizumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The secondary endpoints analyzed during the second-line part of IMmotion150 included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. PFS was examined using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results and limitations Fifty-nine patients in the atezolizumab arm and 78 in the sunitinib arm were eligible, and 103 initiated second-line atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezolizumab arm, n = 44; sunitinib arm, n = 59). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 27% (19–37%). The median PFS (95% CI) from the start of second line was 8.7 (5.6–13.7) mo. The median event follow-up duration was 19.4 (12.9–21.9) mo among the 25 patients without a PFS event. Eighty-six (83%) patients had treatment-related adverse events; 31 of 103 (30%) had grade 3/4 events. Limitations were the small sample size and selection for progressors. Conclusions The atezolizumab + bevacizumab combination had activity and was tolerable in patients with progression on atezolizumab or sunitinib. Further studies are needed to investigate sequencing strategies in mRCC. Patient summary Patients with advanced kidney cancer whose disease had worsened during treatment with atezolizumab or sunitinib began second-line treatment with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Tumors shrank in more than one-quarter of patients treated with this combination, and side effects were manageable.

BackgroundLenvatinib is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1–3, FGFR 1–4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT. Pembrolizumab is an anti-programmed death-1 monoclonal antibody. We previously reported results from a cohort of 108 patients with metastatic EC (data cutoff date, January 10, 2019) who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab as part of an ongoing multicenter, open-label, phase 1b/2 study evaluating the combination treatment in patients with selected solid tumors (NCT02501096). Lenvatinib + pembrolizumab showed a tolerable safety profile and promising antitumor activity per immune-related (ir) Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) by investigator assessment, including an objective response rate (ORR) of 38.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.7–48.7), median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.7), and median overall survival (OS) of 16.7 months (95% CI, 15.0-not estimable).1 Here we present updated efficacy and safety data (data cutoff date: August 18, 2020).MethodsPatients included in the EC cohort had histologically confirmed, measurable metastatic EC and had received ≤2 prior chemotherapies (unless discussed with the sponsor). Patients received lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) and pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks). The phase 2 efficacy endpoints included ORR, PFS, OS, and duration of response. Tumor assessments for primary and secondary endpoints were evaluated by investigators per irRECIST.ResultsThe 108 patients from the key efficacy analysis set for the previously reported results were all included in these updated analyses. Median follow-up duration for the study was 34.7 months. Efficacy outcomes are summarized in table 1. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 104 (96%) patients (94 [87%] grade ≤3, 10 [9%] grade ≥4). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of 1 or both drugs in 80 (74.1%) patients and dose reductions of lenvatinib in 73 (67.6%) patients; 23 (21.3%) patients discontinued 1 or both drugs due to a TRAE. The most common grade ≥3 TRAEs were hypertension (33.3%), lipase increased (9.3%), fatigue (8.3%), and diarrhea (7.4%).Abstract 354 Table 1ConclusionsWith extended follow-up, our updated efficacy analysis continued to show clinical benefit in patients with metastatic EC who received lenvatinib + pembrolizumab. Moreover, the combination had a manageable safety profile that was generally consistent with the established safety profiles of the individual monotherapies. No new safety signals were detected. A phase 3 study of lenvatinib + pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician’s choice in advanced endometrial cancer further supports the lasting clinical benefits observed in our study.2Trial Registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02501096ReferencesMakker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2020;38(26):2981–2992.Makker V, Colombo N, Casado Herráez A, et al. A multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study to compare Ethics ApprovalThis study was approved by the following ethics committees/institutional review boards (IRBs): Oregon Health & Sciences University IRB, IntegReview IRB, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center IRB, University of Pennsylvania Office of Regulatory Affairs IRB, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB, The University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division IRB, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center IRB, Western IRB, Quorum Review IRB, US Oncology, Inc. IRB, CEIm - Comité de Ética de la Investigación con Medicamentos, Regional Komite for Medisinsk og Helsefagli Forskningsetikk, and REC - Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics. All participants gave informed consent before taking part in this study.ConsentNo identifying information is contained in this abstract so no permission from participants is considered necessary.

Purpose: To assess the response to pexidartinib treatment in six cohorts of adult patients with advanced, incurable solid tumors associated with colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) and/or KIT proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase activity. Patients and Methods: From this two-part phase I, multicenter study, pexidartinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets CSF1R, KIT, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), was evaluated in six adult patient cohorts (part 2, extension) with advanced solid tumors associated with dysregulated CSF1R. Adverse events, pharmacokinetics, and tumor responses were assessed for all patients; patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) were also evaluated for tumor volume score (TVS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). CSF1 transcripts and gene expression were explored in TGCT biopsies. Results: Ninety-one patients were treated: TGCT patients (n = 39) had a median treatment duration of 511 days, while other solid tumor patients (n = 52) had a median treatment duration of 56 days. TGCT patients had response rates of 62% (RECIST 1.1) and 56% (TVS) for the full analysis set. PRO assessments for pain showed improvement in patient symptoms, and 76% (19/25) of TGCT tissue biopsy specimens showed evidence of abnormal CSF1 transcripts. Pexidartinib treatment of TGCT resulted in tumor regression and symptomatic benefit in most patients. Pexidartinib toxicity was manageable over the entire study. Conclusions: These results offer insight into outcome patterns in cancers whose biology suggests use of a CSF1R inhibitor. Pexidartinib results in tumor regression in TGCT patients, providing prolonged control with an acceptable safety profile.

11557 Background: Surufatinib is an inhibitor of VEGFR1, 2, & 3, FGFR1, and CSF-1R. A manageable safety profile, and statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) treated with surufatinib have previously been demonstrated in pts with advanced NETs of extrapancreatic (epNET) and pancreatic (pNET) origin in 2 phase 3 randomized trials conducted in China (SANET-ep; NCT02588170 & SANET-p; NCT02589821). Similar safety and efficacy were demonstrated in this phase 1 study (NCT02549937) in pts with NETs. Here we report the results of surufatinib in pts with soft tissue sarcoma. Methods: This study is a phase 1, dose escalation (ESC)/expansion (EXP) study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of surufatinib in the US and Europe (EXP only). ESC previously reported the recommended phase 2 dose as 300mg once daily. Enrollment into advanced, adult, soft tissue sarcoma EXP cohorts is ongoing. The primary endpoint is PFS rate at 4 months (mo). Soft tissue sarcoma histological subtypes include: angiosarcoma (AS), epithelioid sarcoma (ES), leiomyosarcoma (LMS), pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS), synovial sarcoma (SS) and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS). Results: 32 adults with soft tissue sarcoma were enrolled (2 each AS and ES; 10 LMS; 1 PVNS; 9 SS; 8 UPS). The median age across all subtypes was 56.5 years (range 26-77), and the majority of pts were female (68.8%). 59.3% of pts received ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy (Tx) (median lines of Tx: 3 [range 1-6]). As of 15 Nov 2021, 1 pt (PVNS) remained on Tx. The PFS rate at 4 mo was 17.5%. The median PFS was 2.56 mo (95% CI; 0.92-2.92). The median duration on treatment (mDoT) for all pts was 11.2 weeks (wks) (0.4-39.0). The mDoT for LMS pts was 11.6 wks (3.1-36.0), mDoT for SS pts was 11.9 wks (0.4-27.9), and mDoT for UPS pts was 8.2 wks (2.7-27.9). Of 29 pts with ≥ 1 post baseline assessment, 6 pts (20.7%) achieved stable disease of ≥ 8.0 wks from start of Tx. No pts achieved a partial or complete response. The safety profile of surufatinib remains consistent with previously completed trials. All pts (n = 32) reported ≥ 1 adverse event (AE), and 21 pts (65.6%) reported AEs ≥ grade 3. The most common AEs of any grade were fatigue (53.1%), hypertension (43.8%), diarrhea (40.6%), anemia (25.0%), blood bilirubin increase (25.0%), headache (21.9%), and proteinuria (21.9%). The most commonly reported AEs ≥ grade 3 in > 1 pt were hypertension (21.9%), fatigue (12.5%), and anemia (9.4%). AEs leading to Tx discontinuation occurred in 9.4% of pts. Conclusions: Surufatinib demonstrated minimal antitumor activity as a single agent in heavily pretreated pts across various types of soft tissue sarcoma. The safety profile in pts with soft tissue sarcoma remains consistent with previously reported and ongoing studies with surufatinib. Clinical trials are ongoing with surufatinib globally, with active recruitment in PD-L1 combination studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02549937.

