Hendrickson, Andrea E. Wahner

PURPOSE To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779 ) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples. RESULTS Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA-mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)–deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)–mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA, HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy. CONCLUSION Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA, or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.

Abstract Background: Based on preclinical data showing addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors to gemcitabine is synergistic, ribociclib was evaluated in combination with gemcitabine to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicities (DLT). Methods: In this single arm multicohort phase I trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of Ribociclib plus Gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received Gemcitabine intravenously on days 1 and 8 followed by Ribociclib days 8–14, with treatment repeated every 3 weeks. Results: The study enrolled 43 patients between October 2017 and September 2019. The escalation phase (19 patients) determined the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) to be ribociclib 800mg daily and gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 for the expansion phase (24 patients). One patient experienced Grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Eleven patients experienced Grade 3 adverse events (AE), the most common being neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. No partial or complete responses were observed. 15/22 (68%) of efficacy evaluable patients who received the MTD achieved best response of stable disease. Conclusions: The addition of Ribociclib to Gemcitabine was tolerated well and yielded stability of tumors in both cohorts. Ribociclib and gemcitabine could have synergistic activity in certain tumor types, and our data provides support for the combination. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03237390

PURPOSE The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study ( NCT02595892 ) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (hazard ratio [HR]=0.57, one-sided log-rank P = .044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation). METHODS We report here the final overall survival (OS) analysis and biomarker correlations (ATM expression by immunohistochemistry, mutational signature 3 and a genomic biomarker of replication stress) along with post-hoc exploratory analyses to adjust for crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib. RESULTS At the data cutoff of January 27, 2023 (>30 months of additional follow-up from the primary analysis), median OS was 59.4 weeks with gemcitabine/berzosertib versus 43.0 weeks with gemcitabine alone (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52 to 1.2, one-sided log-rank P = .18). An OS benefit with addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine was suggested in patients stratified into the platinum-free interval ≤3 months (N = 26) subgroup (HR, 0.48, 90% CI 0.22 to 1.01, one-sided log-rank P =.04) and in patients with ATM-negative/low (N = 24) tumors (HR, 0.50, 90% CI 0.23 to 1.08, one-sided log-rank P = .06). CONCLUSION The results of this follow-up analysis continue to support the promise of combined gemcitabine/ATRi therapy in platinum resistant ovarian cancer, an active area of investigation with several ongoing clinical trials.

Abstract Purpose: AB160 is a 160-nm nano-immunoconjugate consisting of nab-paclitaxel (ABX) nanoparticles noncovalently coated with bevacizumab (BEV) for targeted delivery into tissues expressing high levels of VEGF. Preclinical data showed that AB160 resulted in greater tumor targeting and tumor inhibition compared with sequential treatment with ABX then BEV. Given individual drug activity, we investigated the safety and toxicity of AB160 in patients with gynecologic cancers. Patients and Methods: A 3+3 phase I trial was conducted with three potential dose levels in patients with previously treated endometrial, cervical, and platinum-resistant ovarian cancer to ascertain the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). AB160 was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (ABX 75–175 mg/m2, BEV 30–70 mg/m2). Pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. Results: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were seen among the three dose levels tested. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia, thromboembolic events, and leukopenia. DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2) was chosen as the RP2D. Seven of the 19 patients with measurable disease (36.8%) had confirmed partial responses (95% confidence interval, 16.3%–61.6%). Pharmacokinetic analyses demonstrated that AB160 allowed 50% higher paclitaxel dosing and that paclitaxel clearance mirrored that of therapeutic antibodies. Conclusions: The safety profile and clinical activity of AB160 supports further clinical testing in patients with gynecologic cancers; the RP2D is DL2 (ABX 150 mg/m2, BEV 60 mg/m2).

