Sanoff, Hanna K.

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.

3504 Background: CALGB 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no difference in OS in first-line mCRC pts treated with either bevacizumab (Bev) or cetuximab (Cet). Primary tumor DNA from 361 pts, including KRAS mutant (mut) pts, has been profiled for somatic gene mutations/ML/MSI to discover molecular markers of OS. Methods: Mutations in 11 genes were determined by PCR, MSI by microsatellite analysis, and ML by next-generation sequencing (FoundationOne). Cox proportional hazard models are used, stratified by prior XRT and +/- adjuvant chemotherapy; adjusted by age, race, gender, synchronous vs. metachronous, liver metastases, sidedness, all RAS. Results: BRAF: Mut pts had shorter OS than wild-type (wt) pts (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.34,2.75; p<0.001); HR 1.65 (1.09,2.50) after adjusting for sidedness (p 0.022). In mut pts longer OS is observed in Bev arm vs. Cet arm (p 0.041); in wt pts no arm difference is observed (p 0.291, table). MSI: OS does not differ between MSI-H and MSI-S pts (HR 0.78 [0.40, 1.52], p 0.450). In MSI-H pts longer OS is observed in Bev arm vs. Cet arm (p 0.002); in MSI-S pts no difference is observed (p 0.305, table). ML: Hypermutated MSI-H pts are excluded. In a subset of 205 pts, pts with ML>5 (N=93) have longer OS than pts with ML≤5 (N=112) (HR 0.65 [0.42,1.00], p 0.048). In Bev arm higher ML confers longer OS than lower ML (HR 0.85 [0.80,0.96], p 0.004); in Cet arm no difference is observed (HR 0.99 [0.90,1.09], p 0.862). Conclusions: BRAF is a strong negative prognostic factor in mCRC, even when sidedness is taken into account. ML is a novel marker for further evaluation. The effect of Bev and Cet in either BRAF mut or MSI-H pts should be tested in larger datasets. Updated results from more screened samples will be presented. [Table: see text]

3503 Background: 80405 found no OS or Progression Free Survival (PFS) difference when bevacizumab (BV) or cetuximab (Cet) was added to 1st-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in All RAS wild type (wt) mCRC pts. There was a significant 1° side by biologic interaction (P int: OS = 0.008, PFS = 0.001) favoring pts with left-sided (L) 1°. Analyses of 1° tumors beyond All RAS includes Consensus Molecular Subtype (CMS), BRAF and MSI. (CMS results - see Lenz et al; BRAF -see Innocenti et al) We asked whether 1° tumor location - L vs right (R) - is an independent prognostic marker when these other molecular features are considered. Methods: We used a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by prior XRT and +/- adjuvant chemo; adjusted for age, gender, synchronous vs metachronous, CMS, MSI and BRAF status. Pts with transverse (T) tumors were excluded in this analysis. Results: Sidedness was determined in 782 pts (L - 472; R - 256; T -54). Molecular data from 728 pts (with L - and R-sided 1°s) was available as follows: KRAS -- 291, NRAS -393, BRAF - 393, MSI - 378, CMS - 533. L vs R mOS: 32.9 v 19.6 months (mo) (p < 0.0001). See Table for OS results in All RAS / BRAF wt and BRAF mutant (mut) pts. Sidedness (R vs L) is an independent prognostic marker even after adjusting for all these molecular features: HR = 1.392 (1.032, 1.878), p = 0.031. Conclusions: Primary tumor location is an independent prognostic factor when adjusted for age, gender, synchronous/metachronous, CMS, MSI and BRAF status. We are exploring clinical variables such as tumor burden, metastatic sites and measurability of disease in an attempt to explain the impact of sidedness. Support: U10CA188021, U10CA180882. Eli Lilly and Co, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Sanofi. Clinical trial information: NCT002655850. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor that inhibits angiogenesis, growth, and proliferation, prolongs survival as monotherapy in patients with refractory colorectal cancer. This international, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicenter trial assessed the efficacy of regorafenib with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on first‐line oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Ireland. Patients, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib or placebo. The treatment consisted of FOLFIRI on days 1 and 2 and days 15 and 16 with 160 mg of regorafenib or placebo on days 4 to 10 and days 18 to 24 of every 28‐day cycle. Crossover was not allowed. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Under the assumption of a 75% event rate, 180 patients were required for 135 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with a 1‐sided α value of .1. RESULTS One hundred eighty‐one patients were randomized (120 to regorafenib‐FOLFIRI and 61 to placebo‐FOLFIRI) with a median age of 62 years. Among these, 117 (65%) received prior bevacizumab or aflibercept. PFS was longer with regorafenib‐FOLFIRI than placebo‐FOLFIRI (median, 6.1 vs 5.3 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53‐1.01; log‐rank P = .056). The median overall survival was not longer (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71‐1.44). The response rate was higher with regorafenib‐FOLFIRI (34%; 95% CI, 25%‐44%) than placebo‐FOLFIRI (21%; 95% CI, 11%‐33%; P = .07). Grade 3/4 adverse events with a >5% absolute increase from regorafenib included diarrhea, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS The addition of regorafenib to FOLFIRI as second‐line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer only modestly prolonged PFS over FOLFIRI alone. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society .

