Chiorean, E. Gabriela

Background: Stromal hyaluronic acid (HA) poses a physical barrier and protects tumor cells from immune surveillance. Stroma targeting with pegylated human recombinant PH20 hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) demonstrated improved infiltration of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes and delivery of chemotherapy and PD1/PD-L1 antibodies in tumor models. This multicenter phase II study of PEGPH20 plus pembrolizumab evaluated the efficacy, safety and immune and stromal biomarkers in patients with HA-high refractory metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDA). Patients and Methods: Patients were treated with PEGPH20 3 µg/kg IV weekly and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV in 3-week cycles. Tumor and blood samples were collected at baseline and on-study for biomarker analyses. Results: Between May and November 2019, 38 patients were screened and 8 treated, with median age 68 years (range 60–73) and median two (range 1–4) prior therapies. The study was closed to accrual early by pharmaceutical sponsor. Treatment was well tolerated, with expected grade 1/2 musculoskeletal toxicities. Best response was stable disease in 2 of 7 evaluable patients (29%). Median overall and progression-free survival were 7.2 months (95% CI 1.2–11.8) and 1.5 months (95% CI 0.9–4.4), respectively. Prolonged survival (range 10.2–27.6 months) occurred in patients treated with subsequent chemotherapy. Higher baseline tumor T cell receptor (TCR) clonality correlated with longer survival. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab with PEGPH20 was safe but did not have significant efficacy in refractory HA-high metastatic PDA.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

TPS4201 Background: Poorly differentiated, extrapulmonary NEC are rare cancers with median overall survival (OS) <1 year. Treatment is extrapolated from small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with use of P (cisplatin or carboplatin) + E. More effective treatment regimens and predictive biomarkers are needed to improve outcomes. In SCLC, induction therapy with combination of P/E + PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab improved OS (12.3 months vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 – 0.91, P=0.007) vs P/E alone (1). No study to date has compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition during induction only vs during induction and maintenance therapy. In SCLC, distinct molecular subtypes can be identified by the presence of specific transcription factors (e.g., ASCL1, NEUROD1, POU2F3) or an inflamed gene signature (SCLC-I), with SCLC-I pts more likely to benefit clinically from the addition of immunotherapy (2). In this study we plan to test the benefit of adding atezolizumab to induction P/E as well as the role of adding maintenance atezolizumab after induction P/E plus atezolizumab. We also plan to correlate tumor- and blood-based subtype biomarkers with response to therapy. Methods: Eligible pts ≥18 years old have evaluable, histologically confirmed extrapulmonary NEC, Zubrod PS ≤2, and are allowed to have up to 1 cycle of P/E prior to enrollment. P (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, iv) on day 1, E 100 mg/m2 iv on days 1-3, and atezolizumab 1200 mg iv on day 1 of q21 day cycles. Pts are randomized to 1 of 3 arms: A) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> maintenance atezolizumab B) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> observation C) Induction P/E -> observation. The primary objective is to compare the overall survival (OS, from randomization) between arms in a fixed sequence: A vs C -> B vs C -> A vs B. Secondary objectives include comparing OS (from start of maintenance/observation), progression free survival, response rate, duration of response, and safety/tolerability across arms. Tumor and blood samples will be banked for future biomarker analyses, including immunohistochemistry of transcription factors on tissue and whole exome sequencing on tumor and circulating tumor DNA. With 189 pts (168 eligible), the study has 84% power to detect an improvement in 12-months OS from 35% to 57.5% (HR 0.53). This study was activated December 2021 with 3 pts enrolled over 1 year due to restricting enrollment of NEC of small cell histology only. The protocol was amended in January 2023 to broaden eligibility to all NEC subtypes (small cell, large cell, and undefined histology with Ki-67 ≥55%). As of January 2024, 35 patients have been enrolled. A protocol amendment is planned to remove the need for Ki-67 index for NEC of genitourinary origin to improve accrual. 1. Horn L, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 2. Gay CM, et al. Cancer Cell 2021. Clinical trial information: NCT05058651 .

