Tabernero, Josep

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

TPS3616 Background: METamp is a secondary, or co-driving, genetic change in pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, which can contribute to disease progression. In EGFR-resistant pts with mCRC and METamp, MET inhibition + an anti-EGFR agent may achieve disease control by targeting emerging MET pathway activation and maintaining EGFR pathway inhibition. Tepotinib is an oral, once-daily, highly selective, potent MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), recently approved in the US for NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 skipping. Tepotinib + gefitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in pts with EGFR-mutant METamp NSCLC and acquired EGFR TKI resistance vs chemotherapy (INSIGHT: NCT01982955). In these pts, progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.6 vs 4.2 months (HR = 0.13; 90% CI: 0.04, 0.43) and overall survival (OS) was 37.3 vs 13.1 months (HR = 0.08; 90% CI: 0.01, 0.51). In pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody therapy due to METamp, tepotinib + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab may be active and provide an effective therapeutic option. Methods: This Phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study will assess preliminary safety and tolerability, antitumor activity, and explore pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of tepotinib + cetuximab in pts with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody-targeted therapy due to METamp (NCT04515394). A safety run-in (6–12 pts) will evaluate the recommended Phase II dose of tepotinib to be used in combination with cetuximab (endpoint: dose-limiting toxicities). Enrollment is based on a confirmed advanced left-sided CRC diagnosis ( RAS/BRAF wild-type), documented previous anti-EGFR therapy and acquired resistance on most recent anti-EGFR antibody and METamp confirmed by liquid and/or tissue biopsy. Pts must be ≥18 years old, have ECOG PS of 0/1 and normal organ function. The study will screen sufficient pts to account for setting-specific heterogenecity in reported METamp incidence. Approximately 42 pts are planned to receive study treatment: ̃22 in Cohort A (second-line, outside US) and 20 in Cohort B (≥third-line, US only). Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed objective response (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints are investigator-assessed duration of response (DoR), PFS (RECIST 1.1) and OS, tolerability and safety (NCI-CTCAE v5.0), and cetuximab immunogenicity (measured by antidrug antibody assays at the start and end of treatment). Additional endpoints include assessment of tepotinib and cetuximab PK profiles, and expression of biomarkers of resistance (from blood and/or tissue samples). Retrospective assessment of best overall response, DoR and PFS by an independent review committee may be conducted. No formal statistical hypothesis will be tested in this exploratory study. Clinical trial information: NCT04515394.

3575 Background: Pts with mCRC frequently receive ≥1 sequential treatment TL. Approximately 50%-60% of pts receive second-line (L2) and 20%-30% third-line (L3) regimens in routine practice. We investigated the pts clinical/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across TL. Methods: Data from 37,560 pts enrolled in 48 randomized trials (34 in first (L1), 9 in L2, and 5 in L3) were analyzed. Candidate variables (VAR) measured at enrollment were sex, age, body mass index, performance status (PS), bilirubin, hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (Pl), derived white blood cells-to-absolute neutrophil counts ratio (WBC/ANC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), primary tumor location, and number and location of metastatic sites (MS). Missing data were imputed. VAR with significant value at all TL were selected to construct a prognostic score of overall survival (OS) in training set (TS, n=30,050; 80%). For each TL, the score was calculated as the sum on the estimations of the VAR’ coefficients from the common multivariate model; Cox’s model was used to define risk groups. The discrimination capability was assessed using the Harrell’s C-index. External validation was done in the validation set (VS, n=7,510; 20%). Results: A total of 26,974 pts in L1, 7,693 pts in L2 and 2,893 pts in L3 were analyzed. The following characteristics increased continuously over TL: ≥2 MS (57%, 72%, 82%), lung metastases (50%, 74%, 91%), lymph nodes metastases (51%, 61%, 80%), KRAS mutation (37%, 47%, 51%) and elevated ALP (46%, 52%, 61%). BRAF mutation decreased (9%, 7%, 5%). In L1 vs L3 trials, 70% vs 89% of patients had primary tumor resection, 10% vs 80% had at least one metastasectomy and 31% vs 78% had a late metachronous (>12 months) metastasis. 7 independent VAR were retained in the prognostic score (PS, Hb, Pl, WBC/ANC, LDH, ALP, and the number of MS); four pt groups with significantly different prognoses were defined (table). This score remained valid when excluding pts with PS 2. Third-line oral drugs (vs placebo) and subsequent line (L2/L1 or L3/L2) were effective in all prognostic groups. Conclusions: Clinical/tumor pt characteristics significantly varied over subsequent TL in patients included in randomized trials. The same prognostic model using practical clinical and biological variables can be used in all TL.[Table: see text]