Background A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test used to complement existing screening could increase the number of cancers detected through population screening, potentially improving clinical outcomes. The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978) was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study and demonstrated that a blood-based MCED test utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing in combination with machine learning could detect cancer signals across multiple cancer types and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) with high accuracy. The objective of this third and final CCGA substudy was to validate an MCED test version further refined for use as a screening tool. Patients and methods This pre-specified substudy included 4077 participants in an independent validation set (cancer: n = 2823; non-cancer: n = 1254, non-cancer status confirmed at year-one follow-up). Specificity, sensitivity, and CSO prediction accuracy were measured. Results Specificity for cancer signal detection was 99.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 99.0% to 99.8%]. Overall sensitivity for cancer signal detection was 51.5% (49.6% to 53.3%); sensitivity increased with stage [stage I: 16.8% (14.5% to 19.5%), stage II: 40.4% (36.8% to 44.1%), stage III: 77.0% (73.4% to 80.3%), stage IV: 90.1% (87.5% to 92.2%)]. Stage I-III sensitivity was 67.6% (64.4% to 70.6%) in 12 pre-specified cancers that account for approximately two-thirds of annual USA cancer deaths and was 40.7% (38.7% to 42.9%) in all cancers. Cancer signals were detected across >50 cancer types. Overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 88.7% (87.0% to 90.2%). Conclusion In this pre-specified, large-scale, clinical validation substudy, the MCED test demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of CSO prediction and detected cancer signals across a wide diversity of cancers. These results support the feasibility of this blood-based MCED test as a complement to existing single-cancer screening tests. Clinical trial number NCT02889978.

Purpose: GI-4000, a series of recombinant yeast expressing four different mutated RAS proteins, was evaluated in subjects with resected ras-mutated pancreas cancer. Methods: Subjects (n?=?176) received GI-4000 or placebo plus gemcitabine. Subjects' tumors were genotyped to identify which matched GI-4000 product to administer. Immune responses were measured by interferon-? (IFN?) ELISpot assay and by regulatory T cell (Treg) frequencies on treatment. Pretreatment plasma was retrospectively analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight (MALDI-ToF) mass spectrometry for proteomic signatures predictive of GI-4000 responsiveness. Results: GI-4000 was well tolerated, with comparable safety findings between treatment groups. The GI-4000 group showed a similar pattern of median recurrence-free and overall survival (OS) compared with placebo. For the prospectively defined and stratified R1 resection subgroup, there was a trend in 1 year OS (72% vs. 56%), an improvement in OS (523.5 vs. 443.5 days [hazard ratio (HR)?=?1.06 [confidence interval (CI): 0.53?2.13], p?=?0.872), and increased frequency of immune responders (40% vs. 8%; p?=?0.062) for GI-4000 versus placebo and a 159-day improvement in OS for R1 GI-4000 immune responders versus placebo (p?=?0.810). For R0 resection subjects, no increases in IFN? responses in GI-4000?treated subjects were observed. A higher frequency of R0/R1 subjects with a reduction in Tregs (CD4+/CD45RA+/Foxp3low) was observed in GI-4000?treated subjects versus placebo (p?=?0.033). A proteomic signature was identified that predicted response to GI-4000/gemcitabine regardless of resection status. Conclusion: These results justify continued investigation of GI-4000 in studies stratified for likely responders or in combination with immune check-point inhibitors or other immunomodulators, which may provide optimal reactivation of antitumor immunity. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00300950.

PURPOSE Patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma have limited treatment options. We report final primary efficacy analysis results for a patient cohort with advanced endometrial carcinoma receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in an ongoing phase Ib/II study of selected solid tumors. METHODS Patients took lenvatinib 20 mg once daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks, in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORRWk24); secondary efficacy end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Tumor assessments were evaluated by investigators per immune-related RECIST. RESULTS At data cutoff, 108 patients with previously treated endometrial carcinoma were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 18.7 months. The ORRWk24 was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.8%). Among subgroups, the ORRWk24 (95% CI) was 63.6% (30.8% to 89.1%) in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)–high tumors (n = 11) and 36.2% (26.5% to 46.7%) in patients with microsatellite-stable tumors (n = 94). For previously treated patients, regardless of tumor MSI status, the median DOR was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable), median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.7 months), and median OS was 16.7 months (15.0 months to not estimable). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83/124 (66.9%) patients. CONCLUSION Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma who have experienced disease progression after prior systemic therapy, regardless of tumor MSI status. The combination therapy had a manageable toxicity profile.

89 Background: Combination treatment with regorafenib (80–120 mg/day, PO, 3 wks on/1 wk off) plus nivolumab (480 mg IV Q4W) showed manageable safety but modest efficacy in a phase 2 study of 70 pts from North America with pMMR/MSS chemotherapy-resistant metastatic CRC (mCRC). Five pts had a partial response (PR; objective response rate [ORR]: 7%); all did not have liver metastases at baseline (n = 5/23; ORR: 22%). One pt had a confirmed complete response (CR) after the primary completion analysis of the study (ASCO 2021). This retrospective exploratory analysis investigated the potential association between specific biomarkers and anti-tumor activity, and how those biomarkers are modulated by treatment with regorafenib plus nivolumab. Methods: In formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples obtained at baseline and Cycle (C) 2 Day (D) 8, immune-related biomarkers were assessed via immunohistochemistry (IHC), and RNA sequencing was used for gene expression profiling/gene signatures. Pre-/on-treatment blood samples were collected to measure circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and soluble biomarkers. Results: A total of 40 and 27 baseline tumor samples and 14 and 5 paired tumor samples at baseline/C2D8 were available for IHC and RNA sequencing, respectively. Higher baseline protein and mRNA expression of biomarkers for pre-existing immune sensitivity (eg, effector T cells) trended with anti-tumor activity. These biomarkers were expressed at lower levels in pts with liver metastases vs those without liver metastases at baseline. Cytotoxic T cell density was elevated on C2D8 but did not correlate with anti-tumor activity. Increased mean variant allelic frequency in ctDNA at C2D1 predominated in pts with progressive disease (PD), while clearance of ctDNA at C2D1 was only noted for the one pt with a CR. High clonal tumor mutational burden in ctDNA showed a numerical trend with anti-tumor activity (PD vs. SD/PR; P=0.058) and PFS (P = 0.072). Baseline serum levels of select markers related to angiogenesis (eg, vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF] D) were associated with inferior anti-tumor activity (P = 0.002). Serum levels of immune-related soluble biomarkers (eg, tumor necrosis factor alpha) increased on treatment (P < 0.005), while levels of soluble VEGF receptor 2 decreased (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This study of pts with MSS mCRC treated with regorafenib plus nivolumab suggests that baseline tumor biomarkers for pre-existing immune sensitivity trended with anti-tumor activity, whereas select baseline peripheral biomarkers related to angiogenesis trended with inferior anti-tumor activity. Pharmacodynamics effects were observed, yet no significant correlation with anti-tumor activity was found. Due to the small sample size and retrospective nature, these analyses are hypothesis-generating. Clinical trial information: NCT04126733.

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

Summary Background Immune checkpoint blockade therapy has shown promising results in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this patient population. Methods KEYNOTE-224 is a non-randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial that is set in 47 medical centres and hospitals across ten countries. Eligible patients had pathologically confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma; had previously been treated with sorafenib and were either intolerant to this treatment or showed radiographic progression of their disease after treatment; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1; adequate organ function, and were Child-Pugh class A. Participants received 200 mg pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks for about 2 years or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal, or investigator decision. The primary endpoint was objective response, defined as the proportion of patients with complete or partial response in all patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab, which was radiologically confirmed by use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by central review. Safety was also assessed in all treated patients. This trial is ongoing but closed to enrolment and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02702414. Findings Between June 7, 2016, and Feb 9, 2017, we screened 169 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, of whom 104 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. As of data cutoff on Feb 13, 2018, 17 (16%) patients were still receiving pembrolizumab. We recorded an objective response in 18 (17%; 95% CI 11–26) of 104 patients. The best overall responses were one (1%) complete and 17 (16%) partial responses; meanwhile, 46 (44%) patients had stable disease, 34 (33%) had progressive disease, and six (6%) patients who did not have a post-baseline assessment on the cutoff date were considered not to be assessable. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 76 (73%) of 104 patients, which were serious in 16 (15%) patients. Grade 3 treatment-related events were reported in 25 (24%) of the 104 patients; the most common were increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration in seven (7%) patients, increased alanine aminotransferase concentration in four (4%) patients, and fatigue in four (4%) patients. One (1%) grade 4 treatment-related event of hyperbilirubinaemia occurred. One death associated with ulcerative oesophagitis was attributed to treatment. Immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in three (3%) patients, but there were no reported cases of viral flares. Interpretation Pembrolizumab was effective and tolerable in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had previously been treated with sorafenib. These results indicate that pembrolizumab might be a treatment option for these patients. This drug is undergoing further assessment in two phase 3, randomised trials as a second-line treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Merck & Co, Inc.

