Akce, Mehmet

Abstract Background Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is a leading cause of cancer death. FDA-approved first-line systemic therapies include atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and durvalumab/tremelimumab (durva/treme); however, there is a lack of comparative data. Methods We reviewed outcomes of patients with uHCC who initiated atezo/bev or durva/treme between 2017 and 2024, across six institutions. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier and Cox models, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results Four hundred fifty-two uHCC pts were included. Median age: 68 years; 77% male; 81% white. Most common etiologies were viral hepatitis (38.9%) and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (19.5%). Disease progression was the primary reason for treatment discontinuation, atezo/bev (56%) and durva/treme (42%). Outcomes were not statistically significant (median OS [month, m]: 14.0 vs 14.6 [P = .66]; median TTD [m]: 4.9 vs 3.9 [P = .42] for atezo/bev vs durva/treme). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A, B7, B8/9, C) respectively, median OS(m): 19.0, 6.1, 5.1, 2.0 (P < .001); median TTD(m): 6.1, 2.3, 3.0, 1.3 (P < .001). Conclusions In this real-world study of uHCC, no significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between atezo/bev and durva/treme in the first-line setting. CP scores were a key prognostic variable with both regimens.

The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers (BTCs) provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts is convened at least once annually to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. This manuscript focuses on the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation treatment options for BTCs as well as the systemic treatment recommendations for patients with advanced BTCs.

532 Background: HCC accounts for 80% of primary liver cancers, and worldwide, is the third common cause of cancer-related death. Two FDA approved 1st line systemic treatment options include atezo/bev and durva ± treme. Herein we report outcomes of these regimens in the 1st line setting via a real-world, multi-institutional retrospective cohort study. Methods: We reviewed clinical outcomes of patients (pts) who initiated 1st line atezo/bev or durva ± treme for unresectable HCC between March 2017 and February 2024, across 5 institutions (Mayo Clinic, University of Alabama, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and University of Michigan). Time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Best (objective) response was tabulated. Multivariable analyses were performed using Cox models and logistic regression for time-to-event and binary outcomes, respectively, while adjusting for age, sex, race, HCC etiology, Child-Pugh class, and ALBI grade. Results: A total of 433 HCC pts were included; atezo/bev (336), durva ± treme (97). Median age at the start of therapy was 68 years; 77% were male, 82% were Caucasian. Etiologies of HCC were viral hepatitis (38%), MASLD (20%), alcohol (10%), non-viral multifactorial (10%), or unknown (22%). Pts receiving durva ± treme were less likely to have cirrhosis (11% vs. 28%, p<0.01) but similar in terms of macrovascular invasion (63% vs. 58%, p=0.35) compared to pts receiving atezo/bev. Reasons for treatment discontinuation were similar between the two groups, with the most common being disease progression - atezo/bev (56%) and durva ± treme (47%). The differences in clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly and remained consistent after multivariable adjustment. (Table, atezo/bev as the reference group). Outcomes were significantly different between Child-Pugh classes (CP: A,B,C) respectively, OS: 19.0 m, 6.4 m, 1.9 m (p<0.001); TTF: 6.1 m, 2.7 m, 1.3 m (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this real-world retrospective cohort study of unresectable HCC, the differences in overall survival, objective response, and time to treatment failure were not statistically significant between atezo/bev and durva ± treme in the 1st line setting. Outcome Atezo/bev Durva±treme Univariate p-value Multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) Multivariable adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) Overall Survival, Median (month) 14.0 14.6 0.77 0.78 (0.54-1.14) --- Time to Treatment Failure, Median (month) 4.9 4.1 0.71 0.95 (0.72-1.26) --- Objective response, % 26.3% 21.1% 0.31 --- 0.78 (0.43-1.39)

