Thomassen, Amber

e20731 Background: Selective RET (REarranged during Transfection) inhibitors (RETi) have become standard treatment for RET fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer ( RET + NSCLC), which represent 1–2% of NSCLC cases. Clinical factors that drive front-line versus later-line RETi use and outcomes are not well understood. This retrospective chart review evaluates physician decision drivers alongside real-world effectiveness and safety for pralsetinib (PRAL) in RET + NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted via a standardized web-based form among US oncologists treating advanced RET + NSCLC. Eligible patients initiated PRAL for RET + NSCLC between October 2020 and December 2024. Data gathered included physician treatment considerations, patient baseline characteristics, and efficacy outcomes. Results: Eighty-two charts from patients who received PRAL as their first (index) RETi were collected from 43 physicians across both academic (41.9%) and community (58.1%) sites. Of the 82 patients, 51.2% received PRAL front line (1L) and 31.7% in the second line (2L). From a predefined list, physicians most often cited comorbidities (36.6%) and ECOG performance status (31.7%) as clinical factors when considering index PRAL therapy and efficacy profile (56.1%), followed by intracranial activity (24.4%) and hypersensitivity to immuno-oncology agents (24.4%) as therapy-related considerations. Although not a primary therapy selection driver, in 13 patients with safety as a consideration, 6 (46.2%) had myelosuppression noted as a concern for index PRAL treatment. RET + NSCLC patients treated in the 1L setting with PRAL had an overall response rate (ORR) of 73.8% (14 CR; 17 PR). For 2L line PRAL, the ORR was 61.5% (1 CR; 15 PR). Anemia (17.1%), diarrhea (13.4%), and constipation (13.4%) were the most frequently reported adverse events (AE). Discontinuation was mainly due to loss of/no response (80.6%), insurance (16.1%), and AEs (3.2%). The single PRAL patient that discontinued due to an AE had edema. There were an additional 7 patients that switched to PRAL due to an AE on a different RETi. The post-switch ORR was 57.1% (4/7); of these patients, 3 maintained their previous response and 1 improved their response. Conclusions: In this retrospective chart review, pralsetinib was used across treatment lines with high real-world response rates, consistent with results from the ARROW trial. Treatment selection was influenced by specific clinical factors including patient comorbidities, ECOG performance status, and safety concerns, with AE-driven switching uncommon yet associated with continued responses.

RET fusions appear in 1%-2% of non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). The results from the ARROW study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03037385 ) supported US Food and Drug Administration approval of pralsetinib, an oral selective RET inhibitor, for metastatic RET -altered NSCLC and RET fusion–positive thyroid cancers. ARROW was a phase I/II open-label study of pralsetinib 400 mg once daily in RET fusion–positive NSCLCs. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Key secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). At data lock (May 20, 2024), 281 patients initiated pralsetinib (median treatment duration, 15.0 months). ORR (measurable disease patients; n = 259) was 78% (95% CI, 69 to 86) for treatment-naïve patients and 63% (95% CI, 54 to 71) for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Median OS was 44.3 months (95% CI, 30.9 to 53.1), 50.1 months (95% CI, 28.3 to not reached) in treatment-naïve patients, and 39.7 months (95% CI, 27.8 to 53.2) in prior platinum patients. Common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were anemia (21%), hypertension (15%), and decreased neutrophils (13%). Three treatment-related deaths occurred (pneumonia, n = 2; interstitial lung disease and rhabdomyolysis, n = 1 each). Safety was consistent with previous ARROW reports; no hypersensitivity was reported in patients receiving prior immunotherapies. Pralsetinib produced robust, durable responses with manageable safety in treatment-naïve and previously treated patients with RET fusion–positive NSCLCs, confirming previous findings with longer follow-up.

