Tan, Elaine

663 Background: GI malignancies continue to be a major cause of cancer related deaths, despite advances in therapy options. In pancreatic cancer, the presence of homologous recombination mutations (HRM) has been shown to confer increased sensitivity to platinum chemotherapy. However, the role of HRM mutations in other GI cancers remains to be determined. The focus of this study is to evaluate the prognostic nature of core and noncore HRM in nonpancreatic GI cancers. Additionally, we aim to understand the predictive nature of these mutations related to platinum exposure. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients at Moffitt Cancer Center with a primary stage IV nonpancreatic GI cancer treated with platinum therapy. All patients had next generation sequencing and were in the Clinical Genomics Action Committee database between 1/1/2013 and 11/1/2020. All patients had either a core HRM (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2) or noncore HRM (such as ATM, ATR, BARD1, BRIP1, FANCA, NBN, and RAD51). Patients were grouped into core HRM vs. noncore HRM. Response was stratified between responders (complete response and partial response) vs. non responders (stable disease and progressive disease), based on RECIST criteria. Progression free survival and overall survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to assess the difference in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by HRM status and type of platinum therapy used. Results: There were 72 patients included in the study: the majority of patients were male (65.3%) and Caucasian (87.5%). Twenty-one (29.2%) patients had a core HRM and 51 (70.8%) had a noncore HRM. There was no significant difference in response rate between patients with core HRM and patients with noncore HRM for evaluable patients (n = 66): 20.0% of patients with core HRM vs. 21.7% of patients with noncore HRM demonstrated a response to platinum therapy (p = 0.41). An improved OS was noted for patients with core HRM vs. those with noncore HRM at 68.9 vs. 24.3 months (p = 0.019). An improved PFS was also seen in patients with core HRM at 10.4 months vs. 6.3 months with noncore HRM (p = 0.027). There was no difference in PFS based on type of platinum therapy used (oxaliplatin vs. carboplatin vs. cisplatin), while an improved OS was noted for patients treated with oxaliplatin vs. carboplatin vs. cisplatin at 43.1 vs. 28.2 vs. 16.0 months (p = 0.011). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that in stage IV nonpancreatic GI malignancies treated with platinum therapy, patients with core HRM had a greater OS and PFS compared to those with noncore HRM, suggesting a potential prognostic and predictive role of these mutations. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

174 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC), while one of the most common cancer diagnoses, can behave heterogeneously based on molecular characteristics. A subset of patients (pts) with CRC are characterized with mismatch repair deficiency (MMR-d), these pts exhibit encouraging responses to immunotherapy. The predictive nature of various factors, such as BRAF status, age, and MMR-D protein loss type, have been investigated in pts with MMR-d CRC. However, the prognostic role of these factors has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics that influence survival in MMR-d mCRC. Methods: This study evaluated pts with MMR-d mCRC in the Flatiron database. Overall survival (OS) was determined from date of diagnosis of stage IV disease to date of death and stratified based on age greater than or less than 50 years, BRAF mutation status, RAS mutation status, and type of MMR gene loss. For statistical analysis, the Chi-Square test was implemented to determine the prognostic significance of clinical and molecular features. Univariate and multivariate analyses were determined through the Cox regression model. Results: There were 1,101 pts in the study. The majority of pts were older than 50 (79.7%), Caucasian (75%), and had ECOG 0-1 (83.4%). Among the 803 pts with known BRAF status, 44.3% (n=356) had BRAF V600E mutation and 55.7% (n=447) were BRAF wildtype. Pts with BRAF V600E mutation had OS of 18.9 months vs. 33.2 months for pts with wild type BRAF (HR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.25-1.86, p<0.001). Pts older than 50 had a lower median OS vs. those who were ≤50 at 21.4 months vs. 38.7 months (HR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.33-2.07, p<0.001). When comparing MSH2/MSH6 mutations to MLH1/PMS2, a trend towards improved OS was seen with median survival of 35.2 months vs. 22.7 months, respectively (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.61-1.02, p=0.067). On multivariate analysis, BRAF mutation and older age continued to be associated with differences in survival, while KRAS mutation and specific MMR gene loss did not. Conclusions: BRAF V600E mutation and age greater than 50 are associated with decreased survival for pts with MMR-D mCRC. KRAS mutations and specific MMR alterations are not associated with differences in survival.

e16266 Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest malignancies, with a 5 year OS of around 3%. Up to 3% of unselected patients (pts) with (PDAC) have the BRCA 1/2 mutation, while up to 15% possess HRD (ARID1A, ATM, BAP1, BARD1, BRIP1, CHEK1/2, FANCA, PALB2, RAD50, RAD51). PARP inhibitors, like olaparib, demonstrate clinical benefit in metastatic PDAC with BRCA mutations (mBRCA) and may have a role in those with HRD. The objective of this study is to determine the role of PARP inhibition in PDAC with HRD. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of metastatic PDAC pts with germline (g) or somatic (s) mBRCA or HRD who received olaparib. An analysis of PFS and OS was performed for PDAC pts with mBRCA vs. HRD. Results: Forty-six pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer were identified to have mBRCA (n = 13) or HRD (n = 23) and received olaparib in our database. Median age was 73 years for mBRCA and 66 years for HRD. Five pts received olaparib as maintenance therapy after disease control with platinum: 2 mBRCA and 3 HRD pts. Six pts with mBRCA and 7 pts with HRD were platinum naïve prior to olaparib. Zero pts with mBRCA and 3 pts with HRD received olaparib after disease progression on platinum. The median (med)PFS for mBRCA vs. HRD was 6.1 months vs. 2.8 months (HR 0.5, 95% CI: 0.2-1.1, p = 0.07). The medOS for mBRCA vs. HRD was 7.7 vs. 5.3 months (HR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.2-1.9, p = 0.4). Of those with mBRCA who received olaparib, prior cisplatin exposure (n = 8) vs. cisplatin naïve (n = 5) led to medPFS of 6.1 vs. 7.8 months (HR 1.8, 95% CI 0.5-6.7, p = 0.3) and medOS of 6.8 months vs. 9.5 months (HR 1.5, 95% 0.3-6.4, p = 0.6). Six pts with HRD including gCHEK2 c.407T > C, gCHEK2 c.1461+1 G > A, gPALB2 gain (exon 11), sFANCI p.N1252S, sATM p.V2716A, sARID1A Q944fs*14 were noted to have disease control of at least 3 months on olaparib. Only one of these pts received olaparib as maintenance therapy after platinum. The medPFS was 6.1 months and medOS was not reached. One pt with HRD (sFANCI N1252S) had progressive disease on platinum prior to olaparib, but had stable disease > 5 months with olaparib. Conclusions: Our study suggests olaparib may have anticancer activity in PDAC with certain HRD. In addition, olaparib may have a role outside maintenance therapy in PDAC with mBRCA. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Abstract Lessons Learned The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy. Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily. The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Background The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC. Methods This was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment-naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy. Results A total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated-ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated-ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Conclusion Trametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.