507 Background: Navitoclax (ABT-263) is an oral Bcl-2 homology-3 mimetic that binds with high affinity to pro-survival Bcl-2 proteins, resulting in apoptosis. Sorafenib, an oral multi kinase inhibitor inhibits tumor angiogenesis and also promotes apoptosis. The efficacy of either agent alone is limited; however, preclinical studies demonstrate synergy with the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib. Methods: In this phase 1 pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study (NCT01364051), we evaluated the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib in a dose escalation cohort of patients with refractory solid tumors, with an expansion cohort in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study agents were provided by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at National Cancer Institute under CRADA. Navitoclax and sorafenib were administered continuously on days 1 through 21 of 21-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the continual reassessment method. Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the dose escalation cohort and 15 patients with HCC were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Two dose levels were tested, dose level 1 (navitoclax 150 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily) and dose level 2 (navitoclax 200 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily). At dose level 1, one dose limiting toxicity (DLT) [grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase elevation] was observed among 6 patients treated at this dose level. In a cohort of 3 patients treated at dose level 2, two DLTs were observed (grade 3 hypertension, and grade 3 rash), hence dose level 1 was identified as the MTD. Among all patients, the most common grade 3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (5 patients, 20%): there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities (Table). Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range 1-36 cycles) and all patients were off study treatment at data cut off. Six patients in the expansion cohort had stable disease, 5 had progressive disease and 4 with unavailable data. There were no partial or complete responses. Drug-drug interaction between navitoclax and sorafenib was not observed. The combination of navitoclax and sorafenib did not increase induction of apoptosis compared with navitoclax alone. Conclusions: Navitoclax plus sorafenib resulted in manageable, but not ideal toxicities for continuous oral administration which precluded dose escalation. The lack of clinical benefit in the HCC expansion cohort does not support further development of this combination for the treatment of advanced HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01364051 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: DS-8201a is a HER2-targeting antibody drug conjugate with a topoisomerase 1 (top1) inhibitor payload. Preclinical evidence suggests that inhibiting PARP can potentiate top1 inhibitor-induced DNA damage and cytotoxicity. However, the clinical activity of combined top1-inhibiting chemotherapy and PARP inhibition has been limited by toxicity. We hypothesized that targeted delivery of a top1 inhibitor via DS-8201a may reduce systemic toxicity while maintaining synergistic cytotoxic activity in combination with olaparib. This combination is being investigated in the ongoing phase 1 trial CTEP #10355 (NCT04585958) in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors expressing HER2. We present the safety analysis of pts enrolled to Module 1 (Mod 1) of dose escalation (continuous olaparib). Preliminary efficacy results are explored. Methods: Accrual was limited to pts ≥18 years old with advanced or recurrent solid tumors expressing HER2, defined as HER2 IHC ≥1+ (local testing allowed) or amplification of ERBB2 by NGS or ISH. In Mod 1, pts received DS-8201a IV once every 3 weeks and olaparib twice daily (BID) continuously in a 3+3 dose escalation design. Dose Level 1 (DL1) of Mod 1 evaluated DS-8201a dosed at 4.4mg/kg with olaparib 100mg BID Days 1-21. Dose Level 2 (DL2) of Mod 1 evaluated DS-8201a dosed at 5.4mg/kg with olaparib 100mg BID Days 1-21. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of combined DS-8201a + olaparib as graded by CTCAE v5. Secondary objectives include assessment of clinical activity as measured by objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR; partial response [PR] + complete response [CR] + stable disease [SD] ≥6 months [mo]), median progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR). Results: As of 30-Nov-2022, 10 pts were treated in Mod 1, with median age of 62.5 years. 10% were Asian, 10% were African American, and 80% were white. 40% had endometrial cancer and 60% had ovarian cancer. 6 of 7 pts treated on DL1 were DLT-evaluable, of which 1 patient experienced a DLT of Grade (G) 4 neutropenia. All 3 pts in DL2 were DLT-evaluable, and each experienced a DLT (2 pts with G4 febrile neutropenia, 1 pt with G4 neutropenia). Most common TRAEs in Mod 1 included: ANC decrease (60% G4, 20% G3, 20% G1/2), platelet count decrease (20% G4, 20% G3, 40% G1/2), and anemia (70% G3, 20% G1/2). All Mod 1 pts required dose holds, dose reductions, and/or discontinuation of olaparib. Of the 10 pts in Mod 1, 40% achieved a RECIST response (1 CR, 3 PR). 40% had SD lasting ≥6 mo, for a CBR of 80%. Median PFS is estimated at 7.4 mo (95% CI 4.7mo-not reached), with 7 patients alive and progression-free at 6 mo. Conclusion: Continuous dosing of olaparib in combination with DS-8201a yielded an unacceptable safety profile and dose escalation in Mod 1 was not continued. An alternative dosing schedule was initiated in Module 2 (Mod 2) evaluating DS-8201a IV every 3 weeks and olaparib BID Days 8-14; accrual to Mod 2 is ongoing. There is preliminary evidence of clinical activity of this combination. Citation Format: Elizabeth K. Lee, Andrea E. Wahner Hendrickson, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Cheryl A. Pickett, Niya Xiong, Su-Chun Cheng, Madeline Polak, Hannah Sawyer, Martin Hayes, Ursula A. Matulonis, Geoffrey I. Shapiro, Panagiotis A. Konstantinopoulos. A phase 1 study of DS-8201a in combination with olaparib in HER2-expressing malignancies (CTEP #10355): Results of module 1 dose escalation [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr B041.

