Search

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Introduction and Background: Salmonella-IL2 (Saltikva) is an attenuated strain of orally administered Salmonella that carries the human gene for IL-2 that colonizes the tumor microenvironment and locally releases IL-2 without any untoward effects. Following significant anti-tumor responses during preclinical study in multiple tumor models; a Phase I trial in humans found a single dose to be not toxic and elevated the Natural Killer T cell populations in patients with advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Additionally, a Phase I multiple dose trial in companion dogs with metastatic osteosarcoma demonstrated a 22% complete response rate. A Phase II trial was performed studying the addition of Salmonella-IL2 to standard of care chemotherapy for stage 4 metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods: A Health Canada and local IRB approved, non-randomized, two-arm study in patients with Stage 4 metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is currently underway. The goal is to recruit 30 patients per arm; Arm 1: Salmonella-IL2 with FOLFIRINOX and Arm 2: Salmonella-IL2 with Gemcitabine/Abraxane. The primary outcome is overall survival with secondary outcomes of response determined by CT imaging using RECIST 1.1 criteria and biomarker data. Outcomes were compared to patients with stage 4 metastatic pancreatic cancer administered FOLFIRINOX (n=37) or Gemcitabine/Abraxane (n=24) from 4 years prior to starting this trial (2016-2020) at the study site and to historical controls from the published literature. Salmonella-IL2 is orally administered concomitantly with the administration of the prescribed chemotherapy according to arm of enrollment. 109 cfu of attenuated Salmonella-IL2 was administered orally after ingestion of a gastric acid neutralizing agent and followed with 200ml of an isotonic crystalloid fluid. Results: A total of 28 patients have been enrolled into this clinical trial. 20 patients were administered Salmonella-IL2 orally every 2 weeks with FOLFIRINOX; mean age 59.4 (32-73) years; 12(60%) women, and 8 (40%) men. 8 patients were administered Salmonella-IL2 with Gemcitabine/Abraxane every 2/3 weeks; mean age is 68.8 (56-82); 6 (66.7%) women and 3 (33.3%) men. Median survival in the FOLFIRINOX arm was 24 months compared to 11.1 months in published historical controls and 13.1 months site specific controls (n=37) (P Conclusion: Addition of Salmonella-IL2 to FOLFIRINOX for stage 4 metastatic pancreatic cancer results in the near doubling of median survival when compared to historical and site-specific controls receiving FOLFIRNOX only. These findings strongly indicate that a larger pivotal phase 3 multicenter trial is warranted. Citation Format: Petr Kavan, Daniel A. Saltzman, Jule Muegge, Jordan Moradian, Gerald Batist. Addition of Salmonella-IL2 to FOLFIRINOX for metastatic stage 4 pancreatic cancer nearly doubles median survival [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT035.

Background: BOLD-100 is a first-in-class ruthenium-based anticancer agent in Phase 1b/2a clinical development for the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in combination with FOLFOX. BOLD-100 demonstrated synergy in established preclinical models in combination with various anticancer therapies, particularly in resistant cell lines. In the first interim analysis of the phase 1b dose-escalation component of the clinical trial, BOLD-100 plus FOLFOX was well-tolerated in patients (pts) with advanced GI solid cancers. Methods: This is a prospective, Phase 1b dose-escalation (Part A) and Phase 2a dose-expansion (Part B) study of BOLD-100 in combination with FOLFOX for colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PDAC), gastric (GC) and biliary tract (BTC) cancers. Pts receive BOLD-100 with FOLFOX on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. In Part A, pts were enrolled in a 3+3 design to determine the combination recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), with BOLD-100 dose-escalation (420, 500 and 625 mg/m2). Part B comprises 4 cohorts treated at the RP2D of 625 mg/m2 until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective of Part B is to evaluate the efficacy of BOLD-100 in three clinical endpoints (PFS, OS, and ORR). Bayesian modelling is used to continually reassess these endpoints; the posterior probability of superiority to a historical landmark for each endpoint. Results: As of 31 Dec 2022, 17 pts with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer median age 62 years were treated. Pts received a median of 4 prior systemic therapies, 14 had received prior FOLFOX and 16 (94%) were enrolled with stage IV disease. Median number of cycles completed was 7 (range 1-12). Median PFS was 4.7 [2.9,8.6] months, median OS 9.8 [5.2,22] months, and ORR 13% [3,36] compared to the historical benchmark of 2.0 months, 7.1 months, and 1.6% respectively for similar patients treated with approved standard of care. Two pts achieved a partial response and 11 pts had stable disease for an overall disease control rate of 87% (13/15 [64%,97%]). This compares favorably to the historical control 44%. 16 pts reported 1 or more treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), most commonly neutrophil count decreased (n=9, 52.9%), fatigue (n=6, 35.3%), pyrexia (n=4, 23.5%), platelet count decreased (n=4, 23.5%) and decreased appetite (n=4, 23.5%). Most of the AEs were grade (G) 1-2. 12 G3 AEs were observed (mostly neutrophil count decreased [8]). Conclusion: BOLD-100 plus FOLFOX is an active and well-tolerated treatment regimen in the heavily pre-treated metastatic CRC trial population. There were no new safety signals. PK and PD data are forthcoming. The preliminary mPFS, mOS, ORR and DCR data in this interim analysis demonstrate significant improvement over the currently available approved therapies. Citation Format: Jennifer Spratlin, Grainne O'Kane, Do-Youn Oh, Sun Young Rha, Elaine McWhirter, Elena Elimova, Petr Kavan, Moon Ki Choi, Dae Won Kim, Rachel Goodwin, J Randolph Hecht, Seung Tae Kim, Dong-Hoe Koo, Khalif Halani, E Russell McAllister, Michelle Jones, Malcolm Snow, Yasmin Lemmerick, Gonzalo Spera, Jim Pankovich. BOLD-100-001 (TRIO039): a phase 1b/2a dose-escalation study of BOLD-100 in combination with FOLFOX chemotherapy in patients with pre-treated advanced colorectal cancer: interim efficacy, safety and tolerability analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT149.

Background Randomized studies have shown low compliance to adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy and external beam radiation (CT/EBRT) with total mesorectal excision. We hypothesize that giving neoadjuvant CT before local treatment would improve CT compliance. Methods Between 2010–2017, 180 patients were randomized (2:1) to either Arm A (AA) with FOLFOX x6 cycles prior to high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) and surgery plus adjuvant FOLFOX x6 cycles, or Arm B (AB), with neoadjuvant HDRBT with surgery and adjuvant FOLFOX x12 cycles. The primary endpoint was CT compliance to ≥85% of full-dose CT for the first six cycles. Secondary endpoints were ypT0N0, five-year disease free survival (DFS), local control and overall survival (OS). Results Patients were randomized to either AA (n = 120, median age (MA) 62 years) or AB (n = 60, MA 63 years). 175/180 patients completed HDRBT as planned (97.2%). In AA, two patients expired during CT; three patients post-randomization received short course EBRT because of progression under CT (n = 2, AA) or personal preference (n = 1, AB). ypT0N0 was 31% in AA and 28% in AB (p = 0.7). CT Compliance was 80% in AA and 53% in AB (p = 0.0002). Acute G3/G4 toxicity was 35.8% in AA and 27.6% in AB (p = 0.23). With a median follow-up of 48.5 months (IQR 33–72), the five-year DFS was 72.3% with AA and 68.3% with AB (p = 0.74), the five-year OS 83.8% for AA and 82.2% for AB (p = 0.53), and the five-year local recurrence was 6.3% for AA and 5.8% for AB (p = 0.71). Conclusion We confirmed improved compliance to neoadjuvant CT in this study. Although there is no statistical difference in ypT0N0 rate, local recurrence, and DFS between the two arms, a trend towards favourable oncological outcomes is observed.