LBA490 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs 25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb). Clinical trial information: NCT#03768414 .

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.

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.

TPS3172 Background: Ulixertinib (BVD-523) is a small molecule inhibitor of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1/2 (ERK1/2) in development as a novel anti-cancer drug. Early clinical data demonstrated anti-tumor activity, especially for patients with tumors harboring atypical BRAF or MEK1/2 alterations (Sullivan et al., Cancer Discov. 2018;8(2):184-195). Atypical BRAF (non-V600) alterations can be categorized according to characteristics of molecular signaling (Class II or III), are seen in approximately 3% of all human cancers, and there are currently no approved therapies for this indication. Similar to atypical BRAF alterations, the incidence of MEK1/2 alterations are rare in human tumors (< 1 %). Preclinical data have demonstrated activity of ulixertinib in MEK mutant models. Ulixertinib has FDA fast-track designation for patients with solid tumors, other than CRC, with specific BRAF mutations (G469A, L485W, or L597Q). Designed with intent to register, the BVD-523-ABC clinical trial will continue evaluation of ulixertinib in patients with tumors harboring any atypical BRAF or MEK1/2 alteration (NCT04488003). Methods: This multi-center, phase II study, will be conducted in two parts and assess the clinical benefit, safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ulixertinib in patients with advanced malignancies. Ulixertinib will be administered at the RP2D of 600 mg BID for 28-day treatment cycles. Eligible patients will have locally advanced or metastatic cancer which progressed following standard systemic therapies, or for which the patient is not a candidate or refused systemic therapy. Planned correlative analyses include reverse phase protein array and transcriptomics of tumor tissue. Part A is open-label and tumor agnostic, except for group 4 and 6 (CRC patients only). Patients will enroll into one of six groups based on BRAF (groups 1-4) or MEK1/2 (groups 5-6) tumor alteration (38 patients per group). Overall response rate (ORR) is the primary endpoint for Part A, with secondary endpoints including duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Part B is tumor histology specific. Patients will be randomized to receive either ulixertinib or physician's choice of treatment in a 2:1 ratio. Up to three specified tumor histologies will be defined, guided by available Part A data (n = 80-100 per histology). The primary endpoint of Part B is PFS, and secondary endpoints include OS, ORR, and DOR. This study has enrolled 43 patients of the planned 228 in Part A at the time of abstract submission. Clinical trial information: NCT04488003.

Abstract Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

Abstract VEGF blockade does not uniformly result in clinical benefit. We evaluated safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), antitumor efficacy, and exploratory biomarkers including pharmacogenomics and pharmacokinetics with sorafenib, bevacizumab, and paclitaxel in patients with refractory cancers. The study had a “3 + 3” design, using paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 every week for 3 weeks, in every 4 week cycles, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and sorafenib 200 or 400 mg twice a day, 5 or 7 days/week (5/7, 7/7). The MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-seven patients enrolled in 3 cohorts: sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7, 200 mg twice a day 7/7, and 400 mg twice a day 5/7. DLTs were grade 3 neutropenia &gt;7 days (cohort 1, 1), grade 3 hypertension (cohort 2, 1), grade 3 hand–foot skin reaction (HFSR; cohort 3, 2). MTD was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 7/7. Six DLTs occurred in cohort 2 expansion: grade 3 HFSR (2), grade 2 HFSR with sorafenib delay &gt;7 days (2), grade 4 cerebrovascular accident (1), grade 3 neutropenia &gt;7 days (1). RP2D was sorafenib 200 mg twice a day 5/7. Most patients (62%) dose reduced sorafenib to 200 mg daily 5/7 after a median 3 (range, 2–17) cycles. Response rates were 48% overall (27) and 64% for ovarian cancers (14). VEGF-A-1154AA and -7TT recessive homozygous genotypes conferred worse overall survival versus alternative genotypes (7 vs. 22 months). Intermittent, low-dose sorafenib (200 mg twice a day 5/7) combined with bevacizumab and paclitaxel was tolerable and had high antitumor efficacy in patients with refractory cancer (NCT00572078).

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.