Braud, Filippo de

PURPOSE Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare cancer associated with poor prognosis. Pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved for second-line therapy and beyond, on the basis of the phase II FIGHT-202 trial. Here, we assess efficacy and safety of first-line pemigatinib. METHODS FIGHT-302 is a phase III, randomized, global trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03656536 ). Adults with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily) or chemotherapy (1,000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine plus 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin once per day on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle for ≤8 cycles) and were stratified by prior receipt of chemotherapy, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for patients progressing on chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. RESULTS Overall, 4,563 patients were prescreened, 196 were screened, and 167 randomly assigned to receive pemigatinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 84) before early closure of the study because of a change in standard of care. The median PFS was 8.3 months in the pemigatinib group versus 6.8 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87]; nominal P = .0078); objective response rate was 47% versus 15%, and the median duration of response was 14.2 versus 6.3 months. Median overall survival was similar (24.4 v 25.0 months, respectively). In the crossover group (n = 42, second-line pemigatinib), the median PFS was 8.1 months. Safety was consistent with the known profile of pemigatinib. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this was the largest, first-line, randomized, phase III trial of a targeted therapy for advanced FGFR2- rearranged cholangiocarcinoma. Pemigatinib demonstrated prolonged median PFS compared with chemotherapy, with no new safety findings.

4017 Background: First-line mCCA treatment is chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Based on the phase 2 FIGHT-202 trial, pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved in second line and beyond for mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement. Results from the phase 3, randomized, global FIGHT-302 trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy are reported here (NCT03656536). Methods: Patients (pts) aged ≥18 y with previously untreated mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive oral pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily q21) or intravenous chemotherapy (1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine + 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin d1,8 q21 ≤8 cycles) stratified by previous receipt of 1 chemotherapy cycle, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for control arm pts progressing on chemotherapy. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. Results: After prescreening >4000 pts, only 196 had FGFR2 rearrangement and were screened; 167 were randomized to receive pemigatinib (n=83) or chemotherapy (n=84) before closing the study early due to slow accrual. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between arms. Median PFS (mPFS) with pemigatinib versus chemotherapy was 8.3 versus 6.8 mo, respectively (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.58 [0.39-0.87]; nominal P =.0078); secondary efficacy endpoints generally supported primary results (Table). Median OS was similar, although these results are confounded by FGFR inhibitor administration as second-line treatment. In the crossover group (n=42, second-line pemigatinib), mPFS was 8.1 mo. Safety was consistent with previous results (Table). Exploratory analyses of genetic co-alterations associated with treatment response will be presented. Conclusions: FIGHT-302 was the first phase 3 trial of a targeted therapy for untreated mCCA. Pemigatinb demonstrated superior activity and prolonged mPFS compared with first-line chemotherapy. The results confirm the current management paradigm of pemigatinib administration after disease progression on chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03656536 . Pemigatinib Gemcitabine + cisplatin mPFS (95% CI), mo a 8.3 (6.5-12.2) 6.8 (6.1-8.3) Objective response rate, n/N (%) a 39/83 (47) 13/84 (15.5) Median duration of response (95% CI), mo a 14.2 (8.7-24.7) 6.3 (4.3-not estimable) Median overall survival (95% CI) a,b , mo 24.4 (18.6-35.9) 25.0 (18.7-34.2) Treatment related TEAEs, n/N c (%) 80/83 (96) 70/73 (96) Serious TEAEs, n/N (%) c,d 23/83 (28) 17/73 (23) Grade ≥3 TEAEs, n/N (%) c 65/83 (78) 49/73 (67) TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, n/N (%) c 5/83 (6) 8/73 (11) Fatal TEAE, n/N (%) c,d 3/83 (4) 0 a All randomized pts. b Interpretation limited by second-line treatment with FGFR inhibitor in gemcitabine + cisplatin arm. c Pts who received ≥1 study dose. d None deemed treatment related.