Scott Owen,1 Scheryll Alken,2,3 Jad Alshami,1 Marie-Christine Guiot,1,4 Petr Kavan,1 David A Reardon,5 Thierry Muanza,1,4,6 Neil Gibson,7 Karine Pemberton,8 Flavio Solca,9 Agnieszka Cseh10 ,†Frank Saran2,11 1Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada; 2Radiation Oncology Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; 3St James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland; 4Neuropathology Division, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Canada; 5Center for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA; 6Radiation Oncology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada; 7Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach, Germany; 8Medical Department, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd., Bracknell, UK; 9Department of Pharmacology, Boehringer Ingelheim RCV GmbH & Co. KG, Vienna, Austria; 10Department of Medical Affairs, Boehringer Ingelheim International, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 11Department of Blood and Cancer, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand†Agnieszka Cseh passed away in May 2021Correspondence: Frank Saran, Auckland City Hospital, Cancer and Blood Service, Building 8, 99 Park Road, Grafton, Private Bag 92024, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand, Tel +64 09 623 6046, Email FSaran@adhb.govt.nzAbstract: Glioblastoma is an aggressive form of central nervous system tumor. Recurrence rates following primary therapy are high, and few second-line treatment options provide durable clinical benefit. Aberrations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are observed in up to 57% of glioblastoma cases and EGFR overexpression has been identified in approximately 60% of primary glioblastomas. In preclinical studies, afatinib, a second-generation ErbB blocker, inhibited cell proliferation in cells harboring mutations commonly found in glioblastoma. In two previous Phase I/II studies of afatinib plus temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma, limited efficacy was observed; however, there was notable benefit in patients with the EGFR variant III (EGFRvIII) mutation, EGFR amplification, and those with loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN). This case series report details treatment histories of three long-term responders from these trials. Next-generation sequencing of tumor samples identified alterations in a number of cancer-related genes, including mutations in, and amplification of, EGFR. Tumor samples from all three patients shared favorable prognostic factors, eg O6-methylguanine-DNA methyl-transferase (MGMT) gene promoter methylation; however, negative prognostic factors were also observed, suggesting that these shared genetic features did not completely account for the favorable responses. The genetic profile of the tumor from Patient 1 showed clear differences from the other two tumors: lack of involvement of EGFR aberrations but with a mutation occurring in PTPN11. Preclinical studies showed that single-agent afatinib and temozolomide both separately inhibit the growth of tumors with a C-terminal EGFR truncation, thus providing further rationale for combining these two agents in the treatment of glioblastomas harboring EGFR aberrations. These findings suggest that afatinib may provide treatment benefit in patients with glioblastomas that harbor ErbB family aberrations and, potentially, other genetic aberrations. Further studies are needed to establish which patients with newly diagnosed/recurrent glioblastomas may potentially benefit from treatment with afatinib.Keywords: next-generation sequencing, long-term response, EGFR, genetic aberrations

332 Background: Docetaxel-based therapy is currently the most effective neoadjuvant regimen for locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, prior trials were primarily designed to target gastric cancer. As survival associated with taxane-based chemotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is less well described, we sought to review our experience with docetaxel based therapy as a neoadjuvant approach for EAC. Methods: A single centre retrospective review of a prospectively maintained upper GI cancer surgical database was performed (2008-2021). Patients with EAC undergoing curative intent neoadjuvant therapy with two similar docetaxel-based regimens (DCF - Docetaxel/Cisplatin/5FU or FLOT - 5FU, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, and Docetaxel) followed by en-bloc resection were included. Gastric/EGJ type III tumors were excluded. Clinicopathological data and overall survival (OS) were recorded and stratified by chemotherapy type (DCF vs FLOT). Data are presented as median (+/-SD). Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous or Fischer exact test for categorical variables determined significance. Kaplan-Meier curves compared OS. Results: 225 EAC patients were identified: Age 64.2 (±10.3) and tumor location was Esophageal/EGJ I/EGJ II (106/33/86). Clinical stage was cT3-4 in 201/225 (89.3%) and most were cN+ (200/225: 88.9%). There were 121 (53.7%) treated with neoadjuvant DCF whilst 104 (46.3%) received FLOT. All pre-op cycles were completed in 181 (80.4%) and did not differ between DCF and FLOT (81.8% vs 78.8% - NS). Operative procedure included Ivor Lewis in 188 (83.5%), left thoraco-abdominal esophagectomy in 20 (8.8%), and McKeown in 17 (7.5%) and also did not differ between DCF and FLOT. In terms of pathologic outcomes, the median lymph node yield was 35 (±16) of which 3.6±5.8 were positive). There was no difference when comparing between regimens. There were 134 (59.6%) patients ypN1-3 (DCF=76(62.8%) vs FLOT=58(55.8%)- NS). An R0 resection was achieved in 210 (93%) patients (DCF=92.6% vs FLOT=94.2%- NS). Complete pathological response (no residual cancer) was found in 21 patients (9.3%) (DCF=14(11.6%) vs FLOT=7(6.7%) – NS). At follow up of 41(±36) months (DCF= 52±41 vs FLOT=27±23 - p

183 Background: In response to energetic stress, colorectal cancer cells secrete creatine kinase brain-type (CKB). CKB converts creatine and ATP from the extracellular matrix to PC, which is imported intracellularly to sustain survival and metastatic spread. In addition, PC modulates immune cell functions and may play a role in mediating responses to immune checkpoint inhibition. CO.26 was a phase II trial (NCT02870920) that randomized patients (pts) with refractory mCRC to durvalumab plus tremelimumab (D+T) versus best supportive care (BSC). In an exploratory, post-hoc analysis, we investigated the role of plasma PC as a predictive biomarker for response to D+T. Methods: PC concentrations were determined from pre-treatment blood samples with HPLC-tandem mass spectrometer. A minimum p-value approach was used to select an optimum cut-off value which dichotomized patients into low (< 95.6 ng/ml) versus high (≥ 95.6 ng/ml) groups predictive for benefit. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze predictive impacts of PC on progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 180 pts enrolled, pre-treatment blood samples were available for 162 pts (N =115 for D+T; 47 BSC). Pre-treatment PC was low in 15% (N=24) and high in 85% (N=138). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between pts included in this analysis and the total study pts, or PC low and high pts. D+T improved OS significantly in PC low pts (median OS 4.7 months vs 2.3 months; Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.11 – 0.95, p = 0.03). There was no improvement in PC high pts with D+T (median OS 6.8 vs 5.2 months; HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.55 – 1.17, p = 0.24. Interaction p < 0.0001). Plasma PC values had no impact on PFS and rates of disease control. Conclusions: Pts with low plasma PC derived more benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition with D+T in pts with refractory mCRC. Further prospective validation studies are needed. Predictive analysis for OS with pre-treatment PC levels dichotomized by minimum p approach. [Table: see text]

Background: To date, the role of adjuvant systemic therapy in stages ii and iii colon cancer remains a topic of interest and debate. The objective of the present review was to assess the most recent data, specifically addressing methods of risk stratification, duration of therapy, and future directions. Methods: PubMed and medline were searched for literature pertinent to adjuvant chemotherapy in either stage ii or stage iii colorectal cancer. Summary: Locoregional disease, histopathology, age, laterality, and a number of other biologic and molecular markers appear to have a role in disease risk stratification. The duration of adjuvant therapy for stage iii disease can vary based on risk factors, but use of adjuvant therapy and duration of therapy in stage ii disease remain controversial. Future directions should include genomic assays and improved study design to provide concrete evidence about the duration of adjuvant folfox or capox and about other types of chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

PURPOSE KEYNOTE-164 (NCT02460198) evaluated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated, metastatic, microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS This phase II open-label study involved 128 centers worldwide. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years and had metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC treated with ≥ 2 prior lines of standard therapy, including fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan with or without anti–vascular endothelial growth factor/epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (cohort A) or ≥ 1 prior line of therapy (cohort B). MSI-H/dMMR status was assessed locally. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review. Secondary end points were duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 124 patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC (61 in cohort A, 63 in cohort B) enrolled. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 31.3 months (range, 0.2-35.6 months) for cohort A and 24.2 months (range, 0.1-27.1 months) for cohort B. Objective response rate was 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%) and 33% (95% CI, 22% to 46%), respectively, with median duration of response not reached in either cohort. Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 8.1 months) and 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 18.9 months). Median overall survival was 31.4 months (95% CI, 21.4 months to not reached) and not reached (95% CI, 19.2 months to not reached). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 10 patients (16%) in cohort A and 8 (13%) in cohort B, with the most common occurring in ≥ 2 patients being pancreatitis, fatigue, increased alanine aminotransferase, and increased lipase (2 patients each; 3%) in cohort A. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab is effective with a manageable safety profile in patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC.

