Boyhen, Kylie

PURPOSE Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (72% ICC, 28% ECC). Young patients had a larger median tumor size at resection compared with older patients (4.2 v 3.6 cm; P = .048), more commonly had N1 disease (65% v 43%; P = .040), and were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.74). Tumors of young patients were more likely to harbor an FGFR2 fusion, BRAF mutation, or ATM mutation ( P < .05 for each). Young patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic therapy (96% v 69%; P < .001), targeted therapy (23% v 8%; P < .001), and treatment on a clinical trial (31% v 19%; P = .004). Among patients who presented with advanced disease, young patients had a higher median overall survival compared with their older counterparts (17.7 v 13.5 months; 95% CI, 12.6 to 22.6 v 11.4 to 14.8; P = .049). CONCLUSION Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

Abstract Background Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. Methods This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P &lt; .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P &lt; .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P &lt; .001). Conclusions Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

580 Background: Though studies indicate that the genomic profiles of ICC and ECC are distinct, the clinical features that differentiate them still remain to be well characterized. The purpose of this study was to further analyze these differences and patient treatment patterns in a multi-center cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at 8 institutions on patients (pts) with ICC or ECC diagnosed after June 2009. Data on demographics, risk factors, treatments, pathology and overall survival (OS) were collected. Tumor genotyping results from CLIA-certified tissue assays were analyzed. Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon rank sum and log-rank tests were used to compare sub-groups. Results: In a database of 737 pts with cholangiocarcinoma, 538(73%) had ICC and 199(27%) had ECC. Pts with ICC more often presented in later stages, had tumors > 5cm at resection (p < 0.0001) and had metastases to the liver, lymph nodes, lung and/or bone (p < 0.01). Pts with ICC more often received liver directed therapy, targeted therapy and multiple lines of systemic therapy and they more often enrolled in a clinical trial (all p < 0.01). Pts with ECC were more likely to be male, undergo surgery, receive adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (all p < 0.05). Mutation profiling performed in 381 (52%) pts (ICC/ECC = 301/80) showed that pts with ICC were more likely to have IDH1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions, whereas pts with ECC were more likely to have KRAS, APC, SMAD4, WNT, TGFb and TP53 mutations (all < 0.05). Factors that did not differ significantly between pts with ICC and ECC include race, rates of primary sclerosing cholangitis, median diagnosis CA19-9 levels and R1 resection rate. Median OS from diagnosis was 18.9 months in ICC and 17.3 months in ECC (p = 0.8471). Conclusions: While pts with ICC and ECC have some similarities in their clinical features, differences in metastases patterns and molecular profiling significantly impact their management such that pts with ICC receive more liver-directed therapy, targeted therapy and more lines of systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed as referral patterns to tertiary care centers may have impacted these results.

Abstract Background: Synthetic lethality (SL) is characterized by the chemical inhibition of multiple aberrant genes to differentially kill malignant cells. We investigated small-molecule combinations for SL through in vitro and in vivo screening and optimization studies (as in the granted patents in USA and China) and demonstrated the synergistic potential of best-in-class combinations of targeted agents, drug repositioning, immune modulation and low-dose combinations. We hypothesize that BTK and mTOR inhibition coupled with an IMID will target multiple key signaling pathways, improve differential apoptosis and target acquired drug resistance. DTRM-555, an optimized mechanism-based combination, consists of the clinically differentiated BTK inhibitor DTRMWXHS-12 (or DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). In xenograft tumor models, DTRM-555 administered orally has demonstrated superior efficacy over monotherapy at very low dose combinations of the three agents (1/18 of DTRM-12, 1/6 of EV, and 1/6 of POM). DTRM-12 monotherapy has been safe and well tolerated in simultaneous phase Ia trials (US and China) with preliminary efficacy across 50 mg through 400 mg once daily (QD). Here we report the US clinical results of the oral combination therapies DTRM-505 (DTRM-12 plus EV) and DTRM-555 (DTRM-12 plus EV plus POM) for the first time (NCT02900716). Methods: The safety and anti-tumor activity of the oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 and the oral triplet therapy DTRM-555 are evaluated using a "3+3" study design. Enrollment was conducted concurrently with a phase Ia study of DTRM-12 monotherapy; with DTRM-505 opened for accrual when monotherapy DTRM-12 cleared the 200-mg dose level. Eligible patients are at least 18 years old, having ECOG performance status less than 2 with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), follicular lymphoma (FL) or classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Study treatment is administered daily for 21 consecutive days over a 28-day cycle. The dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period was defined during the first cycle of therapy, and treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients underwent tumor evaluations every 2 months and response was recorded using revised response criteria (IWCLL and Cheson 2014). Results: Between 9/2016 and 7/2018, 19 patients have been treated with DTRM-12 monotherapy in the USA (6 pts, 50-300 mg) and China (13 pts, 50-400 mg). Patients have tolerated up to 23+ cycles of DTRM-12 monotherapy. Seven patients, including DLBCL, CLL, MCL, FL and cHL, have been treated with oral doublet therapy DTRM-505 for 2 to 12 cycles. Three patients (2 DLBCL, 1 FL) have been treated with oral triplet therapy DTRM-555, including one patient transitioned from the doublet DTRM-505 under an exploratory arm. No patient has discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) and no DLT has occurred. Recurring AEs are mostly grade 1 or 2 and responses have been seen with DTRM-505 and DTRM-555 across diverse lymphoma histologies (See Tables). All patients evaluable for response demonstrated partial response to DTRM-505 and DTRM-555, with 2/7 (doublet) and 3/3 (triplet) patients remaining on therapy. Conclusion: The maximum tolerated dose has not been reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy and for the current fixed dose doublet and triplet combinations. Toxicities have been mild and repeated cycles of study treatment have been well tolerated without delays of subsequent treatment cycles. Enrollment continues for refractory lymphoma patients to demonstrate the safety and efficacy for the first-in-class oral triplet therapy DTRM-555. Disclosures Huntington: Janssen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Schuster:Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; OncLive: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Physician's Education Source, LLC: Honoraria; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. He:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma Co. Ltd.: Other: Founder and CEO; Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Founder and CEO. Shen:Zhejiang DTRM Biopharma LLC: Other: Clinical Operations Director. Kennard:AbbVie, Gilead, Verastem: Consultancy. Dwivedy Nasta:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; Debiopharm: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Rafael/WF: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Other: DSMC; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Landsburg:Takeda: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Porter:Novartis: Other: Advisory board, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Spouse employment; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Svoboda:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy. Song:Peking University Cancer Hospital (Beijing Cancer Hospital): Employment. Zhu:Beijing Cancer Hospital: Employment. Brander:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; DTRM: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other: Institutional research funding for non investigator initiated clinical trial, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding. Mato:Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Prime Oncology: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria.