Richards, Donald

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

608 Background: Tinengotinib, a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR , potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant/gatekeeper mutations in pre-clinical models and exhibited antitumor activity in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) in phase 1/2 trials. Here we present the overall survival (OS) data and biomarker correlative analysis from a phase 2 clinical trial of tinengotinib in CCA. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD across four Cohorts: A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFR i); A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFR i; B: FGFR alteration(s) without FGFR2 fusion(s); C: FGFR wild-type. Efficacy was evaluated per RECIST v1.1 and safety was assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were assessed by Foundation Medicine NGS panel at baseline, C3D1 and EOT. Planned correlative analyses of response (PR+SD>6 months) and PFS in pt subgroups based on ctDNA mutational status were performed. Results: 55 eligible pts were enrolled (18 in A1, 11 in A2, 13 in B, 13 in C) with median age 61.0 [range 24-81] years, ECOG PS 0 in 50.9% pts, 56.4% female, and 60.0% with ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. Among 42 pts with FGFR alterations, 78.4% had ≥ 1 prior FGFR i, and 97.6% had prior chemotherapy. Median follow up time was 8.6 months (0.4-30.5). The median OS (months) was 17.1 (95%CI 7.5-19.5) in A1; not reached (95%CI 9.6, -) in A2; 18.0 (95%CI 9.6, -) in A1+A2; not reached (95%CI 8.0, -) in B; 6.5 (95%CI 4.8-16.4) in C. The OS rate in A, B and C was 100%, 91.7% and 75% at month 3; 83.7%, 83.3% and 66.7% at month 6, and 65.8%, 55.6% and 23.8% at month 12. Partial response was observed in 26% (10/39) of evaluable FGFR-altered pts (A1+A2+B). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were hypertension (63.6%) and diarrhea (47.3%). Baseline ctDNA results were available in 46 pts, 35 in cohorts A+B and 11 in C. A positive correlation was shown in MED12 mutation vs response (P=0.03476). BCOR and ARID1A mutation were found to be negatively associated with PFS (P=0.01366 and P=0.0437). Acquired/secondary mutations at baseline were observed in cohort A, including V564F/I (3/24 and 5/24) and N549K/H (5/24 and 5/24); favorable anti-tumor activity was noted despite these resistant mutations, consistent with preclinical data. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has shown promising anti-tumor efficacy in CCA pts with FGFR fusion after prior FGFR i and in those with primary FGFR mutations. An ongoing randomized phase III study will investigate tinengotinib vs. chemotherapy in FGFR inhibitor refractory CCA (NCT05948475). Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

Abstract Background: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being established as a novel approach to screen for multiple cancer types with one test. A blood-based MCED test using cell-free DNA targeted methylation patterns to detect a shared cancer signal and predict a cancer signal origin (CSO) has demonstrated feasibility. An initial return of results study (PATHFINDER; NCT04241796) reported performance of a refined version of the MCED test, including a 43.1% positive predictive value (PPV), 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV), 99.5% specificity, and 88.0% CSO accuracy. To build on this work, the PATHFINDER 2 study (NCT05155605) will evaluate safety and performance of the MCED test in larger, more diverse populations. Methods: PATHFINDER 2 is a prospective, multicenter, interventional study. Participants ≥50 years of age will be enrolled, with specific targets to improve diversity (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and few exclusions due to comorbid conditions. Exclusion criteria include current clinical suspicion of cancer or recent cancer/treatment (within 3 years). Participants will undergo blood draw for MCED testing, followed by return of results (cancer signal detection and CSO) to the investigator and diagnostic evaluations if a cancer signal is detected. A confirmatory PET-CT scan will be performed when CSO-directed workups do not result in a cancer diagnosis. Participants will be followed for approximately 3 years. Primary endpoints include 1) MCED test safety in terms of diagnostic testing triggered by a positive result (number/type of procedures and adverse events) and 2) test performance (PPV, NPV, specificity, sensitivity, CSO accuracy, cancer detection rate and number needed to screen). Secondary endpoints include participant reported outcomes (eg, anxiety), utilization of guideline-recommended cancer screening, and cancer detection rate of confirmatory PET-CT, amongst others. The study plans to enroll approximately 35,000 participants across North America. Sites were selected based on geographic location, catchment area demographics, and practice setting (academic vs non-academic). Enrollment targets for age, sex and race/ethnicity (White [non-Hispanic] 72%; Hispanic or Latino 11%; African American or Black 11%; Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6%; American Indian/Alaska Native 1%) were derived from US Census data. Strategies to promote diverse recruitment include translation of participant-facing documents across multiple languages, participant and healthcare provider educational material, and site-led community outreach campaigns. MCED testing is an emerging, potentially paradigm-changing strategy in cancer screening, and PATHFINDER 2 is designed to characterize the safety, performance, and clinical implementation of the MCED test as a screening tool in a broad and representative population. Citation Format: Karthik V. Giridhar, Michael J. Demeure, Raymond H. Kim, Justin A. Chen, Shirish Gadgeel, Dax Kurbegov, Margarita Lopatin, Roland Matthews, Marc Matrana, Charles McDonnell, Donald Richards, Benjamin Rybicki, Gretchen Stipec, Nima Nabavizadeh. PATHFINDER 2: A prospective study to evaluate safety and performance of a multi-cancer early detection test in a population setting [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4784.