3150 Background: Selpercatinib, a first-in-class highly selective and potent RET kinase inhibitor with CNS activity, is approved in multiple countries for the treatment of RET-activated cancers. Current indications for RET mutant disease are limited to MTC. This analysis examined if selpercatinib was effective in non-MTC, RET mutation positive tumors and whether certain RET mutations demonstrated better activity (n=23; data cut-off: 13Jan2023). Methods: The phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial (NCT03157128) enrolled pts with locally advanced/metastatic RET-altered solid tumors, including pts with RET mutations in tumors other than MTC. Mutations must be known to be activating based on activity in MTC or other published evidence. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent review committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included ORR by investigator (INV), duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Results: Fourteen different tumor types were identified among the 23 pts with non-MTC RET-mutated tumors. This included 8 tumors from the Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia (MEN) syndrome spectrum; adrenal (pheochromocytoma; n=5), paraganglioma (n=2), neuroendocrine (n=1) (Table). Most of the mutations were located in extracellular cysteine-rich domain (CRD) and in the tyrosine kinase domain (TKD) of RET. In 23 efficacy-evaluable pts, confirmed ORR by IRC was 21.7% (5/23, 95% CI: 7.5, 43.7). ORR by IRC for pts with MEN-associated tumors (n=8) was 37.5% while five of these pts (62.5%) had stable disease lasting at least 16 weeks (SD16+). ORR by IRC for the sub-population with pheochromocytoma (n=5) was 40.0% and for pts with tumors manifesting RET extracellular cysteine mutations (n=5) was 60.0%. Of the 15 pts with non-MEN-associated tumors, 2 pts (8.7%; mutation in TKD) had a partial response (both with NSCLC adenocarcinoma, of which one had co-existent MTC). For the overall pts, the median DoR was 12.2 months (95% CI: 3.8, NE) and median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI: 1.8, 19.4). No new safety signals were identified compared to previous reports. One grade 5 AE, general physical health deterioration, was observed and deemed by INV as not related to selpercatinib. Conclusions: This study suggests that RET-mutated, MEN-associated cancers (adrenal, paraganglioma, neuroendocrine) may benefit from selpercatinib treatment, which could be mediated through mutations in the extracellular CRD. The non-MTC RET-mutated tumor types appear not to derive benefit from selpercatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03157128 . [Table: see text]

Background and Aims: We compared the safety and efficacy of bintrafusp alfa (BA) in combination with gemcitabine+cisplatin (GemCis), to those of GemCis alone, in patients with biliary tract cancer. Approach and Results: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive design phase 2/3 trial (NCT04066491) included adults who are treatment-naive with locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer. Patients (N = 297) were randomized to receive an IV infusion of BA (2400 mg once/3 wk) plus GemCis (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 +cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8/3 wk; 8 cycles) (BA group, n = 148) or placebo+GemCis (placebo group, n = 149). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). For adaptation analysis (phase 2-phase 3; data cutoff: May 20, 2021), efficacy was assessed in the first 150 patients who were antibiotic-naive when 80 progression-free survival events had occurred and ≥ 19 weeks of follow-up had been completed (BA, n = 73; placebo, n = 77). Median OS (95% CI) for the BA (11.5 mo [9.3–not estimable]) and placebo (11.5 mo [10.0–not estimable]) groups was comparable (hazard ration 1.23 [95% CI 0.66–2.28]; p = 0.7394); OS data maturity was 27.2% (41 events/151 patients). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was anemia (BA, 26.0%; placebo, 22.8%). Bleeding adverse events were reported more frequently in the BA group (28.8%) versus the placebo group (7.4%). Deaths within 60 days of the first dose were reported in 7.5% and 1.3% of patients in the BA and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions: BA+GemCis did not provide a clinically meaningful benefit compared with GemCis alone as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer, and the study was discontinued early (terminated: August 20, 2021).

Selpercatinib is indicated for locally advanced/metastatic RET-activated solid tumors after progression or following prior systemic therapies. Until the recently published data from LIBRETTO-431 and LIBRETTO-531, there were limited effectiveness data comparing selpercatinib with other first-line treatments in RET-activated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), and thyroid cancer (TC). This study analyzed patient data from LIBRETTO-001 and compared the outcomes (time to treatment discontinuation {TTD}, time to next treatment or death {TTNT-D}, time to progression {TTP}, and the objective response rate {ORR}) of first-line selpercatinib (selpercatinib arm) use with the outcomes of first-line standard therapies in patients who then received selpercatinib in later lines of treatment (comparator arm). Overall, the first-line selpercatinib arm had a longer TTD, TTNT-D, and TTP versus the first-line comparator arm. The hazard ratios (HRs) for TTD were 0.29 (NSCLC), 0.15 (MTC), 0.08 (TC); for TTNT-D, the HRs were 0.48 (NSCLC), 0.11 (MTC), 0.09 (TC); and for TTP, the HRs were 0.54 (NSCLC), 0.15 (MTC), and 0.12 (TC). The ORR was higher for first-line selpercatinib versus the first-line comparator (NSCLC: 85.3% vs. 39.7%; MTC: 82.6% vs. 15.2%; and TC: 81.8% vs. 31.8%). First-line selpercatinib use is associated with improved outcomes compared to first-line comparator therapies for patients with advanced/metastatic RET-activated cancers.

