Ioannidis, Sonia

LBA7000 Background: ~40% of DLBCL pts are not cured with first-line (1L) R-CHOP, underscoring a significant unmet need for more effective 1L regimens. Tafa (anti-CD19 mAb) + Len-R-CHOP in the phase 1b First-MIND study demonstrated safety and efficacy in pts with newly diagnosed disease. frontMIND, a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, compared Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP in pts with high-risk aggressive BCLs. Methods: Pts aged 18–80 y with newly diagnosed, high-intermediate/high-risk DLBCL or HGBL (IPI 3–5, aaIPI 2–3 if ≤60 y) and ECOG PS 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP or R-CHOP. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included: EFS, OS, CR, ORR, safety. Results: At primary analysis (data cutoff Oct 20, 2025), 899 pts were randomized to Tafa-Len-R-CHOP (n=448) or R-CHOP (n=451); baseline characteristics were similar between arms. With a median follow-up of 35.2 mo, Tafa-Len-R-CHOP achieved a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs R-CHOP (HR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.96]; P =0.019) in the overall population; in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes (n=773), PFS HR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.88) and 24-mo PFS was 72.7% vs 62.2%. PFS benefit was observed with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP in both molecular COO subtypes, ABC and GCB (data will be presented). Tafa-Len-R-CHOP significantly improved EFS vs R-CHOP; CR and ORR were similar between arms and HR for OS was 0.85 (final OS planned at 5y) (Table). Any-grade TEAEs were similar in treatment arms (98.6% vs 97.1%); more grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (86.7% vs 76.1%). Discontinuations due to TEAEs occurred in 25.7% vs 17.9% and deaths due to TEAEs in 5.9% vs 3.8% of pts for Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP. Overall, there were fewer deaths with Tafa-Len-R-CHOP vs R-CHOP (18.5% vs 21.7%). Conclusions: The primary endpoint of frontMIND was met; Tafa-Len-R-CHOP resulted in a significant 25% reduction in risk of disease progression or death compared with R-CHOP, with an 8.2% difference in 24-month PFS rate in the overall population and 10.5% difference in pts with centrally confirmed lymphoma subtypes. TEAEs were manageable and consistent with the expected safety profile. Tafa-Len-R-CHOP represents a potential new 1L standard of care for pts with both COO subtypes of high-risk DLBCL or HGBL. Clinical trial information: NCT04824092 . Efficacy outcomes by treatment arm.* Variable Tafa-Len-R-CHOP(n=448) R-CHOP(n=451) HR or OR(95% CI) P value PFS, # events (%) † 121 (27.0) 155 (34.4) 0.75 (0.59, 0.96) 0.019 PFS rate at 24 mo, % 71.1 62.9 − − PFS rate at 36 mo, % 67.3 60.7 − − EFS, # events (%) 154 (34.4) 191 (42.4) 0.79 (0.64, 0.97) 0.026 OS, # events (%) 82 (18.3) 95 (21.1) 0.85 (0.63, 1.14) 0.270 CR at EOT, n (%) 292 (65.2) 294 (65.2) 0.998 (0.76, 1.31) 0.987 ‡ ORR at EOT, n (%) 360 (80.4) 343 (76.1) 1.290 (0.94, 1.78) 0.120 ‡ *Investigator-assessed. † Progressive disease or death from any cause. ‡ Nominal P value.

PURPOSE Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare cancer associated with poor prognosis. Pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved for second-line therapy and beyond, on the basis of the phase II FIGHT-202 trial. Here, we assess efficacy and safety of first-line pemigatinib. METHODS FIGHT-302 is a phase III, randomized, global trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03656536 ). Adults with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily) or chemotherapy (1,000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine plus 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin once per day on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle for ≤8 cycles) and were stratified by prior receipt of chemotherapy, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for patients progressing on chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. RESULTS Overall, 4,563 patients were prescreened, 196 were screened, and 167 randomly assigned to receive pemigatinib (n = 83) or chemotherapy (n = 84) before early closure of the study because of a change in standard of care. The median PFS was 8.3 months in the pemigatinib group versus 6.8 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87]; nominal P = .0078); objective response rate was 47% versus 15%, and the median duration of response was 14.2 versus 6.3 months. Median overall survival was similar (24.4 v 25.0 months, respectively). In the crossover group (n = 42, second-line pemigatinib), the median PFS was 8.1 months. Safety was consistent with the known profile of pemigatinib. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this was the largest, first-line, randomized, phase III trial of a targeted therapy for advanced FGFR2- rearranged cholangiocarcinoma. Pemigatinib demonstrated prolonged median PFS compared with chemotherapy, with no new safety findings.

4017 Background: First-line mCCA treatment is chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Based on the phase 2 FIGHT-202 trial, pemigatinib was the first FGFR1-3 inhibitor approved in second line and beyond for mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement. Results from the phase 3, randomized, global FIGHT-302 trial evaluating pemigatinib as first-line therapy are reported here (NCT03656536). Methods: Patients (pts) aged ≥18 y with previously untreated mCCA with FGFR2 rearrangement were randomized 1:1 to receive oral pemigatinib (13.5 mg once daily q21) or intravenous chemotherapy (1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine + 25 mg/m 2 cisplatin d1,8 q21 ≤8 cycles) stratified by previous receipt of 1 chemotherapy cycle, geographic region, and tumor burden. Pemigatinib crossover was allowed for control arm pts progressing on chemotherapy. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy, safety, and exploratory end points were also analyzed. Results: After prescreening >4000 pts, only 196 had FGFR2 rearrangement and were screened; 167 were randomized to receive pemigatinib (n=83) or chemotherapy (n=84) before closing the study early due to slow accrual. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between arms. Median PFS (mPFS) with pemigatinib versus chemotherapy was 8.3 versus 6.8 mo, respectively (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.58 [0.39-0.87]; nominal P =.0078); secondary efficacy endpoints generally supported primary results (Table). Median OS was similar, although these results are confounded by FGFR inhibitor administration as second-line treatment. In the crossover group (n=42, second-line pemigatinib), mPFS was 8.1 mo. Safety was consistent with previous results (Table). Exploratory analyses of genetic co-alterations associated with treatment response will be presented. Conclusions: FIGHT-302 was the first phase 3 trial of a targeted therapy for untreated mCCA. Pemigatinb demonstrated superior activity and prolonged mPFS compared with first-line chemotherapy. The results confirm the current management paradigm of pemigatinib administration after disease progression on chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03656536 . Pemigatinib Gemcitabine + cisplatin mPFS (95% CI), mo a 8.3 (6.5-12.2) 6.8 (6.1-8.3) Objective response rate, n/N (%) a 39/83 (47) 13/84 (15.5) Median duration of response (95% CI), mo a 14.2 (8.7-24.7) 6.3 (4.3-not estimable) Median overall survival (95% CI) a,b , mo 24.4 (18.6-35.9) 25.0 (18.7-34.2) Treatment related TEAEs, n/N c (%) 80/83 (96) 70/73 (96) Serious TEAEs, n/N (%) c,d 23/83 (28) 17/73 (23) Grade ≥3 TEAEs, n/N (%) c 65/83 (78) 49/73 (67) TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation, n/N (%) c 5/83 (6) 8/73 (11) Fatal TEAE, n/N (%) c,d 3/83 (4) 0 a All randomized pts. b Interpretation limited by second-line treatment with FGFR inhibitor in gemcitabine + cisplatin arm. c Pts who received ≥1 study dose. d None deemed treatment related.