TPS587 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is characterized by generally poor prognoses with limited treatment options. Systemic chemotherapy usually begins with gemcitabine, platinum agents, and a checkpoint inhibitor followed by 5-FU and oxaliplatin, irinotecan or a taxane. Presently, there is no consensus second-line therapy for patients with BTC. The DLL/Notch signaling pathway has been described to be a major driver of cholangiocarcinogenesis and VEGF-A overexpression has been reported in BTC tumors, correlating with stage, metastasis, and prognosis of the disease. CTX-009 is a recombinant bispecific antibody that binds both delta-like ligand-4 (DLL4) and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). The antibody simultaneously inhibits the DLL4-Notch 1 and VEGF A-VEGF receptor signaling pathways. Methods: COMPANION-002 (CTX-009 -002) is an open-label, randomized, controlled study in patients in second line advanced or metastatic BTC. To be eligible, patients must have radiologically documented progression after a prior gemcitabine and platinum containing chemotherapy regimen as first line therapy for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic disease. 150 patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either CTX-009 plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The stratification factors to be used at randomization include stage (locally advanced vs. metastatic), anatomic subsite of primary tumor (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs. other, i.e. extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status (0 vs. 1). Patients will be treated in 28-day cycles, with CTX-009 administered at 10 mg/kg IV on Day 1 and 15, and paclitaxel administered at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The patients randomized to paclitaxel arm can crossover after disease progression if selection criteria continue to be met. The primary objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of CTX-009 in combination with paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel alone, as measured by Overall Response Rate (ORR) assessed by an Independent Central Radiology (ICR) review. Key secondary objectives include overall survival, progression-free survival, and duration of response. Clinical trial information: 251040.

434 Background: Tinengotinib is a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR, potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant mutations in pre-clinical models and in phase I trials that included cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts). Here we present the efficacy and safety of tinengotinib in a phase II clinical trial. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy therapy and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD. Four cohorts included: Cohort A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFRi), A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFRi (acquired resistance); B: non-fusion FGFR alteration(s): C: FGFR wild-type ( FGFRwt). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. CTCAE V5.0 was used for safety assessments. Results: As of 7Aug2023, 48 pts with CCA were enrolled, 13 in Cohort A1, 10 in A2, 12 in B, 13 in C. Median age 61.5 [range 25-81] years old, 41.7% male, 58.3% had ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. ECOG PS 0 in 47.9% pts. Among 35 pts with FGFR alterations, 80.0% had ≥ 1 prior FGFRi therapy, and 97.1% had prior chemotherapy. Forty (40) pts were efficacy evaluable. In A1, 1 out of 11 pts (9.1%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 31.8%. In A2, 3 out of 8 pts (37.5%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 40.7%, 47.0% and 54.6%. In B, 3 out of 9 pts (33.3%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 36.5%, 48.6%, and 60.6%. No PR was observed in C. Overall DCR was 94.7% (18/19) in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement pts (A1+A2), 88.9% (8/9) in other FGFR alterations pts (B), and 75% (9/12) in FGFRwt pts (C). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.26 months (95%CI, 2.86-9.10) in A1+A2, 5.98 months (95%CI, 1.87-NA) in B and 3.84 months (95% CI, 1.84-4.80) in C. Among 48 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 45 (93.8%) pts, 14 (29.2%) in G1-2, 29 (60.4%) in G3 and 2 (4.2%) in G4. The most common G3 TRAEs were hypertension in 12 (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 3 (6.3%), diarrhea in 3 (6.3%) and stomatitis in 3 (6.3%). One subject had G4 increased TSH and G4 increased lipase, and another subject had G4 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. No G5 TRAE was observed. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has promising clinical benefit for FGFR2 fusion CCA after prior FGFRi and for non-fusion FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib-related toxicities were manageable. An ongoing randomized, controlled phase III study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic effect of Tinengotinib vs Physicians’ choice in subjects with FGFR2-altered refractory/relapsed CCA after prior chemotherapy and FGFRi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

