Trent, Jonathan C.

e23508 Background: Activating mutations in KIT are found in most pts with GIST. First-line imatinib provides initial clinical benefit in advanced disease, but prognosis is poor for pts whose tumors progress, despite 3 other approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Resistance is typically driven by secondary KIT mutations in the ATP-binding pocket (exons 13/14) or activation loop (exons 17/18). No approved drug has potent activity against both classes of resistance mutations, and many pts have polyclonal resistance after multiple lines of therapy. THE-630 is an investigational pan-variant KIT inhibitor. Based on preclinical models, an average plasma concentration (Cav) of 100 nM is predicted to have potent activity against all major classes of KIT-activating and resistance mutations. Here, we report initial data from a first-in-human study in pts with advanced GIST (NCT05160168). Methods: This ph 1/2 study is assessing the safety (including dose-limiting toxicities [DLTs] and recommended ph 2 dose [RP2D]), pharmacokinetics (PK), and antitumor activity of THE-630. Pts enrolled in the ph 1 portion were ≥18 y, had unresectable or metastatic GIST previously treated with imatinib and ≥1 additional TKI, and had ECOG performance status ≤2. Pts received THE-630 (QD; 28-day cycles) in a 3+3 dose-escalation design. PK was assessed on days 1 and 15 in cycle 1, antitumor activity was assessed by modified RECIST 1.1, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was assessed using Guardant360. Results: As of 13 Jan 2023, 19 pts had been treated in the ph 1 portion at THE-630 daily doses of 3 mg (n = 3), 4 mg (n = 7), 6 mg (n = 3), 9 mg (n = 3), and 12 mg (n = 3). Median age was 57 y (range 39–72); 13 pts had ≥4 prior TKIs. Median treatment duration was 55 days (range 1–252). PK analysis shows approximately dose-proportional increase in systemic exposure across doses tested. Mean steady-state Cav at 12 mg was 47 nM. There was 1 DLT at 4 mg (grade 5 myocardial infarction in a pt with 8 prior TKIs and hyperlipidemia where relationship to THE-630 could not be incontrovertibly ruled out). No other DLTs or related serious adverse events have occurred; 13 pts had treatment-related AEs (TRAEs), 91% of which were grade 1–2. The most common TRAEs were fatigue (n = 4), dry mouth (n = 3), anemia, ALT increase, AST increase, diarrhea, dyspepsia, dyspnea, and hypertension (n = 2 each). Reductions in select KIT-mutant allele fractions in ctDNA were observed, consistent with THE-630 levels achieved thus far. Stable disease (SD) was the best response in 1/7 pts at 4 mg, 1/3 pts at 6 mg, and 3/3 pts at 9 mg. Post data cut, SD was seen in 3/3 pts at 12 mg. Dose escalation continues to determine the RP2D. Conclusions: THE-630 had an acceptable initial safety profile, and escalation continues, as target exposure for pan-variant KIT activity is not yet reached. Reduction in KIT-mutant allele fractions in ctDNA and initial evidence of disease control were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT05160168 .

11536 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis from INTRIGUE showed pts with second-line advanced GIST with primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations exclusively in KIT exons 17/18 derived clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib (Bauer S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023; Abs 397784). Outcomes in pts with advanced GIST with ctDNA not detected (ctDNA-ND) had not been evaluated. Here, we present exploratory data from INTRIGUE in pts who had baseline ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA detected (ctDNA-D). Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled pts with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) and stratified by mutation according to local pathology report. Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA NGS-based assay. Pts with ctDNA-D had ≥1 somatic alteration in the 74 genes analyzed. Results: Pts with ctDNA-ND (82/362, 22.7%) were younger (median: 55.5 vs 62.0 years) and had smaller sums of longest diameters of target lesions (median [range]: 57.6 [11–459] vs 108.8 [15–418] mm) vs ctDNA-D (280/362, 77.3%). Progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in pts with ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA-D and numerically higher with ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with ctDNA-ND (Table). Pts with ctDNA-ND categorized as not having a KIT exon 9 mutation at randomization ( KIT exon 11, other KIT/PDGFRA, or KIT/PDGFRA wild-type; n = 71) had longer PFS with ripretinib vs sunitinib (median not estimable [NE] vs 11 months; HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.12). Objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were higher with ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA-D. Safety was similar between groups and consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: Pts with ctDNA-ND had better efficacy outcomes vs pts with ctDNA-D in both treatment arms; PFS was numerically higher with ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with ctDNA-ND. Although little is known about the biology driving ctDNA in GIST, these data suggest pts may have improved outcomes and different treatment sensitivity based on ctDNA detectability. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