Young adult oncology has gained momentum in recognizing the unique medical and psychosocial needs of the population of adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAC). However, many of their psychosocial needs remain unmet and we are yet to identify how clinical or research programs can be tailored to meet these needs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a cognitive-behavioral intervention adapted to meet the psychosocial needs and issues of AYAC and delivered either through Skype or face-to-face sessions against a control condition.A total of 113 AYAC aged between 18 and 39 years were randomly assigned to a brief three-session intervention or control/care-as-usual group. They were then assessed at three time points of baseline (time 1), post (time 2), and 3-month postintervention (time 3) using self-report questionnaires targeting overall outcomes of mood/emotional well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and specific outcomes of illness-related self-efficacy and family/social and sexual relationship well-being.Significant between-group differences were obtained from time 1 to time 2 on outcomes of social/family and sexual relationship well-being, whereas groups did not differ from time 2 to time 3. Within-group results from time 1 to time 2 showed significant improvements in sexual esteem for both groups, whereas only AYAC of the intervention group significantly improved on outcomes of anxiety, overall mood/emotional well-being and HRQOL. In addition, improvements in self-efficacy were obtained only for the intervention group from time 2 to time 3.When compared with a control/care-as-usual condition, the intervention had a positive impact on psychological and relationship well-being. Results suggested that the intervention was beneficial and clinically relevant to the population of AYAC.

Background: We explored image-guided adaptive endorectal brachytherapy patients electing non-operative management for rectal cancer. We present the first pre-planned interim analysis. Methods: In this open-label phase II–III randomized study, patients with operable cT2-3ab N0 M0 rectal cancer received 45 Gy in 25 fractions of pelvic external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with 5-FU/Capecitabine. They were randomized 1:1 to receive either an EBRT boost of 9 Gy in 5 fractions (Arm A) or three weekly adaptive brachytherapy (IGAEBT) boosts totaling 30 Gy (Arm B). Patient characteristics and toxicity are presented using descriptive analyses; TME-free survival between arms with the intention to treat the population is explored using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: A total of 40 patients were in this analysis. Baseline characteristics were balanced; acute toxicities were similar. Complete clinical response (cCR) was 50% (n = 10/20) in Arm A and 90% in Arm B (n = 18/20). Median follow-up was 1.3 years; 2-year TME-free survival was 38.6% (95% CI: 16.5–60.6%) in the EBRT arm and 76.6% (95% CI: 56.1–97.1%) in the IGAEBT arm. Conclusions: Radiation intensification with IGAEBT is feasible. This interim analysis suggests an improvement in TME-free survival when comparing IGAEBT with EBRT, pending confirmation upon completion of this trial.

Background Therapeutic resistance is the main cause of death in metastatic colorectal cancer. To investigate genomic plasticity, most specifically of metastatic lesions, associated with response to first‐line systemic therapy, we collected longitudinal liver metastatic samples and characterized the copy number aberration (CNA) landscape and its effect on the transcriptome. Methods Liver metastatic biopsies were collected prior to treatment (pre, n = 97) and when clinical imaging demonstrated therapeutic resistance (post, n = 43). CNAs were inferred from whole exome sequencing and were correlated with both the status of the lesion and overall patient progression‐free survival (PFS). We used RNA sequencing data from the same sample set to validate aberrations as well as independent datasets to prioritize candidate genes. Results We identified a significantly increased frequency gain of a unique CN, in liver metastatic lesions after first‐line treatment, on chr18p11.32 harboring 10 genes, including TYMS, which has not been reported in primary tumors (GISTIC method and test of equal proportions, FDR‐adjusted p = 0.0023). CNA lesion profiles exhibiting different treatment responses were compared and we detected focal genomic divergences in post‐treatment resistant lesions but not in responder lesions (two‐tailed Fisher's Exact test, unadjusted p ≤ 0.005). The importance of examining metastatic lesions is highlighted by the fact that 15 out of 18 independently validated CNA regions found to be associated with PFS in this study were only identified in the metastatic lesions and not in the primary tumors. Conclusion This investigation of genomic‐phenotype associations in a large colorectal cancer liver metastases cohort identified novel molecular features associated with treatment response, supporting the clinical importance of collecting metastatic samples in a defined clinical setting., Graphical Abstract and Graphical Headlights Liver metastatic lesions from colorectal cancer patients were collected before and after first‐line standard chemotherapy and comprehensively profiled with the objective to assess the genomic impact of systemic therapy and investigate association with response and survival. This study allowed identification of novel CNAs having an impact on the transcriptome with a potential prognostic value in patients with colorectal cancer.

3521 Background: Response to antiPD-1 monotherapy is poor in patients (pts) with advanced microsatellite stable (MSS)/mismatch-repair proficient (pMMR) CRC. Combination of chemotherapy with antiPD-1 pembro may potentiate the antitumor immune response and provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. Combination of pembro and mFOLFOX7 or FOLFIRI in the ongoing phase 1b multicohort KEYNOTE-651 (NCT03374254) study in metastatic MSS/pMMR CRC showed antitumor activity. We present results with approximately 20 mo of additional follow-up. Methods: Pts had metastatic MSS/pMMR CRC and were previously untreated (cohort B) or received 1 prior line including a fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin (cohort D). Pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W + mFOLFOX7 Q2W (cohort B) or pembro 200 mg Q3W + FOLFIRI Q2W (cohort D). Primary end points were safety (DLT) and RP2D. Secondary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by investigator review. DOR, DCR, and PFS per RECIST v1.1, and OS were exploratory end points. Results: Median study follow-up (range) at data cutoff (Oct 15, 2021) was 30.2 mo (25.0-43.6) for cohort B (n = 31) and 33.5 mo (25.2-43.2) for cohort D (n = 32). Treatment was discontinued in 29 pts (94%) in cohort B and 28 pts (88%) in cohort D, mostly because of PD (61% and 66%, respectively). At prior analysis (Feb 10, 2020), RP2D was confirmed as the starting dose in both cohorts; no new DLT had occurred. In cohort B, gr 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 18 pts (58%), most commonly neutropenia and decreased neutrophil count (both n = 5; 16%); 19 pts (61%) discontinued drug because of a TRAE. In cohort D, gr 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 17 pts (53%), most commonly, neutropenia (n = 7; 22%), diarrhea and fatigue (both n = 4; 13%); 3 pts (9%) discontinued drug because of a TRAE. There were no gr 5 TRAEs in either cohort. Efficacy by cohort and KRAS mutation status are below (Table). PD-L1 data and DNA/RNA-based biomarker data including GEP, consensus signatures, TMB, and LoF mutations will be included in the presentation. Conclusions: After 2.5 y of follow-up, the combination of pembro with either mFOLFOX7 or FOLFIRI continued to demonstrate a manageable safety profile with no new safety signals. Efficacy data from these single-arm cohorts appear comparable to historical data for current SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT03374254. [Table: see text]