Background Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor that inhibits angiogenesis, growth, and proliferation, prolongs survival as monotherapy in patients with refractory colorectal cancer. This international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial assessed the efficacy of regorafenib with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on first-line oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Ireland. Patients, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib or placebo. The treatment consisted of FOLFIRI on days 1 and 2 and days 15 and 16 with 160 mg of regorafenib or placebo on days 4 to 10 and days 18 to 24 of every 28-day cycle. Crossover was not allowed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Under the assumption of a 75% event rate, 180 patients were required for 135 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with a 1-sided α value of .1. Results One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized (120 to regorafenib-FOLFIRI and 61 to placebo-FOLFIRI) with a median age of 62 years. Among these, 117 (65%) received prior bevacizumab or aflibercept. PFS was longer with regorafenib-FOLFIRI than placebo-FOLFIRI (median, 6.1 vs 5.3 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.01; log-rank P = .056). The median overall survival was not longer (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44). The response rate was higher with regorafenib-FOLFIRI (34%; 95% CI, 25%-44%) than placebo-FOLFIRI (21%; 95% CI, 11%-33%; P = .07). Grade 3/4 adverse events with a >5% absolute increase from regorafenib included diarrhea, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and hypertension. Conclusions The addition of regorafenib to FOLFIRI as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer only modestly prolonged PFS over FOLFIRI alone. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

We are developing whole, heat-killed, recombinant Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast, engineered to encode target proteins, which stimulate immune responses against malignant cells expressing those targets. This phase 1 trial, enrolling patients with advanced colorectal or pancreas cancer, was designed to evaluate safety, immunogenicity, response, and overall survival of ascending doses of the GI-4000 series of products, which express 3 different forms of mutated Ras proteins. The study enrolled 33 heavily pretreated subjects (14 with pancreas and 19 with colorectal cancer), whose tumors were genotyped before enrollment to identify the specific ras mutation and thereby to identify which GI-4000 product to administer. No dose limiting toxicities were observed and no subject discontinued treatment due to a GI-4000 related adverse event (AE). The majority of AEs and all fatal events were due to underlying disease progression and AE frequencies were not significantly different among dose groups. GI-4000 was immunogenic, as Ras mutation-specific immune responses were detected on treatment in ∼60% of subjects. No objective tumor responses were observed but based on imaging, clinical status and/or biochemical markers, stable disease was observed in 6 subjects (18%) on day 29, while 1 subject had stable disease at days 57 and 85 follow-up visits. The median overall survival was 3.3 months (95% confidence interval, 2.3-5.3 mo), and 5 subjects survived past the 48-week follow-up period. No significant dose-dependent trends for survival were observed. This first clinical trial in humans with GI-4000 demonstrated a favorable safety profile and immunogenicity in the majority of subjects.

Purpose To characterize ramucirumab exposure–response relationships for efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using data from the RAISE study. Methods Sparse pharmacokinetic samples were collected; a population pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models analyzed the relationship between predicted ramucirumab minimum trough concentration at steady state (C min,ss) and survival. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to evaluate survival from patients in the ramucirumab plus folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) treatment arm stratified by C min,ss quartiles (Q). An ordered categorical model analyzed the relationship between C min,ss and safety outcomes. Results Pharmacokinetic samples from 906 patients were included in exposure–efficacy analyses; samples from 905 patients were included in exposure–safety analyses. A significant association was identified between C min,ss and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (p

Treatment of unresectable recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who recur after resection or orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) remains a clinical challenge. One option is sorafenib, although little is known about its safety and tolerance in this unique patient population; therefore, we analyzed patients who underwent prior surgical resection and/or OLT and were treated with sorafenib in US cohort of GIDEON registry. In US, 645 patients were enrolled; 553 for intent to treat and 563 for safety. Data were analyzed in the safety population of 479 patients no surgery and 56 for resection or OLT. Forty-one patients underwent resection prior to the initiation of sorafenib, 15 patients had previously received an OLT, and 6 patients had both resection and OLT. Initial low starting doses (400 mg/day) were observed for more patients with prior OLT (71%) than prior resection (36%), resection and OLT (50%), concomitant OLT (25%), and no surgery (36%). Most AEs occurred in the first 4 weeks of treatment. Drug-related AEs were higher in patients with prior resection (87%), prior OLT (100%), or both (100%) than in patients with concomitant OLT (63%) or no surgery (70%). However, incidence of AEs resulting in permanent discontinuation were similar in all groups (19–38%).

Background Dysregulated hepatocyte growth factor/mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling is associated with poor prognosis and resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report outcomes from a double-blind, multicenter phase II trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab in combination with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab for mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). Materials and methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive onartuzumab (10 mg/kg intravenously [IV]) or placebo plus mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV). Oxaliplatin was given for 8-12 cycles; other agents were continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression-positive populations. Results Between September 2011 and November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. In September 2013, an interim analysis recommended stopping onartuzumab treatment due to lack of efficacy. At the time of the final analysis in February 2014, no significant improvement in PFS was seen with onartuzumab versus placebo in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. An improvement in PFS was noted in the MET IHC-negative population. Neither overall survival nor response rate was improved with onartuzumab. The incidence of fatigue, peripheral edema, and deep vein thrombosis was increased with onartuzumab relative to placebo. Conclusion Onartuzumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 and bevacizumab did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes in either the ITT or MET IHC-positive populations. MET expression by IHC was not a predictive biomarker in this setting. The Oncologist 2017;22:264-271 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX-6 plus bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer in this randomized, phase II study. Although initial results with onartuzumab were promising, a number of phase II/III clinical trials have reported a lack of improvement in efficacy with onartuzumab combined with standard-of-care therapies in several tumor types. Furthermore, negative study data have been published for rilotumumab and ficlatuzumab, both of which block hepatocyte growth factor binding to the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) receptor. MET immunohistochemistry was not a predictive biomarker. It remains to be seen if other biomarkers or small molecule inhibitors may be more appropriate for inhibiting this oncogenic pathway.

BACKGROUND Mutations in the BRAF gene have been implicated in several human cancers. The objective of this screening study was to identify patients with solid tumors (other than metastatic melanoma or papillary thyroid cancer) or multiple myeloma harboring activating BRAFV600 mutations for enrollment in a vemurafenib clinical study. METHODS Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples were collected and sent to a central laboratory to identify activating BRAFV600 mutations by bidirectional direct Sanger sequencing. RESULTS Overall incidence of BRAFV600E mutation in evaluable patients (n=548) was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-4.7): 11% in colorectal tumors (n=75), 6% in biliary tract tumors (n=16), 3% in non-small cell lung cancers (n=71), 2% in other types of solid tumors (n=180), and 3% in multiple myeloma (n=31). There were no BRAFV600 mutations in this cohort of patients with ovarian tumors (n=68), breast cancer (n=86), or prostate cancer (n=21). CONCLUSION This multicenter, national screening study confirms previously reported incidences of BRAFV600 mutations from single-center studies. Patients identified with BRAFV600 mutations were potentially eligible for enrollment in the VE-BASKET study.

e16542 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are commonly used as first-line treatment for pts with advanced RCC. In the recent phase 3 CLEAR trial, LEN + PEMBRO showed improved objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) vs sunitinib in first-line treatment of advanced RCC (Motzer R et al. NEJM. 2021). Additional treatment options are needed for pts with disease progression on ICIs. A phase 1b trial of LEN + PEMBRO was performed in multiple tumor types and included an expansion part into a phase 2 cohort of ICI-pretreated, treatment-naïve, or previously treated ICI-naïve pts with metastatic RCC (NCT02501096). We report the final results of the RCC cohort with an extended follow-up. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years old and had measurable disease. Efficacy analyses were conducted by prior therapy grouping. The primary endpoint was ORR at week 24 (ORRwk24) per immune-related (ir) RECIST by investigator assessment. Secondary endpoints included ORR, duration of response (DOR), PFS, OS, and safety. Exploratory endpoints included tumor response assessed per RECIST v1.1 by independent review committee (IRC). Subgroup analyses of the ICI-pretreated group will be included in the poster. Results: The recommended doses determined in phase 1b were LEN 20 mg daily + PEMBRO 200 mg once every 3 weeks (Taylor M et al. JCO. 2020). The study enrolled 145 pts (efficacy analysis, n=143; safety analysis, n=145). At data cutoff (August 18, 2020), the median follow-up time was 19.8 months. The ORRwk24 was 55.8% (95% CI 45.7–65.5) for ICI-pretreated pts (n=104), 72.7% (95% CI 49.8–89.3) for treatment-naïve pts (n=22), and 41.2% (95% CI 18.4–67.1) for previously treated ICI-naïve pts (n=17). The median OS for the previously treated ICI-naïve pts was 30.3 months and was not reached in the other groups. Additional efficacy analyses are shown in the table. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 99.3% of pts; the most common were fatigue (58.6%), diarrhea (55.2%), and hypertension (40.0%). Most pts (69%) maintained the LEN starting dose or were reduced to LEN 14 mg daily (dose level −1). Conclusions: LEN + PEMBRO demonstrated promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in pts with metastatic RCC, including pts who were ICI-pretreated. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096. [Table: see text]