TPS153 Background: The clinical benefit of approved therapies in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progress on first- and second-line chemotherapy (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI) is limited. In pts with chemotherapy-refractory RAS wild type mCRC, antibodies targeting EGFR offer a monotherapy response rate of approximately 20% and a progression-free survival (PFS) of 4 months (Price 2014). HER2 is a validated target in gastric and breast cancers, with HER2 amplification occurring in ~3–5% of pts with mCRC. Tucatinib (TUC), recently approved for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) highly selective for HER2 with minimal inhibition of EGFR. In pt-derived xenograft models of HER2+ mCRC, the combination of TUC + trastuzumab (TRAS) showed significantly greater antitumor activity compared with either agent alone (Kulukian 2020). The MOUNTAINEER trial was initiated to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TUC in combination with TRAS in pts with HER2+ RAS wild-type mCRC. Interim analysis of the initial 26 pts enrolled in MOUNTAINEER demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 52.2% (12 partial responses [PRs] in 23 evaluable pts), median duration of response of 10.4 months, with a median PFS of 8.1 months and a median overall survival (OS) of 18.7 months (Strickler 2019). Based on these results, the trial was expanded to enable better estimation of ORR and safety. Methods: MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313) is an open-label, pivotal phase 2 trial that initially consisted of a single cohort of up to 45 pts (Cohort A) treated with TUC (300 mg BID) and TRAS (8 mg/kg IV followed by 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks). The trial was expanded to include an additional 70 pts randomized 4:3 into 2 cohorts: Cohort B (N = 40) who will receive TUC + TRAS, and Cohort C (N = 30) who will receive TUC monotherapy. Pts in Cohort C will be treated with TUC (300 mg orally twice daily) with the option to crossover to TUC + TRAS if an objective response is not achieved by 12 weeks, or if progressive disease develops at any time. Eligible pts have RAS wild-type and HER2+ mCRC, and must have previously received regimens that include fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, anti-VEGF therapy, and an anti-PD-1 if the tumor has dMMR proteins or is MSI-H. Pts who have received prior HER2-directed therapies are not eligible. Additionally, pts must have measurable disease and ECOG PS of 0 to 2. The primary endpoint of this trial is confirmed ORR (per RECIST v1.1) in Cohorts A + B as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints include duration of response, PFS, OS, and safety and tolerability. Enrollment is ongoing in the US and planned for the EU. Clinical trial information: NCT03043313.

