Ritch, Paul S.

e16612 Background: Primary malignant vascular tumors of the liver are rare, aggressive and poorly understood subtypes of liver cancers. In this analysis, we aim to determine the impact of tumor histology and other socio economic factors on survival of these tumors and hepatocellular carcinomas. Methods: Patients with malignant histopathological diagnoses of hepatocellular carcinoma not otherwise specified (HCC NOS), hepatocellular carcinoma with spindle cell (HCC SP), fibrolamellar (HCC F), clear cell (HCC CL), scirrhous (HCC SC) and pleomorphic variants ( HCC PL), combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (Mixed), hepatic angiosarcoma (AS), hemangioendothelioma (HE), its epithelioid variant (EHE) and hemangiopericytoma (HP) were identified using the SEER (version 2018) database. Overall survival was studied with Kaplan–Meier with the log rank method. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess the impact of race, ethnicity, marital and insurance status on survival of these patients. Results: We analyzed de-identified data of 104502 patients from the year 1973 to 2016 with hepatocellular carcinomas and malignant vascular tumors of liver (including 101851 patients with HCCNOS, 70 with HCC SP, 378 with HCC F, 104 with HCC SC, 593 with HCC CL, 23 with HCC PL, 950 with Mixed, 367 with AS, 36 with HE, 120 with EHE and 10 with HP ) respectively. Median overall survival (OS) of HCC NOS was calculated to be 7 months. Among hepatocellular carcinoma patients HCC F had the longest median OS of 29 months and HCC SP had the shortest median OS of 3months (P < 0.001). Additionally, among patients with malignant vascular tumors, AS had the shortest median OS (1 month) while patients with EHE had the longest median OS of 81 months (P < 0.001). Overall, married and insured patients had a better overall survival than unmarried and uninsured patients (P < 0.04). Conclusions: Malignant vascular tumors of liver are rare in comparison to hepatocellular carcinomas. Spindle cell variant of HCC and liver angiosarcomas carry the worst prognosis and fibrolamellar variant of HCC, hemangioendothelioma (HE) and its epithelioid variant (EHE) have the best prognosis. Insurance and marital status has a positive impact on overall survival of liver cancer patients.

4050 Background: Somatic mutations in KRAS, HRAS, NRAS (extended RAS) and BRAF have prognostic and predictive impact in pts with mCRC. We analyzed the prognostic impact of specific somatic mutations in extended RAS and BRAF. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of pts with mCRC at our institution who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) utilizing the Foundation One assay. DNA was extracted from clinical specimens and CGP was performed on hybrid-capture, adaptor ligation-based libraries for up to 315 genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. BRAF mutations were classified as class I, II and III according to accepted nomenclature. Fisher’s exact test and Kaplan Meier estimates were used for statistical analyses. This project was approved by the Medical College of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board. Results: 273 pts were identified - median age at diagnosis was 57, 48% were male. Somatic mutations in extended RAS were found in 138 (50%) pts, majority being mutations in KRAS (46%). Among pts with KRAS mutations, codon 12, 13, 61 and 146 mutations accounted for 73%, 11%, 4% and 6% respectively while KRAS G12C mutations accounted for 9%. BRAF mutations were detected in 22 (8%) pts - BRAF V600E and non–V600E mutations accounting for 4.4% and 3.6% respectively. Among pts with BRAF mutations, 17 (77%) were kinase domain mutations, 16 of which could be further classified as class I (12/16), II (1/16) and III (3/16). Median overall survival (mOS) for the entire cohort was 26.4 months (mo). KRAS mutated pts had a mOS of 25.8 mo; pts with KRAS G12C mutation had a mOS of 23 mo compared to 27.1 mo for pts with other KRAS mutations (p < 0.001).Pts with BRAF mutation had a mOS of 26.2 mo; pts with BRAF V600E mutation had a mOS of 14.1 mo compared to 30.6 mo for pts with BRAF non-V600E mutations (p = 0.1). Conclusions: The poor prognosis of pts with KRAS G12C and BRAF V600E mutations compared to pts with other KRAS and BRAF mutations merit further biologic characterization with functional assays. Individualized therapeutic strategies must be conceptualized for mCRC pts with specific RAS/BRAF mutations, considering their widely disparate prognosis and putative downstream signaling mechanisms. Dynamic molecular simulation to understand conformational changes in proteins associated with specific mutations will be pivotal to optimizing precision therapeutic strategies.

