Kasi, Anup

Objective: In this study, we evaluate the utility of ctDNA analysis in a large cohort of patients for whom ctDNA testing was ordered commercially with real-world application. Summary Background Data: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for assessing post-surgical molecular residual disease (MRD) and response to treatment. Methods: A real-world data analysis was performed using commercial ctDNA testing (SignateraTM) from patients (N=795, n=5,971 plasma samples) with stage I-III colon cancer treated at multiple US institutions. The association of ctDNA detection within the MRD window, during surveillance, and the impact of ACT was correlated with patient outcomes. Results: ctDNA-positive patients during the MRD window and surveillance showed significantly shorter DFS compared to ctDNA-negative patients (hazard ratio (HR): 9.85, P<0.0001; HR: 26.91, P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis of the MRD window revealed ctDNA-positivity as the most significant factor associated with inferior DFS (adjHR: 7.7, P<0.001). MRD-positive patients who received ACT showed improved DFS compared to patients observed post-surgery (adjHR: 6.1, FDR adj P=0.0007). No ACT benefit was observed in MRD-negative patients (adj HR: 1.20, FDR adj P=0.768). On evaluating ctDNA dynamics from MRD to surveillance, patients who remained ctDNA-positive or converted from negative to positive showed a significantly inferior DFS (HR: 34.40, P<0.0001; HR: 13.65, P<0.0001) compared to persistently ctDNA-negative patients. Conclusions: Postsurgical ctDNA detection is prognostic of relapse and potentially predictive of ACT benefit in patients with resectable colon cancer, which may enable personalized surveillance, intervention, and/or trial options, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

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.

Abstract Lessons learned Intravenous paricalcitol did not improve the efficacy of pembrolizumab, likely related to the short half-life. Background Immunotherapy has limited benefit in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer with the tumor microenvironment playing a key role in immune resistance. In preclinical studies, vitamin D receptor (VDR) agonists have been shown to sensitize pancreatic tumors to PD-1 blockade. Methods This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II trial to evaluate pembrolizumab with or without paricalcitol as maintenance therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Participants were ≥18 years; histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic PDAC showing no disease progression after frontline systemic therapy, and achieving maximal cytoreduction (eg, with no further antitumor effect), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 0 or 1; adequate organ function. Study treatment included: pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks and either paricalcitol 25 mcg IV 3 times per week or placebo. The primary objective was to evaluate 6-month progression free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives include evaluating the toxicity of the combination and overall survival (OS). Results There was no significant difference in 6-month PFS, median PFS, median OS, nor treatment-related AEs between the 2 arms. Conclusions and relevance Paricalcitol did not improve the efficacy of pembrolizumab likely related to its short half-life of only 5-7 hours. Microbiome analysis revealed significant difference between long-term (&gt;12 weeks) and short-term (&lt;12 weeks) survival groups across treatment arms. Modulation of the tumor microenvironment will likely require more sustained VDR activity. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT03331562.

PURPOSE This phase II study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of onvansertib, a polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) inhibitor, in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) + bevacizumab for the second-line treatment of KRAS -mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter, open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with KRAS -mutated mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil with or without bevacizumab. Patients received onvansertib (15 mg/m 2 once daily on days 1-5 and 15-19 of a 28-day cycle) and FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (days 1 and 15). The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and tolerability. Translational and preclinical studies were conducted in KRAS -mutant CRC. RESULTS Among the 53 patients treated, the confirmed ORR was 26.4% (95% CI, 15.3 to 40.3). The median DOR was 11.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to not reached). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 62% of patients. A post hoc analysis revealed that patients with no prior bevacizumab treatment had a significantly higher ORR and longer PFS compared with patients with prior bevacizumab treatment: ORR of 76.9% versus 10.0% (odds ratio of 30.0, P < .001) and median PFS of 14.9 months versus 6.6 months (hazard ratio of 0.16, P < .001). Our translational findings support that prior bevacizumab exposure contributes to onvansertib resistance. Preclinically, we showed that onvansertib inhibited the hypoxia pathway and exhibited robust antitumor activity in combination with bevacizumab through the inhibition of angiogenesis. CONCLUSION Onvansertib in combination with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab showed significant activity in the second-line treatment of patients with KRAS -mutant mCRC, particularly in patients with no prior bevacizumab treatment. These findings led to the evaluation of the combination in the first-line setting (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT06106308 ).

