Jaslowski, Anthony J.

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

Abstract Background: Although major advances have been made in the treatment of HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), the goal of care remains largely palliative, therefore better treatments are needed. Given encouraging preclinical and clinical data, the combination of cyclin dependent 4/6 kinase inhibitors and HER2-directed therapy is further being evaluated in this trial. Trial Design: In this phase I/II multicenter trial, we will determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of abemaciclib (Abem) combined with T-DM1. Three Abem dose levels will be examined, 50 mg, 100 mg and 150 mg. The phase 2 portion of this trial will examine whether PFS is increased with addition of Abem to T-DM1 in two pt cohorts - those with ER+ HER2+ MBC and those with ER-HER2+ MBC. For phase 2, a pre-registration biopsy is required to confirm ER and HER2-status and to determine levels of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; vimentin (an epithelial-mesenchymal transition marker); and CD8 and FOXP3 expression. Blood samples will be collected pretreatment , at 6 weeks, and at progression for all pts. Eligibility Criteria: Phase I&II: All pts must have HER2+ MBC per ASCO-CAP guidelines and prior treatment with a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab. For the phase Iportion, pts can have measurable or non-measurable disease with no restriction on the number of prior lines of therapy. In the phase II portion, pts must have measurable disease with ≤1-2 prior lines of chemotherapy alone, ≤1 HER2-directed therapy alone, and/or chemotherapy with HER2-directed therapies. There is no limit on prior endocrine therapy. Specific Aims: The primary objective of the phase II trial is to assess whether addition of Abem to T-DM1 increases PFS in one or both patient cohorts. Secondary objectives include an assessment of toxicity, objective response rates and overall survival. Correlative studies will assess the association between baseline TIL levels, vimentin expression, and CD8/FOXP3 expression with PFS. Changes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells, CTCs, ctDNA and serum thymidine kinase 1 during the course of treatment will be examined to determine if there is a link with PFS outcomes overall and separately for each cohort. Pharmacogenomic studies will determine if pts with the FCGR3A-158 polymorphism derive less benefit from T-DM1 and have inferior PFS outcomes compared with pts who do not have this polymorphism. Statistical Methods:Phase I: Standard 3+3 design, with dose limiting toxicities as per protocol. Phase II: For each pt cohort, a stratified randomization scheme will be used to assign pts to treatment with liver mets as a stratification factor. For each pt cohort, a stratified log rank test will be used to assess whether PFS is increased with the addition of Abem to T-DM1. A non-binding futility analysis will be applied in each cohort after 58 events in the ER+ HER2+ MBC study cohort and 48 events in the ER- HER2+ MBC study cohort. Present Accrual: 0; target accrual: minimal 120 pts., maximal 140 pts CohortOne-sidedalphaPowerAccrual Period (accrual rate)Follow-up after close of enrollmentPFS with T-DM1PFS with abema and T-DM1Number of eligible patientsER+/HER2+0.100.912 months (5-6 pts per month)12 months12 weeks24 weeks64 (32 per arm)ER-/HER2+0.100.8512 months (3-4 pts per month)12 months6 weeks12 weeks50 (25 pts per arm) Citation Format: Ciara C O Sullivan, Jun He, Vera J Suman, Krishna R Kalari, Roberto A Leon-Ferre, Jose C Villasboas-Bisneto, Pratima Chalasani, Demet Gokalp Yasar, Daniel M Anderson, Philip J Stella, Anthony J Jaslowski, Susan H Tannenbaum, Angela Saverimuthu, Donald Northfelt, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Jodi M Carter, Minetta C Liu, Liewei Wang, Zhenkun Lou, Matthew P Goetz. A phase I/II trial of abemaciclib and T-DM1 in women and men with HER2-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer that has progressed on treatment with a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) (ACCRU-BR-1801) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-19-05.