11524 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the first interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS) in the INTRIGUE trial, data were immature (OS event rate, 22.3%), and median OS was not reached in either arm for the KIT exon 11 intent-to-treat (ITT) and all-patient (AP) ITT populations (S Bauer, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022). Additionally, ripretinib had a more favorable safety profile with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) than sunitinib. Here, we present the second IA of OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is a global, open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint; data cutoff for the second IA was Sept 1, 2022. Results: Of 453 pts in the AP ITT population, 444 received treatment; 51 remain on treatment (33/223 [14.8%] with ripretinib and 18/221 [8.1%] with sunitinib). Common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progressive disease (PD) assessed by independent radiologic review (55.4%), PD assessed by investigator (10.6%), clinical PD (5.9%), withdrawal of consent (5.4%), and adverse event (AE; 4.5%); fewer pts discontinued due to an AE for ripretinib vs sunitinib (2.7% vs 6.3%). Following study treatment discontinuation, 58 pts (25.6%) from the sunitinib arm received ripretinib; 139 pts (61.5%) from the ripretinib arm later received sunitinib. There were 185 OS events (40.8%) in the AP ITT population; median duration of follow-up was 28.7 and 28.5 months for ripretinib and sunitinib, respectively. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the AP ITT (median 35.5 vs 30.9 months; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18; nominal P = 0.39) and KIT exon 11 ITT populations (median 34.0 vs 31.5 months; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.48; nominal P = 0.77). The updated safety profile was consistent with the primary analysis; fewer pts had grade 3/4 TEAEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (95 [42.6%] vs 149 [67.4%]). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. The median (range) treatment duration was 7.9 (0.2–38.2) months for ripretinib and 6.5 (0.2–38.3) months for sunitinib. Conclusions: In the second IA from INTRIGUE, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent with additional data, and results demonstrate favorable safety with ripretinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 .

397784 Background: Ripretinib, a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may provide insight into the efficacy of these agents in second-line advanced GIST. Here, we present exploratory baseline ctDNA results from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay. Only KIT mutations are reported here. Results: Of 453 pts in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 362 (80%) samples were analyzed. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%), with KIT mutations detected in 213/280 (76%). Common resistance mutations were in the KIT activation loop (AL; exons 17/18; 89/213, 42%) and ATP-binding pocket (ATP-BP; exons 13/14; 81/213, 38%). Efficacy in pts with detectable ctDNA in the KIT exon 11 and overall ITT populations was consistent with the primary analysis based on tumor data used for randomization. Pts with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 (−9/13/14) mutations had superior progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) with ripretinib vs sunitinib, whereas pts with exon 11 + 13/14 (−9/17/18) mutations had better PFS, ORR, and OS with sunitinib vs ripretinib (Table). Subgroup safety profiles were consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: While KIT ATP-BP mutations predicted clinical benefit from sunitinib vs ripretinib, pts harboring resistance mutations in the KIT AL derived meaningful clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib. This study demonstrates the value of ctDNA NGS-based sequencing of the complex landscape of KIT mutations to predict the clinical benefit of ripretinib or sunitinib as second-line therapy in pts with advanced GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.

11541 Background: Ripretinib (R) is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs. In the INTRIGUE study (NCT03673501) there was no significant difference in median PFS (primary endpoint) between R and sunitinib (S). We present exploratory analyses of tolerability data and selected pt reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to R 150 mg QD or S 50 mg QD 4 weeks on/2 weeks off.Dose modification was allowed for toxicity management. The event of interest was severe or life-threatening (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse event prior to progression (sTRAE). Days with at least one sTRAE were summed for all treated pts and for pts with ≥1 sTRAE event. PROs were assessed using questions from EORTC QLQ-C30 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at cycle 1 (C1) day 1 (D1), D15, and D29; D1 and D29 of all other cycles; as well as at end of treatment. Differences in PRO scores between baseline and later assessments were calculated across visits. Long-term data will be presented. Results: Pts receiving R (n = 223) versus (vs) S (n = 221) experienced fewer sTRAEs (24% vs 51%, respectively). For all treated pts, the mean time with sTRAEs was 11 days for R and 42 days for S (ratio 0.27, P<0.0001). For pts with ≥1 sTRAE, the mean number of days with a sTRAE was 48 days for R vs 81 days for S (ratio 0.59, p = 0.037). Completion of PRO assessments across the two treatment arms was similar (baseline: R [n = 199], S [n = 199]; C1 D29: R [n = 167], S [n = 177]). Significant differences in self-reported functioning and symptoms were observed by C1 D29. For PROs relating to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, pts in the R arm reported better outcomes than pts in the S arm. Pts in the R arm reported significantly (p<0.05) less decline compared to baseline in pt-reported role function as well as less increase, or improvement, in symptoms of fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and pain vs pts in the S arm. Moderate or severe effect of skin toxicity on pt life, as measured by DLQI in the R arm (n = 165) and in the S arm (n = 175), was observed in 6.6% of pts in the R arm vs 14.8% of pts in the S arm (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In the INTRIGUE study the total number of days with sTRAEs was fewer for pts receiving R vs S. Pts in the R arm also reported significantly less decline in pt-reported role function and less increase in symptoms related to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, vs pts in the S arm. Medical writing provided by Costello Medical. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