3560 Background: The role of immunotherapy in the treatment of pMMR/MSS metastatic CRC is not established. A Japanese phase 1b trial in this setting showed the combination of regorafenib (multikinase inhibitor with immunomodulatory activity) plus nivolumab (anti PD-1) had encouraging activity and manageable safety (Fukuoka, 2020). This study further assessed the safety and efficacy of this combination. Methods: Patients (pts) from the US aged ≥18 years who progressed on/were intolerant to standard chemotherapy were enrolled. Regorafenib was given orally, once daily in 28-day (D) cycles (21D on/7D off) plus IV nivolumab 480 mg on D1. Regorafenib starting dose was 80 mg; if well tolerated, it could be escalated to 120 mg in Cycle 2. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; RECIST 1.1); secondary aims included disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety (NCI-CTCAE v5.0 grade). Biomarker analysis was exploratory. Results: 70 pts (59% male) started treatment. At baseline, median age was 57 years (range 34–85), ECOG PS 0/1 was 51%/49%, 67% had liver metastases (mets), and the primary tumor site was right-sided colon in 36% and rectum in 17%. Median number of cycles was 3.0 (range 1–13); 41% of pts escalated regorafenib to 120 mg. Five pts (7.1%) had a partial response (PR) lasting ≥16 weeks (wks) and 22 (31.4%) had stable disease (SD); pts without liver mets had a higher ORR (21.7%). In pts with tumor samples (n = 40), higher baseline expression (IHC) of cytotoxic T cells (CD3+/CD8+/GranzymeB+), Tregs (FoxP3+), and macrophages (CD68+) trended with clinical benefit (PR/SD ≥16 wks/PFS); pts with liver mets had lower expression. Lower plasma levels of biomarkers of vascular biology (e.g. VEGF-D, Ang-2, VWF) trended with longer PFS. Grade (Gr) 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 53% of pts and Gr 4 in 10%. Three pts had a Gr 5 TEAE: n = 1 related to the combination (sepsis); n = 1 related to nivolumab only by investigator (sepsis); n = 1 unrelated to treatment (respiratory failure). Most common Gr 3/4 TEAEs: maculopapular rash (14%), fatigue (7%), pneumonia (6%), increased bilirubin (6%). Conclusions: Combination treatment with regorafenib (up to 120 mg/day) and nivolumab (480 mg every 28D) has manageable safety. Efficacy of this combination in the North American population did not emulate results in the Japanese population. Absence of liver mets and expression of specific biomarkers indicate a better response and may warrant further analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT04126733. [Table: see text]

Background: Global Investigation of Therapeutic Decisions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma and of Treatment with Sorafenib (GIDEON) is a worldwide, prospective, non-interventional study to evaluate the safety of sorafenib in a variety of patient subsets. Methods: Eligible patients had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma for whom the decision had been made to treat with sorafenib. Treatment strategies were instituted at the physician's discretion. Patient and disease characteristics, treatment practices, incidences of adverse events (AEs), and overall survival were collected. Results: In the United States, 563 patients were evaluable for safety. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) prior to the initiation of sorafenib (group A, n=158), after the initiation of sorafenib only (group B, n=29), both (group C, n=38), or did not undergo TACE (n=318). Patient demographics were similar across the groups. In group A, 29% had Child-Pugh score B or C at diagnosis, and 19% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer tumor stage C or D. In group B, 48% had Child-Pugh score B or C at study entry, and 31% had BCLC stage C or D. The majority of patients in all groups initially received full-dose sorafenib. Incidences of grade ≥3 drug-related AEs were 30%, 17%, and 16% in groups A, B, and C, respectively, and 22% in patients who did not undergo TACE. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusions: The results from GIDEON reaffirm that sorafenib can be safely used in the context of TACE.

6083 Background: As part of an ongoing phase Ib/II study (NCT02501096) in patients (pts) with selected solid tumors, LEN (20 mg PO QD) + PEMBRO (200 mg IV Q3W) displayed substantial and durable antitumor activity in advanced EC. In previously treated EC that was not microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR; n=94 pts), the objective response rate (ORR) by independent imaging review (IIR) per RECIST 1.1 was 38.3% (95% CI 28.5–48.9). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed 2 subgroups of pts with previously treated, advanced, non MSI-H or dMMR EC who received LEN + PEMBRO in an early-treatment setting. Methods: Pts were examined in 2 subgroups: (1) Pts with only 1 prior line of cytotoxic therapy regardless of surgical stage or setting (adjuvant treatment for local-regional disease or treatment for metastatic disease); and (2) pts from subgroup 1 with local-regional disease at diagnosis who received only adjuvant cytotoxic therapy. There were no restrictions on prior hormonal or chemoradiation therapies in either subgroup. Tumor responses were assessed by IIR per RECIST 1.1. Results: Subgroup 1 included 63 pts and subgroup 2 had 21 pts. ORR (95% CI) was 41.3% (29.0–54.4) for subgroup 1 and 57.1% (34.0–78.2) for subgroup 2. Additional efficacy outcomes are summarized in the table. In subgroup 1, treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 62 (98%) pts (42 [67%] ≥ grade 3). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of one or both drugs in 43 (68%) pts and dose reductions of LEN in 42 (67%) pts; 12 (19%) pts discontinued one or both drugs due to a TRAE. Serious TRAEs occurred in 18 (29%) pts and 2 (3%) pts died from a TRAE. The safety profile for subgroup 2 was generally similar to the profile for subgroup 1. Conclusions: The efficacy of LEN + PEMBRO for early-line treatment of advanced non MSI-H or dMMR EC appears promising. No new safety signals have emerged. A phase III study of LEN + PEMBRO vs paclitaxel + carboplatin for first-line treatment in advanced or recurrent EC is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096. [Table: see text]

5008 Background: LEN, a multikinase VEGFR inhibitor, plus everolimus is approved for advanced RCC after prior VEGF-targeted therapy. PEMBRO, an anti-PD-1 antibody, plus axitinib is approved as first-line therapy of advanced RCC. We report phase 2 results of the RCC cohort of a phase 1b/2 trial (Study 111/KEYNOTE-146) of LEN + PEMBRO in patients (pts) who progressed after ICI therapy. Methods: We performed a multicenter, open-label study of pts with mccRCC, who previously had disease progression by RECIST (confirmed ≥ 4 weeks later) during or following ICI therapy. Pts had measurable disease by immune-related RECIST, and ≥ 1 prior therapy. Pts received LEN 20 mg orally once daily plus PEMBRO 200 mg IV every 3 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. Tumor assessments were performed every 6 weeks (until week 24), then every 9 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) at Week 24 by irRECIST. Results: 104 pts were enrolled. At data cutoff (January 12, 2020), 71 (69%) pts were still on study treatment. Most pts had ≥2 prior anticancer regimens (58%). 91 of 104 pts were evaluable for response at Week 12 (13 pts NE at Week 12); 46 of 91 pts achieved a confirmed partial response for an ORR of 51% (Table). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months and median duration of response (DOR) was 9.9 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were fatigue (49%), diarrhea (44%), proteinuria (37%), hypertension (31%), nausea (31%), dysphonia (29%), stomatitis (29%), and arthralgia (27%). There was 1 grade 5 TRAE (upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage). 43% of pts required dose reduction and 12% of pts discontinued treatment due to TRAEs. Response and safety data will be updated to include all pts evaluable at an April 9, 2020 cut-off. Conclusions: LEN + PEMBRO demonstrated promising antitumor activity in pts with mccRCC with disease progression following ICI therapy. No new safety signals were detected. Efficacy outcomes by investigator review per irRECIST. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096 . [Table: see text]

283 Background: Cancers of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, gallbladder, liver, bile duct, colon and rectum will account for 17% of incident cancer diagnoses and 26% of cancer-related deaths in the US in 2019. We developed a methylation-based cfDNA early multi-cancer detection test that also can predict the tissue of origin (TOO) of these and other cancers types; performance of this test for gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancers is reported here. Methods: The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, multi-center, observational, case-control study with longitudinal follow-up, enrolling individuals with cancer ( > 20 cancers, all stages, newly diagnosed) and without cancer. Plasma cfDNA was subjected to a cross-validated targeted methylation (TM) sequencing assay. Methylation fragments were combined across targeted genomic regions and assigned a probability of cancer and a predicted TOO. GI cancer classes were upper GI (esophagus/stomach, n = 67), pancreas/gallbladder/extrahepatic bile duct (n = 95), liver/intrahepatic bile duct (n = 29), and colon/rectum (n = 121). Results: Detection across all GI cancers was 82% (95% CI 77-86) at a > 99% pre-set specificity. Overall predicted TOO accuracy was 92% (88-95) among the samples for which TOO was predicted (6/255 had indeterminate predicted TOO). The table shows performance by GI cancer type. Conclusions: Simultaneous detection at high specificity ( > 99%) of multiple cancer types, including GI cancers across stages at high sensitivity (82%), was shown using TM analysis of cfDNA. Accurate (92%) localization of cancers to specific regions of the GI tract was also achieved. Detection of multiple GI cancers from a single noninvasive blood test could be a practical method for detecting GI and other cancers, and may facilitate diagnostic work-ups. Clinical trial information: NCT02889978. [Table: see text]