5512 Background: The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study (NCT02595892) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (HR = 0.57, one-sided log-rank p = 0.044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation). Final overall survival (OS) and corresponding biomarker analyses are reported here. Methods: Patients (pts) with platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer and unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting, were randomized 1:1 to gemcitabine/berzosertib versus gemcitabine alone. Randomization was stratified based on platinum free interval (PFI), PFI≤3 months versus > 3 months. Crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib was allowed upon disease progression by RECIST 1.1. OS was a secondary endpoint while preplanned exploratory correlative studies included assessment of DNA repair pathways and replication stress (RS) alterations by targeted gene sequencing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Seventy pts were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine/berzosertib (34 pts) or gemcitabine alone (36 pts); 15 pts crossed over from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib. At the final OS analysis (92.9% maturity), median follow-up was 53.2 weeks in the gemcitabine/berzosertib and 43 weeks in the gemcitabine alone groups. Median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 59.4 weeks in the gemcitabine/berzosertib group versus 43.0 weeks in the gemcitabine alone group (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52-1.2, one-sided p = 0.18). However, when patients who crossed over to gemcitabine/berzosertib were excluded from analysis, a significant OS benefit was observed with gemcitabine/berzosertib (HR 0.60, 90%CI 0.37−0.97); HR was 0.26 (90% CI 0.1−0.7) in pts with PFI≤3 months and 0.89 (90%CI 0.50−1.59) in pts with PFI > 3 months. Furthermore, significant OS benefit was observed in pts with RS-low tumors (HR 0.39, 90%CI 0.17−0.91, defined as tumors harboring no genomic RS alterations related to loss of RB pathway regulation and/or oncogene-induced RS) but not in pts with RS-high tumors (HR 0.74, 90%CI 0.35−1.56). Additional targeted gene sequencing and IHC analyses as well as analyses adjusting for patient crossover will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: In the ITT population, gemcitabine/berzosertib did not significantly improve OS versus gemcitabine alone. Pts with PFI≤3 months and pts with RS-low tumors may derive a survival advantage from addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine in the platinum-resistant setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02595892 .

3082 Background: CLDN6, a member of the claudin family of tight junction proteins, is expressed at high levels in multiple human malignancies and has little to no expression in normal tissues. This expression profile makes CLDN6 an ideal target for development of new therapeutics. TORL-1-23 is first-in-class ADC targeting the tumor-specific antigen CLDN6. Methods: TORL123-001 (NCT05103683) is an ongoing, 2-part, first in human study to characterize the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of TORL-1-23 monotherapy in participants with advanced solid tumors. Serum pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity and clinical efficacy are also assessed. TORL-1-23 is administered as a 30-minute IV infusion once every 3 weeks in 21-day cycles. During Part 1 (Dose Escalation), cohorts of 1 to 6 participants are evaluated at each dose level according to an accelerated titration design. In Part 2 (Dose Expansion), several cohorts of patients with CLDN6-expressing cancers will be evaluated to confirm the RP2D in ovarian cancer, NSCLC, and other CLDN6-expressing cancers using a CLDN6 IHC companion diagnostic. Results: As of 01FEB2023, 22 patients with ovarian (n=18), testicular (n=3), and endometrial (n=1) cancers were enrolled and treated across 8 dose levels ranging from 0.2 to 2.4 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks. 95% of pts had received ≥ 3 prior lines of treatment in the metastatic setting. The most common treatment-related adverse events were Gr1/2 fatigue (n=5), Gr1 peripheral neuropathy (n=4), and Gr1 nausea (n=3). No DLTs have been reported and no dose reductions have been required. Preliminary PK data demonstrate sustained exposure of TORL-1-23 ADC over the 21 day dosing interval and low levels of serum MMAE indicating low off-target MMAE exposure outside of tumor. Partial responses (PR) were observed in 4/17 efficacy evaluable participants with CLDN6+ disease (3 ovarian, 1 testicular). Dose escalation is ongoing and updated results will be presented. Conclusions: TORL-1-23 has a favorable safety/tolerability profile and PK characteristics with preliminary antitumor activity in pts with heavily-pretreated CLDN6-expressing ovarian and testicular cancers. Doses above the historic MTD for MMAE containing ADCs may be explored given the safety/tolerability and PK data observed up to 2.4 mg/kg. Dose finding is ongoing to identify the MTD and optimal doses for subsequent development. Clinical trial information: NCT05103683 .

