Gabrail, Nashat

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.

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Introduction BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax (ven) was a major advance in CLL treatment, but the 5-week dose ramp-up to mitigate the risk of tumor lysis syndrome and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) challenge treatment optimization. Lisaftoclax is an investigational, oral BCL-2i with a short half-life, allowing it to be ramped-up on a daily schedule. We present updated results of a phase 1b/2 study of lisaftoclax alone or combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab in pts with treatment-naïve (TN; lisaftoclax-acalabrutinib arm), relapsed/refractory, or prior ven-treated CLL/SLL (NCT04215809). Methods Pts were treated with a rapid 4- to 6-day daily ramp-up of lisaftoclax from 20 mg to a target dose of 400, 600, or 800 mg, receiving daily oral lisaftoclax alone or, plus continuous acalabrutinib or 6 cycles of rituximab in 28-day cycles, starting on Cycle 1 Day 8 (C1D8) until disease progression, complete response by C24, or unacceptable toxicity. Intensive blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) and exposure-response (E-R) analyses. Results From March 20, 2020, to June 27, 2024, 176 pts were enrolled: 46 in monotherapy and 39 and 91 in rituximab and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively; 154/176 (87.5%) were R/R and 22/176 (12.5%) TN. The median (range) age was 63 (34-80) years; 67% were male; 25.6% had del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; and 70.6% had unmutated IGHV. Median (range) duration of treatment with lisaftoclax was 16.5 (1-54; monotherapy), 24 (3-39; rituximab), and 27 (1-43; acalabrutinib) months. In R/R pts, the median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (1-15), and 14 (9%) pts had been treated with ven. Prior ven pts had a median (range) age of 65 (51-78); 79% were male; of evaluable pts, 50% had del(17p), 36% TP53 mut, 64% del(11q), 38% complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 92% unmutated IGHV; 57% were BTKi naïve; and the median (range) number of prior therapies was 3 (1-6). Incidence and severity of TEAEs were similar across cohorts. Common (>10%) any-grade TEAEs in all cohorts combined were neutropenia (59 [33.5%]), diarrhea (38 [21.6%]), anemia (27 [15.3%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [14.8%]). Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were neutropenia in 15 (32.6%), 10 (25.6%), and 22 (24%) pts and anemia in 10 (21.7%), 5 (12.8%), and 12 (13.2%) pts in monotherapy, rituximab, and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively. Comprehensive E-R analyses indicated that lisaftoclax had similar systemic exposure as monotherapy or when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab; lisaftoclax had no DDI when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab. No discontinuations were attributed to lisaftoclax TRAEs. Forty-four (95.7%) pts in monotherapy discontinued treatment. Most discontinuations were due to progressive disease (n = 41 [23.3%]) and 13 (7.4%), AEs; 9 (5.1%) pts withdrew consent; 7 (4%) achieved complete response or MRD negativity after ≥ 24 cycles; 5 (2.8%) died; and 18 (10.2%) discontinued for other reasons. Clinical (n = 2) and laboratory (n = 3) TLS was observed in 5 (2.8%) pts on lisaftoclax (by Howard/Cairo-Bishop criteria), with cases rapidly resolving to resume lisaftoclax safely. ORR for lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib in 87 pts was 96.6%, and the median DOR (95% CI, 23-NR) and median PFS (95% CI, 34-NR) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 89% and 86%, respectively. Fourteen R/R CLL ven-exposed pts received lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib, of whom 9 had progressed on ven, 3 relapsed after completing ven, and 2 discontinued due to ven intolerance. Median (range) duration of treatment was 16 (3-25) months. Safety profile was similar to that of other study cohorts. ORR was 85.7% (12/14), 100% (8/8), and 66.7% (4/6) in the ven-exposed, ven-exposed but BTKi-naïve, and ven- and BTKi-exposed pts, respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 84% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions Our data suggest that lisaftoclax combined with acalabrutinib is effective for pts with prior ven exposure, including those with progression on ven. In this updated analysis with longer follow-up, no DDIs or new safety findings were observed in TN or R/R CLL/SLL pts treated with lisaftoclax monotherapy/combinations. We continue to accrue pts with prior ven exposure to further evaluate this promising signal. A global registrational phase 3 study GLORA (NCT06104566) is recruiting.

3553 Background: Immuno-STATs are modular fusion proteins designed for the selective activation of tumor antigen specific CD8+ T cells. CUE-102, the second Immuno-STAT in clinical trials, is composed of a human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex, HLA-A*0201, a peptide epitope derived from the Wilms Tumor 1 (WT1) protein, and 4 molecules of reduced affinity human interleukin-2 (IL-2). In preclinical studies CUE-102 binds, activates and expands WT1-specific CD8+ T cells with the potential to enhance anti-tumor immunity in patients with WT1+ cancers. Here we present the results of the dose-finding portion (Part A) of the CUE-102-01 study. Methods: CUE-102-01 is a 2 part phase 1 study. HLA-A*02:01 positive patients with WT1+ advanced colorectal (CRC), gastric (GA) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), pancreatic (PDAC) or ovarian (OvCa) tumors refractory to standard therapies were eligible for participation. WT1 status is determined by IHC via central testing. CUE-102 monotherapy was administered intravenously every three weeks in doses ranging from 1 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg following 3+3 design rules with a Bayesian Logistic Regression Model overlay. Dose levels that exhibit an immune or tumor response may be expanded to further characterize activity and toxicity as allowed by safety rules. Results: Dose escalation was successfully completed in 28 patients with CRC (17), PDAC (6), GA/GEJ (3) and OvCa (2). No DLTs were observed. Three dose levels (2, 4 and 8 mg/kg) exhibited evidence of immune activity and were expanded up to 9 patients each for further evaluation. CUE-102 was well-tolerated with > 96% of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) grade ≤2. The most common TRAEs, were fatigue, infusion reactions, nausea and vomiting. There were no cases of CRS Grade ≥ 2. Preliminary PK data demonstrate dose dependent increases in exposure across the dose range assessed. Preliminary analysis of patient samples demonstrates selective expansion of WT1-specific CD8+ T cells. Stable disease of ≥ 6 weeks (range 6-36 weeks), as determined by RECIST 1.1, has been observed in 10 of 23 patients (DCR 43.5%). Conclusions: CUE-102 is a novel T cell engager that demonstrates acceptable tolerability, favorable PK, and supportive preliminary PD readouts. No DLTs or drug-related SAEs have been observed in doses up to 8 mg/kg as of the data cut-off. Adverse events have been manageable and consistent with the CUE-102 mechanism of action and underlying disease. Early signs of disease stabilization and anti-tumor activity in late-stage patients are encouraging. Part B is a dose expansion that further evaluates safety, PK/PD, recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), antitumor efficacy and is currently enrolling patients. Clinical trial information: NCT05360680 .