TPS149 Background: METamp is a secondary, or co-driving, genetic change in pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, which can contribute to disease progression. In EGFR-resistant pts with mCRC and METamp, MET inhibition + an anti-EGFR agent could achieve disease control by targeting emerging MET pathway activation and maintaining EGFR pathway inhibition. Tepotinib is an oral, once-daily, highly selective, potent MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Tepotinib + the EGFR TKI gefitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in pts with EGFR-mutant METamp non-small cell lung cancer and acquired EGFR TKI resistance vs chemotherapy (INSIGHT: NCT01982955). In these pts, progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.6 vs 4.2 months (HR = 0.13; 90% CI: 0.04, 0.43) and overall survival (OS) was 37.3 vs 13.1 months (HR = 0.08; 90% CI: 0.01, 0.51). In pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody therapy due to METamp, tepotinib + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab may be active and therefore provide an effective therapeutic option. Methods: This Phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study will assess preliminary antitumor activity, safety and tolerability, and explore pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of tepotinib + cetuximab in pts with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody-targeted therapy due to METamp. A safety run-in (6-12 pts) will evaluate the recommended Phase II dose of tepotinib to be used in combination with cetuximab (endpoint:dose-limiting toxicities). Enrollment is based on a confirmed advanced left-sided CRC diagnosis, with RAS/BRAF wild-type, documented previous anti-EGFR therapy and acquired resistance on the most recent anti-EGFR antibody and METamp confirmed by liquid and/or tissue biopsy. Pts must be ≥18 years old and have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 and normal organ function. The study will screen sufficient pts to account for setting-specific METamp heterogenicity. Approximately 42 pts are planned to receive study treatment: ~22 in Cohort A (tepotinib second-line, outside US) and 20 in Cohort B (tepotinib ≥third-line, US only). Primary endpoint:investigator-assessed objective response (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints are investigator-assessed duration of response (DoR) and PFS (RECIST 1.1), OS, tolerability and safety (NCI-CTCAE v5.0) and cetuximab immunogenicity (measured by antidrug antibody assays at the start and end of treatment). Additional endpoints include assessment of tepotinib and cetuximab PK profiles and expression of biomarkers of resistance (from blood and/or tissue samples). Retrospective assessment of best overall response, DoR and PFS by an independent review committee may be conducted. No formal statistical hypothesis will be tested in this exploratory study. Clinical trial information: NCT04515394.

Objectives This analysis investigated nomogram use to evaluate metastatic pancreatic cancer prognosis. Methods Thirty-four baseline factors were examined in the Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial (MPACT) (nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine vs gemcitabine) data set. Factors significantly (P < 0.1) associated with overall survival (OS) in a univariable model or with known clinical relevance were tested further. In a multivariable model, factors associated with OS (P < 0.1) were selected to generate the primary nomogram, which was internally validated using bootstrapping, a concordance index, and calibration plots. Results Using data from 861 patients, 6 factors were retained (multivariable analysis): neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, albumin level, Karnofsky performance status, sum of longest diameter of target lesions, presence of liver metastases, and previous Whipple procedure. The nomogram distinguished low-, medium-, and high-risk groups (concordance index, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–0.69; median OS, 11.7, 8.0, and 3.3 months, respectively). Conclusions This nomogram may guide estimates of the range of OS outcomes and contribute to patient stratification in future prospective metastatic pancreatic cancer trials; however, external validation is required to improve estimate reliability and applicability to a general patient population. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these results for treatment decisions: patient characteristics could differ from those included in the nomogram development.

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

3514 Background: In the CORRECT phase III trial, the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (REG) demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pla) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed on other standard therapies. An exploratory biomarker subanalysis was conducted to identify protein biomarkers with potential predictive or prognostic value. Methods: Fifteen proteins of interest, many of which are involved in angiogenesis, were quantified by multiplex immunoassay or ELISA in baseline plasma samples collected at study entry from 80% (611/760) of patients. Potential predictive and prognostic effects were evaluated. Results: The biomarker subpopulation was representative of the overall study population in terms of OS and PFS. Using OS as the clinical endpoint, Tie-1 was the only protein whose level demonstrated significant correlation with efficacy (low protein group: REG/Pla, HR 0.87; high protein group, HR 0.56; interaction, p=0.035). Using PFS as the clinical endpoint, von Willebrand factor (VWF) was the only protein whose level demonstrated significant correlation with efficacy (low protein group: REG/Pla, HR 0.39; high protein group, HR 0.60; interaction, p=0.02). Following correction for multiple testing, neither Tie-1 nor VWF data retained statistical significance. Baseline levels of IL-8 and placental growth factor (PlGF) were found to have prognostic value for OS (IL-8: high/low protein levels, HR 3.48, p<0.001; PIGF: HR 1.81, p=0.002). IL-8 was also prognostic for PFS (high/low protein levels: HR 1.63, p<0.001). Conclusions: None of the plasma proteins examined showed significant predictive value for REG efficacy after multiple testing correction. The association between baseline levels of Tie-1/VWF and REG efficacy may be a hypothesis to be tested in further trials. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323.