3573 Background: Response to antiPD-1 monotherapy is poor in microsatellite stable (MSS)/mismatch-repair proficient (pMMR) mCRC; the combination of antiPD-1 pembro + anti-MEK bini, with or without chemo, may improve upon this limited response. KEYNOTE-651 (NCT03374254) is an open-label phase 1b multicenter trial of pembro + bini (cohort A) or pembro + bini + chemo (mFOLFOX7 in cohort C, FOLFIRI in cohort E) in MSS/pMMR mCRC. Preliminary results from the dose-finding phase at 2 dose levels (DL) of bini are presented. Methods: Patients (pts) had MSS/pMMR mCRC and must have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in cohort A, or with fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin-based regimen in cohort E; pts were previously untreated in cohort C. Pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W + bini 30 mg BID (cohort A, DL1), pembro 200 mg Q3W+ bini 30 mg BID + mFOLFOX7 Q2W (cohort C, DL1) or pembro 200 mg Q3W + bini 30 mg BID + FOLFIRI Q2W (cohort E, DL1). Bini dose escalation to 45 mg BID (DL2) was planned in cohorts A, C, and E, with a target dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of 30%. Primary end point was safety (DLT). Secondary end point was ORR. DCR, PFS, and OS were exploratory. ORR, DCR, and PFS were assessed by investigator per RECIST v1.1. Results: Median study follow-up at data cutoff (Oct 15, 2021) was 36 mo (range, 32-43) for cohort A, 17 mo (2-24) for cohort C, and 11 mo (2-25) for cohort E. In cohort A, 1/6 pts (17%) had DLT at DL1; no DLT occurred in 14 pts (0%) at DL2. In cohort A, gr 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 3/6 pts (50%) at DL1 and 8/14 pts (57%) at DL2. In cohort C, 3/9 evaluable pts (33%) had DLT at DL1; thus, bini dose was not escalated to DL2. In cohort C, gr 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 9/11 total pts (82%). In cohort E, 1/5 evaluable pts (20%) had DLT at DL1 and 5/10 evaluable pts (50%) had DLT at DL2. Enrollment was stopped in cohort E, DL2 and bini dose was de-escalated to DL1; 2/4 additional pts (50%) had DLT at DL1 (total 3/9 pts [33%] had DLT in cohort E, DL1). In cohort E, gr 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 5/9 pts (56%) at DL1 and 10/11 total pts (91%) at DL2. No gr 5 TRAEs occurred in any cohort. ORR was 0% in cohort A; limited efficacy was seen in cohorts C and E (Table). Conclusions: Bini could be safely combined with pembro in cohort A. However, with bini + pembro + chemo, the 45-mg dose of bini was not well tolerated and required dose reduction to 30 mg. Addition of bini to pembro + chemo did not improve efficacy; therefore, enrollment was prematurely closed in cohorts C and E. Efficacy by KRAS mutation status will be shown. Clinical trial information: NCT03374254. [Table: see text]

3600 Background: Immune checkpoint blockade has limited activity in microsatellite-stable (MSS) or mis-match repair proficient (pMMR) CRC. Recent findings suggest that immunotherapy efficacy may be modulated by the presence of liver metastases. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) CO.26 study to investigate the relationship between the presence of liver metastases and activity of immune checkpoint blockade. Methods: The CCTG CO.26 study was a randomized phase II study (NCT02870920). Pts with treatment refractory CRC were randomized to durvalumab, tremelimumab and best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone in a 2:1 fashion. Treatment consisted of durvalumab (1500 mg) q 28 days and tremelimumab (75 mg) q 28 days for the first 4 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and a two-sided p-value

Background: Quality of life (qol) is important for oncology patients, especially for those with late-stage disease. The present study was initiated to address the lack of published prospective data about the qol benefits of trifluridine/tipiracil (ftd/tpi) compared with best supportive care (bsc) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc). Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional study used multidimensional validated scales to evaluate patient-reported qol in two study cohorts of patients and also to measure differences in mcrc-related symptoms and pain in a real-world clinical setting. Results: Our findings demonstrate that patients with refractory mcrc report better overall qol when treated with ftd/tpi than with bsc alone. In that population, statistically significant differences in mean qol measures favoured ftd/tpi over bsc for physical symptom distress, psychological distress, activity impairment, overall valuation of life, and symptomatology. The overall better qol for patients receiving ftd/tpi implies that treatment was well tolerated and was associated with a lower symptom burden. No significant differences for pain were observed between the groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that ftd/tpi is a well-tolerated option for the treatment of patients with refractory mcrc, showcasing the value of capturing real-world qol data in routine clinical practice.

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor indicated for the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). In the Phase III REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was noninferior in the primary endpoint of overall survival versus sorafenib, the only systemic therapy funded in Canada prior to the introduction of lenvatinib. Lenvatinib also demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared to sorafenib in secondary endpoint progression-free survival, time to progression, and objective response rate. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with uHCC from a Canadian perspective. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using partitioned survival modelling, with health states representing progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Health effects were measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were represented in Canadian dollars. Clinical inputs were derived from the REFLECT trial, with outcomes extrapolated using parametric survival models. EQ-5D data collected in REFLECT were used to determine health state utility values, and estimates of resource use came from a survey of clinicians. The model predicted incremental costs of-$5,021 and incremental QALYs of 0.17, making lenvatinib dominant over sorafenib. The model demonstrates lenvatinib to be a cost-effective use of resources versus sorafenib in Canada for the treatment of uHCC. Overall costs are lower compared with sorafenib, while health benefits are greater, with modelled progression-free and overall survival extended by 4.1 and 2.6 months in the lenvatinib arm, respectively.

Background: Selection and sequencing of treatment regimens for individual patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) is driven by maintaining reasonable quality of life and extending survival, as well as by access to and cost of therapies. The objectives of the present study were to describe, for patients with mcrc, attrition across lines of systemic therapy, patterns of therapy and their timing, and KRAS status. Methods: A retrospective chart review at 6 Canadian academic centres included sequential patients who were diagnosed with mcrc from 1 January 2009 onward and who initiated first-line systemic treatment for mcrc between 1 January and 31 December 2009. Death was included as a competing risk in the analysis. Results: The analysis included 200 patients who started first-line therapy. The proportions of patients who started second-, third-, and fourth-line systemic therapy were 70%, 30%, and 15% respectively. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was the most common first-line combination (66%). The most common first-line regimen was folfiri plus bevacizumab. KRAS testing was performed in 103 patients (52%), and 38 of 68 patients (56%, 19% overall) with confirmed KRAS wild-type tumours received an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (egfri), which was more common in later lines. Most KRAS testing occurred after initiation of second-line therapy. Conclusions: In the modern treatment era, a high proportion of patients receive at least two lines of therapy for mcrc, but only 19% receive egfri therapy. Earlier KRAS testing and therapy with an egfri might allow a greater proportion of patients to access all 5 active treatment agents.