9055 Background: There is increasing evidence that paclitaxel and carboplatin are clinically active in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM). Nab-P is an albumin-bound paclitaxel with ability to bind SPARC (secreted protein acid rich in cysteine), that is overexpressed in MM and associated with poor prognosis. This study explores the clinical activity of the combination of nab-P and C in patients (pts) with stage IV melanoma and SPARC correlatives. Methods: A parallel phase II trial was conducted in pts with unresectable stage IV melanoma, who were either chemotherapy naïve (CN) or were previously treated (PT). A treatment regimen consisting of nab-P (100 mg/m2) and C (AUC 2) was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28 day cycle. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether tumor response rate (CR + PR by RECIST) was ≤15% vs ≥35% in the CN group and ≤5% vs ≥ 20% in the PT cohort. Major eligibility criteria: ≥18 years of age, ECOG PS ≤2, adequate organ function, platinum or taxane naive, peripheral neuropathy < grade 2, and no untreated brain metastasis; no pregnant and/or nursing women. Tumor tissue was tested for SPARC and level 3 immunohistochemical staining was considered positive. Results: 76 pts (41-CN and 35 PT) enrolled from 11/2006 - 7/2007, 3 pts (2-CN, 1-PT) cancelled prior to starting treatment. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range 1–18-CN and 1–10-PT). There were 11 (28.2%) confirmed responses (1 CR and 10 PRs) in the CN cohort (90% CI: 16.7–42.3%) and 3 (8.8%) confirmed responses (3 PRs) in the PT cohort (90% CI: 2.5–21.3%). Median PFS was 4.5 months (CN) and 4.1 months (PT). Median OS was 11.1 months (CN) and 10.9 months (PT).The most common severe toxicities in both groups (CTCAE ≥ grade 3) included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, neuro-sensory, fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. PFS was not affected by SPARC positivity; however, based on limited data there is some evidence that OS may be longer with tumoral SPARC positivity (10.0 vs 12.8 mo; SPARC negative vs SPARC positive). Conclusions: The weekly combination of nab-P and C appears to be well tolerated with promising clinical activity as front line or salvage therapy in pts with MM. SPARC positivity may be associated with improved OS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

1016 Background: The ph III EMBRACE trial of E vs physician’s choice of tx led to FDA approval of E as ≥3rd-line tx for MBC pts with prior exposure to anthracyclines/taxanes. The ph III BOLD 301 trial of E vs capecitabine in advanced BC treated with anthracyclines/taxanes showed a nonsignificant trend to improved median OS for all pts; pre-planned analysis by HER2 status revealed a nominally significant benefit for HER2- pts. Methods: RU011201I is an investigator initiated ph III trial with 1:1 randomization to E (1.4 mg/m2 D1,8 q21days) vs P (90 mg/m2 D1,8,15 q28days) within strata defined by (neo)adjuvant taxanes (yes/no), HR status (+/-), and line of tx (1st/2nd). Pts had measurable or non-measurable disease by RECIST v1.1; new or progressive mets; peripheral neuropathy (PN) gr<2; ≤1 prior chemotx regimens for advanced or MBC. Asymptomatic brain mets with stable MRIs for >3 mos were allowed. (Neo)adjuvant taxanes were allowed if >12 mos between tx completion and disease recurrence. Radiographic studies occur q12wks. Survival data are collected q12wks after the Off-Tx Visit. Pts reported side effects weekly; post-baseline symptomatic AE rates worse than baseline were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact tests. We report clinical outcomes and the primary objective related to PRO-CTCAE use. Results: 201 pts enrolled 3/2014 - 5/2018 with 33.8 mos median f/u; 3 are on tx as of 2/20/20 (1E, 2P). Pt characteristics were the same between E vs P: median age 62 yrs (range 27-85); 42% prior taxane; 78% ER+; 70% starting 1st line tx. Baseline lesion distribution was similar except for lung mets (37E, 53P). No difference was seen between E vs P in PFS (5.7 vs 5.9 mos; P=0.72), OS (18.1 vs 16.4 mos; P=0.75), TTF (5.3 vs 4.9 mos; P=0.82), DOR (10.8 vs 12.3 mos; P=0.84), or number of metastatic events (55 vs 54). 37E and 36P pts required ≥1 dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities ≥ gr 3 were higher with E (40 vs 22%). PN events were similar: 56 vs 58 total, 4 vs 7 motor, 52 vs 51 sensory. Median duration of PN and median time to 1st PN event were 74 vs 140 and 56 vs 41 days. Worsened numbness/tingling severity and other pt-reported AE rates were similar, but worsened numbness/tingling interference (63% vs 78%, P=0.04) and vomiting frequency (35% vs 57%, P=0.005) were lower with E. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were equivalent with E vs P as 1st/2nd line tx for HER2- advanced BC. The nature and severity of PN were similar between arms, but time of onset, duration, and interference with daily living favor E. E may be a suitable treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02037529 .