4107 Background: Aberrant Wnt/β-catenin activation has been implicated in tumor formation and progression in BTC. CTNNB1 is a key transcriptional co-activator in Wnt signaling. The impact of CTNNB1 alterations on outcomes in intrahepatic (IHCC) vs extrahepatic (EHCC) vs gallbladder (GB) tumors and patterns of gene co-expression is unclear. We examined the molecular correlates and predictive and prognostic significance of CTNNB1 expression in a real-world cohort of pts with BTC. Methods: 7450 BTC tumors were analyzed using Next Generation Sequencing (NextSeq), Whole Exome and Whole Transcriptome Sequencing (NovaSeq) at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ). Top quartile transcripts per million (TPM) expression was considered high expressors (Q4), bottom quartile was considered low expressors (Q1) within each subtype. Real-world overall survival (OS) data was obtained from insurance claims. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using Cox proportional hazards model, P values were calculated using log-rank test. Significance was determined to be p <0.05. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests determined molecular differences between subgroups and adjusted for multiple comparisons (q<0.05). Results: The cohort was comprised of 61% IHCC, 14% EHCC, 23% GB, 2% NOS. CTNNB1 mutations are rare in BTC (1.3%). Pts with CTNNB1-wt tumors had significantly better OS vs CTNNB1-mt (13.6 vs 10.2 mo, HR 0.74, p=0.008). This association remained significant in IHCC (13.2 vs 4.5 mo, HR 0.64, p=0.031) but not EHCC (18.0 vs 11.8 mo, HR 0.87, p=0.64) or GB (12.9 vs 11.0 mo, HR 0.75, p=0.071). CTNNB1-mt tumors were more frequently TP53-mt (63% vs 41%), ERBB2-mt (9% vs 2%) and ATM-mt (9% vs 3%). CTNNB1-wt tumors were more likely BAP-mt (9% vs 0%) and IDH1-mt (10% vs 0%) (all q<0.05). CTNNB1-mt tumors had higher median CTNNB1 expression vs wt (154.9 vs 113.4, q<0.009). Pts with CTNNB1 Q1 expression had significantly better OS vs Q4 (14.5 vs 12.4 mo, HR 0.88, p=0.007). This association held in IHCC (15.0 vs 10.6 mo, HR 0.77, p<0.00001) but not EHCC (17.5 vs 19.9 mo, HR 1.05, p=0.70) or GB (12.4 vs 12.8 mo, HR 1.05, p=0.63). CTNNB1 Q4 expressing tumors were more likely to be TP53-mt (55% vs 34%), PIK3CA-mt (9% vs 5%), KRAS-mt (23% vs 12%) and less likely IDH1-mt (4% vs 14%) compared to Q1 (all q<0.05). CTNNB1 Q4 pts had higher ARID1A, CTLA4, LAG3, HIF1A, TGFB1/2/3, EPHB4, EPHA2, VEGFA expression (FC: 2.1-4.2, all q<0.05) and higher T-cell inflamed score vs Q1. There was a trend towards improved OS in pts with IHCC CTNNB1 Q1 tumors receiving gemcitabine or fluorouracil (17.5 vs 15.0 mo, HR 0.86, p=0.064); no difference in outcomes by CTNNB1 expression in pts receiving immunotherapy. Conclusions: CTNNB1 mutations and mRNA expression levels impact survival in BTC, especially IHCC, and may be associated with benefit from chemotherapy. CTNBB1 alterations are associated with immunogenic, DNA repair and angiogenic pathways and may help identify novel therapeutic strategies for BTC.

4106 Background: The WNT/beta catenin (CTNNB1) pathway plays an integral role in the development of HCC. CTNNB1 has been implicated in HCC progression, metastasis, and drug resistance. We examined associations between CTNNB1 mutations and mRNA expression and clinical outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with HCC. Methods: 1652 HCC tumors were tested at Caris Life Sciences (Phoenix, AZ) and analyzed with Whole Transcriptome Sequencing (WTS; Illumina Novaseq), Whole Exome Sequencing (NovaSeq,WES) and NextGen DNA sequencing (NextSeq, 592 genes). mRNA expression (transcripts per million) was further stratified into top (Q4) and bottom quartiles (Q1). Kaplan Meier estimates were calculated for overall survival (OS) in the molecularly defined cohorts and estimated from time of tissue collection to last contact. Significance was determined to be p <0.05. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests determined molecular differences between subgroups and adjusted for multiple comparisons (q<0.05). Results: Pathogenic CTNNB1 mutations were present in 32% of HCC and mutation status was not associated with CTNNB1 expression level. Pts whose tumors had lower CTNNB1 expression had significantly improved OS, 17.9 vs 12.4 months, Q1 vs Q4, HR 0.72, CI: 0.58-0.89 p=0.002. This association remained significant in patients who received first-line IO (Q1 vs Q4: OS 16.7 vs 10.6 mo, HR 0.54, CI: 0.32-0.94, p=0.025) or TKI (Q1 vs Q4: OS 27.1 vs 17.6 mo, HR 0.60, CI: 0.38-0.94, p=0.025). Low CTNNB1-expressing tumors (Q1) had more frequent ARID1A mutations (15% vs 8%); less frequent TP53 mutations (31% vs 42%); lower VEGFA, EPHB4, EPHA2, HIF1A, TGFB1/2/3 expression, lower MAPK activation and lower T-cell inflamed scores vs Q4 tumors (all q < 0.05). All tumors were MSS. CTNNB1 mutation status (MT vs WT) did not impact survival (OS 17.6 vs 15.3 mo, CTNNB1-MT vs CTNNB1-WT, HR 1.05, CI: 0.91-1.20, p=0.55). Similarly, CTNNB1 mutation status (MT vs WT) did not impact OS in pts treated with IO (19.8 vs 19.6 mo, HR 0.99, p=0.94) or TKI (23.0 vs 22.0 mo, HR 0.86, p=0.33). Conclusions: CTNNB1 mRNA expression, but not CTNNB1 mutation status, is associated with survival in HCC. Patients whose tumors had lower CTNNB1 expression appeared to derive more benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors and TKI therapy in first line. CTNNB1 expression is associated with DNA repair, immune, neuronal and angiogenic pathways which may pave the way for potential therapeutic opportunities. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate CTNNB1 as a biomarker for treatment selection in HCC.

Abstract Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive malignancy with dismal prognosis. Most patients present with advanced stages. Heightened levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) are associated with carcinogenesis, immune suppression, and poor prognosis in PDAC. Preclinical data of dual inhibition of IL-6 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) facilitates CD8+ T-cell migration into pancreatic tumors and was effective in controlling tumor growth in syngeneic and genetically engineered PDAC mouse models. Siltuximab (Sil) is a chimeric monoclonal antibody which targets the IL-6 molecule specifically. Spartalizumab (Sparta) is a high-affinity ligand-blocking humanized IgG4 antibody against the PD-1 receptor. We developed a phase Ib/II trial to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity and preliminary antitumor activity of Sil and Sparta in metastatic PDAC (mPDAC). Methods: Patients (pts) with mPDAC who have progressed on at least one line of systemic chemotherapy were eligible for the trial. Other selected inclusion criteria were ≥18 years of age, ECOG PS 0-1 and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1. The phase Ib trial design is standard 3+3, with a primary endpoint of recommended phase II dose (RP2D). An additional 24 patients were planned for an expansion cohort. Sil was administered at escalating dose levels of 6 mg/kg (DL1) and 11 mg/kg (DL2), in combination with Sparta at 300 mg IV on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR = CR + PR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We enrolled 4 patients on DL1 and escalated to DL2/RP2D in the absence of a dose limiting toxicity (DLT). A total of 31 patients were subsequently treated at the RP2D (escalation + expansion). The median age was 68 years, 42% were male. Majority were White (63%) and 20% were Black. About 43% had head of pancreas primary tumors and 86% had liver involvement. The median number of lines of prior therapy was 3 (range 1-4). There was no objective response among the 4 patients on DL1; 1 had stable disease (SD) for 11 weeks as best response. 17 of 31 patients on RP2D had only a baseline assessment and came off study for progression of disease, prior to follow-up imaging assessment for response evaluation. Of the 14 RP2D patients with a follow-up assessment, ORR was 0% (3 were SD and 11 had progression of disease (PD) as best response), mPFS - 2.2 mos (95% CI: 1.9, 2.6), mOS - 5.5mos (95% CI: 2.8, 6.5). Treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade included fatigue (23%), anemia (18%), and increased liver enzymes (9.5%). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Conclusions: The combination Sil/Sparta had an acceptable safety profile but did not elicit responses in advanced PDAC pts. Correlative studies using paired biopsies and blood are ongoing to determine how dual IL-6/PD-1 blockade impacts stromal and immune biomarkers in relationship to the clinical outcome measures. Funding and medications for the study were provided by Novartis and Recordati Rare Diseases Inc (NCT04191421) and NIH/NCI (R21CA266088). Citation Format: Olatunji B. Alese, Olumide Gbolahan, Kathleen M. Coleman, Yichun Cao, Sujata Kane, Sarah Craven, Emily Greene, Natalie Horvat, Andrew McDonald, Walid L. Shaib, Christina S. Wu, Mehmet Akce, Maria Diab, Jeffrey M. Switchenko, Gregory B. Lesinski, Bassel F. El-Rayes. Phase Ib study of siltuximab and spartalizumab in advanced pancreatic cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT136.