8644 Background: RET fusions are targetable oncogenic drivers in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). ARROW (NCT03037385) study results (final data lock May 20, 2024) supported the US FDA approval of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor for metastatic RET -altered NSCLC. Here, we present final study results. Methods: ARROW was a phase 1/2 open-label study conducted at 84 sites in 13 countries. Phase 2 included patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC who received 400 mg pralsetinib once daily (QD). Initially, treatment-naïve patients were not candidates for platinum-based therapy and presented with several unfavorable prognostic factors; this requirement was removed by protocol amendment in July 2019. Primary objectives were overall response rate (ORR, per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are reported in the full efficacy population; the measurable disease population (MDP) was the primary analysis population for ORR and duration of response (DOR). Results: 281 patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC received pralsetinib 400 mg QD, with a median duration of treatment of 14.95 months (mos). Median age was 60 years; 46% were male. In the MDP (n=259), ORR was 70.3% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 64.3, 75.8) and median DOR was 19.1 mos (95% CI: 14.5, 27.9; Table). In the efficacy population (N=281), median OS was 44.3 mos (95% CI: 30.9, 53.1) with median follow up of 47.6 mos (95% CI: 44.8, 49.2), and median PFS was 13.1 mos (95% CI: 11.4, 16.8). ORR (Table) and median PFS were markedly higher in the US (25.9 mos, n=64) vs. Asia (12.6 mos, n=122) or Europe (12.9 mos, n=95). In the safety population, 95% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 66% experienced ≥grade 3. Common TRAEs included increased AST (n=128 [46%]), anemia (n=121 [43%]), increased ALT (n=98 [35%]), and hypertension (n=77 [27%]). 3 patients died due to TRAEs (pneumonia, n=2; interstitial lung disease and rhabdomyolysis, n=1 each). No new safety signals were identified with this update. Conclusions: Pralsetinib produced clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC (regardless of prior therapies) with a manageable safety profile, confirming with this longer follow up previously published results. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . All MDP(n=259) Prior Platinum (n=130) Treatment-naive(n=106) ORR, % (95% CI) Overall 70.3(64.3, 75.8) 63.1(54.2, 71.4) 78.3(69.2, 85.7) US (n=58)77.6(64.7, 87.5) (n=31)64.5(45.4, 80.8) (n=19)100(82.4, 100) Europe (n=89)65.2(54.3, 75) (n=36)63.9(46.2, 79.2) (n=43)65.1(49.1, 79) Asia (n=112)70.5(61.2, 78.8) (n=63)61.9(48.8, 73.9) (n=44)81.8(67.3, 91.8) Median DOR, mos (95% CI) a (n=182)19.1(14.5, 27.9) (n=82)31.8(15.1, 40.4) (n=83)13.4(9.4, 21.7) Median DOR follow up, mos (95% CI) 46.8(42.3, 50.2) 50.3(46.9, 56.8) 42.3(37.4, 44.2) a Per FDA censoring rule.

3116 Background: Pralsetinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that selectively and potently targets oncogenic RET fusion and mutation proteins. RET fusions or mutations are present in various tumor types. We report the final results from the phase 2 portion of ARROW, a phase 1/2, open-label, multi-cohort, dose-expansion study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pralsetinib (NCT03037385) in patients with RET fusion-positive solid tumors other than non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and thyroid cancer. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years of age with a pathologically documented, definitively diagnosed advanced solid tumor with an oncogenic RET fusion or mutation, had previously received standard of care appropriate for their tumor type, and were not eligible for any other study groups. Overall response rate (ORR) and safety were primary endpoints of the study. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The final database lock was May 20, 2024. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled with 11 different solid tumor histologies. Twenty-six (90%) received prior systemic therapy. Median age was 58 years (range 25-75); 59% were female. Twenty-eight patients were included in the efficacy analysis. ORR (by RECIST) was 46.4% (13/28); 10.7% (3/28) achieved complete response (pancreatic cancer, n=2; cancer of unknown primary, n=1) and 35.7% (10/28) achieved partial response. Median PFS was 7 months (95% CI: 3.9, 12.8). Median DOR was 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.5, 25.1). Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI: 6.8, 25.2). Twenty-five (86%) patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 19/29 (66%) reported TRAEs ≥grade 3. The most common TRAEs included increased aspartate aminotransferase (11/29; 38%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10/29; 35%), and anemia (9/29; 31%). Four (13.8%) patients experienced hypertension, and 1 (3.4%) patient had ≥grade 3 hypertension. No new safety risks were identified; AEs remained manageable with supportive care and/or dose modifications. Conclusions: In the phase 2 portion of this trial, responses were observed in many tumor types (Table). Pralsetinib demonstrated robust and durable anti-tumor activity with an ORR of 46.4%. These data validate RET fusions as a tissue-agnostic target with sensitivity to RET inhibition and activity beyond NSCLC and thyroid cancer, further supporting the promising potential of pralsetinib to address the unmet medical need in these patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . Overall response rate by tumor type. Cancer Type (patient n) ORRn (%) Pancreatic (5) 5 (100) Cancer of unknown primary (1) 1 (100) Neuroendocrine (3) 2 (67) Sarcoma (3) 2 (67) Head and neck (2) 1 (50) Small cell lung (2) 1 (50) Hepatobiliary (4) 1 (25) Colorectal (5), gastric (1), ovarian (1), thymic (1) 0