TPS638 Background: Prospective studies of the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have been reported. The ideal peri-operative regimen is yet to be determined. Adjuvant FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) in resected PDAC has been proven to improve overall survival (OS) relative to adjuvant gemcitabine. An accepted perioperative approach involves delivering the majority of chemotherapy (6-8 cycles) in the pre-operative setting, while the remainder (of 12 cycles) is administered post-operatively. This pre-operative treatment period may allow for chemosensitivity assessment, and better patient selection for surgery, thereby improving R0 resection rates and reducing the frequency of early post-operative recurrence. Data from the COMPASS trial (NCT02750657) has shown that shown that low levels of the transcription factor GATA6 expression is a putative surrogate for the RNA Moffit signature and predictive of a chemoresistant phenotype in advanced PDAC. NeoPancONE will evaluate clinical outcomes and molecular biomarkers including GATA6 and radiomic biomarkers in pts with resectable PDAC treated with perioperative mFFX. Methods: NeoPancONE is a Phase 2, open-label, single arm study in pts with resectable PDAC. Tissue and serum are collected for biomarker testing, including GATA6 by FISH and IHC (1) with expression levels measured by RNAseq, and longitudinal ctDNA analysis. Pts with histologically confirmed, resectable PDAC and ECOG PS 0-1 will be recruited over 2.5 years. Resectability will be determined by central review as per NCCN guidelines. The primary objective is to evaluate disease-free survival in resectable PDAC treated with peri-operative mFFX according to baseline tumor GATA6 expression level. The ratio of GATA6-high to low is expected to be approximately 4:1[1]. Assuming 1-year disease-free survival of 65% in the GATA6-high, compared to 34% in the GATA6-low cohort, this corresponds to a hazard ratio of 2.5. With 80% power and a 5% 2-sided significance level, a total of 84 patients will be enrolled with 67 events expected in the GATA6 high cohort and 17 in GATA6 low. Participants will receive up to 6 cycles of neoadjuvant mFFX. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, definitive surgical resection will proceed as deemed appropriate by a hepatobiliary surgeon. Post-operatively, pts will receive up to 6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary objectives include determination of overall response rate, incidence of R0 resection, OS, Moffit gene expression profiling (RNAseq), ctDNA, and radiomic signatures to predict outcomes. Enrolment for NeoPancONE began in October 2020 and is being conducted at 8 sites across Canada. To date, 23 pts have been recruited. The study duration will be five years. Reference: O’Kane G M et al. Clin Can Res Sep 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04472910.

Background The diagnosis of breast cancer in young women (aged 18-45 years) has been increasing. Women are commonly left coping with treatment-related disabilities of the upper limb that can persist for > 2 years postoperatively. Patients and Methods A total of 59 young breast cancer patients (29 in the intervention group and 30 in the control group) participated in a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial to determine whether a 12-week postradiation exercise program would improve long-term arm mobility, pain, and handgrip strength. During an 18-month period, range of motion, handgrip strength, and pain with shoulder movements were evaluated at 6 points. Results Although the differences were not statistically significant, external rotation and horizontal abduction of the shoulder improved in the intervention group immediately after the exercise intervention (3 months) and showed a trend toward less pain on movement. However, at 18 months after radiation the control and intervention groups both retained a residual loss of range and persistent pain with movement. Radiation to the axilla and/or chest wall yielded long-term (18 months) limitations in flexion and horizontal abduction compared with hypofractionation, which resulted in greater flexion and external rotation at 18 months. The median grip strength of the study participants corresponded to the 10th percentile of healthy aged-matched white women. Conclusion The exercise intervention timed shortly after radiation improved short-term shoulder mobility and pain; however, these gains were not sustained at 18 months after radiation.

Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer treatments can be highly subjective, influenced by both perspective and context. Such assessments are required in regulatory and policy decision-making, but consistency between jurisdictions is often lacking. Clear and consistent standards for determining when a treatment offers a meaningful benefit, relative to the current standard of care, can help to address issues of equity and transparency in health technology assessment. For metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), no standardized Canadian definition of clinically meaningful benefit has yet been proposed. Colorectal Cancer Canada therefore convened a group of medical oncologists expert in colorectal cancer to review the literature about clinical significance. The resulting consensus is intended to apply to any therapeutic agent being considered in the setting of chemotherapy-refractory MCRC. It was agreed that overall survival is the appropriate measure of clinical efficacy in chemorefractory MCRC. As quantitative targets for efficacy, an improvement of 2 months or more in median overall survival or a hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 or lower (or both) are proposed as the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit. That threshold could be influenced by a treatment’s effect on quality of life. Treatment toxicity is also relevant to the assessment of clinical benefit in this setting, specifically when significant differences in treatment tolerability are evident.

Background According to the IDEA trial, 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy should remain the treatment standard in stage III T4 or N2 colon cancer. The relatively poor survival in this high-risk subgroup—a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%—and the potential synergistic efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan suggest that FOLFIRINOX may be a regimen of particular interest in this setting. Patients and Methods This multicenter international phase 3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02967289 ) being conducted in 49 centers in France and Canada plans to randomize (1:1; minimization method) 640 patients aged 18 to 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Randomization occurs within 42 days (with treatment initiated within 56 days) after curative-intent R0 surgical resection of a pT4N1 or pT1-4N2 colon adenocarcinoma. Patients will be randomized to receive adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) or modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, then 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks (12 cycles). Patients will be followed for 5 years after the end of adjuvant chemotherapy. A gain of 9% in 3-year DFS (primary end point) is expected (74% in the experimental arm vs. 65% in the control arm; α, 5% [2-sided log-rank test]; 1-β, 80%). Secondary end points of this study include 2-year DFS, overall survival, and toxicity.

This study evaluated safety and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing treatment with aflibercept and FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan). Most patients treated with this combination experienced either improvement or stability in quality of life scores. Aflibercept plus FOLFIRI is tolerable in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with a safety profile similar to that seen in previous studies of these individual medications. Background: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety profile of aflibercept and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) provided with aflibercept access before marketing authorization. Patients and Methods: Patients received aflibercept followed by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) on day 1 of a 2-week cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or patient/investigator decision to discontinue. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated, and HRQL was assessed at baseline, cycle 3, and every other cycle using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels questionnaires (NCT01571284). Results: Overall, 779 adult patients with mCRC, who received >= 1 prior oxaliplatin-based regimen and had disease progression during or following their last administration of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, were enrolled. At data cutoff, all patients had discontinued treatment, mainly owing to disease progression (51.7%). The most common TEAEs of any grade were diarrhea (61.6%), hypertension (48.4%), and nausea (43.3%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAEs were hypertension (24.1%), neutropenia (23.1%), and diarrhea (15.3%). Clinically meaningful changes in HRQL were reported for all measures. Most patients either had an improvement in their HRQL scores or remained stable during the treatment period based on patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: The data from this study support the tolerability of the combination of aflibercept and FOLFIRI in a setting that more closely approximates real life in patients with mCRC who failed to respond to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, and also suggest an improvement in HRQL.