TPS578 Background: Liver transplantation is a curative treatment option in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) however; up to 20% of patients develop recurrent disease. HCC recurrence post-transplant is usually extrahepatic (up to 67%) hence requires effective systemic therapy options. Available data are limited and restricted to small non-randomized studies and case series. Lack of prospective clinical trial data and limited data indicates an area of unmet need in treatment of recurrent HCC after liver transplantation. This phase II study aims evaluate the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib in patients with recurrent HCC after liver transplantation. Methods: This is a multi-institutional phase II trial with lenvatinib in patients with recurrent HCC after transplantation. Lenvatinib is administered 12 mg daily orally in patients ≥60 kg, and 8 mg daily orally in patients <60 kg. Each cycle is 28 days. Restaging scans will be performed every 8 weeks. Eligible patients must have histologically proven HCC that has recurred after liver transplantation and not amenable for surgical resection, age ≥18 years, ECOG PS 0-1, Child Pugh Class A, measurable disease per RECIST version 1.1, adequate organ function, no prior systemic therapy with lenvatinib or another systemic therapy in the post-transplant setting. Prior liver directed therapy is allowed, should be at least >28 days prior to the study enrollment, and should have at least one measurable untreated lesion by RECIST 1.1 Primary endpoint is overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are safety/tolerability, progression free survival, and overall survival. Pre-treatment and on-treatment peripheral blood samples will be collected for correlative research. A Simon`s two stage Minimax design is employed (H0: ORR = 5%; H1: ORR = 24%; Type I error = 0.05; power = 80%). In the first stage, 11 patients will be accrued, and if there is no objective response among them, the study will be stopped for futility. Otherwise, additional 6 patients will be accrued for a total of 17 patients. This study is currently enrolling patients. Clinical trial information: NCT05103904 .

Background Preclinical studies showed metformin reduces exhaustion of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and potentiates programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) blockade. We hypothesized that metformin with nivolumab would elicit potent antitumor and immune modulatory activity in metastatic microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC). We evaluated this hypothesis in a phase II study. Methods Nivolumab (480 mg) was administered intravenously every 4 weeks while metformin (1000 mg) was given orally, two times per day following a 14-day metformin only lead-in phase. Patients ≥18 years of age, with previously treated, stage IV MSS CRC, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0–1, having received no prior anti-PD-1 agent were eligible. The primary endpoint was overall response rate with secondary endpoints of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Correlative studies using paired pretreatment/on-treatment biopsies and peripheral blood evaluated a series of immune biomarkers in the tumor microenvironment and systemic circulation using ChipCytometry and flow cytometry. Results A total of 24 patients were enrolled, 6 patients were replaced per protocol, 18 patients had evaluable disease. Of the 18 evaluable patients, 11/18 (61%) were women and the median age was 58 (IQR 50–67). Two patients had stable disease, but no patients had objective response, hence the study was stopped for futility. Median OS and PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI (3.2 to 11.7)) and 2.3 months (95% CI (1.7 to 2.3)). Most common grade 3/4 toxicities: Anemia (n=2), diarrhea (n=2), and fever (n=2). Metformin alone failed to increase the infiltration of T-cell subsets in the tumor, but combined metformin and nivolumab increased percentages of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes (p=0.031). Dual treatment also increased Tim3+ levels in patient tissues and decreased naïve CD8+T cells (p=0.0475). Conclusions Nivolumab and metformin were well tolerated in patients with MSS CRC but had no evidence of efficacy. Correlative studies did not reveal an appreciable degree of immune modulation from metformin alone, but showed trends in tumorous T-cell infiltration as a result of dual metformin and PD-1 blockade despite progression in a majority of patients.