3090 Background: VV1 (Voyager V1) is derived from VSV, an RNA virus with low human seroprevalence, engineered to replicate selectively in and kill human cancer cells. In Part 1 of this study, we demonstrated the safety of intratumoral VV1 and dose-response, using serum IFNβ as a biomarker; we observed viral replication in tumor and concomitant lymphocyte/neutrophil trafficking (SITC 2018). 2 other studies suggested greater efficacy and higher IFNβ levels with IV administration. Longer infusion durations were reported to mitigate infusion reactions (IRRs) for another oncolytic. Methods: We studied 3 different infusion durations of VV1 monotherapy at the recommended phase 2 IV dose (1.7 x 1010 TCID50) in patients with advanced solid tumors. Endpoints included safety, preliminary anti-tumor activity, viral titers, IFNβ PD and shedding. Patients received IV VV1 once on D1 and were monitored for DLT over 21 days with efficacy assessments every 6 weeks. IRRs were classified using Lee 2014 criteria for CRS as either constitutional symptoms only (G1) or involving hypotension (G2). Results: 18 patients were treated at 30, 60 and 180-minute durations (n = 7, 5 and 6, respectively). No DLTs, deaths or G3-4 related IRR AEs were observed. Most pts were female (67%), white (100%), with ECOG PS 0 (61%) and median 4 lines of prior systemic therapy (range 1-14) for colorectal (CRC; 56%), squamous cell carcinoma (11%), pheochromocytoma (11%), sarcoma (11%) or other (11%) cancers. The table shows results (number of patients) by infusion duration. Conclusions: There was no difference in safety between the 3 infusion durations, while efficacy and PD markers suggested better anti-tumor effect with 30-minute infusion. VV1 is safe for caregivers, with no viral shedding. Part 3 of this study will now treat CRC patients with VV1 in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor (avelumab). A 5-arm phase 2 basket study in combination with cemiplimab is proceeding with 30-minute infusions. Clinical trial information: NCT02923466 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: The selective AURKA inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) exhibits disease modifying activity in murine models of myelofibrosis by eradicating atypical megakaryocytes resulting in reduction of marrow fibrosis (Nat Med 2015). Here, we present long term follow-up results from the investigator initiated pilot study of alisertib in patients with myelofibrosis (clinical trials.gov Identifier NCT 02530619). Methods: 24 patients with DIPSS intermediate 1, intermediate-2, or high risk myelofibrosis who were in need of therapy, refractory/intolerant or unlikely to respond to JAK inhibitors with neutrophil count ≥ 1 x109/L, and platelet count ≥ 50 x109/L, received alisertib (provided by Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc) at a dose of 50 mg twice daily for one week every 21 days. Toxicity assessment was performed by the standard common terminology criteria (Version 4.0). Response was assessed by the international working group for myelofibrosis research and treatment (IWGMRT) criteria. Correlative studies included assessments of JAK2V617F, CALR, and MPL mutant allele burden, degree of fibrosis and GATA1 expression in bone marrow samples obtained pre and post therapy. Results: We enrolled 17 patients with primary myelofibrosis, 4 with post essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis and 3 with post polycythemia vera myelofibrosis. Median age was 72 years with 66% males. 79% of patients were DIPSS intermediate risk, and the remainder were high risk with 15 patients (62.5%) having received prior JAK inhibitor therapy. Driver mutational status was as follows; 58% JAK2V617F, 29% CALR, and 13% MPL mutated. At study entry, 54% of patients demonstrated palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm below the left costal margin, 54% were transfusion dependent with all patients experiencing constitutional symptoms. At the time of data cut-off, patients received a median of 7.5 cycles (range; 1-29 cycles) of therapy. The 7 patients presently on study have received a median of 23 cycles (range; 8-29 cycles). Reasons for treatment discontinuation included progressive disease/lack of response in 11 (65%) patients, toxicity in 4 (24%) patients and refusal of further therapy in 2 (11%) patients.Safety and Efficacy assessments The most common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (29%) and anemia (21%), with 4% each experiencing neutropenic fever, diarrhea, vertigo, elevated creatinine and elevated alanine aminotransferase. 