Newton, Herbert B.

PURPOSE GBM AGILE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03970447 ) is a phase II/III Bayesian adaptive platform registration trial testing multiple arms against a common control; the primary end point is overall survival (OS). Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, showed OS benefit in recurrent (RD) glioblastoma in the phase II REGOMA trial and entered GBM AGILE as the first investigational arm. METHODS Patient subtypes included in the regorafenib arm of GBM AGILE were newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and RD glioblastoma. Prospective defined sets of subtypes, or arm signatures, were NDU, RD, and all (NDU + RD). As the first investigational arm in GBM AGILE, regorafenib was equally randomized to the control arm. Treatment in the control arm is temozolomide + radiotherapy (in newly diagnosed) or lomustine (in RD). Efficacy was assessed by OS hazard ratio (HR), arm/control, and demonstrated when the Bayesian probability of benefit (HR <1.00) was ≥98%. Analysis was performed monthly for limited efficacy, which occurs when the Bayesian predictive power is <25% for all signatures, and determines stopping enrollment. Follow-up continued for 12 months after accrual stopped. RESULTS When the predictive power was <25% in all predefined signatures for regorafenib, accrual stopped for limited efficacy. The final analysis did not demonstrate OS improvement in the regorafenib arm in RD nor NDU glioblastoma. Median HRs were 1.05 (NDU), 1.07 (RD), and 1.07 (all) with final probabilities of benefit (HR <1.00) of 0.421 (NDU), 0.312 (RD), and 0.296 (all). Regorafenib was associated with increased toxicity relative to control. CONCLUSION GBM AGILE did not show superiority of regorafenib over control in RD (lomustine) or NDU (temozolomide + radiotherapy) glioblastoma, yet caused increased toxicities. Regorafenib has been removed from National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines as a treatment option for RD.

707 Background: Due to insufficient data, therapy for unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPAC) is based on trials in metastatic disease, and outcomes remain poor. TTFields disrupt cancer cell division using alternating low-frequency electric fields delivered externally by a portable device. In the phase 3 PANOVA-3 trial (NCT03377491), TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GnP) significantly improved overall survival (OS; HR 0.82) and pain-free survival (HR 0.74) vs GnP in patients with unresectable LAPAC. Methods: In PANOVA-3, patients with newly diagnosed LAPAC were randomized 1:1 to receive GnP with or without concomitant TTFields. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used for time-to-event analyses. Response evaluations were based on RECIST V1.1. OS, pain-free survival, and safety were analyzed post-hoc in subgroups based on sex (male, female), age ( < 65, ≥65 years), and BMI (<25, ≥25 kg/m 2 for efficacy; ≤20, 20–25, 25–30, ≥30 kg/m 2 for safety). Differences between treatment arms were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Efficacy outcomes are shown in the table. TTFields significantly extended pain-free survival in females and patients ≥65 years. Device-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable between sexes, older and younger patients, and across BMI ranges. Some device-related skin adverse events occurred more frequently in females (e.g. dermatitis, 33.1% vs 22.7%; rash 21.8% vs 13.5%, females vs males, respectively); others occurred more often in males (e.g. maculo-papular rash, 9.8% vs 14.2%; erythema, 9% vs 12.1%, females vs males, respectively). Dermatitis and pruritus had a higher incidence in the BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 subgroup (38.5%), whereas patients with BMI <30 kg/m 2 did not show noticeable differences in device-related AEs. Skin irritation (11.5% vs 5.5%) and skin reactions (8.5% vs 2.8%) were more common in patients ≥65 years than patients <65 years. Conclusions: Median OS and pain-free survival in these post-hoc subgroup analyses are generally consistent with the overall analysis, supporting use of TTFields with GnP in unresectable LAPAC. No new safety concerns were noted; observations were consistent with the general PANOVA-3 population. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 . Survival outcomes for the subgroup analyses. Median OS, months TTFields + GnP GnP P value Age<65 years≥65 years 18.6 (n=113)15.4 (n=172) 16.0 (n=114)12.9 (n=172) 0.2060.061 SexFemaleMale 16.8 (n=138)15.7 (n=147) 14.5 (n=161)13.4 (n=125) 0.1140.145 BMI<25≥25 16.7 (n=166)16.2 (n=117) 14.2 (n=174)14.5 (n=108) 0.1550.105 Median pain-free survival, months Age<65 years≥65 years 16.5 (n=113)13.1 (n=172) 9.2 (n=114)8.3 (n=172) 0.4070.035 SexFemaleMale 16.5 (n=138)15.2 (n=147) 8.3 (n=161)9.3 (n=125) 0.0260.478 BMI<25≥25 16.6 (n=166)14.7 (n=117) 9.1 (n=174)8.3 (n=108) 0.1170.088

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.

Abstract GBM AGILE(NCT03970447) is a phase 2/3 Bayesian adaptive registration platform trial testing multiple therapies against a common control. Paxalisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, is the 3rd arm in the trial to conclude evaluation. METHODS Paxalisib was open to patients with newly diagnosed unmethylated (NDU) and recurrent (RD) glioblastoma, with three possible signatures: NDU, RD, and All(NDU+RD). Arm enrollment occurred Dec2020 through May2022. Control patients were enrolled from study initiation (July2019) and were treated with temozolomide(NDU) or lomustine(RD). GBM AGILE investigational arms have 1 or 2 stages, with adaptive randomization in stage 1 and fixed randomization if arms continue to stage 2. Efficacy is based on OS hazard ratio(HR) of Arm/Control. Efficacy goal is final Bayesian probability ≥ 98% for HR&lt;1.00 in combined Stages. An Arm continues to Stage 2 if Bayesian predictive power (PP) ≥ 0.8. An Arm stops accruing in Stage 1 if it reaches maximal sample size(N) or does not meet a minimum efficacy threshold (PP&lt;0.25 for all signatures when N&gt;50). Clinical cut-off is 12 months after accrual stops. The maximum N for paxalisib was approximately 150(Stage 1) and 50(Stage 2). RESULTS After paxalisib reached &gt;150 patients in Stage 1, accrual stopped [Paxalisib/control N 54/75(NDU), 100/188(RD)]. Neither PP thresholds for moving to Stage 2 nor stopping for minimum efficacy were met. Following an unplanned public disclosure that the arm did not continue to stage 2, clinical cut-off for final analysis (planned May2023) was updated to public disclosure date (August2022). At final analysis mean HRs were 0.89(NDU), 1.25(RD), 1.05(All), probabilities of HR&lt;1.00 of 0.72(NDU), 0.076(RD), 0.398(All). Model estimated median OS paxalisib/control (months) were 14.77/13.84(NDU) and 8.58/10.06(RD). CONCLUSION Paxalisib did not show survival benefit over cumulative control in final primary analysis; additional secondary analyses are being considered. GBM AGILE continues to rapidly and efficiently assess therapies in ND and RD glioblastoma.