3580 Background: TAS-102 (FTD/TPI) is a combination of a nucleoside analogue and a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor, and has showed activity in 5FU-resistant CRC. Nal-IRI achieves higher intra-tumor concentrations than irinotecan (Iri; 142-fold) and its major metabolite, SN-38 (9-fold). This resulted in superior anti-tumor activity compared to free Iri in multiple tumor xenografts. Furthermore, multiple clinical trials have established the activity of nal-IRI in combination with 5FU in pancreaticobiliary cancers. The combination of nal-IRI with the more potent nucleoside analogue TAS-102 may thus result in a more effective systemic therapy. We conducted this study to define the safety and efficacy of the combination of TAS-102 and nal-IRI in advanced CRC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) on this investigator-initiated phase II study had advanced CRC and must have had disease progression on at least one prior therapy. Additional inclusion criteria - measurable disease, ECOG PS 0-1 & adequate organ function. Based on previously published dose escalation phase I data, the pts were treated at the recommended phase II dose of TAS-102 (given orally at 35mg/m2 bid on days 1-5) and nal-IRI (60mg/m2 IV on day 1) in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) = complete (CR) + partial (PR) response per RECIST v1.1. Multiple secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and duration of response (DoR). Results: Twenty-two pts were enrolled, of whom 20 were evaluable for response. Male - 50%; ECOG PS 1 – 75%; African Americans – 38%; median age - 58yrs (interquartile range [IQR] 49-67). Median line of prior therapy was 1 (IQR 1-2) and 13.6% (3 pts enrolled during the dose escalation phase) had received prior Iri. 47.6% received concurrent Bevacizumab. ORR was 15% (3 PR, 0 CR). 60% had stable disease (SD) as best response; DCR of 75%. mPFS - 9.7 mos (95% CI: 5.6, 14.2); mOS - 10.1 mos (95% CI: 7.3, 15.9). 12-month PFS and OS rates were 34.6% and 39.5% respectively. At a median follow up of 11.9 mos, DoR was yet to be determined and 50% of the pts had maintained response for 12 mos. Median duration of progression free among pts with SD was 7.6 mos (95% CI: 4.6, 13.2), with a 12-month survival rate of 47.7% (95% CI: 15.5%, 74.5%). Median time to response (TTR) was 4.8mos. Most common treatment related toxicities included fatigue and neutropenia (G3; 27.3% each); anemia and leucopenia (G3; 18.2% each). Other G3 AEs included febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, hypokalemia, lymphopenia and nausea (4.5% each). Conclusions: We demonstrated that the combination of TAS-102 and nal-IRI had an acceptable safety profile, and showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced CRC. Additional biomarker analyses such as survival correlation with UGT1A1 phenotype and RAS mutational status are ongoing. (NCT03368963). Clinical trial information: NCT03368963 .

3579 Background: Panitumumab (Pmab) is a recombinant monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the human epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and it is indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). However, the objective response rates (ORR) for the single agent are historically about 8-11%. EGFR inhibition induces synthetic lethality with poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) such as Niraparib, by attenuating DNA repair pathways. Combining PARP and EGFR inhibition has the potential to confer synergistic benefit, while also ameliorating resistance mechanism to EGFRi. We conducted this study to define the safety and efficacy of the combination of Niraparib and Pmab in RAS wildtype (WT) mCRC. Methods: Patients (pts) with RAS WT mCRC who have progressed on at least one line of systemic chemotherapy were eligible for the trial. Other selected inclusion criteria were ≥18 years of age, ECOG PS 0-1 and measurable disease per RECIST 1.1. Pmab was administered at 6 mg/kg IV on days 1 & 15 of each 28-day cycle, while Niraparib was taken orally at 200mg or 300mg (based on body weight and platelet count) daily throughout the cycle. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) defined as complete (CR) + partial (PR) response + stable disease (SD) per RECIST v1.1. Multiple secondary endpoints included safety/tolerability, ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of response (DoR). Results: A safety run-in cohort of 6 pts was initially enrolled. Following a preplanned safety analysis showing an acceptable toxicity profile, an additional 19 pts were enrolled. Of the total 25 enrolled pts, 24 were evaluable for response. Male - 50%; Whites/African Americans/Asians – 65.2%/21.7%/13%; median age – 58.5yrs. The majority had left sided tumor (92%) and the median line of prior therapy was 2 (range 1-4). CBR was 83.3% (0 CR, 6 PR, 14 SD) and ORR was 25%. mPFS – 5.6mos (95% CI: 3.7, 6.9); mOS – 20.9mos (95% CI: 9.2, NR). Six-month PFS and OS rates were 48.4% and 100% respectively. At a median follow up time of 7.5mos (95% CI: 4.2, 10.4), 3 patients remained on treatment and DoR was yet to be determined. Muco-cutaneous adverse events (AEs) of any grade included rash (58.4%), oral mucositis (20.8%), dry skin (16.7%) and paronychia (4.2%). Most common (grade > 2) treatment related AEs (TRAEs) were anemia (G3; 12.5%), dermatitis, oral mucositis, hypertension and neutropenia (G3; 4.2% each). There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Conclusions: The combination of Pmab and Niraparib had an acceptable safety profile, and showed considerable antitumor activity in pts with advanced RAS WT mCRC compared to historical rates. Additional biomarker analyses such as survival correlation with immune cell infiltration in paired skin biopsies and HER2/BRAF mutational status are ongoing. Funding and product (Niraparib) for the study were provided by GSK (NCT03983993). Clinical trial information: NCT03983993 .