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

TPS4181 Background: The mainstay of treatment (TX) for pts with advanced or mPDAC consists of CT, with FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine (gem)/nab-paclitaxel currently representing the front-line standards of care. TX is generally continued until either dis progression (progr) or cumulative toxicity, with pts often reaching a plateau in response after 4-6 mos. For those who have achieved dis control (stable dis or better) on front-line CT, a maint TX strategy that can effectively delay dis progr while preserving quality of life with minimal cumulative toxicity is highly desirable. However, aside from PARP inhibition in the subset of PDAC pts with gBRCA mutated dis, there is no current standard of care in this maint setting. Ival is a pan-HDAC (histone deacetylation) inhibitor that increases histone acetylation (HA), suppresses PDAC cell proliferation, and promotes apoptosis in PDAC cell lines in a dose-dependent manner. It has demonstrated synergy with 5-FU in cholangiocarcinoma cell lines and shows promising antitumor activity when combined with cap in syngeneic PDAC mouse models. On these bases, we are conducting a ph1b/randomized ph2 trial of ival plus cap vs cap alone in the maint setting for pts with mPDAC who have not progressed on front-line FOLFIRINOX. Methods: Key eligibility criteria include pts with mPDAC; no evidence of dis progr following at least 16 wks of front-line FOLFIRINOX at full or modified doses; ECOG PS 0-1; and no known gBRCA1/2 mutation. The study includes an initial dose-esc ph1b evaluating 3 dose levels of ival, (60, 125, and 250mg/m2 iv weekly on days 1 and 8) in combination (comb) with cap (1000mg/m2 po BID on days 1-14) of a 21-day cycle, using a standard 3 + 3 dose-esc design. Of note, ival 250 mg/m2 represents the RP2D identified in prior clinical studies of this agent both as monotherapy in solid tumors and in comb with gem/erlotinib in advanced PDAC pts. In the ph2 portion, pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive either ival plus cap or cap alone, in 21-day cycles, until dis progr, with tumor assessments occurring at 6-wk intervals. Blood will be collected at pre-specified serial timepoints for pharmacodynamic assessments, including HA of PBMCs. Primary endpoint for ph2 is investigator-adjudicated PFS. The primary analysis will compare PFS distributions in the ival/cap and cap alone arms using a one-sided log rank test with an alpha = 0.10. The assumed true 6-mo PFS rates are 35% (cap), based on historic data, and 60% (ival/cap), which corresponds to an HR of 0.487. Assuming an accrual duration of 18 mos and a dropout/lost to follow-up rate of 10%, the estimated total number of pts in the randomized ph2 portion is 52 (26 per arm). Enrollment is expected to being in spring 2022 across 25 U.S. sites.

4023 Background: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) remains a deadly disease with very limited treatment options. FFX is a standard first-line therapy for mPC with a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.1 months. CPI-613 is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic cycle preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells. In a phase I study, CPI-613+mFFX was safe and exhibited promising signal of efficacy. Methods: A global, randomized phase 3 trial was conducted across 73 sites to investigate the efficacy and safety of CPI-613 in combination with mFFX compared to standard dose FFX in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment was administered in 2-weekly cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. In the experimental arm, CPI-613 at 500 mg/m2 was given intravenously on days 1 and 3. The doses of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in the experimental arm were 65 mg/m2, 140 mg/m2, and 2,400 mg/2, respectively. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics, patient reported outcomes and safety. Results: 528 patients were randomly assigned (266 in test and 262 in control arm). There were 362 deaths, with a mOS of 11.1 months for CPI-613+mFFX vs. 11.7 months for FFX [hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18; P = 0.655]; mPFS was 7.8 months vs. 8.0 months respectively [HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29; P = 0.94]; ORR was 39% in the test arm vs. 34% in the control arm [ORR ratio, 1.23 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.75)]. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with ≥ 10% frequency in CPI-613 plus mFFX vs. FFX arm were diarrhea (11.2% vs. 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% vs. 14.9%), anemia (13.9% vs. 13.6%), neutropenia (11.2% vs. 14.0%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% vs. 13.6%) and fatigue (10.8% vs. 11.5%). Conclusions: The addition of CPI-613 to mFFX failed to show significant improvements of ORR, PFS or OS. The mFFX in the test arm that had the lowest prospectively tested doses of FFX was without compromise on PFS or OS and may be considered as a reference for future FFX administration. Clinical trial information: NCT03504423.