723 Background: BPM31510-IV is an Ubidecarenone (CoQ10) drug-lipid conjugate nanodispersion targeting metabolic machinery in cancer, shifting bioenergetics from lactate dependency towards mitochondrial OxPhos to generate ROS and activate apoptosis. An MTD of BPM31510-IV in combination with gemcitabine was established at 110mg/kg in a Phase I clinical trial, which determined the dose for the Phase 2 investigation. Methods: Eligible patients (aged ≥ 18 y) with relapsed/refractory PDAC to standard treatment (ST) and met inclusion/exclusion criteria were recruited. Patients received 110mg/kg IV BPM31510 in combination with gemcitabine in a 144-hour infusion. Tumor response was evaluated at week 10 and then every 8 weeks. Study endpoints assessed were Overall Response Rate (ORR), Overall Survival (OS), Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Time to Progression (TTP), Tumor Response using Adaptive Molecular Responses (multi-omic molecular profiling), changes in CA 19-9 levels and patient reported Quality of Life (QOL) using the validated FACT-HEP PRO. A comprehensive multi-omic profiling for identification of biomarkers for patient stratification was explored. Results: Of the 35 patients enrolled to receive therapy, 18 patients met criteria of an adequately treated cohort (ATC- received BPM31510-IV + gemcitabine for 30 days over 2 cycles and had a RECIST 1.1 evaluation) while remaining (n = 17) had progressive disease (PD). Half of the ATC population (n = 9/18, 50%) achieved best ORR of stable disease (SD); 10/18 (55 %) demonstrated SD as best response at target lesions and 8/18 demonstrated SD at end of Cycle 2. The mTTP was 121 days (70 – 147, 95% CI); PFS 118 days (70 – 131, 95% CI) and OS 218 days (131 – 228, 95% CI), respectively. Overall, BPM31510-IV was well tolerated; the most common AE’s were GI related. Conclusions: The efficacy signal observed in this heavily pretreated population in addition to the toxicity profile warrants further clinical investigation of BPM31510-IV + gemcitabine in advanced PDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT02650804 . [Table: see text]

TPS543 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is treated with CIS and GEM (CISGEM), but prognosis is poor. Hyaluronan (HA) accumulation in solid tumors may impede drug and immune cell access. PEGPH20 targets tumors that accumulate HA (HA-high). This study (NCT03267940) plans to enroll 70 subjects to evaluate the safety and activity of PEGPH20 + programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent atezolizumab, (PEGCISGEMATEZO), & PEGPH20 + CISGEM (PEGCISGEM) in HA-high subjects with CCA and gallbladder cancer. Study will comprise initial run-in and expansion portions. Primary endpoints include incidence of AEs and other laboratory/safety parameters and ORR (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints include PK parameters; DOR, DCR, PFS, and ORR (RECIST v1.1 and immune-modified RECIST); and OS and OS by PD-L1 expression. Methods: ~6 HA-high subjects will be enrolled in PEGCISGEM arm run-in portion and undergo at ≥1 cycle; subsequently, 6 HA-high subjects will enter the PEGCISGEMATEZO arm. Treatment period will be 21-day cycles. In the expansion portion, ~50 HA-high subjects will be enrolled and randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio into PEGCISGEMATEZO, PEGCISGEM, and CISGEM arms. PEGPH20 is planned to be administered at 3.0 μg/kg on Days 1, 8 and 15 of all cycles in both portions. ATEZO will be administered at 1200 mg 1–3 hours after PEGPH20 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle in the PEGCISGEMATEZO arm in both portions. In the PEGCISGEM & PEGCISGEMATEZO arms, dosing schedule for CISGEM is the same during both portions, with administration of 25 mg/m2 CIS and 1000 mg/m2 GEM on Days 2 and 9 of each cycle. In CISGEM control arm (expansion only), dosing schedule will be on Days 1 and 8 of each cycle. Treatment will continue until death, withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor response will be evaluated using RECIST v1.1. AEs will be graded per NCI CTCAE v4.03. Tumor samples will be tested retrospectively for PD-L1 expression. Safety data will be periodically monitored by an independent data monitoring committee. Clinical trial information: NCT03267940.