22 patients were considered for response evaluation with 4 of 14 patients (29%) with palpable splenomegaly ≥ 5 cm achieving a spleen response, 1 of 13 patients (8%) becoming transfusion independent, and 5 of 22 patients (23%) experiencing symptom response with ≥ 50% reduction in the MPN-SAF total symptom score. However, when response assessment was restricted to 13 patients who had received a minimum of 5 cycles of therapy, spleen responses were observed in 4 of 7 (57%) patients, 1 of 5 (20%) achieved transfusion independence and 5 of 13 (38%) achieved symptom response. All patients presenting with leukocytosis (n=4) and thrombocytosis (n=2) had resolution with therapy. Of the 7 patients presently on study, four patients continue to demonstrate symptom response, two patients with both spleen and symptom response, and another patient with sustained anemia response. Correlative assessments We compared the intensity of staining of GATA1, a factor that is required for maturation, in sequential bone marrow biopsies from six patients at baseline and after a minimum of five cycles and observed a striking increase in the numbers of GATA1-positive megakaryocytes in five of six cases (Figure 1a). In addition, we observed a one grade reduction in marrow fibrosis in 4 of 6 paired samples (Figure 1b). This reduction in fibrosis was accompanied by sustained responses to the drug. Finally, we compared JAK2, MPL or CALR mutant allele burden in eight paired baseline and cycle 5 or 6 samples and observed decreases in 4 of 8 patients (Figure 1c). Conclusions: Alisertib is safe and well tolerated in patients with myelofibrosis with prolonged administration up to 1.7 years. In addition to providing clinical benefit, alisertib restored normal morphology and GATA1 expression in atypical megakaryocytes and reduced marrow fibrosis and mutant allele burdens. These findings demonstrate that AURKA inhibition should be further explored as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Swords: AbbVie: Employment. Watts:Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Research Funding. Frankfurt:Celgene, Jazz, Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Altman:Cyclacel: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Epizyme: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Ariad: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Bayer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celator: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; FujiFilm: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Agios: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct the trial ; Astellas Pharma: Other; Genetech: Other: Payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; GSK: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boeringer Ingelheim: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Other: payment to the institution to conduct clinical trial work. Rampal:Celgene: Honoraria; Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Giles:Actuate Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Crispino:Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Scholar Rock: Research Funding.

Abstract Purpose: Myelofibrosis is characterized by bone marrow fibrosis, atypical megakaryocytes, splenomegaly, constitutional symptoms, thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications, and a risk of evolution to acute leukemia. The JAK kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib provides therapeutic benefit, but the effects are limited. The purpose of this study was to determine whether targeting AURKA, which has been shown to increase maturation of atypical megakaryocytes, has potential benefit for patients with myelofibrosis. Patients and Methods: Twenty-four patients with myelofibrosis were enrolled in a phase I study at three centers. The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of alisertib. Correlative studies involved assessment of the effect of alisertib on the megakaryocyte lineage, allele burden, and fibrosis. Results: In addition to being well tolerated, alisertib reduced splenomegaly and symptom burden in 29% and 32% of patients, respectively, despite not consistently reducing the degree of inflammatory cytokines. Moreover, alisertib normalized megakaryocytes and reduced fibrosis in 5 of 7 patients for whom sequential marrows were available. Alisertib also decreased the mutant allele burden in a subset of patients. Conclusions: Given the limitations of ruxolitinib, novel therapies are needed for myelofibrosis. In this study, alisertib provided clinical benefit and exhibited the expected on-target effect on the megakaryocyte lineage, resulting in normalization of these cells and reduced fibrosis in the majority of patients for which sequential marrows were available. Thus, AURKA inhibition should be further developed as a therapeutic option in myelofibrosis. See related commentary by Piszczatowski and Steidl, p. 4868