Fouchardière, Christelle de la

373 Background: Recent studies have demonstrated encouraging outcomes with neoadjuvant ICIs in pts with localized deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and/or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) GEC, prompting discussions around the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM). However, current evidence is largely from phase 1 and 2 clinical trials with limited sample sizes. Thus, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant ICI in this pt population remain subject to ongoing debate. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies evaluating neoadjuvant ICIs in pts with localized dMMR/MSI-H GEC according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR) and complete clinical response (cCR) rates. cCR was defined as no evidence of residual disease on tumor-specific imaging and on endoscopy with biopsy. Secondary outcomes included major pathologic response (MPR) rates and the incidence of grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to pool event rates for occurrence of cCR, pCR, MPR and grade 3-4 irAEs. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used. NOM was assessed as part of the qualitative analysis. Results: 20 studies comprising 396 pts treated with neoadjuvant ICIs were included. Three studies utilized double ICI blockade (PD-1/ PD-L1 inhibitor plus CTLA-4 inhibitor), while the remaining studies primarily utilized monotherapy with a PD-1 inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy. Overall, 320 (81.0%) underwent surgical resection. The pooled pCR rate was 41.6% (95% CI, 33.1%–50.8%), cCR 63.8% (95% CI, 45.6%–78.8%), and MPR 64.2% (95% CI, 49.1%–76.9%). The pooled incidence of grade 3–4 irAEs was 5.1% (95% CI, 0.6%–12.2%). Subgroup analysis showed higher pCR with ≥3 months versus <3 months of ICI (50.2% [95% CI 42.2–58.3] vs 28.4% [18.9–40.2]; χ²=8.69, p=0.003). Forty-four pts were managed with NOM, two experienced early local regrowth over median follow-up ranging from 11.5 to 28 months. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant ICI therapy appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic strategy for pts with localized dMMR/MSI-H GEC. Neoadjuvant ICI exposure for ≥3 months seems to yield higher pCR rates than <3 months. The high and prolonged cCR rates support the nonoperative strategy in selected patients with dMMR/MSI-H GEC.

LBA4005 Background: To date, no phase 3 clinical trial has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit in patients with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). TTFields are electric fields that disrupt cancer cell division. TTFields therapy is approved for glioblastoma, pleural mesothelioma, and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. A phase 2 trial in PAC demonstrated the safety and preliminary efficacy of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel. We report final data from PANOVA-3 (NCT03377491), the largest global, phase 3, randomized, open-label trial in LA-PAC to date. Methods: Adult patients with newly diagnosed unresectable LA-PAC were randomized 1:1 to receive TTFields therapy (150 kHz) with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or GnP. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and pain-free survival. Distant PFS (metastases beyond the pancreas and regional lymph nodes) was assessed post hoc. Survival data were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and a log-rank test. Results: 571 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between the study arms. OS was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP than with GnP (median 16.2 [95% CI: 15.0, 18.0] vs 14.2 months [95% CI: 12.8, 15.4]; HR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68, 0.99], p=0.039). One-year survival rate was also significantly improved with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (68.1% [95% CI: 62.0-73.5] vs 60.2% [95% CI: 54.2-65.7], p=0.029). There was no significant difference in PFS or local PFS between arms. Pain-free survival was significantly longer with TTFields/GnP vs GnP (median 15.2 [95% CI: 10.3, 22.8] vs 9.1 months [95% CI: 7.4, 12.7]; HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.56, 0.97], p=0.027). Post-hoc analysis showed significant distant PFS benefit (median 13.9 [95% CI: 12.2, 16.8] vs 11.5 months [95% CI: 10.4, 12.9], HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.96], p=0.022) with TTFields/GnP vs GnP. ORR was similar between arms (36.1% [95% CI: 30.0, 42.4] vs 30.0% [95% CI: 24.3, 36.2], p=0.094). 97.8% and 98.9% of patients who received TTFields/GnP and GnP, respectively, had adverse events (AEs) and 88.6% and 84.3% had grade ≥3 AEs. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (47.8% and 47.6%) and anemia (21.9% and 22.3). 81% of patients receiving TTFields/GnP had device-related AEs, mostly grade 1/2 skin AEs, e.g., dermatitis (27.7%), rash (17.5%), and pruritus (15.0%); grade 3 and grade 4 device-related AEs occurred in 9.1% and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: PANOVA-3 is the largest phase 3 trial exclusively performed in patients with LA-PAC and the first to show a statistically significant OS benefit. With no additive systemic toxicity and a statistically significant pain-free survival benefit, TTFields therapy is a potential new standard treatment for LA-PAC. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 .