9513 Background: The need for more research in N/V control is exemplified by agents that are costly, interfere with cytochrome P450 metabolism, and inadequately address delayed N/V. Based on pilot data, there was justification for evaluating whether gabapentin could improve the prevention of delayed N/V from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: Patients (pts) about to receive HEC were randomized to prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone (dex) and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by either gabapentin (gaba) 300 mg BID and dex or placebo (plac) and dex. Gaba/plac was started the evening of the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 of the first chemotherapy cycle. Dex was given at 8 mg BID days 2-3, then 4 mg BID for day 4, in both arms. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications day 2-6, using a nausea and vomiting diary. The percent of CR were compared in each group by Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes included the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), satisfaction, and a side effect questionnaire. Results: 430 pts were enrolled in this study between 5/2009 and 2/2011. 47% of pts in the gaba arm and 41% in the plac arm had a CR (p=.23). At some time during days 2-6, 30% in the gaba and plac arms experienced emesis, and 45% and 53% in the gaba and plac arms, respectively, took rescue medication. Mean diary nausea scores over days 2-6 ranged from 0.9 – 1.2 (gaba arm) and 1.0-1.3 (plac arm)(7 = the worst); mean number of diary emetic episodes ranged from 0.1 -0.3 (gaba arm) and 0.1-0.2 (plac arm). The FLIE was not significantly different between arms. Mean vomiting satisfaction was 9.1 in both arms and for nausea was 8.3 for gaba, 8.1 for plac (10= totally satisfied). There were no significant differences in toxicities by CTCAE provider grading or by self-report. Conclusions: In this study, gaba did not improve delayed N/V. Overall, there was little emesis and nausea severity was low. Patients were satisfied with the control of their N/V, irrespective of arm. The use of standard prophylactic guidelines that include a 5HT3RA and dex provided good control of N/V for most patients. Clinical trial information: NCT00880191.