11523 Background: Sarcoma pts often receive aggressive, highly immunosuppressive therapy and may be at high risk for severe COVID-19. Demographics, outcomes and risk factors for pts with sarcoma and COVID-19 are unknown. We aimed to describe the course of COVID-19 in sarcoma pts and to identify factors associated with adverse outcomes. Methods: The COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (NCT04354701) is an international registry of pts with cancer and COVID-19. Adult pts (≥18 years old) with a diagnosis of sarcoma and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included from 50 participating institutions. Data including demographics, sarcoma diagnosis and treatment, and course of COVID-19 infection were analyzed. Primary outcome was the composite rate of hospitalization or death at 30 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were 30 day all-cause mortality, rate of hospitalization, O2 need, and ICU admission. Descriptive statistics and univariate Fisher tests are reported. Results: From March 17, 2020 to February 6, 2021, N=204 pts were included. Median follow up was 42 days. Median age was 58 years (IQR 43-67). 97 (48%) were male. 30 (15%) had ECOG performance status ≥2. 104 (51%) received cancer treatment, including surgery or radiation, within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis. 153 (75%) had active cancer, of whom 34 (22%) had lung metastases. 100 (49%) pts met the composite primary endpoint; 96 (47%) were hospitalized and 18 (9%) died within 30 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. 64 (31%) required oxygen, and 16 (8%) required ICU admission. Primary endpoint rates were similar for pts who received cytotoxic chemotherapy (38/58, 66%) or targeted therapy (16/28, 57%). Pts with higher rates of the primary endpoint included patients ≥60 years old (59% vs 40%, OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.12-3.74, p=0.016), pts with ECOG PS ≥2 vs 0-1 (90% vs 41%, OR 12.2, 95% CI 3.44-66.8, p<0.001), pts receiving any systemic therapy within 3 months of COVID-19 diagnosis (62% vs 39%, OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.43-4.97, p=0.001), and pts with lung metastases (68% vs 42%, OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.19-6.79, p=0.013). Primary endpoint rates were similar across sarcoma subtypes (Table). Conclusions: This is the largest cohort study of pts with sarcoma and COVID-19 to date. Sarcoma pts have high rates of complications from COVID-19. Older patients, those with poor performance status, those recently receiving systemic cancer therapy, and those with lung metastases appear to have worse outcomes.[Table: see text]

11505 Background: AL3818 (Catequentinib, Anlotinib) is a novel, orally administered, small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The primary objective of this Phase 3 study is to evaluate the efficacy of AL3818 monotherapy in patients (pts) with synovial sarcoma (SS) comparing with dacarbazine in randomization setting. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of synovial sarcoma requiring second line or further line treatment were eligible for enrollment. The regimen was a 21-day cycle with oral AL3818 administered on 14 days on and 7 days off. This phase 3 trial is randomized in 2:1 ratio of AL3818 comparing to dacarbazine with option of crossover after PD of dacarbazine treatment. Progression free survival (PFS) with Log Rank test is the primary endpoint and this trial for SS is currently completed enrolled in US and Italy. Results: Total 79 pts initiated treatment and are evaluable, 52 received AL3818 as treatment arm (T), and 27 received dacarbazine (D) as control arm (C). Arms T/C median ages were 40.5/42.0 years (range: 18-70+) and 20/16 (38.5%/59.3%) were male. Overall, PFS was 2.89 months (95% CI: 2.73 – 6.87) for AL3818 and 1.64 (95% CI: 1.45 – 2.70) for D. The PFS of study met the primary endpoint with a p-value of 0.0015 and a HR of 0.449 (95% CI: 0.270– 0.744). At the month 4, 6, and 12, the percentages of progression free patients for AL3818 were 48.1%, 42.3% and 26.9%; and for D were 14.85%, 11.1% and 3.7%. For grade 3 treatment-related adverse events, 12(23.1%) of pts experienced for AL3818 and 7(25.9%) of pts experienced for D. The most common AL3818 related grade 3 AEs were diarrhea (5.8%) and hypertension (3.8%). Conclusions: This phase III trial demonstrates improved disease control and superior progression free survival for AL3818 vs dacarbazine in advanced SS. In addition, the study further confirms the acceptable benefit-risk profile of AL3818 from the prior randomized Phase 2b soft tissue sarcoma study (NCT02449343). AL3818 is a meaningful treatment option for pts with advanced SS. Clinical trial information: NCT 03016819 Clinical trial information: NCT03016819.

As leiomyosarcoma patients are challenged by the development of metastatic disease, effective systemic therapies are the cornerstone of outcome. However, the overall activity of the currently available conventional systemic treatments and the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still poor, making the treatment of this patient group challenging. Therefore, in a joint effort together with patient networks and organizations, namely Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN), the international network of sarcoma patients organizations, and the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) in the United States, we aim to summarize state-of-the-art treatments for leiomyosarcoma patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and current unmet needs, thereby guiding the community to design innovative clinical trials and basic research and close these research gaps. This position paper arose from a leiomyosarcoma research meeting in October 2020 hosted by the NLMSF and SPAEN.