PURPOSE A multi-cancer detection test using a targeted methylation assay and machine learning classifiers was validated and optimized for screening in prospective, case-controlled Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02889978 ) substudy 3. Here, we report test performance in a subgroup of participants with symptoms suspicious for cancer to assess the test's ability to potentially facilitate efficient diagnostic evaluation in symptomatic individuals. METHODS We evaluated test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cancer signal origin [CSO] prediction accuracy) in participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) and noncancer with underlying medical conditions and among two subgroups (65 years and older and GI cancers). Overall survival (OS) of participants who had a cancer signal detected/not detected was compared with SEER-based expected survival. RESULTS A total of 2,036 cancer and 1,472 noncancer participants were included. Specificity was high in all noncancer participants (99.5% [95% CI, 98.4 to 99.8]). In participants with CPCs, the overall sensitivity was 64.3% (95% CI, 62.2 to 66.4) and the overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 90.3%. For GI cancers, the overall sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 80.6 to 87.1). In participants 65 years and older, test performance was similar to that of all participants. Individuals with cancers not detected had a significantly better OS than that expected from SEER ( P < .01). CONCLUSION This test detected a cancer signal with high specificity and CSO prediction accuracy and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic individuals, with especially high performance in participants with GI cancers. The survival analysis implied that the cancers not detected were less clinically aggressive than cancers detected by the test, providing prognostic insights to physicians. This multi-cancer detection test could facilitate efficient workup and stratify cancer risk in symptomatic individuals.

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Abstract Introduction: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test as a complement to existing screening tests could increase the number of cancer cases detected in a population, potentially improving patient outcomes and survival as well as decreasing harmful and aggressive treatments. The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978) was designed to develop and validate a blood-based MCED test analyzing plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to detect cancer signals across multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict their signal origin. Here, the results of the third and final pre-specified CCGA validation sub-study for a refined MCED test in a large cohort in preparation for clinical use are reported. Methods: CCGA is a prospective, multicenter, case-control, observational study with longitudinal follow-up (overall population N=15,254). In this sub-study (n=5309), key primary objectives were to evaluate test performance for cancer signal detection (specificity, overall sensitivity, sensitivity by clinical stage) and signal origin prediction (accuracy). cfDNA from evaluable samples was analyzed using a targeted methylation bisulfite sequencing assay and a machine learning algorithm. The classifier was trained to target a specificity of 99.4% and locked before analysis of the independent validation set. Overall, 4077 participants comprised the independent validation set with confirmed status (cancer: n=2823; non-cancer: n=1254 with non-cancer status confirmed at year-one follow-up). MCED test results are reported for this confirmed status set. Results: Mean (SD) age in the cancer and non-cancer groups was 62.6 (11.76) and 56.2 (12.63) years, respectively. Specificity for cancer signal detection was 99.5% (1248/1254; 95% confidence interval: 99.0-99.8%). Overall sensitivity for cancer signal detection was 51.5% (1453/2823; 49.6-53.3%); sensitivity increased with stage (Stage I: 16.8% [14.5-19.5%], Stage II: 40.4% [36.8-44.1%], Stage III: 77.0% [73.4-80.3%], Stage IV: 90.1% [87.5-92.2%]). Stage I-III sensitivity was 67.6% (593/877; 64.4-70.6%) in a pre-specified set of 12 high-signal cancers accounting for ~63% of annual US cancer deaths [1] and was 40.7% (863/2118; 38.7-42.9%) in all cancers. Cancer signals were detected across &gt;50 cancer types [2]. Overall accuracy of signal origin prediction in true positives was 88.7% (87.0-90.2%). Conclusions: In this pre-specified, large-scale, clinical validation sub-study of CCGA, the MCED test detected cancer signals across &gt;50 cancer types, which is critical to maximize the number of cancer cases detected in a population. This MCED test performed with high specificity and high accuracy of signal origin prediction. These data lay the foundation for population-scale clinical implementation of this test. 1.US Mortality Data 1969-2016 (www.seer.cancer.gov); based on 2015-2016. 2.Amin et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:93e99. Citation Format: Eric A. Klein, Donald Richards, Allen Cohn, Mohan Tummala, Rosanna Lapham, David Cosgrove, Gina Chung, Jessica Clement, Jingjing Gao, Nathan Hunkapiller, Arash Jamshidi, Kathryn Kurtzman, Michael V. Seiden, Charles Swanton, Minetta C. Liu. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB013.

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.