e15589 Background: Worldwide treatment for 1st line (1LTx) mCRC included doublet or triple chemotherapy with or without bTAs. In Quebec, the anti-EGFR therapy (panitumumab or cetuximab) was only recently approved in this setting for patients RAS WT, Bevacizumab (B) not eligible. In this study we evaluated the rational and outcomes using bTAs. Methods: Retrospective study assessing mCRC pts treated with or without bTAs at any time throughout the course of therapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2010-2018. Pts were divided in 3 groups according to their 1LTx for analysis: Chemotherapy alone (1LChA), Chemotherapy plus B (1LChB), and anti-EGFR with or without chemotherapy (1LaEGFR). The primary objective was to assess the rational of bTAs prescription based in 1LTx selection. Secondary objectives included safety, PFS and OS. Results: Among a total of 463 pts with mCRC; 196 pts (42.3%) received 1LChA, 246 pts (53.2%) 1LChB, and 21 pts (4.5%) 1LaEGFR respectively. 1LChA group, 51% omitted bTAs for physician-patient preferences, 96 pts (49%) had contraindications for B, and 79 pts (40.3%) were potentially candidates for aEGFR, but did not receive it. 152/196 (77.5%) pts continued to 2LTx and 34.8% received bTAs. As for the 3LTx, 78/196 (40%) received a treatment, 48.7% received bTAs. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension and bowel perforation in B, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and skin reaction (SR) in aEGFR. 1LChB group, 31 pts (12.6%) presented AEs related to B. 191/246 pts (77.6%) continued to 2LTx with 48 pts (25%) receiving ChB despite progression in 1LTx on this bTA and 19 pts (10%) receiving aEGFR. The most common AEs reported in 2LTx were GI symptoms and neuropathy. In 3LTx, 54/91pts (59.3%) received aEGFR therapy and 8 pts (14.8%) had SR AEs. 46 pts (18.6%) continued to 4LTx, 13/46 pts (28.2%) received aEGFR. 1LaEGFR group, the most common AEs were SR and GI symptoms. 11/21 pts (52.3%) continued to 2LTx; 5 pts (45.4%) switching bTA class and receiving ChB. 81% pts started treatment between 2017-2018 and had at least two contraindication criteria for. The median PFS for the 1LChA and 1LChB groups were 10 and 11.5 months, respectively, and were not statistically significant (p=0.22). The OS with 1LChA and 1LChB was 33.26 vs. 27.80 months (p=0.27). The PFS and OS between 1LChA and 1LaEGFR were 10 vs 11 months (p= 0.27) and 33.26 vs. 35.07 months (p=0.13). Conclusions: The outcome and tolerability of bTAs in mCRC appear similar in our institution and randomised trials. We were not able to detect any significant difference among the three groups of comparison. The 1LaEGFR available data in this subset of patients are limited. Our data highlights the importance of optimal therapeutic sequencing to prolong OS. Dedicated studies are needed in order to determine the best bTAs therapeutic strategy in mCRC.

4135 Background: PA.7 evaluated whether combining PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition with GEM and Nab-P increases efficacy. A previous analysis of the PA.7 data demonstrated high plasma based TMB (≥9 mut/Mb) was associated with improved OS in the Gem, Nab-P, D+T arm. DNA repair pathway aberrations beyond mismatch repair have been associated with potential immune sensitivity. We assessed the predictive value of germline ATM mutations in the PA.7 trial. Methods: This randomized phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02879318) assessed the efficacy and safety of GEM, Nab-P, D, and T (arm A) vs. GEM and Nab-P (arm B) in patients (pts) with mPDAC (n = 180). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Pre-treatment plasma was sequenced with the Predicine ATLAS next generation assay (600 gene, 2.4 Mb panel). 2-sided alpha set at 0.1. Results: 180 pts were randomized (119 to arm A and 61 to arm B) There was no significant difference in OS (9.8 months in arm A vs. 8.8 months in arm B, p-value 0.72) or PFS (5.5 months and 5.4 months respectively, HR 0.98, p-value 0.91). Plasma analysis was performed on 174/180 pts with available samples. 16/174 (9.2%) pts had germline ATM mutations, 12 in arm A and 4 in arm B. GEM, Nab-P, D+T was associated with improved OS in patients with ATM mutations (HR 0.10, 90% CI 0.03-0.37; median OS 13.9 months vs. 4.9 months) while no activity was seen in pts with ATM Wild Type (HR 0.99, 90% CI 0.73-1.33; median OS 9.79 months vs. 10.2 months); interaction p = 0.014. Germline ATM mutation status was independent of plasma TMB levels (Wilcoxon p = 0.76). Conclusions: Germline ATM mutation appeared predictive of benefit from the addition of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (D and T) to Gem and Nab-P, with a significant interaction p-value. In addition to previous data from this trial regarding the predictive value of high plasma TMB (≥9 mut/Mb), this data further supports that there may be independent subgroups of PDAC, beyond MSI-H, that may benefit from immunotherapy, and trials evaluating immunotherapy in subgroups of PDAC with these profiles are warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02879318.

411 Background: PA.7 evaluated whether combining PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition with GEM and Nab-P increases efficacy as first line therapy in mPDAC. High TMB is associated with immunotherapy sensitivity, with a threshold of ≥10 mut/Mb receiving FDA accelerated approved for pembrolizumab in a tissue agnostic setting. We assessed the predictive value of plasma TMB in the PA.7 trial. Methods: This randomized phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02879318) assessed the efficacy and safety of GEM, Nab-P, D, and T (arm A) vs. GEM and Nab-P (arm B) in patients (pts) with mPDAC (n = 180). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Pre-treatment plasma was sequenced with the CLIA-certified PredicineATLAS cfDNA next generation assay (600 genes, 2.4 Mb panel). A pre-specified cut point of 5 mut/MB was selected based on distribution of TMB in the trial. 2-sided alpha set at 0.1. Results: 180 pts were randomized (119 to arm A and 61 to arm B). There was no significant difference in OS (9.8 months in arm A vs. 8.8 months in arm B, p-value 0.72) or PFS (5.5 months and 5.4 months respectively, HR 0.98, p-value 0.91). Plasma TMB analysis was performed on 174/180 pts with available samples, and tumor derived variants were detected in 173/174 pts (99.4%). 172 pts were microsatellite stable and 1 pt was microsatellite high (MSI-H) (plasma TMB 52.9 muts/Mb). Using the pre-specified cut-point of 5 mut/Mb there was no significant predictive value from plasma TMB (interaction p = 0.91). Using a minimum p-value approach, a cut-point of 9 mut/MB appeared predictive (p-interaction = 0.064; significant at pre-specified p = 0.1). 8/174 (4.6%) pts had a plasma TMB ≥9 mut/Mb (5/115 (4.4%) in arm A and 3/59 (5%) in arm B). GEM, Nab-P, D+T was associated with improved OS in patients with plasma TMB ≥9 mut/Mb (HR 0.30, 90% CI 0.06-1.37) while no activity was seen in pts with < 9 mut/Mb, (HR 0.97, 90% CI 0.73-1.29). TMB cut-point analysis revealed a clear trend for a decreasing HR favoring the GEM, Nab-P, D and T arm above the selected cut point, with no benefit in the low TMB group. Conclusions: Plasma TMB analysis was successful in over 99% of pts with available samples. Plasma TMB ≥9 mut/Mb was predictive of benefit from the addition of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (D and T) to Gem and Nab-P, with a significant interaction p-value. While only present in a subgroup of pts (4.6%), this data defines a group beyond MSI-H PDAC that may benefit from immunotherapy. The optimal cut-point for high TMB in this setting requires validation. A clinical trial specifically assessing the role of chemotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibition in high TMB mPDAC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02879318.

TPS145 Background: Although most cancers are initially susceptible to existing anticancer therapies, over time cancer cells develop resistance. BOLD-100 is a first-in-class therapy that targets the GRP78 pathway, a major regulator of cellular stress and resistance. This therapy suppresses drug resistance, survival and proliferation by restraining stress-induced upregulation of GRP78 in tumor cells, leading to inhibition of the cell survival response. BOLD-100 successfully completed a Phase 1 monotherapy trial, with a manageable safety profile; it has demonstrated synergy in established preclinical models in combination with a wide variety of anticancer therapies and shown to restore sensitivity of drug-resistant cell lines. Methods: BOLD-100-001 is a multicenter, prospective, two-stage, non-randomized Phase 1b dose escalation and expansion study of BOLD-100 in combination with FOLFOX chemotherapy for selected advanced solid gastrointestinal (GI) tumors: colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PANC), gastric (GC) and bile duct cancers (BDC). Each patient will receive BOLD-100 along with FOLFOX chemotherapy on Day 1 of each 14-day cycle. In the dose-escalation phase (Part A), patients will be enrolled to determine the combination recommended dose using a standard 3+3 design. In the dose-expansion phase (Part B), up to 80 patients with selected GI tumors will be enrolled in 5 cohorts (comprising the 4 GI cancers referred) and treated with BOLD-100 at the recommended dose and FOLFOX, until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. In Part A dose-escalation, the primary objective is to assess the safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose. The Part B dose-expansion will assess the efficacy (progression free survival, overall survival and response rate), of FOLFOX chemotherapy plus BOLD-100. Secondary objectives in Part A and B include the assessment of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and potential biomarkers predictive of efficacy. Eligible patients will have previously treated histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/unresectable GI tumor (CRC, PANC, GC or BDC), measurable disease per RECIST criteria, an ECOG performance score of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. In Part A, no formal statistical hypotheses will be tested; analysis of the data will focus on comparisons of safety and dose-limiting toxicities between cohorts and only descriptive methods will be used. In Part B, Bayesian modelling will be used to continually reassess the efficacy endpoints: progression free survival, overall survival and objective response rates. The study was opened for enrollment in August 2020; approximately 25-30 patients will be screened to achieve up to 20 patients in Part A and up to 80 patients will be enrolled in Part B with a maximum of 25 patients per arm. Clinical trial information: NCT04421820.

Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil&ndash, leucovorin&ndash, oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine&ndash, oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity&mdash, thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes. A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006&ndash, 2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival. The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%, diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%, peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found. Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.

Single-agent regorafenib is approved in Canada and in the US for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have failed previous lines of therapy1. Identification of prognostic biomarkers is crucial to ensure the best therapeutic strategies for mCRC patients. The goal of this clinical study (NCT01949194) was to explore putative molecular signatures of response and resistance to regorafenib in metastatic tumors and serial blood samples. We used a multi-omics approach to profile metastatic tumor tissues and serial blood samples from 47 mCRC patients who received single-agent regorafenib as second-line therapy after failing first-line therapy with an oxaliplatin or irinotecan-containing regimen with or without bevacizumab. Whole exome sequencing was performed to assess both the mutational and copy number (CN) landscapes of metastatic tissues from 29 patients and the transcriptome was interrogated using RNA sequencing. A 14-gene panel was used to profile serial plasma samples. Molecular aberrations were then correlated with lesion-specific treatment response using RECIST 1.1 and progression free survival (PFS) to investigate potential associations.The copy number aberration (CNA) landscape of metastatic tumors was assessed using Nexus Copy Number Software and 20 significant focal aberrations were identified using Genomic Identification of Significant Target in Cancer (GISTIC) test (q-bound Citation Format: Karen Gambaro, Maud Marques, Suzan McNamara, Mathilde Couetoux du Tertre, Cyrla Hoffert, Archana Srivastava, Sophie Mathieu, Anna schab, Thierry Alcindor, Adrian Langleben, Lucas Sideris, Mahmoud Adbelsalam, Mustapha Tehfe, Gerald Batist, Petr Kavan. A Phase II exploratory study to identify biomarkers prognostic of clinical response to regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have failed first-line therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 4325.

Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibition has not shown activities in advanced refractory colorectal cancer (CRC), other than in those patients who are microsatellite-instability high (MSI-H).To evaluate whether combining programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition improved patient survival in metastatic refractory CRC.A randomized phase 2 study was conducted in 27 cancer centers across Canada between August 2016 and June 2017, and data were analyzed on October 18, 2018. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; received all available standard systemic therapies (fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab if appropriate; cetuximab or panitumumab if RAS wild-type tumors; regorafenib if available); were aged 18 years or older; had adequate organ function; had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and measurable disease.We randomly assigned patients to receive either 75 mg of tremelimumab every 28 days for the first 4 cycles plus 1500 mg durvalumab every 28 days, or best supportive care alone (BSC) in a 2:1 ratio.The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and a 2-sided P.10 was considered statistically significant. Circulating cell-free DNA from baseline plasma was used to determine microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutation burden (TMB).Of 180 patients enrolled (121 men [67.2%] and 59 women [32.8%]; median [range] age, 65 [36-87] years), 179 were treated. With a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 6.6 months for durvalumab and tremelimumab and 4.1 months for BSC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 90% CI, 0.54-0.97; P = .07). Progression-free survival was 1.8 months and 1.9 months respectively (HR, 1.01; 90% CI, 0.76-1.34). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were significantly more frequent with immunotherapy (75 [64%] patients in the treatment group had at least 1 grade 3 or higher adverse event vs 12 [20%] in the BSC group). Circulating cell-free DNA analysis was successful in 168 of 169 patients with available samples. In patients who were microsatellite stable (MSS), OS was significantly improved with durvalumab and tremelimumab (HR, 0.66; 90% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = .02). Patients who were MSS with plasma TMB of 28 variants per megabase or more (21% of MSS patients) had the greatest OS benefit (HR, 0.34; 90% CI, 0.18-0.63; P = .004).This phase 2 study suggests that combined immune checkpoint inhibition with durvalumab plus tremelimumab may be associated with prolonged OS in patients with advanced refractory CRC. Elevated plasma TMB may select patients most likely to benefit from durvalumab and tremelimumab. Further confirmation studies are warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02870920.

4032 Background: Pembrolizumab provides effective antitumor immunity and durable responses in patients (pts) with advanced, colorectal cancer (CRC) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. We present data on antitumor immunity with pembrolizumab in pts from the phase 2, KEYNOTE-164 study who had approximately 3 years of follow-up, and in pts re-treated after disease progression. Methods: KEYNOTE-164 enrolled pts with metastatic MSI-H CRC, MSI-H status confirmed locally by IHC or PCR, and ≥2 (cohort A) or ≥1 (cohort B) prior lines of therapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or anti VEGF/EGFR). Eligible pts received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 2y (35 administrations) or until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Pts who stopped pembro due to a confirmed CR or after completing 2y of treatment and who progressed after stopping were eligible for re-treatment with up to 17 administrations in the second-course phase, at investigator discretion. Tumor response was assessed Q9W per RECIST v1.1 by independent review. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints included DOR, PFS, OS, and safety. The data cutoff date was Sep 9, 2019. Results: At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 31.4 mo (range, 0.2-47.8) for 61 pts in cohort A and 36.1 mo (0.1-39.3) for 63 pts in cohort B. ORR was 32.8% (3CR, 17PR; 95% CI% 21.3-46.0) for cohort A and 34.9% (8CR, 14PR; 95% CI 23.3-48.0) in cohort B. Median DOR was not reached (NR [range, 6.2-41.3+]) and not reached (range, 3.9+ to 37.1+), respectively. Fifteen pts in cohort A and 17 in cohort B had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Median PFS was 2.3 mo (95% CI 2.1-8.1) with 3-yr PFS rate of 31% in cohort A and was 4.1 mo (2.1-18.9) with 3-yr PFS rate of 34% in cohort B. Median OS was 31.4 mo (21.4-NR) with 3-yr OS rate of 49% in cohort A and was not reached (19.2-NR) with 3-yr OS rate of 52% in cohort B. Nine pts (6 in cohort A, 3 in cohort B) had a second course of treatment. The best response in second course was PR in 1 patient each in cohort A and B. Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 10 (16%) pts in cohort A and 8 (13%) pts in cohort B. No grade 5 drug-related events occurred. Conclusions: After approximately 3 y of follow-up, pembrolizumab continues to provide effective long-term antitumor immunity with durable responses, with small numbers of drug-related adverse events and no drug-related deaths in pts with advanced, MSI-H CRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02460198 .