4578 Background: Gemcitabine is commonly used in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with a response rate of 20–30% and median overall survival of 6–10 months. Pemetrexed’s mechanism of action and tolerability in patients with hepatic dysfunction makes it a potential agent for cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: Patients with unresectable, previously untreated biliary tract cancers were eligible for participation. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV over 10 minutes and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 IV at 10 mg/m2/minute on days 1 and 15 of an every 4 week schedule with vitamin B12 and folate supplementation. The primary end-point is 6-month survival with a planned accrual of 59 patients. Results: 58 eligible patients are included in this analysis. 93% had metastatic disease. Median age was 61 (range: 40 - 81). Median follow-up was 6.5 months (range: 3.3 - 23.2). Median of 3 cycles of treatment was given (range: 1 - 10). Reasons for stopping treatment included disease progression (57%), adverse events (20%), refusal (17%), death on- study (4%), and other medical problems (2%). 6-month survival was 52% (95% CI: 40 - 68%). Median survival was 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.4 - 8.0 months) and median time-to-progression was 3.8 months (2.4 - 5.0). 46 of 58 patients (79%) experienced at least one grade 3+ AE (at least possible attribution), and 26 patients (45%) experienced at least one grade 4 AE (at least possible attribution), most of which were due to grade 4 neutropenia. Conclusions: This study shows similar results to what would be expected with gemcitabine alone. The addition of pemetrexed, as with other agents, has not significantly enhanced the activity of gemcitabine. Supported by NIH Grant CA25224- 18. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Uproleselan (GMI-1271) is a novel antagonist of E-selectin, an adhesion molecule expressed on endothelial cells. E-selectin is expressed transiently in the normal vasculature during an inflammatory response and constitutively in the bone marrow (BM). Binding of E-selectin (E-sel) to sialyl Lex, the E-sel ligand (E-sel-L), on the leukemic cell surface activates cell survival pathways and promotes chemotherapy resistance in AML. In preclinical models, blockade of E-selectin with uproleselan disrupts the activation of cell survival pathways and enhanced the efficacy of chemotherapy across multiple AML tumor models. Furthermore, uproleselan protected against chemotherapy-induced mucositis by regulating macrophage trafficking to the site of injury in the gut lining. A previous phase I/II study of uproleselan added to chemotherapy in patients with untreated AML (older adults ≥60 yrs) and relapsed/refractory AML (≥ 18yrs) showed promising remission rates (CR/CRi) and survival outcomes, and reduced rates of mucositis. In the newly diagnosed older patients, high remission rates were achieved overall (CR/CRi 72%) and for the high risk subgroup with sAML (CR/CRi 69%). In this phase 2/3 study, we will test the addition of uproleselan to a standard daunorubicin/cytarabine regimen in older adults with previously untreated AML. The study will enroll patients age ≥ 60 yrs with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia, activating mutations in FLT3, or evidence of central nervous system involvement are excluded. Subjects are randomized to 7+3 induction (cytarabine + daunorubicin) +/- uproleselan. Subjects achieving a CR/CRi may receive up to 3 cycles of consolidation with intermediate dose cytarabine 2 gm/m2 IV d1-5 +/- uproleselan. The primary phase II objective is to compare the event-free survival (EFS). A sample size of 262 patients was selected for the phase II to detect an improvement in median EFS from 7 months to 11 months (HR= 0.64) with &gt; 95% power, using a log rank test. The phase III primary objective will compare overall survival (OS). For the phase III, a sample size of 335 evaluable patients per arm (670 total inclusive of patients enrolled in phase II) will provide &gt;90% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 12 months to 16 months (HR= 0.75), using a log-rank test. Correlative studies will measure E-selectin ligand on AML blasts and soluble E-selectin and will also measure minimal residual disease after remission induction by multiparameter flow cytometry. A comprehensive geriatric assessment will identify baseline measures associated with EFS and develop a risk model to predict OS among older adults receiving intensive AML therapy. The study is endorsed by SWOG and ECOG-ACRIN and opened to enrollment on 1/16/2019. Figure Disclosures Uy: Astellas: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy. Dinner:Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Strickland:Jazz: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Liesveld:Onconova: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Byrd:Acerta: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; BeiGene: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Stone:Argenx, Celgene, Takeda Oncology: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board/Committee: ; AbbVie, Actinium, Agios, Argenx, Arog, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biolinerx, Celgene, Cornerstone Biopharma, Fujifilm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Ono, Orsenix, Otsuka, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sumitomo, Trovagene: Consultancy; Novartis, Agios, Arog: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Uproleselan in AML

BACKGROUNDDespite targeted antiemetics, data support an unmet need related to the management of delayed nausea and vomiting (NV). Promising pilot data informed this phase III trial evaluating gabapentin for delayed NV from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).METHODSParticipants were randomized to receive prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by gabapentin 300 mg twice a day and dexamethasone (dex) or placebo and dex after HEC. Gabapentin/placebo was started the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 for the first chemotherapy cycle, whereas dex was titrated down on days 2‐4. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no use of rescue medications on days 2‐6, using an NV diary. The percentages of those in each group with a CR were compared by Fisher's exact test.RESULTSFour hundred thirty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty‐seven percent of patients in the gabapentin arm and 41% in the placebo arm had a CR (P = .23). Mean number of emesis episodes was <0.5 daily, and mean nausea severity was < 2 (mild). In both arms, patient satisfaction with NV control was greater than 8 (with 10 being perfectly satisfied). There were no significant differences in unwanted side effects.CONCLUSIONSIn this study, gabapentin did not significantly improve delayed NV. Patients were satisfied with the control of their nausea and vomiting irrespective of arm. The use of a 5HT3 RA and dexamethasone provided good control of nausea and vomiting for most patients. Cancer 2014;120:3575–3583. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Purpose The characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel–acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. Methods Patients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m 2 ) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) –20 instruments during the entire course of therapy. Results P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. Conclusion These data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.