PURPOSE In patients with high-grade ovarian cancer, predictors of bevacizumab efficacy in first-line setting are needed. In the ICON-7 trial, a poor tumor intrinsic chemosensitivity (defined by unfavorable modeled cancer antigen-125 [CA-125] ELIMination rate constant K [KELIM] score) was a predictive biomarker. Only the patients with high-risk disease (suboptimally resected stage III, or stage IV) exhibiting unfavorable KELIM score < 1.0 had overall survival (OS) benefit from bevacizumab (median: 29.7 v 20.6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.78). An external validation study in the GOG-0218 trial was performed. METHODS In GOG-0218, 1,873 patients were treated with carboplatin-paclitaxel ± concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab/placebo. Patient KELIM values were calculated with CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 chemotherapy days by the Lyon University team. The association between KELIM score (favorable ≥ 1.0, or unfavorable < 1.0) and bevacizumab benefit for progression-free survival (PFS)/OS was independently assessed by NGR-GOG using univariate/multivariate analyses. RESULTS KELIM was assessable in 1,662 patients with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. An unfavorable KELIM score was associated with bevacizumab benefit compared with placebo (PFS: HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82; OS: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03), whereas a favorable KELIM was not (PFS: HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.17; OS: HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.39). The highest benefit was observed in patients with a high-risk disease exhibiting unfavorable KELIM, for PFS (median: 9.1 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.78), and for OS (median: 35.1 v 29.1 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97). CONCLUSION This GOG-0218 trial investigation validates ICON-7 findings about the association between poor tumor chemosensitivity and benefit from concurrent-maintenance bevacizumab, suggesting that bevacizumab may mainly be effective in patients with poorly chemosensitive disease. Bevacizumab may be prioritized in patients with a high-risk and poorly chemosensitive disease to improve their PFS/OS (patient KELIM score calculator available on the Biomarker Kinetics website).

5579 Background: Adavosertib (AZD-1775) is a potent small molecule inhibitor of Wee-1, currently in clinical development. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (NCT02151292), adavosertib and gemcitabine significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOV) compared to gemcitabine alone. We investigated whether plasma and intra-tumoral adavosertib concentrations correlated with survival in these patients. Methods: Adavosertib was administered orally on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 at 175 mg per day, and gemcitabine was administered on Days 1, 8 and 15 at 1000 mg/m2 every 28 days. Serial blood samples were collected on Day 1 of cycle 1 after adavosertib administration. Tumor biopsies were taken 1-2 weeks after initiation of study treatments. Plasma and tumor adavosertib concentrations were determined using validated HPLC-MS/MS. Patients were divided into groups with plasma or tumor adavosertib concentrations above or below the biologically active concentration (BAC) of 125 ng/ml (Leijen et al, J Clin Onco 2016). Survival was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 61 HGSOV patients who received adavosertib, plasma samples were available in 47, and tumor samples were available in 31 patients. Among 25 non-HGSOV patients (exploratory cohort), plasma and tumor samples were available in 21 and 17 patients respectively. The mean maximum adavosertib concentration (Cmax) was 355.3 ± 120.9 ng/ml and 358.6 ± 117.9 ng/ml respectively. Cmax was above BAC in all patients. The mean tumor adavosertib concentration was 609.2 ± 1129.2 ng/ml (range: 0.47 – 5501 ng/ml) for HGSOV patients, and 964.2 ± 1611.2 ng/ml (range: 0.22 – 6116 ng/ml) for non-HGSOV patients. There was no correlation between Cmax and tumor adavosertib concentrations. In HGSOV, the median PFS was 5.8 months for patients with tumor concentrations above BAC, and 3.5 months for those with tumor concentrations below BAC (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.19 – 1.14, p = 0.06). No difference in PFS was seen in non-HGSOV patients according to tumor adavosertib concentration. Tumor adavosertib concentration did not correlate with OS. Conclusions: Although Cmax was above BAC in all patients, there was a high variability in tumor adavosertib concentrations. In HGSOV, higher tumor adavosertib concentration was associated with a trend towards improved PFS, but not OS. Our results indicate that the current adavosertib dosing regimen may not produce the desired concentrations in tumors for some patients, and further optimization may be needed.