Turpin, Anthony

3569 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a standard treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability (MSI). However, around 50% of patients develop resistance to ICIs, during treatment or after discontinuation. In these patients, the efficacy of reuse an ICI in patients progressing during a previous ICI (rechallenge), or in patients who progressed after discontinuation (reintroduction), remains unknown. The INFLATE study evaluates the efficacy of ICI reuse in patients who progressed on or after discontinuing ICI. Methods: This is a multicenter international retrospective study from the IMMUNODIG cohort, including patients from 34 centers in France, the United States, Italy, Belgium and Spain. All patients received ICI for dMMR/MSI GI cancer. We analyzed patients who had progressed following initial ICI (ICI-1) and subsequently received a rechallenge or a reintroduction with ICI (ICI-2), either monotherapy (mono-ICI) or biotherapy (bi-ICI). Results: A total of 77 patients were included, receiving bi-ICI (N = 34) or mono-ICI (N = 43) during ICI-2. The majority (76%) had a metastatic colorectal cancer. The reason for discontinuing ICI-1 was disease progression in 53% of cases, end of treatment in 15%, toxicity in 5% and other reasons in 26%. Patients who discontinued ICI-1 due to progression received MONO-ICI-2 in 29% of cases and BI-ICI-2 in 71%, whereas those who stopped for other reasons received MONO-ICI-2 in 86% and BI-ICI-2 in 14% of cases. Efficacy results are shown in Table 1. The ORR and DCR were 26% and 79% with MONO-ICI-2, and 16% and 71% with BI-ICI-2. Among patients who discontinued ICI-1 due to progression, BI-ICI-2 (N = 29) achieved an ORR and DCR of 8% and 65%, with a median PFS of 5.5 months (95%CI 4.07-10.4). These outcomes were 17%, 67%, and 3.7 months (95%CI 2.37-NA), respectively, with MONO-ICI-2 (N = 12). For patients who discontinued ICI-1 for reasons other than progression, BI-ICI-2 (N = 5) achieved an ORR and DCR of 60% and 100%, with a median PFS not reached (95%CI 11.5-NR), while MONO-ICI-2 (N = 31) achieved 29%, 82%, and 14.2 months (95%CI 11.2–NR), respectively. Conclusions: This is the first multicenter real-world study evaluating ICI reuse in dMMR/MSI GI cancers. In patients who discontinued ICI for reasons other than progression, reintroduction of ICI therapy upon progression achieves tumor control in 85% of cases. In cases of progression on mono-ICI, Bi-ICI re-challenge achieve tumor control in two-thirds of cases and might be to consider in some patients. ORR % DCR % PFS median (95%CI) OS median (95%CI) Overall N=77 21 76 7.65 months(5.5–11.5) 27.6 months(22.2–55.7) Discontinued ICI-1 due to Progression N=41 11 68 5.03 months(3.7–8.05) 26.7 months(21.1–NR) Discontinued ICI-1 for Other Reasons N=36 33 85 14.22 months(11.24–NR) 27.6 months(22.2–NR)

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.