Baskin, Amber

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

Abstract Background: The prognosis of patients with MM with CNS mets is poor. E6201 is an intravenous (IV) MEK inhibitor with activity against BRAF V600-mutated MM cell lines, including MAPK resistance alteration. A previous phase I trial demonstrated activity of E6201 in BRAF V600E mutated MM with a Maximal Tolerated Dose of 320mg/m2 given IV once a week x 3 weeks q 28 days. 2/23 (8.7%) of patients had a PR, 8/23 (34.8%) had SD. Two patients with MM and brain mets achieved near-CR which led to preclinical studies that demonstrated E6201 is unaffected by P-gp and BCRP transport and achieved higher brain to blood concentration (266%).In this trial, patients with BRAF mutation + MM with brain mets, single agent E6201 given at 320mg/m2 twice weekly x 3 weeks q 28 days was determined to be safe. One patient had CNS SD and a PR in lung mets, and a second patient achieved CNS stable disease and CR in a leg melanotic lesion. The drug was well-tolerated with one reversible AE thrombocytopenia (Gr 2). The final review showed intracranial response of SD in 2/4 (50%) patients and systemic SD in 3/4 (75%) patients. Methods: We are currently accruing to the dose escalation cohort of E6201 with dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily orally (n=up to 22 evaluable patients). E6201 is administered IV at 320mg/m2 twice weekly for 3 weeks every 28 days. Patients must have stage IV melanoma with BRAF mutation with at least one active lesion in the brain. Prior local therapy is allowed if done at least 3 weeks prior to cycle 1. Participants must be on a stable dose of steroids for at least 7 days and have an ECOG <!–=2. The study allows one prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy. The primary objectives are to determine the MTD of E6201 when combined with dabrafenib and the response rate of brain mets. The secondary objectives include duration of response, extracranial response, progression free survival, overall survival, and impact of BRAF mutation subtype and safety of the combination. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05388877 References:1.Gampa G, et al. Brain distribution of a novel MEK inhibitor E6201: implications in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases. 2018. Drug Metab Dispos.2.Tibes R et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of E6201 in patients with advanced solid tumors, including melanoma: results of a phase I study. 2018. Brit J of Cancer. 3.Babiker Gm et al, E6201, an intravenous MEK1 inhibitor, achieves an exceptional response in BRAF V600E mutated metastatic malignant melanoma with brain metastases. 2018. Inv New Drugs4.Gampa G, Kim M, Cook-Rostie N, Laramy JK, Sarkaria JN, Paradiso L, DePalatis L, Elmquist WF. Brain distribution of a novel MEK inhibitor E6201: Implications in the treatment of melanoma brain metastases. 2018. Drug Met Disp.–> Citation Format: Mahesh Seetharam, Roxana Dronca, Arkadiusz Z. Dudek, Garth Nelson, Matthew Block, Skylar Starling, Amber Baskin, Renee Bradshaw, Courtney Nelson, Kylee Andrews, Alisha Birgin, Cristina Watson, Yiyi Yan, Daruka Mahadevan, Svetomir Markovic, Tom Myers, Linda Paradiso, Hani Babiker. Phase 1 trial of MEK1 inhibitor E6201 plus dabrafenib in patients (pts) with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma (MM) with central nervous system (CNS) metastases (mets) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT157.