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

4136 Background: NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235, N = 770), a global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study, demonstrated that NALIRIFOX significantly improved overall survival (OS, primary endpoint) and progression-free survival compared with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in patients with untreated mPDAC. Here, we report an updated analysis of OS. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 + leucovorin 400 mg/m2 + 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX, n = 383) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP, n = 387) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases. An updated OS analysis (data cutoff: 3 October 2023) was conducted. Kaplan–Meier methods were used to estimate median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS and hazard ratios (HRs [95% CI]) were estimated using stratified Cox proportional hazard models. The difference between groups was tested using a stratified log-rank test. Results: The median follow-up for OS was 28.7 months in the NALIRIFOX arm and 29.7 months in the Gem+NabP arm. At data cutoff, 11 patients were still receiving study treatment, all of whom were in the NALIRIFOX arm. With a total of 673 OS events (NALIRIFOX, n = 328; Gem+NabP, n = 345), median OS was 11.1 months (95% CI 10.0–12.1) in the NALIRIFOX arm compared with 9.2 months (8.3–10.6) in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72–0.98]; nominal p = 0.026). At 12 months and 18 months, survival rates were 45.6% (95% CI 40.5–50.5) and 26.6% (22.2–31.1), respectively, in the NALIRIFOX arm and 39.6% (34.7–44.5) and 20.0% (16.1–24.1), respectively, in the Gem+NabP arm. Conclusions: In this 29-month follow-up of NAPOLI 3, NALIRIFOX continued to demonstrate improved OS compared with Gem+NabP, with 11 patients still receiving the NALIRIFOX regimen. These data confirm NALIRIFOX as a new possible standard of care and reference regimen for the first-line treatment of patients with mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

687 Background: The NAPOLI 3 study (NCT04083235, N = 770) reported that NALIRIFOX improved overall survival (OS) vs Gem+NabP with manageable toxicity in 1L treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We explored changes in CA19-9 levels and their potential associations with efficacy as an important tumor marker in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: In NAPOLI 3, CA19-9 was evaluated at baseline and every 8 weeks until patients discontinued study treatment. The detection limit of CA19-9 was 8000 kU/L in this study. The Cox proportional hazards regression and logistic regression were employed to investigate the relationship between CA19-9 decrease and OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Patients with evaluable CA19-9 (levels =< 8000) at baseline and additional measurements at weeks 8 and 16 were included in the analysis (NALIRIFOX, n = 179; Gem+NabP, n = 194). The median baseline CA19-9 level was 378.0 and 409.7 kU/L for the NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP arms, respectively. Overall, patients with (vs without) any CA 19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR (59.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.002), a longer median PFS (9.2 vs 6.2 months; p < 0.001) and a longer median OS (14.2 vs 8.7 months; p = 0.005), respectively in a pooled analysis of the treatments. In the NALIRIFOX arm, patients with any CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher confirmed ORR of 65.1% compared with those without at 42.4% ( p < 0.001), a median PFS of 9.5 vs 7.1 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 15.4 versus 8.4 months ( p = 0.004), respectively. In the Gem+NabP arm, patients with CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR of 55.5% compared with those without at 23.8% ( p = 0.012), a median PFS of 7.6 versus 5.8 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 13.7 versus 11.9 months ( p = 0.235), respectively. Conclusions: CA19-9 decrease by week 16 has the potential to be an early prognostic factor for OS, PFS and ORR. The results should be interpreted with caution as a considerable percentage of patients were excluded due to non-evaluable CA19-9 that exceeded the lab detection limit of 8000 kU/L. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