609 Background: Targeting MEK is of interest in the development of novel agents for treatment of many malignancies. However, better strategies are needed to overcome acquired resistance to MEK inhibitors. Preclinical studies have shown Wnt pathway overexpression in KRAS mutant cell lines resistant to the MEK inhibitor, Selumetinib. The combination of selumetinib and cyclosporin A (CsA), a non-canonical WnT pathway modulator, demonstrated antitumor activity in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. We are conducting an NCI CTEP-approved Phase I/IB trial (NCI # 9571/COMIRB # 13-2628) of selumetinib and CsA combination. Biomarkers of response to therapy are being co-developed. We hypothesize that this combination will be safe and potentially effective in patients with mCRC and that upregulation of FZD2 may predict for sensitivity. Methods: Phase I trial with initial dose escalation investigating the combination of selumetinib and CsA in patients with advanced solid tumors (n = 18) followed by an expansion cohort in patients with irinotecan and oxaliplatin-refractory mCRC (n = 20). The expansion cohort utilizes a selumetinib “run-in” to evaluate efficacy in RAS-WT and RAS-MT mCRC to identify those patients most likely to respond to the combination. Results: 18 patients were enrolled in the dose escalation phase and 10 patients have been enrolled in the dose expansion phase as of September 2016. Grade 1 or 2 nausea and rash were reported as the most common AEs. Most commonly reported Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were hypertension, elevated liver enzymes and rash. Three DLTs were reported with Grade 3 hypertension noted at dose level 1 and 2 and grade 3 rash reported at dose level 2. The maximum tolerated dose was defined as Selumetinib 75 mg BID and CsA 2 mg/kg BID on a 28-day cycle. Two partial responses and sixteen stable disease responses have been observed. Six patients have exhibited progressive disease. Conclusions: Selumetinib in combination with cyclosporin A appears to be well-tolerated with evidence of activity in solid tumors. Expansion cohort will complete enrollment this month. Clinical trial information: NCT02188264.

Purpose Racial disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival are documented, but there are few data on comparative response to chemotherapy. A subgroup analysis of a multisite National Cancer Institute–sponsored trial (N9741) was performed comparing outcomes of black and white patients with metastatic CRC receiving uniform treatment. Patients and Methods Adverse events (AEs), response rate (RR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), and dose-intensity were examined as a function of self-reported race in 1,412 patients treated with irinotecan/fluorouracil, fluorouracil/oxaliplatin, or irinotecan/oxaliplatin. Pharmacogenetic analysis was performed on 486 patients with blood available for germline DNA analysis. Results OS was 1.5 months shorter and TTP was 0.6 months shorter in black than white patients (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.42; TTP: HR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.13); neither difference was statistically significant. RR was significantly higher in whites (41%) than blacks (28%; P = .008). Grade 3 or greater AEs were also higher in whites (48%) than blacks (34%; P = .004). These relationships were maintained in multivariate models adjusting for arm, age, sex, and performance status. There was no difference in dose-intensity of delivered therapy. Significant racial differences in prevalence of pharmacogenetic variants were observed, although small sample size precluded investigating the relationship between treatment, race, and genotype. Conclusion OS and TTP are similar in black and white patients treated per protocol with standardized therapy for metastatic CRC. However, RR and AEs vary considerably by race. The marked racial differences in relevant pharmacogenetics, a potential explanation for differing RR and AEs, are worthy of future study.

PurposePerformance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain.Patients and MethodsIndividual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade ≥ 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy.ResultsCompared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade ≥ 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients.ConclusionIn clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.

Purpose In this report, we update survival (OS) and time-to-progression (TTP) data for the Intergroup trial N9741 after a median 5 years of follow-up by using risk-stratified and prognostic factor analyses to determine if treatment outcomes differ in specific patient subgroups. Patients and Methods A total of 1,691 patients were randomly assigned to one of seven fluorouracil-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-containing regimens. OS and TTP were calculated by treatment arm and baseline risk group (on the basis of WBC, performance status, number of sites of disease, and alkaline phosphatase). Multivariate prognostic factor analysis was used to assess clinical factors for their relationships to OS, TTP, response, and toxicity by using Cox and logistic regression models. Results The observed 5-year survival with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) of 9.8% was better than with irinotecan plus bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin (IFL; 3.7%; P = .04) or with bolus irinotecan/oxaliplatin (IROX; 5.1%; P = .128). OS and TTP were significantly longer for FOLFOX (20.2 months and 8.9 months, respectively) than for IFL (14.6 months and 6.1 months, respectively; P < .001 for both) or for IROX (17.3 months and 6.7 months, respectively; P < .001 for both). OS differed by risk group: 20.7 months for low risk, 17.4 months for intermediate risk, and 9.4 months for high risk (P < .001). FOLFOX treatment was superior in all risk groups and was the most powerful prognostic factor for OS, TTP, response rate, and toxicity. Conclusion The 9.8% 5-year OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated with first-line FOLFOX sets a new benchmark. Neither baseline risk group nor any prognostic factor examined was predictive of treatment-specific outcome. However, treatment efficacy and patient longevity varied as a function of risk group.