Back to Authors

Spencer, Kristen

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5577-3439

Mayo Clinic

New York University

Citations 12

Futibatinib, an Irreversible FGFR1-4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of FGFR -Aberrant Tumors
Javle, Milind , King, Gentry Teng , Spencer, Kristen , Spencer, Kristen , Borad, Mitesh J.

The Oncologist | May 31, 2023 | Volume: 28 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 928-943

10.1093/oncolo/oyad149 Get It

Abstract Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFR) are emerging as an important therapeutic target for patients with advanced, refractory cancers. Most selective FGFR inhibitors under investigation show reversible binding, and their activity is limited by acquired drug resistance. This review summarizes the preclinical and clinical development of futibatinib, an irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor. Futibatinib stands out among FGFR inhibitors because of its covalent binding mechanism and low susceptibility to acquired resistance. Preclinical data indicated robust activity of futibatinib against acquired resistance mutations in the FGFR kinase domain. In early-phase studies, futibatinib showed activity in cholangiocarcinoma, and gastric, urothelial, breast, central nervous system, and head and neck cancers harboring various FGFR aberrations. Exploratory analyses indicated clinical benefit with futibatinib after prior FGFR inhibitor use. In a pivotal phase II trial, futibatinib demonstrated durable objective responses (42% objective response rate) and tolerability in previously treated patients with advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. A manageable safety profile was observed across studies, and patient quality of life was maintained with futibatinib treatment in patients with cholangiocarcinoma. Hyperphosphatemia, the most common adverse event with futibatinib, was well managed and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. These data show clinically meaningful benefit with futibatinib in FGFR2-rearrangement-positive cholangiocarcinoma and provide support for further investigation of futibatinib across other indications. Future directions for this agent include elucidating mechanisms of resistance and exploration of combination therapy approaches.
Molecular profiling and treatment pattern differences between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
Spencer, Kristen , Pappas, Leontios , Baiev, Islam , Maurer, Jordan R., Bocobo, Andrea Grace, Jain, Apurva, Reyes, Stephanie , Le, Tri Minh , Rahma, Osama E. , Stanton, Jennifer R., DeLeon, Thomas, Roth, Marc, Zhu, Andrew X. , Lennerz, Jochen K. , Iafrate, A. John , Boyhen, Kylie, VanCott, Christine, Roberts, Lewis R. , Lindsey, Stacie , Goff, Laura W. , Mody, Kabir , Shroff, Rachna T. , Kelley, Robin Kate , Javle, Milind , DeLeon, Thomas T, Lennerz, Jochen , Goyal, Lipika , Roberts, Lewis R , Spencer, Kristen , Pappas, Leontios , Zhang, Karen , Jain, Apurva, De Armas, Anaemy Danner , Roth, Marc, Peters, Mary Linton B , Horick, Nora , Borad, Mitesh J. , Goyal, Lipika

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | April 11, 2023 | Volume: 115 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 870-880

10.1093/jnci/djad046 Get It

Abstract Background Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. Methods This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P < .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P < .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P < .001). Conclusions Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.