PURPOSE The investigation of multiple molecular targets with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has entered clinical practice in oncology, yielding to a paradigm shift from the histology-centric approach to the mutational model for personalized treatment. Accordingly, most of the drugs recently approved in oncology are coupled to specific biomarkers. One potential tool for implementing the mutational model of precision oncology in daily practice is represented by the Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), a multidisciplinary team whereby molecular pathologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, geneticists, medical oncologists, and pharmacists cooperate to generate, interpret, and match molecular data with personalized treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS Since May 2020, the institutional MTB set at Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan met weekly via teleconference to discuss molecular data and potential therapeutic options for patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. RESULTS Up to October 2021, among 1,996 patients evaluated, we identified >10,000 variants, 43.2% of which were functionally relevant (pathogenic or likely pathogenic). On the basis of functionally relevant variants, 711 patients (35.6%) were potentially eligible to targeted therapy according to European Society of Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets tiers, and 9.4% received a personalized treatment. Overall, larger NGS panels (containing >50 genes) significantly outperformed small panels (up to 50 genes) in detecting actionable gene targets across different tumor types. CONCLUSION Our real-world data provide evidence that MTB is a valuable tool for matching NGS data with targeted treatments, eventually implementing precision oncology in clinical practice.

Background and Aims: Biliary tract cancers are rare, heterogeneous cancers with poor prognoses. Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-βRII (a TGF-β “trap”) fused to a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death ligand 1, was evaluated in patients with locally advanced/metastatic chemorefractory biliary tract cancers. Approach and Results: This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03833661) enrolled adults with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer that was intolerant to or had failed first-line systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received 1200 mg bintrafusp alfa intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 assessed by IRC. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, durable response rate, safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Between March 2019 and January 2020, 159 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 16.1 (range, 0.0–19.3) months; 17 patients (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.4%–16.6%) achieved an objective response. Median duration of response was 10.0 (range, 1.9–15.7) months; 10 patients (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.1%–11.3%) had a durable response (≥6 mo). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.7–1.8 mo); median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8–9.7 mo). Overall survival rates were 57.9% (6 mo) and 38.8% (12 mo). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 26.4% of patients, including one treatment-related death (hepatic failure). Frequent grade ≥3 adverse events included anemia (3.8%), pruritus (1.9%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (1.9%). Conclusions: Although this study did not meet its prespecified primary endpoint, bintrafusp alfa demonstrated clinical activity as second-line treatment in this hard-to-treat cancer, with durable responses and a manageable safety profile.

4508 Background: The combination of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) T (anti–CTLA-4) and D (anti–PD-L1) showed tolerability with a promising objective response rate (ORR) in the initial cohort of this study (NCT02519348). Subsequent evaluation of pts with solid tumors treated with increasing doses of T suggested priming with a higher dose of T may induce a stronger immune response and enhance anti-tumor activity. Thus, the randomized expansion cohorts comprised 4 arms evaluating T and D as monotherapies and 2 T+D regimens, including a novel T+D regimen featuring a single, priming dose of T. Methods: ICI-naïve pts with aHCC who progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomized to one of two T+D combinations: T300+D (T 300 mg + D 1500 mg 1 dose followed by D Q4 weekly [Q4W]) or T75+D (T 75 mg Q4W + D 1500 mg Q4W [4 doses] followed by D Q4W); or single agent D (1500 mg Q4W) or T (750 mg Q4W). Safety was the primary endpoint. ORR by blinded, independent central review using RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DoR), circulating lymphocytes, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (09/02/2019), 332 pts were enrolled. Median follow-ups were 11.7 months (mo) for T300+D, 14.6 (T75+D), 8.9 (D), and 15.8 (T). Treatment-related adverse event (trAE) incidences are shown (Table); no deaths were attributed to trAEs for T300+D or T. The T300+D arm had the highest confirmed ORR (DoR not reached [NR]) and longest OS (Table). A unique proliferative T cell profile was identified for pts in the T300+D arm, suggesting additive biologic activity for the combination, and showed pts with an OR exhibited high cytotoxic (CD8) counts. Conclusions: The encouraging clinical activity and tolerable safety profile suggest T300+D provides the best benefit-risk profile as opposed to T75+D or monotherapies. The unique pharmacodynamic activity of the T300+D regimen further supports its use in aHCC. T300+D and D are being evaluated in the ongoing phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in first-line HCC vs sorafenib. Funding: AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348 . [Table: see text]