365 Background: Nab-paclitaxel (NP) is a protein-stabilized formulation of paclitaxel, US FDA approved for treatment of metastatic breast cancer, advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Ramucirumab (R) is an antibody targeting vascular epithelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) approved for treatment of gastric or gastroesophageal (GE) adenocarcinoma in combination with paclitaxel as 2nd line treatment. This phase II study evaluated the efficacy of NP and R for pts with metastatic GE cancer. Methods: Pts with metastatic GE adenocarcinoma were treated with 125 mg/m2 NP on days 1, 8, and 15, and 8 mg/kg R on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Pts continued study treatment (tx) until intolerable toxicity, disease progression (PD), or withdrawal of consent. Restaging occurred every 2 cycles. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary objectives were response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: 65 pts were enrolled between 05/15 and 12/18: median age 63 yrs (35-86), 75% male, 71% ECOG 1. Primary tumor sites were stomach (37%), GE junction (35%), and esophagus (28%). 83% were stage IV at initial diagnosis. 29% were HER2+ at study entry. 57% had 1st line chemo, 40% chemo + targeted agent and 3% chemo + immunotherapy. Median tx duration was 13 weeks (.1-55) for NP and 12 weeks (.1-54) for R; at data cutoff 2 pts remained on tx.60% discontinued due to PD; 17% due to AE. 43% and 23% had AE-related dose reductions of NP and R, respectively; 8% and 6% were on day 15. 58% had dose interruptions of R due to AE; 42% on day 15. Median PFS was 3.8 months (CI 95% 3.4, 4.8); median TTP 4.5 months (CI 95% 3.5, 6.3); and median OS 8.8 months (CI 95% 6.1, 11.3). RR was 15% (CI 95% 6.6, 24.2); disease control rate was 68% (CI 95% 56.3, 79.1). Most common tx related AEs were neutropenia (55%), fatigue (40%), peripheral neuropathy (37%), anorexia and mucositis (26% each). Conclusions: There were no unexpected toxicity findings with NP and R in pts with GE cancers. Compared to historical controls, outcomes in this study were similar to those seen in the Western population of pts who received paclitaxel plus R. Clinical trial information: NCT02317991.

This phase II trial examined the addition of ramucirumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, to mFOLFOX6 as front-line therapy for patients with advanced gastric/GEJ or esophageal adenocarcinoma. A survival benefit was not observed in the ITT population, but an exploratory analysis suggested a potential benefit for ramucirumab in the gastric/GEJ cancer subgroup. Background We report the first randomized, Phase II trial of ramucirumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 monoclonal antibody, as front-line therapy in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Patients and methods Patients from the USA with advanced esophageal, gastric, or GEJ adenocarcinoma randomly received (1:1) mFOLFOX6 plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo every 2 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) with 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 (one-sided α = 0.15). Secondary end points included evaluation of response and overall survival (OS); an exploratory ramucirumab exposure–response analysis was undertaken. Results Of 168 randomized patients, 52% of tumors were located in the stomach/GEJ and 48% in the esophagus. The trial did not meet the primary end point of PFS [6.4 versus 6.7 months, HR 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.69–1.37)] or the secondary end point of OS (11.7 versus 11.5 months) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Objective response rates (45.2% versus 46.4%) were similar between arms. Most Grade ≥3 toxicities did not differ significantly between arms, yet premature discontinuation of FOLFOX and ramucirumab (for reasons other than progressive disease) was more common among ramucirumab- versus placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis that censored for premature discontinuation, the HR for PFS favored the ramucirumab arm (HR 0.76), particularly in patients with gastric/GEJ cancer. An exploratory exposure–response analysis indicated that patients with higher ramucirumab exposure had longer OS. Conclusion The addition of ramucirumab to front-line mFOLFOX6 did not improve PFS in the ITT population. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01246960.

Background The Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK‐STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC. Methods In this two‐part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0‐2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan‐based chemotherapy, an anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild‐type (and no contraindication), an anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open‐label, safety run‐in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double‐blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C‐reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results The study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run‐in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression‐free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725‐1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724‐1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478‐1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576‐1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified. Conclusions Although addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.

Background LEN is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1–3, FGFR 1–4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT. PEMBRO is an anti-PD-1 antibody. We report final results of a cohort of patients (pts) with metastatic EC (data cutoff, Jan. 10, 2019) as part of an ongoing phase 1b/2 study evaluating LEN + PEMBRO in pts with selected solid tumours. Methods In this cohort of a multicenter, open-label study, pts with histologically confirmed metastatic EC and measurable disease who received ≤2 prior chemotherapies (unless discussed with the sponsor) were administered LEN (20 mg PO QD) plus PEMBRO (200 mg IV Q3W). Tumour assessments for the primary phase 2 endpoint (objective response rate at 24 weeks [ORRWK24]) and secondary endpoints were evaluated by investigators per immune-related (ir)RECIST. Secondary endpoints included ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival, and duration of response. Tumour responses were also assessed by independent imaging reviewers per irRECIST, RECIST 1.1, and modified RECIST 1.1, and by investigators per mRECIST 1.1. Results At data cutoff, 108 pts with previously treated (1 regimen: 53%; >1 regimen: 47%) EC (endometrioid: 51%; serous: 32%; FIGO grade 3: 70%) were enrolled and had a median follow-up of 18.7 months. 13% of pts had high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair deficient (dMMR) status. Efficacy outcomes are summarized in the table. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 105 (97%) pts (97 [90%] ≤ grade 3, 8 [7%] ≥ grade 4). TRAEs led to study-drug interruption of one or both drugs in 78 (72%) pts and dose reductions of LEN in 70 (65%) pts; 20 (19%) pts discontinued one or both drugs due to a TRAE. The most common ≥ grade 3 TRAEs were hypertension (32%), fatigue (8%), and diarrhea (7%). Conclusions The LEN + PEMBRO combination showed promising antitumor activity in metastatic EC regardless of MSI/MMR status. Treatment was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signals emerged. A phase 3 study in advanced EC is underway (NCT03517449). Table: 994O . Investigator assessment per irRECIST Previously treated EC Total (N = 108) Not MSI-H or dMMR (n = 94) MSI-H/dMMR (n = 11) ORRWK24, n (%) 95% CI 41 (38.0) 28.8–47.8 34 (36.2) 26.5–46.7 7 (63.6) 30.8–89.1 ORR, n (%) (95% CI) Complete response Partial response 42 (38.9) 29.7–48.7 8 (7.4) 34 (31.5) 35 (37.2) 27.5–47.8 7 (7.4) 28 (29.8) 7 (63.6) 30.8–89.1 1 (9.1) 6 (54.5) Median duration of response, months (95% CI) 21.2 (7.6–NR) NE (7.4–NR) 21.2 (7.3–NR) Kaplan-Meier estimate of duration of response ≥6 months, a n Probability (95% CI) 32 0.87 (0.72–0.95) 25 0.85 (0.67–0.93) 7 1.00 (NR–NR) Median progression-free survival, months (95% CI) 7.4 (5.3–8.7) 7.4 (5.0–7.6) 18.9 (4.0–NR) Median overall survival, months (95% CI) 16.7 (15.0–NR) 16.4 (13.5–25.9) NR (7.4–NR) Time to response (months), mean (SD) 2.6 (1.6) 2.5 (1.5) 2.9 (1.8) a Probabilities of patients achieving a duration of response ≥6 months were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and Greenwood formula. CI, confidence interval; dMMR, mismatch repair deficient; NR, not reached; SD, standard deviation. Clinical trial identification NCT02501096. Editorial acknowledgement Jeffrey K. Bratz, PhD of Oxford PharmaGenesis, Newtown, PA was funded by Eisai Inc. Legal entity responsible for the study Eisai Inc. Funding Eisai Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure V. Makker: Non-remunerated activity/ies: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Merck; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Karyopharm; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Takeda; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Genentech. M.H. Taylor: Research grant / Funding (institution): BioAlta; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Array Biopharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: LOXO; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Blueprint; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Arquele; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. C. Aghajanian: Advisory / Consultancy: Tesaro; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunogen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Clovis; Honoraria (self): Mateon Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Cerulean Pharma; Research grant / Funding (self): Genentech. A. Oaknin: Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PharmaMar; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Clovis Oncology; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Tesaro; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunogen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai Ltd.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana SA; Honoraria (self): Genmab; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie Deutschland; Research grant / Funding (institution): Millennium Pharma; Research grant / Funding (institution): Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ability Pharmaceuticals; Research grant / Funding (institution): Advaxis Inc; Research grant / Funding (institution): Aeterna Zentaris; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen SA; Research grant / Funding (institution): Aprea Therapeutics AB; Research grant / Funding (institution): F. Hoffman - La Roche Ltd. M. Romeo Marin: Advisory / Consultancy: Tesoro; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca. M.S. Brose: Honoraria (self): Eisai. D.E. Stepan: Full / Part-time employment: Formerly of Eisai Inc. C.E. Dutcus: Leadership role, Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. J. Wu: Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. E.V. Schmidt: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co Inc. R.J. Orlowski: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co Inc. P. Sachdev: Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. R. Shumaker: Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. A. Casado Herraez: Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: PharmaMar. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Lenvatinib (LEN) is a multikinase VEGFR inhibitor approved for use in combination with everolimus to treat advanced RCC after prior VEGF-targeted therapy. Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) is an anti-PD-1 antibody. Here, we report results of an interim analysis of the RCC cohort of a phase II trial of LEN + PEMBRO, specifically in patients (pts) who progressed with prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Methods This is a per-protocol interim analysis of a multicenter, open-label study for pts with mccRCC, ≥1 prior therapy, RECIST disease progression on or following an ICI regimen (confirmed ≥ 4 weeks later), measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Pts received LEN 20 mg/d PO plus PEMBRO 200 mg intravenously Q3W until disease progression or toxicity occurred. Tumor assessments were performed every 6 weeks (until week 24), then every 9 weeks. Results At data cutoff (March 29, 2019), the first 33 pts enrolled were followed for ≥12 weeks for response evaluation, and 24 (73%) pts were still on study treatment. The objective response rate was 52%, the disease control rate was 94%, and most pts had tumor shrinkage. Median follow-up time for progression-free survival was 4.2 months. Pt characteristics and efficacy outcomes are summarized in the table. The most common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (49%), dysphonia (36%), diarrhea (33%), stomatitis (30%), hypertension (24%), dry mouth, nausea, proteinuria, and hand-foot syndrome (21% each). Three (9%) pts discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Conclusions For the subset of mccRCC pts with disease progression during or following ICI therapy, LEN + PEMBRO demonstrated promising antitumor activity. No new safety signals were detected. The study will continue to full cohort expansion. Table . 1187PD Summary of patient characteristics and efficacy outcomes Patient Characteristics, n (%) LEN + PEMBRO (n = 33) ECOG performance status 0 18 (54.5) 1 15 (45.5) Prior anticancer regimens 1 prior regimen 14 (42%) >1 prior regimen 19 (58%) Prior VEGF-targeted therapy 26 (78.8%) Prior ICI therapy 33 (100%) PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy 14 (42.4%) with VEGF agents 9 (27.7%) nivolumab + ipilimumab 7 (21.2%) with other agents 2 (6.1%) PD-L1 positive 12 (36.4) * Investigator assessment of efficacy outcomes by irRECIST LEN + PEMBRO (n = 33) ORR, n (%) 95% CI 17 (51.5) 33.5–69.2 Median PFS (95% CI), months PFS rate, % (95% CI) at: 3 months 6 months 9 months NR (5.6–NR) 93.4 (76.1–98.3) 73.8 (45.7–88.9) 64.6 (34.5–83.5) Median DOR, (95% CI) months NR (4.2–NR) Median follow-up time for DOR, months 6.0 (1.4–7.0) Response duration > = 6 months, n (%) ** 80.8 (42.3–94.9) * 30.3% were negative and 33.3% were not available ** Response duration is based on Kaplan-Meier estimation with 95% CI based on the Greenwood formula using log-log transformation DOR, duration of response; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitor; irRECIST, immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors; NR, not reached; ORR, objective response rate; PD-L1, programmed death-ligand-1; PFS, progression-free survival; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor. Clinical trial identification NCT02501096; Release date: July 17, 2015. Editorial acknowledgement Tarah M. Connolly, PhD of Oxford PharmaGenesis, Newtown, PA, funded by Eisai Inc. Legal entity responsible for the study Eisai Inc. Funding Eisai Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Disclosure C. Lee: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Calithera; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Exelixis; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen. A.Y. Shah: Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, research: Eisai Inc.; Honoraria (self): Oncology Information Group; Non-remunerated activity/ies, research: EMD Serono; Non-remunerated activity/ies, research: Bristol-Myers Squibb. V. Makker: Non-remunerated activity/ies: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Merck; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Lilly; Honoraria (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies: Karyopharm; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Takeda; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Genentech. M.H. Taylor: Research grant / Funding (institution): BioAlta; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eisai; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Array Biopharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: LOXO; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Blueprint; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Arquele; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. J.J. Hsieh: Honoraria (self): Eisai Inc. A. Pinto Marin: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: EUSA Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pierre Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Astellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Clovis; Honoraria (self): Aveo. D.W. Rasco: Research grant / Funding (self): Eisai Inc.; Research grant / Funding (self): Merck. D.E. Stepan: Full / Part-time employment: Formerly of Eisai Inc. C.E. Dutcus: Leadership role, Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. J. Wu: Full / Part-time employment: Eisai Inc. E.V. Schmidt: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co Inc. R.F. Perini: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co Inc. R.J. Motzer: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Exelixis; Research grant / Funding (self): Genentech/Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Purpose TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m2 (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m2 (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. Results Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (−5,398 v −549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302–related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. Conclusion PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).

Background Docetaxel/cisplatin/infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU; DCF) is a standard chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). This phase II study evaluated docetaxel/oxaliplatin (TE), docetaxel/oxaliplatin/5-FU (TEF), and docetaxel/oxaliplatin/capecitabine (TEX) in patients with advanced GC. Patients and methods Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent gastric adenocarcinoma (including carcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction) were randomly assigned (1 : 1 : 1) to TE, TEF, or TEX. Each regimen was tested at two doses before full evaluation at optimized dose levels. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), tumour response, and safety were also assessed. A therapeutic index (median PFS relative to the incidence of febrile neutropenia) was calculated for each regimen and compared with DCF (historical data). Results Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned to receive optimized dose treatment. Median PFS was longer with TEF (7.66 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.97–9.40] months) versus TE (4.50 [3.68–5.32] months) and TEX (5.55 [4.30–6.37] months). Median OS was 14.59 (95% CI: 11.70–21.78) months for TEF versus 8.97 (7.79–10.87) months for TE and 11.30 (8.08–14.03) months for TEX. The rate of tumour response (complete or partial) was 46.6% (95% CI 35.9–57.5) for TEF versus 23.1% (14.3–34.0) for TE and 25.6% (16.6–36.4) for TEX. The frequency and type of adverse events (AEs) were similar across the three arms. Common grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (21%), sensory neuropathy (14%), and diarrhoea (13%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% (TEF), 14% (TE), and 9% (TEX) of patients. The therapeutic index was improved with TEF versus TEX, TE, or DCF. Conclusion These results suggest that TEF is worthy of evaluation as an arm in a phase III trial or as a backbone regimen for new targeted agents in advanced GC. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier Trial registration number: NCT00382720.

