Cesne, Axel Le

748 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with 3 or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS) from the phase 3 INTRIGUE study, the OS event rate was 41% in the all-patient (AP) intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and OS was similar between treatment arms in both the KIT exon 11 ITT and AP ITT populations. Here, we present the final OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE (NCT03673501) is an open-label, phase 3 study of adults with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib. Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint (the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously); final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with ≥200 and ≥145 events in the AP ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Data cutoff was March 15, 2023. Results: Of 453 pts, 444 received treatment; 40 remain on treatment (ripretinib, 28/223 [13%]; sunitinib, 12/221 [5%]). Treatment discontinuation was due to progressive disease (PD) by independent radiologic review (56%), PD by investigator (11%), clinical PD (6%), withdrawal of consent (6%), and adverse events (AEs; 5%). Fewer pts discontinued treatment due to AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (3% vs 6%). There were 211 OS events (47%) in the AP ITT population and 151 OS events (46%) in the KIT exon 11 ITT population. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the 2 ITT populations (Table). Fewer pts had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (43% vs 67%). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. Median treatment duration for ripretinib vs sunitinib was 7.9 vs 6.5 months. Conclusions: In the finalOS analysis from the INTRIGUE study, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent and more favorable for ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

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]

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]

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.

Background Ontuxizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets endosialin (tumor endothelial marker 1 [TEM‐1] or CD248), which is expressed on sarcoma cells and is believed to be involved in tumor angiogenesis. This is the first trial to evaluate ontuxizumab in patients with sarcoma. Methods Part 1 was an open‐label, dose‐finding, safety lead‐in: 4, 6, or 8 mg/kg with gemcitabine and docetaxel (G/D; 900 mg/m 2 gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel on day 8). In part 2, patients were randomized in a double‐blind fashion in 2:1 ratio to ontuxizumab (8 mg/kg) or a placebo with G/D. Randomization was stratified by 4 histological cohorts. Results In part 2 with 209 patients, no significant difference in progression‐free survival between ontuxizumab plus G/D (4.3 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7‐6.3 months) and the placebo plus G/D (5.6 months; 95% CI, 2.6‐8.3 months) was observed ( P = .67; hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.77‐1.49). Similarly, there was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups: 18.3 months for the ontuxizumab plus G/D group (95% CI, 16.2‐21.1 months) and 21.1 months for the placebo plus G/D group (95% CI, 14.2 months to not reached; P = .32; HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.82‐1.82). No significant differences between the treatment groups occurred for any efficacy parameter by sarcoma cohort. The combination of ontuxizumab plus G/D was generally well tolerated. Conclusions Ontuxizumab plus G/D showed no enhanced activity over chemotherapy alone in soft‐tissue sarcomas, whereas the safety profile of the combination was consistent with G/D alone.