Background: Oral decitabine/cedazuridine (ASTX727) is a fixed dose combination of decitabine (35 mg) and the cytidine deaminase inhibitor cedazuridine (100 mg) given once daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle producing pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure equivalent to the standard intravenous (IV) decitabine regimen of 20 mg/m 2 daily X 5 days on a 28-day cycle. This was demonstrated in the pivotal ASCERTAIN study (Garcia-Manero, et al, ASH 2019) as it provided a PK bridge to existing decitabine data and demonstrated median OS was 31.7 mo. (Savona,et al. Intl. MDSF International Congress on MDS, 2021). Subjects were initially classified by the International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) for historical reasons, however IPSS-R and IPSS-M are enhancements to IPSS that provide dynamic risk assessment for predicting clinical outcomes in MDS. Here, the objective was to re-classify the MDS subjects enrolled on the ASCERTAIN study by IPSS-R and IPSS-M and measure the impact of informing patient outcomes based on re-calculated risk assessment. Methods: One hundred thirty-three subjects with MDS/CMML (chronic myelomonocytic leukemia) were enrolled in ASCERTAIN and were randomly assigned either IV decitabine for cycle 1 and oral decitabine/cedazuridine for cycle 2 or the opposite treatment sequence. All subjects continuing beyond cycle 2 received oral decitabine/cedazuridine for all subsequent cycles until treatment discontinuation for disease progression, toxicity, patient's decision, or HSCT. Whole blood collected prior to treatment was used for DNA isolation and molecular abnormalities identified using next-generation sequencing (NGS) hematologic malignancy panel of 179 genes including all genes commonly mutated in MDS. In the initial analysis of clinical outcomes, subjects were classified by IPSS with response assessment by IWG 2006 IPSS low and Int-1 risk levels were categorized as lower-risk MDS (LR-MDS), whereas IPSS Int-2 and high-risk categories were categorized as higher-risk MDS (HR-MDS). Subjects with sufficient data based on (e.g., available heme parameters, cytogenetics, NGS etc.) were reclassified by IPSS-R and IPSS-M. Subjects with IPSS-R score of ≤3.5 or IPSS-M of either very low, low, or moderate low were categorized as LR-MDS. Similarly subjects with IPSS-R score of >3.5 or an IPSS-M categorization of either moderate high, high, or very high were categorized as HR-MDS. Reclassified subjects were reassessed for CR (Complete Response), OS, and LFS and Harrell's concordance index (c-index) was used to describe the level of agreement between each scale and outcomes. Results: Based on the available data, the number of MDS subjects in the different risk classifications were the following: IPSS: 117, IPSS-R: 104, and IPSS-M: 105. Thirteen and 12 subjects on the IPSS could not be reclassified in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M, respectively, including 5 Int-1 and 2 low-risk MDS cases. CMML subjects were excluded from these analyses. Re-classification generally resulted in the upgrade of the subjects from LR-MDS to HR-MDS (Fig. 1). Thirty-one (26.5%) subjects from IPSS were reallocated in the IPSS-R to different risk categories; 3 (9.7%) were downgraded and 28 (90.3%) were upgraded. Similarly on reclassification with IPSS-M 34 (32.4%) of the patients reclassified; 5 (14.8%) were downgraded and 29 (85.3%) were upgraded. For IPSS LR-MDS, 23.2% of patients achieved CR, and 22.9% in the IPSS HR-MDS. Similarly, 21.6% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-R LR-MDS, and 23.9% in the IPSS-R HR-MDS; 26.3% patients achieved CR in the IPSS-M LR-MDS, and 20.9% in the IPSS-M HR-MDS. The c-index for the IPSS was .64 (OS) and .67 (LFS), IPSS-R was .70 (OS) and .71 (LFS), and .75 (OS) and .78 (LFS) for the IPSS-M (Table1). Conclusion: Reclassification from IPSS to IPSS-R or IPSS-M upgraded multiple subjects from a LR to a HR category, describing the ASCERTAIN patient population as a majority higher risk population with worse prognosis than previously assumed based on the IPSS. The efficacy as measured by the CR rates did not change when the LR and HR categories were defined by the different risk stratification systems. In contrast, the c-index improves with migration from IPSS to IPSS-R to IPSS-M, indicating an increased discriminatory ability of IPSS-M score in comparison to IPSS and IPSS-R, to predict patient outcomes.