4006 Background: Liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Here, we present results from NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or Gem+NabP on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when at least 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall one-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. Median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIRIFOX group versus 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP group; median PFS was 7.4 months versus 5.6 months. Median (95% CI) duration of response was 7.3 (5.8–7.6) and 5.0 (3.8–5.6) months in patients who received NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 10% of patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in patients with mPDAC. The NALIRIFOX safety profile was consistent with the profiles of the regimen components and generally manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 . [Table: see text]

LBA661 Background: Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (Wainberg et al. Eur J Cancer 2021;151:14–24; NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Herein, we present results from NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated metastatic PDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence or absence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when ≥ 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. The median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIFIROX arm as compared with 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.71–0.99]; p = 0.04); PFS was also significantly improved (7.4 months vs 5.6 months; HR 0.70 [0.59–0.84]; p = 0.0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ≥ 10% frequency in patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in treatment-naïve patients with mPDAC. The safety profile of NALIRIFOX was manageable and consistent with the profiles of the treatment components. Funding: Funded by Ipsen. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .[Table: see text]

Abstract HER2 mutations are infrequent genomic events in biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Neratinib, an irreversible, pan-HER, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, interferes with constitutive receptor kinase activation and has activity in HER2-mutant tumours. SUMMIT is an open-label, single-arm, multi-cohort, phase 2, ‘basket’ trial of neratinib in patients with solid tumours harbouring oncogenic HER2 somatic mutations (NCT01953926). The primary objective of the BTC cohort was objective response rate (ORR). Among 25 treatment-refractory patients (11 cholangiocarcinoma, 10 gallbladder, 4 ampullary cancers), the ORR was 16%. The most common HER2 mutations were S310F (n = 11; 48%) and V777L (n = 4; 17%). Outcomes appeared worse for ampullary tumours or those with co-occurring oncogenic TP53 and CDKN2A alterations. Loss of amplified HER2 S310F and acquisition of multiple previously undetected oncogenic co-mutations were identified at progression in one responder. Neratinib demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with refractory BTC harbouring HER2 mutations. Future studies of rational combinations are warranted.

PURPOSE Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC), an aggressive malignancy, is associated with a poor prognosis and an unmet need for effective treatment, especially for patients without BRAF mutations or NTRK or RET fusions. Lenvatinib is US Food and Drug Administration–approved for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer and has previously demonstrated activity in a small study of patients with ATC (n = 17). We aimed to further evaluate lenvatinib in ATC. METHODS This open-label, multicenter, international, phase II study enrolled patients with ATC, who had ≥ 1 measurable target lesion, to receive lenvatinib 24 mg once daily. The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 and safety. Responses were confirmed ≥ 4 weeks after the initial response. Additional end points included progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). RESULTS The study was halted for futility as the minimum ORR threshold of 15% was not met upon interim analysis. The interim analysis set included the first 20 patients. The full analysis set includes all 34 enrolled and treated patients. In the full analysis set, one patient achieved a partial response (ORR, 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 15.3). More than half of the evaluable patients experienced tumor shrinkage; three patients experienced a > 30% tumor reduction. The median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8); the median overall survival was 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 8.2). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were hypertension (56%), decreased appetite (29%), fatigue (29%), and stomatitis (29%). No major treatment-related bleeding events or grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION The safety profile of lenvatinib in ATC was manageable, and many AEs were attributable to the progression of ATC. The results suggest that lenvatinib monotherapy may not be an effective treatment for ATC; further investigation may be warranted.