Back to Authors

Kazerooni, Reza

Mayo Clinic

Taiho Oncology (United States)

Citations 2

Real-world genomic testing, treatment, and outcomes in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements.
Conner, Therese , He, LiHong, Kazerooni, Reza, Salimi, Tehseen, Epstein, Robert S. , Borad, Mitesh J.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | June 6, 2022 | Volume: 40 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: e16168-e16168

10.1200/jco.2022.40.16_suppl.e16168 Get It

e16168 Background: Several fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors have been recently approved or are in development for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements (f/r), such as the ATP-competitive inhibitors pemigatinib and infigratinib (FDA-approved in 2020/2021) and the covalent inhibitor futibatinib, which has shown efficacy in a pivotal phase 2 trial. To inform future evaluations of the impact of these agents in clinical practice, and understand other existing gaps in care, we investigated the characteristics and clinical management of patients with CCA and FGFR2 f/r prior to 2021. Methods: This real-world, retrospective cohort study used de-identified, patient-level electronic health records data from Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA) to identify adults with a diagnosis of advanced intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) who received genomic testing between 2013-2021. Clinical/demographic characteristics, time to genomic testing, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients with and without FGFR2 f/r were described. Results: 23 patients with FGFR2 f/r and 88 with FGFR wild-type (wt) iCCA were identified. Compared to FGFR wt, FGFR2 f/r had a higher proportion of female (65.2 vs 45.5%) and Black (39.1 vs 18.2%) patients (Table). Mean age at diagnosis was ̃60 y and >60% were diagnosed with stage 4 disease in both cohorts; 91.3% of f/r and 78.4% of wt patients had an ECOG PS 0/1. Median time from diagnosis to genomic testing was ̃5 mo; upon entry to CTCA, median time to testing was <2 mo. 17/23 patients in the f/r cohort had FGFR2 fusions (4 BICC1, 13 other). Three FGFR2 f/r patients received an FGFR inhibitor (pemigatinib) as next treatment after testing in 2020. A trend towards longer median overall survival in the f/r vs wt group (24.5 vs 17.8 mo), and a correlation of survival with ECOG PS were observed. Conclusions: This analysis provides insight into the real-world characteristics, clinical management and outcomes among patients with iCCA and FGFR2 f/r, predominantly prior to the introduction of FGFR inhibitors, providing a baseline for further study as the treatment landscape evolves. Of note, the time lag between diagnosis and genomic testing before entry to CTCA underlines the need for earlier testing to guide optimal therapy in clinical practice. [Table: see text]
Indirect treatment comparison of futibatinib with chemotherapy and pemigatinib in cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements.
Paine, A, He, Yaohua, Kazerooni, Reza, Salimi, Tehseen, Borad, Mitesh J. , Wacheck, Volker , Bridgewater, John

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 19, 2022 | Volume: 40 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 440-440

10.1200/jco.2022.40.4_suppl.440 Get It

440 Background: Futibatinib, an irreversible FGFR1–4 inhibitor, is being investigated for the treatment of advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to evaluate efficacy outcomes with futibatinib for advanced iCC patients from the FOENIX-CCA2 trial (NCT02052778) relative to published data for chemotherapy and FGFR inhibitors. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials for FGFR inhibitors published 01/2015-02/2021, with additional targeted searches for chemotherapy data. A simulated treatment comparison was conducted using individual-level patient data from FOENIX-CCA2 and published aggregate data from comparator trials, applying regression models to adjust for between-trial differences in baseline characteristics. Population-adjusted Cox regression models were used for base case time-to-event outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS], duration of response [DOR]) and binomial-logistic regressions for binary outcomes (objective response rate [ORR]). Results: Two studies of FGFR inhibitors among previously treated patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements were identified with sufficient data for analysis: FOENIX-CCA2 (n=103) and FIGHT-202 (n=107, pemigatinib). Two studies were identified for chemotherapy in this setting (an analysis of prior systemic therapy in the FIGHT-202 cohort [n=53] and a natural history study using a clinicogenomic database [n=71]). Comparisons of futibatinib with chemotherapy showed significantly lower risk of progression or death with futibatinib (table). Comparisons of futibatinib with pemigatinib showed similar outcomes between treatments (table), however, there was a numerical advantage for futibatinib in all efficacy parameters. Conclusions: Data suggest that futibatinib provides longer survival vs chemotherapy among previously treated advanced iCC patients with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. No statistically significant differences were observed in efficacy outcomes between futibatinib and pemigatinib, although numerical trends favored futibatinib. Molecular detail such as improved activity against co-mutated tumours and resistance mutations may explain such trends. [Table: see text]