Background Nanoparticle-drug conjugates enhance drug delivery to tumors. Gradual payload release inside cancer cells augments antitumor activity while reducing toxicity. CRLX101 is a novel nanoparticle–drug conjugate containing camptothecin, a potent inhibitor of topoisomerase I and the hypoxia-inducible factors 1α and 2α. In a phase Ib/2 trial, CRLX101 + bevacizumab was well tolerated with encouraging activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial comparing CRLX101 + bevacizumab versus standard of care (SOC) in refractory mRCC. Patients and methods Patients with mRCC and 2–3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 1:1 to CRLX101 + bevacizumab versus SOC, defined as investigator’s choice of any approved regimen not previously received. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiological review in patients with clear cell mRCC. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate and safety. Results In total, 111 patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of drug (CRLX101 + bevacizumab, 55; SOC, 56). Within the SOC arm, patients received single-agent bevacizumab (19), axitinib (18), everolimus (7), pazopanib (4), sorafenib (4), sunitinib (2), or temsirolimus (2). In the clear cell population, the median PFS on the CRLX101 + bevacizumab and SOC arms was 3.7 months (95% confidence interval, 2.0–4.3) and 3.9 months (95% confidence interval 2.2–5.4), respectively (stratified log-rank P = 0.831). The objective response rate by IRR was 5% with CRLX101 + bevacizumab versus 14% with SOC (Mantel–Haenszel test, P = 0.836). Consistent with previous studies, the CRLX101 + bevacizumab combination was generally well tolerated, and no new safety signal was identified. Conclusions Despite promising efficacy data on the earlier phase Ib/2 trial of mRCC, this randomized trial did not demonstrate improvement in PFS for the CRLX101 + bevacizumab combination when compared with approved agents in patients with heavily pretreated clear cell mRCC. Further development in this disease is not planned. Clinical trial identification NCT02187302 (NIH).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib, an orally bioavailable inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, AXL, and VEGF receptors, was assessed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as part of a phase 2 randomized discontinuation trial with nine tumor-type cohorts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had Child-Pugh A liver function and ≤1 prior systemic anticancer regimen, completed ≥4 weeks before study entry. The cabozantinib starting dose was 100 mg daily. After an initial 12-week cabozantinib treatment period, patients with stable disease (SD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 were randomized to cabozantinib or placebo. The primary endpoint of the lead-in stage was objective response rate (ORR) at week 12, and the primary endpoint of the randomized stage was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 41 HCC patients enrolled, the week 12 ORR was 5%, with 2 patients achieving a confirmed partial response (PR). The week 12 disease control rate (PR or SD) was 66% (Asian subgroup: 73%). Of patients with ≥1 post-baseline scan, 78% had tumor regression, with no apparent relationship to prior sorafenib therapy. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response (>50% reduction from baseline) occurred in 9 of the 26 (35%) patients with elevated baseline AFP and ≥1 post-baseline measurement. Twenty-two patients with SD at week 12 were randomized. Median PFS after randomization was 2.5 months with cabozantinib and 1.4 months with placebo, although this difference was not statistically significant. Median PFS and overall survival from Day 1 in all patients were 5.2 and 11.5 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events, regardless of attribution, were diarrhea (20%), hand-foot syndrome (15%), and thrombocytopenia (15%). Dose reductions were utilized in 59% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib has clinical activity in HCC patients, including objective tumor responses, disease stabilization, and reductions in AFP. Adverse events were managed with dose reductions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00940225. ispartof: Annals of Oncology vol:28 issue:3 pages:528-534 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background The phase III RAISE trial (NCT01183780) demonstrated that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-2 binding monoclonal antibody ramucirumab plus 5-fluororuracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI as second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. To identify patients who benefit the most from VEGFR-2 blockade, the RAISE trial design included a prospective and comprehensive biomarker program that assessed the association of biomarkers with ramucirumab efficacy outcomes. Patients and methods Plasma and tumor tissue collection was mandatory. Overall, 1072 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to the addition of ramucirumab or placebo to FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Patients were then randomized 1 : 2, for the biomarker program, to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups. Analyses were carried out using exploratory assays to assess the correlations of baseline marker levels [VEGF-C, VEGF-D, sVEGFR-1, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 (plasma), and VEGFR-2 (tumor tissue)] with clinical outcomes. Cox regression analyses were carried out for each candidate biomarker with stratification factor adjustment. Results Biomarker results were available from >80% (n = 894) of patients. Analysis of the ME subset determined a VEGF-D level of 115 pg/ml was appropriate for high/low subgroup analyses. Evaluation of the combined ME + MC populations found that the median OS in the ramucirumab + FOLFIRI arm compared with placebo + FOLFIRI showed an improvement of 2.4 months in the high VEGF-D subgroup [13.9 months (95% CI 12.5–15.6) versus 11.5 months (95% CI 10.1–12.4), respectively], and a decrease of 0.5 month in the low VEGF-D subgroup [12.6 months (95% CI 10.7–14.0) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.8–17.0), respectively]. PFS results were consistent with OS. No trends were evident with the other antiangiogenic candidate biomarkers. Conclusions The RAISE biomarker program identified VEGF-D as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line mCRC. Development of an assay appropriate for testing in clinical practice is currently ongoing. Clinical trials registration NCT01183780.

5574 Background: A noninvasive cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based cancer detection assay offers the hope of a blood test that might reduce morbidity and mortality of cancers, particularly those without recommended screening tests (eg, some gynecologic cancers). CCGA (NCT02889978) is a prospective, multi-center, longitudinal, case-control study evaluating models for discriminating cancer versus non-cancer. Here, we report F/U of control participants (pts) who demonstrated a cancer-signal in CCGA. Methods: Clinically evaluable samples (N = 2508) from pts enrolled without a cancer diagnosis (dx; NC) and treatment-naive pts with newly diagnosed cancer (C) were divided into training (n = 1564; 580 NC, 984 C) and test (n = 944; 368 NC, 576 C) sets. Classification performance (cancer/non-cancer) was assessed via 3 prototype assays: whole-genome bisulfite (WGBS), whole-genome (WGS), and targeted (507 gene) sequencing. Notable outlier NC pts were identified with cancer-like scores in either ≥2 assay classification results or by the presence of known cancer drivers with ≥1 assay classification result suggesting cancer. All pts are currently in F/U in accordance with study protocol (to date: 80% with > 10 mo and 15% with > 22 mo F/U). Results: Among training and test sets, 8 ( < 1%) NC pts were identified with a cancer-like signal. To-date, 2 have been diagnosed with a gynecologic malignancy: 1 stage IIIc clear cell endometrial carcinoma and 1 stage IIIc ovarian cancer, 3 and 2 months (mo) post-enrollment [PE], respectively. Among C pts in the study, sensitivity (at 98% specificity; WGBS) in these cancer types was: uterine/endometrial: 11% (n = 27 train) and 22% (n = 9 test); ovarian: 82% (n = 17) and 71% (n = 7). In addition, a third NC pt was diagnosed with a stage IV lung cancer 15 mo PE. Conclusions: This cfDNA-based assay detected a cancer-like signal that anticipated a clinical presentation of cancer in undiagnosed pts as early as 15 months prior to the actual dx. High specificity ( > 99%) requires accounting for undiagnosed cancers in study design and analysis. Together, these data suggest that this prototype assay may have high performance detecting a variety of gynecological and other cancers. Clinical trial information: NCT02889978.

15 Background: Lenvatinib (LEN) is a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1−3, FGFR 1−4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT. Pembrolizumab (PEM), an anti-PD-1 antibody, is approved for first-line treatment of advanced melanoma (objective response rates [ORR], 21–34%). In preclinical studies, LEN decreased tumor-associated macrophage populations, increased CD8+ T cell infiltration, and augmented PD-1 inhibitor activity; thus, LEN is a rational combination partner for PEM. We report interim results of an ongoing phase 1b/2 trial of LEN + PEM in solid tumors, focusing on advanced melanoma. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label study, patients (pts) with measurable, confirmed, metastatic melanoma and ECOG PS ≤1 received oral LEN (20 mg/day) + PEM (200 mg Q3W, IV). Pts were not preselected for PD-L1 status. Tumor assessments were by investigator per immune-related RECIST (irRECIST). Phase 2 primary end point was ORR at 24 weeks (ORRWK24). Secondary end points included ORR, progression-free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR). Results: At data cutoff (March 1, 2018), 21 pts were enrolled: 14 (67%) were PD-L1+, 4 (19%) were PD-L1-; 3 (14%) not tested. 38% had ≥1 prior anticancer therapy. ORRWK24 was 47.6% (95% CI, 25.7–70.2). All pts had ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Grade 3 and 4 TRAEs occurred in 13 (62%) and 1 (5%; adrenal insufficiency) pts respectively. There were no fatal TRAEs. Most common any-grade TRAEs were fatigue (52%), decreased appetite (48%), diarrhea (48%), hypertension (48%), dysphonia (43%), and nausea (43%). Dose reduction and interruption due to TRAEs occurred in 13 (62%) and 10 (48%) pts, respectively. Conclusions: LEN + PEM was well-tolerated and had encouraging clinical activity. The combination may potentially improve on the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 monotherapies, supporting further evaluation in advanced melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096. [Table: see text]

11 Background: Pembrolizumab (PEM), an anti-PD-1 antibody, is approved for advanced urothelial cancer in the second-line setting (objective response rate [ORR] 21%) and in the first-line setting for patients (pts) ineligible for cisplatin with combined positive score ≥10 or ineligible for platinum-based chemotherapy (ORR 29%). Tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as lenvatinib (LEN; a multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR 1-3, FGFR 1-3, PDGFRα, RET and KIT) have demonstrated activity in urothelial cancer and may reverse the immunosuppressive environment that leads to immuno-oncology (IO) failure. We present a phase 1b/2 trial of LEN + PEM in advanced urothelial cancer. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label study, pts with confirmed metastatic urothelial cancer and ECOG PS of 0 or 1 received oral LEN 20 mg/day + PEM (200 mg Q3W, IV). Pts were not preselected for PD-L1 status. The phase 2 primary end point was investigator-assessed ORR at week 24 (ORRwk24) per immune-related RECIST (irRECIST). Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response (DOR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: At data cutoff (March 1, 2018), 20 pts were enrolled: 9 (45%) PD-L1(+), 5 (25%) PD-L1(-); 6 (30%) not tested. 4 Pts (20%) were treatment-naïve; 11 (55%) and 5 (25%) pts had had 1 and 2 lines of prior anticancer therapies, respectively. No pt had received prior IO. ORRwk24 was 25% (95% CI: 8.7–49.1). 18 (90%) pts had ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Grade 3 and 4 TRAEs occurred in 5 (25%) and 5 (25%) pts, respectively. There was 1 fatal TRAE (gastrointestinal hemorrhage). The most common any-grade TRAEs were proteinuria (45%), diarrhea (40%), fatigue (30%), hypertension (30%), and hypothyroidism (30%). Conclusions: LEN + PEM demonstrated activity in this study of pts with advanced urothelial cancer, which included pts receiving later-line treatment, and deserves further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT02501096. [Table: see text]

TPS718 Background: 5-FU-containing regimens with oxaliplatin or irinotecan and a biologic agent such as the VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab (BEV) are standard-of-care (SOC) options for the treatment of first-line (1L) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the objective response rate (ORR) with these regimens is 38%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) are 9.4 months and 21.3 months, respectively (Saltz et al. JCO 2007). Thus, there is a need for therapies that will provide durable clinical responses and improved survival. mCRC tumors represent classic “cold” tumors characterized by low expression of inflammatory and immune signatures. Emerging evidence suggests that there may be subtypes of mCRC that could benefit from synergistic immunogenic stimuli with immunotherapy agents combined with other compounds. The immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (NIVO) enhances antitumor T-cell activity through the inhibition of the programmed death-1 receptor. Chemotherapy and BEV may have potential synergistic immune-stimulatory effect on the tumor and its microenvironment. Therefore, combining NIVO with SOC may enhance the antitumor immune response and improve clinical activity in 1L mCRC. The international, multicenter, open-label phase 2/3 CheckMate-9X8 (NCT03414983) trial will evaluate efficacy and safety of the combination of NIVO+SOC, compared with SOC alone, in previously untreated patients with mCRC. Methods: An estimated 180 patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically confirmed mCRC, no prior therapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and an adequate tissue sample, will be randomized to receive either NIVO+SOC or SOC alone. Patients who have had prior treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor; have autoimmune, cardiovascular, or hepatic disease; or test positive for hepatitis B or C (indicating detectable virus) will be excluded. The primary endpoint is PFS assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) using RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include ORR, disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR; OS; and safety. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983.

