Burness, Monika L.

3084 Background: Homologous recombination (HR) is an essential, high-fidelity mechanism to repair DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) in cancer cells. CYT-0851 inhibits HR leading to an accumulation of unrepaired DSBs and tumor cell death. We are reporting the completed Phase 1 dose-escalation results and RP2D selection to support ongoing development of CYT-0851. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced hematologic and solid tumors were treated with continuous 28-day cycles of increasing doses of CYT-0851 following a 3+3 design. The primary objective was determining the maximum tolerated dose. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-tumor activity. Results: As of a 15 Nov 2021 data cutoff (DCO), 73 pts with advanced cancers (NHL n = 18; Sarcoma n = 16; Pancreas n = 11; Breast n = 8; HNSCC n = 6; Ovarian n = 4; SCLC n = 4; Other n = 4; Myeloma n = 2) were treated in 12 cohorts (total daily doses: 30 mg to 1200 mg). One pt experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of reversible metabolic acidosis at 1200 mg. Two of 3 pts at 800 mg experienced reversible DLT-like events in Cycle 2 of Gr3 dry skin and Gr3 myalgia and polyarthritis, respectively. Three of 10 pts treated at 600 mg experienced DLT-like events in Cycle 1: 1 pt experienced an SAE of Gr3 anorexia with Gr3 stomatitis, vomiting, and dehydration and 2 pts had Gr3 fatigue. No DLTs occurred at 400 mg daily which was selected as the RP2D. 42 pts (57.5%) experienced a CYT-0851-related adverse event (AE), including 12 (16.4%) with a Gr3/4 AE. There were no treatment-related deaths. AE leading to CYT-0851 withdrawal were reported in 2 pts (2.7%) treated with 600 and 800 mg. The most common CYT-0851-related AEs were primarily Gr1/2 and included fatigue (20.5%), hyperuricemia (11%), nausea (11%), alopecia (9.6%), constipation (8.2%) and headache (8.2%). CYT-0851 exposure was approximately dose-proportional across the evaluated doses with an effective half-life of ̃3 days. Exposure at 400 mg daily was consistent with efficacy in preclinical models. 46 pts were evaluable for response at the DCO. 12 pts with NHL were evaluable by Lugano and included 1 CR in FL and 1 PR in DLBCL treated for 393+ and 244 days respectively. 34 pts with solid tumors were evaluable by RECIST v1.1 with 1 PR in a pt with myxofibrosarcoma treated for 313 days and 16 pts with stable disease. Fifteen pts were treated for 100+ days and 5 for 180+ days. Conclusions: CYT-0851 has demonstrated promising and broad clinical activity in a Ph 1 population of pts with advanced cancers. The safety profile is favorable as characterized by events that were infrequent, primarily Gr1/2, and reversible. Six expansion cohorts (DLBCL, Follicular Lymphoma, Myeloma, Pancreatic, Ovarian and Sarcoma) are enrolling to characterize activity at the RP2D. Ph 1 evaluation of CYT-0851 in combination with 3 chemotherapy backbones is also ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03997968.

AimsChemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a treatment limiting toxicity of paclitaxel. We evaluated if EPHA genetic variation (EPHA4, EPHA5, EPHA6, and EPHA8) is associated with PN sensitivity by accounting for variability in systemic paclitaxel exposure (time above threshold).MethodsGermline DNA from 60 patients with breast cancer was sequenced. PN was measured using the 8‐item sensory subscale (CIPN8) of the patient‐reported CIPN20. Associations for 3 genetic models were tested by incorporating genetics into previously published PN prediction models integrating measured paclitaxel exposure and cumulative treatment. Significant associations were then tested for association with PN‐related treatment disruption.ResultsEPHA5 rs7349683 (minor allele frequency = 0.32) was associated with increased PN sensitivity (β‐coefficient = 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.11–0.67, p = 0.007). Setting a maximum tolerable threshold of CIPN8 = 30, optimal paclitaxel exposure target is shorter for rs7349683 homozygous (11.6 h) than heterozygous (12.6 h) or wild‐type (13.6 h) patients. Total number of missense variants (median = 0, range 0–2) was associated with decreased PN sensitivity (β‐coefficient: −0.42, 95% confidence interval −0.72 to −0.12, P = .006). No association with treatment disruption was detected for the total number of missense variants or rs7349683.ConclusionIsolating toxicity sensitivity by accounting for exposure is a novel approach, and rs7349683 represents a promising marker for PN sensitivity that may be used to individualize paclitaxel treatment.

532 Background: Chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common, debilitating paclitaxel side effect that has been primarily attributed to cumulative systemic paclitaxel exposure. Paclitaxel dose-adjustment to achieve target systemic exposure decreases but does not eliminate severe CIPN, suggesting some patients are inherently CIPN-sensitive. Ephrin ( EPHA) polymorphisms have been reported to increase CIPN occurrence (Baldwin 2012, Leandro-Garcia 2013, Boora 2016) but replication has been challenging, perhaps due to the inability to isolate CIPN-sensitivity by accounting for systemic exposure differences. The study purpose was to determine if EPHA genetic variants previously associated with CIPN occurrence are associated with CIPN-sensitivity. Methods: PN was assessed at baseline and weekly using the 8-item sensory subscale (CIPN8) of the patient-reported EORTC CIPN20 in patients receiving paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12. EPHA4, EPHA5, EPHA6, and EPHA8 were sequenced in germline DNA. Associations with higher PN-sensitivity were tested for three genetic models (total variants, coding variants, and rs7349683) by incorporating genetics into previously published CIPN8 predictive models that included measured paclitaxel exposure. Significant associations were tested for association with higher risk of PN-related treatment disruption (i.e. dose decrease, delay, or discontinuation). Results: In the 59 included patients, carrying EPHA5 rs7349683 was associated with greater CIPN sensitivity (beta coefficient: 0.40, standard error: 0.14, p = 0.005), indicating these patients had a greater increase in CIPN8 during treatment than would be predicted based on cumulative paclitaxel exposure. Rs7349683 was not associated with increased PN-induced treatment disruption, perhaps due to the low number of events (n = 19). Conclusions: Using a novel approach that isolates CIPN-sensitivity by accounting for measured paclitaxel exposure, our results provide further evidence that EPHA5 rs7349683 may be a promising marker for CIPN. If additional validation studies confirm this association, genetic testing could enable personalized treatment strategies to prevent CIPN in patients with breast cancer.