673 Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and Gemcitabine with nab-Paclitaxel (GN) are both proven to be superior to Gemcitabine (G) in the first line treatment (1LTx) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Yet, the optimal 1LTx selection nor sequential Tx (ST) has not been fully established. Therefore, the best choice for 1LTx is a matter of debate often influenced by access to drugs. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes based on 1Ltx selection and ST in APC. Methods: We assessed patients (pts) with APC who received either FFX or GN as 1LTx during 2010-2019 at three Canadian institutions. As well as the ST used. The main objective was to assess survival. Kaplan method and log-rank test were used for survival curves. Results: This retrospective study included 231 pts; 1LTx included 143 pts on FFX and 88 pts on GN. FFX pts were predominantly male; 89(62.2%) vs 46(52.3%) and slightly younger (median age 62 vs 66) than GN. WHO performance status (PS) of 0 were 38 (28.4%) vs 14 (16.5%) and 1 were 90 (67.2%) vs 65 (76.5%) respectively. There were more grade 3-4 toxicity in FFX vs GN group: GI 55 (38.5%) vs 15 (17%) and hematologic 51 (35.4%) vs 20 (22.7%) respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia rates were similar in both regimens. The median PFS of FFX was 5.5 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.7) vs 5.1 (95% CI: 3.8-7.1) with GN (p=0.37). The median OS with FFX was 9.3 months (95% CI: 7.5-11.1) vs 10.2 (95% CI: 6.8-11.3) with GN (p=0.81). There were not statically significant. Table shows Tx frequency across 4LTx. 2LTx and beyond regimens included G, GN, FFX, Capecitabine, Irinotecan liposome plus 5-FU, Irinotecan and clinical trials. Conclusions: Our results revealed that pts who received 1LTx FFX or GN had similar PFS and OS even though 1LTx FFX group was younger with better PS, allowing to continue 2-4LTx more frequently when compare with 1LTx GN group. Therefore, 1LTx selection appear to have more impact in our pts rather than ST, whereas GN is less toxic and seems a preferable 1LTx choice for most pts. FFX could be reserved for young high-performance pts. [Table: see text]

719 Background: Although Folfirinox (FFX) prolonged survival in metastatic and adjuvant setting, the role of preoperative FFX is still controversial. Our aim is to evaluate how surgery after neoadjuvant FFX with or without radiotherapy (RT) affects the clinical outcome in these patients. Methods: This is a single arm, open-label, phase 2 prospective study. Based on resectability criteria (NCCN-V.1.2017), patients prospectively were divided into 3 groups of resectable, borderline resectable (BR), locally advanced (LA). Patients received 6 cycles of preoperative FFX. Patients with adequate response, underwent resection. Continuation of chemotherapy or radiation was given to the patients who were deemed unresectable after 6 cycles. Primary objective is time to progression (TTP), and secondary objectives are safety, R0/R1 resection rate, response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: 20 consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma enrolled. The frequency of each group was 4, 8, 8 patients, respectively. Median age was 64 years old (range, 49-78). 45% of patients had primary tumor in head or uncinate process. 25% of cases presented with normal CA 19-9 value. 85% (17/20) of patients completed the preoperative treatment. Folfirinox was given within median of 11.5 weeks (range, 8-17) and median of 6 cycles (range, 1-7). Median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 85.89%. Grade III-IV (G3+4) adverse event (CTCAE-4.03) observed in 47.4% (9/19). RR (RECIST) was 89% (16/18). Best response was partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) with 22.2% (4/18) and 66.7% (12/18). Resection rate was 64.3% (9/14, 1 case scheduled for resection). R0 and negative lymph node (LN) achieved in 87.50% (7/8) and 62.50% (5/8) of patients. Complete pathological response (cPR) was seen in one patient 12.5% (1/8) who preoperatively reported as SD. Patients TTP and OS will be reported during the meeting. Conclusions: Preoperative FFX was associated with high clinical and pathological response rate translating in high resection rate in majority of BRPC and LAPC, and appears to be a safe treatment strategy. Patients received higher FFX dose intensity than it was reported in adjuvant setting. However, these results need to be assessed in a randomized trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03167112.

Management of anticoagulant therapy for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients is complex because of an increased risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding complications in those patients relative to the general population. Subgroups of patients with cancer also show variation in their risk for recurrent VTE and adverse bleeding events. Accordingly, a committee of 10 Canadian clinical experts developed the consensus risk- stratification treatment algorithm presented here to provide guidance on tailoring anticoagulant treatment choices for the acute and extended treatment of symptomatic and incidental VTE, to prevent recurrent VTE, and to minimize the bleeding risk in patients with cancer. During a 1-day live meeting, a systematic review of the literature was performed, and a draft treatment algorithm was developed. The treatment algorithm was refined through the use of a Web-based platform and a series of online teleconferences. Clinicians using this treatment algorithm should consider the bleeding risk, the type of cancer, and the potential for drug–drug interactions in addition to informed patient preference in determining the most appropriate treatment for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. Anticoagulant therapy should be regularly reassessed as the patient’s cancer status and management change over time.

The annual Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference 2017 was held in St. John&rsquo, s, Newfoundland and Labrador, 28&ndash, 30 September. Experts in radiation oncology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, and cancer genetics who are involved in the management of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies participated in presentations and discussion sessions for the purpose of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses multiple topics in the management of gastric, rectal, and colon cancer, including &#9632, identification and management of hereditary gastric and colorectal cancer (crc), &#9632, palliative systemic therapy for metastatic gastric cancer, optimum duration of preoperative radiation in rectal cancer&mdash, that is, short- compared with long-course radiation, management options for peritoneal carcinomatosis in crc, implications of tumour location for treatment and prognosis in crc, and &#9632, new molecular markers in crc.

Background Pembro, a PD-1 inhibitor, confers durable benefit in many tumor types but has limited efficacy in non–microsatellite instability–high (MSI-high)/pMMR mCRC. Chemotherapies that include 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin and irinotecan, which are commonly used to treat mCRC, may modulate intrinsic tumor immunogenicity and sensitize tumors to immunotherapy agents. In the phase 1b KEYNOTE-651 study (NCT03374254), pembro + mFOLFOX7 (cohort B) or pembro + FOLFIRI (cohort D) was evaluated in patients with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC. Methods Patients were ≥18 years with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no prior systemic chemotherapy for stage IV mCRC (cohort B) or 1 prior therapy including a fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin-based regimen (cohort D). Patients received pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) + mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort B) or pembro 200 mg Q3W + FOLFIRI (irinotecan [180 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort D). Primary objectives were safety/tolerability and establishment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); the secondary objective was objective response rate. Results At data cutoff (Feb 18, 2019), 15 patients in cohort B and 16 in cohort D started treatment; median follow-up was 6.8 months (cohort B) and 5.7 months (cohort D). Treatment was discontinued in 4 patients (27%) in cohort B (adverse event [AE], n = 1 [7%]; PD, n = 3 [20%]) and 9 patients (56%) in cohort D (AEs, PD, patient withdrawal; n = 3 [19%] each). There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity in cohort D: grade 3 small-intestinal obstruction. See RP2Ds for cohorts B and D in the Methods section. All patients had ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 8 patients each in cohort B (53%) and cohort D (50%), most commonly anemia and neutropenia (13% each) in cohort B and neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and leukopenia (13% each) in cohort D. There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Efficacy results will be presented. Conclusions Pembro in combination with mFOLFOX7 or FOLFIRI was safe and tolerable in patients with mCRC. Clinical trial identification NCT03374254; Release date: December 15, 2017. Editorial acknowledgement Jacqueline Kolston, PhD, of the ApotheCom pembrolizumab team (Yardley, PA, USA); Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Disclosure R. Kim: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai. J. Kortmansky: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. L. Wong: Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc./Astellas US, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): BeiGene, Ltd; Research grant / Funding (institution): Exelixis, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): NovoCure, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pierre Fabre Medicament; Research grant / Funding (institution): PledPharma AB; Research grant / Funding (institution): SynCore Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Halozyme, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pharmacyclics, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): TESARO; Research grant / Funding (institution): EMD Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Array. M. Tehfe: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Taisho. J.J. Li: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. M. Lee: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. C. Mayo: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. P. Marinello: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. E. Chiorean: Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy: Halozyme; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Five Prime; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Incyte; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Halozyme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta/Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Stemline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Macrogenetics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.