Background Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction/stomach are treated by combination chemotherapy, with minimal improvements in survival. We evaluated adding cetuximab to combination chemotherapy in these patients. Methods The primary objective was progression-free survival. Secondary objectives were response rate, time to response, duration of response and safety. Treatment Arm 1: docetaxel + oxaliplatin (DOCOX) = docetaxel 60 mg/m 2 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Arm 2: docetaxel + oxaliplatin + cetuximab (DOCOX + C) = DOCOX with C 400 mg/m 2 first dose then 250 mg/m 2 weekly. The protocol was amended to allow collection of tissue to correlate responses with KRAS status. Findings One hundred fifty patients were enrolled (75/arm). DOCOX/DOCOX + C: gastric 44%/41%, gastroesophageal junction 51%/55%, both 5%/4%. Response rate/arm: 26.5%/38.0%. Median progression-free survival: 4.7/5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0–5.6/4.3–5.9); 1 year survival: 39.1%/33.0%, median overall survival: 8.5/9.4 months; median duration of response: 7.3/5.6 months. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (%) included neutropenia (50%/44%), febrile neutropenia (13%/19%), diarrhoea (12%/17%), fatigue (12%/17%) and leukopenia (7%/14%). Discontinuation was due to progressive disease 39/32 and adverse events 21/34. KRAS was collected on some patients 2 years into the study because of new American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) findings. Interpretation Cetuximab added to DOCOX may improve response rate minimally; there appears to be no improvement in progression-free survival, overall survival or 1-year survival. Cetuximab added to DOCOX did not produce clinically significant outcomes. Toxicities were consistent with the study drugs’ known safety profiles. KRAS mutation was infrequent; no conclusions can be drawn from KRAS response data. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT00517829 .

BACKGROUND In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC. Cancer 2013;119:2555–2563. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Purpose: This study was designed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and to evaluate tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of etirinotecan pegol. Experimental Design: Patients with refractory solid malignancies were enrolled and assigned to escalating-dose cohorts. Patients received 1 infusion of etirinotecan pegol weekly 3 times every 4 weeks (w × 3q4w), or every 14 days (q14d), or every 21 days (q21d), with MTD as the primary end point using a standard 3 + 3 design. Results: Seventy-six patients were entered onto 3 dosing schedules (58–245 mg/m2). The MTD was 115 mg/m2 for the w × 3q4w schedule and 145 mg/m2 for both the q14d and q21d schedules. Most adverse events related to study drug were gastrointestinal disorders and were more frequent at higher doses of etirinotecan pegol. Late onset diarrhea was observed in some patients, the frequency of which generally correlated with dose density. Cholinergic diarrhea commonly seen with irinotecan treatment did not occur in patients treated with etirinotecan pegol. Etirinotecan pegol administration resulted in sustained and controlled systemic exposure to SN-38, which had a mean half-life of approximately 50 days. Overall, the pharmacokinetics of etirinotecan pegol are predictable and do not require complex dosing adjustments. Confirmed partial responses were observed in 8 patients with breast, colon, lung (small and squamous cell), bladder, cervical, and neuroendocrine cancer. Conclusion: Etirinotecan pegol showed substantial antitumor activity in patients with various solid tumors and a somewhat different safety profile compared with the irinotecan historical profile. The MTD recommended for phase II clinical trials is 145 mg/m2 q14d or q21d. Clin Cancer Res; 19(1); 268–78. ©2012 AACR.

Background. The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. Methods. The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. Conclusions. In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

Cetuximab (C), alone or with irinotecan, demonstrates activity in irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer (CRC). Activity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin (L), and bevacizumab (B), and preliminary data of cetuximab + bevacizumab, and toxicity profiles suggests that FOLF-CB (5-FU, L, C+B) may have activity with a favorable toxicity profile as first-line therapy.Eligible patients were randomized at registration to either arm A (mFOLFOX6-B) (modified, 5-FU. L (folinic acid), oxaliplatin (O) + bevacizumab), administered days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle as bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 400 mg/m(2), and 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) then 1200 mg/m(2)/day for 48 hours, or arm B (FOLF-CB), which included bevacizumab, leucovorin, and 5-FU as in arm A and cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) day 1 cycle 1; all other weekly cetuximab doses were 250 mg/m(2).Two hundred forty-seven patients (arm A/arm B 124/123) were enrolled, and 239 were treated (118/121). Twelve-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 45%/32%, objective response rates (ORR) (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]) were 52%/41%, disease control rates (CR+PR+stable disease [SD]) were 87%/83%, and median overall survival (OS) was 21/19.5 months, respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was higher in arm A (28%/7%), as was grade 3 fatigue (12%/3%), and grade 3 neuropathy (11%/1%), whereas acneiform rash was confined to arm B. Retrospective analysis of KRAS mutational status did not demonstrate KRAS as a meaningful determinant of activity, except in arm B patients with KRAS-mutated tumors, which resulted in inferior PFS. Patient satisfaction favored the control (mFOLFOX6-B).FOLF-CB was not superior to mFOLFOX6-B in terms of 12-month PFS and ORR, and was not more acceptable to patients. This trial supports the conclusion of other recently reported trials that concurrent cetuximab+bevacizumab should not be routinely used in metastatic CRC.

The fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody panitumumab has been shown to improve progression-free survival when administered as a monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and is approved in this setting. Two large randomized clinical trials have investigated panitumumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) as a first-line therapy for mCRC and 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line therapy for mCRC. In these studies, the combination of panitumumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI resulted in improved progression-free survival compared with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI alone. Improved tumor response was also observed with the addition of panitumumab to FOLFIRI. As in monotherapy trials, the clinical benefits associated with panitumumab treatment were confined to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, further showing the validity of KRAS mutational status as a predictive biomarker in mCRC. In addition to KRAS mutational status, a number of other potential predictive biomarkers are currently being investigated in mCRC and may eventually help identify patients who are likely to benefit from treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Toxicities observed during treatment with panitumumab combined with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI were generally manageable and commonly included skin toxicities and gastrointestinal toxicities. Because it can lead to dose delays, dose reductions, and discontinuation, physicians and patients should carefully manage skin toxicity. Overall, the results of these two studies show that panitumumab improves outcomes when added to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI among patients with mCRC with wild-type KRAS.

Background This prospective analysis evaluated the effect of tumor KRAS status on efficacy of second-line panitumumab plus folinic acid/5-fluorouracil/irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Methods This phase 2, open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with unresectable, measurable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of first-line treatment with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients received panitumumab 6 mg/kg plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerability. Tumor assessments per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were performed by the investigators every 8 weeks from weeks 8-32 and every 12 weeks thereafter. KRAS status was determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on DNA extracted from fixed tumor sections. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs). Endpoints were evaluated by tumor KRAS status. Results Of 116 patients enrolled, 109 patients with known tumor KRAS status received treatment; 59% had wild-type KRAS, and 41% had mutant KRAS. Fifteen patients (23%) with wild-type KRAS and 7 patients (16%) with mutant KRAS had a complete or partial response to treatment. Median PFS was 26 weeks (95% CI, 19-33 weeks) and 19 weeks (95% CI, 12-25 weeks) in the wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS strata, respectively. Median OS was 50 weeks (95% CI, 39-76 weeks) and 31 weeks (95% CI, 23-47 weeks) in wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS strata, respectively. Skin-related toxicities (86% of all patients) and diarrhea (74%) were the most common AEs. Conclusion Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI numerically improved objective response rate, PFS, and OS in favor of patients with wild-type KRAS tumors. The safety profile was consistent with panitumumab plus FOLFIRI trials in similar patient populations.

6016Background: Lenvatinib (LEN) is a multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1−3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1−4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, RET...