Peguero, Julio A.

131 Background: KRAS G12C mutations occur in 3%–4% of CRC cases and are associated with poor prognosis. In the phase 1/2 KRYSTAL-1 study (NCT03785249), at a median follow-up of 11.9 months (mo), Ada (irreversible inhibitor of KRAS G12C ) in combination with Cetux (anti-EGFR antibody) demonstrated promising clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR] of 34% per blinded independent central review [BICR] and 43% per investigator [INV]) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with previously treated KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC. Based on these findings, Ada + Cetux was granted accelerated approval in the United States for these pts. Here, we present longer-term follow-up analyses from this study. Methods: Adults with previously treated KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were treated with Ada (600 mg BID) in combination with Cetux (400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 QW or 500 mg/m 2 Q2W) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death, in separate phase 1 and phase 2 cohorts. Primary endpoints were safety (phase 1) and ORR per BICR (phase 2). Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety (phase 2). Results: A total of 94 pts received Ada + Cetux. The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 3 (range, 1–9); 23 pts (24%) had received ≥ 4 prior lines of systemic therapy. The most frequent sites of metastases at baseline were the lung (71%) and liver (64%). At a median follow-up of 20.4 mo, ORR per INV was 43% (95% CI 32–53) and all were partial responses; median DOR was 5.9 (95% CI 5.5–7.6) mo. Disease control rate per INV was 86% (95% CI 78–92). Median PFS per INV was 6.9 (95% CI 5.9–7.4) mo; 6- and 12-mo PFS rates were 61% and 19%, respectively. Median OS was 16.0 (95% CI 13.3–18.8) mo; 6- and 12-mo OS rates were 88% and 66%, respectively. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 100% of pts, 28% of which were grade 3/4. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 10% of pts. Efficacy analyses by BICR, subgroup analyses, and additional safety results will be presented. Conclusions: In heavily pretreated pts with KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC, Ada + Cetux continued to demonstrate clinically meaningful activity and tolerable safety with longer follow-up. These updated results are consistent with those from the primary analysis and constitute the longest duration of follow-up for dual KRAS G12C /EGFR blockade in this setting. Efficacy of second-line Ada + Cetux vs chemotherapy in KRAS G12C -mutated mCRC is being investigated in the phase 3 KRYSTAL-10 study (NCT04793958). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249 .

Abstract Adagrasib, an irreversible, selective KRASG12C inhibitor, may be an effective treatment in KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer, particularly when combined with an anti-EGFR antibody. In this analysis of the KRYSTAL-1 trial, patients with previously treated KRASG12C-mutated unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer received adagrasib (600 mg twice daily) plus cetuximab. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review. Ninety-four patients received adagrasib plus cetuximab. With a median follow-up of 11.9 months, ORR was 34.0%, disease control rate was 85.1%, and median duration of response was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2–7.6). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.7–7.4) and median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.8–18.8). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in all patients; grade 3–4 in 27.7% and no grade 5. No TRAEs led to adagrasib discontinuation. Exploratory analyses suggest circulating tumor DNA may identify features of response and acquired resistance. Significance: Adagrasib plus cetuximab demonstrates promising clinical activity and tolerable safety in heavily pretreated patients with unresectable or metastatic KRASG12C-mutated colorectal cancer. These data support a potential new standard of care and highlight the significance of testing and identification of KRASG12C mutations in patients with colorectal cancer. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 897 See co-corresponding author Rona Yaeger discuss this research article, published simultaneously at the AACR Annual Meeting 2024: https://vimeo.com/932606282/f27a6e46f4

PURPOSEThere are numerous barriers to enrollment in oncology biomarker-driven studies.METHODSThe ELAINE 2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04432454 ) is an open-label phase 2 study of lasofoxifene combined with abemaciclib in patients with advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer with an ESR1 mutation. ELAINE 2 opened clinical sites by using a Traditional approach, which activated a site before patient identification, and the Tempus TIME Trial network, which opened a site only after identifying an eligible patient. This manuscript presents the operational metrics comparing the Traditional and TIME Trial site data.RESULTSThe study enrolled patients over 34 weeks and 16 sites (six Traditional and 10 TIME Trial) participated. Duration for full clinical trial agreement execution for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites averaged 200.5 (range, 142-257) and 7.6 days (range, 2-14), respectively. Institutional review board approval time for Traditional sites and TIME Trial sites was 27.5 (range, 12-71) and 3.0 days (range, 1-12), respectively. Duration from study activation to first consent was 33.3 (range, 18-58) and 8.8 days (range, 1-35) for Traditional and TIME Trial sites, respectively. The first patient on study was at a TIME Trial site 115 days before a Traditional site and the first seven patients enrolled were at TIME Trial sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients, while TIME Trial sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled 29 patients in 8.5 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12-18 months.CONCLUSIONThe TIME Trial network opened earlier and enrolled the first study patients. These results demonstrate that the Just-in-TIME model, along with a Traditional model, can improve enrollment in biomarker-driven studies.

1504 Background: Trial recruitment that requires specific actionable mutations based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) is challenging. Barriers can include competing studies, physician study awareness, site proximity, mutation incidence, among other concerns. Methods: This study (NCT04432454) opened clinical sites using two methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The “Traditional” approach included site selection, IRB and contract approval, and trial activation prior to a patient being identified for enrollment. The second approach used the Tempus “TIME” Trials network that would only open a site after identifying a patient with a mutation of interest and eligible for the trial. Results: The first patient enrolled was on 10/12/20 and the last patient was on 6/24/21. A total of 16 sites (6 Traditional and 10 TIME) participated. All Traditional sites, and none of the TIME sites, were affiliated with major academic institutions. Duration for full CTA execution for Traditional sites averaged 200.5 days (range 142 to 257) and for TIME sites averaged 7.6 days (range 2 to 14). IRB approval time average for Traditional sites was 27.5 days (range 12 to 71) and TIME sites was 3.0 days (range 1 to 12 days). Days from site selection to activation letter for Traditional sites was on average 250.0 days (range 187 to 281) and for TIME sites was 131.6 days (range 22 to 248). Time from study activation to first consent was 33.3 days (range 18 to 58) for Traditional sites and 8.8 days (range 1 to 35) for TIME sites. The first patient on-study was at a TIME site 115 days prior to a Traditional site and the first 7 patients enrolled were at TIME sites. Traditional sites consented 23 and enrolled 16 patients while the TIME sites consented 16 and enrolled 13. The trial enrolled all 29 patients in 8 months with the anticipated enrollment duration being 12 to 18 months. Conclusions: Although the Traditional and TIME programs had different operational models, they both contributed a significant number of patients and reduced the projected enrollment timeline. TIME sites enrolled the initial patients. These results demonstrate that the “Just-in-Time model,” in conjunction with a Traditional model, can reduce projected overall time to enrollment in biomarker-driven studies. [Table: see text]