Cohn, Allen Lee

566 Background: FGFR inhibitors (FGFRi) have an established role in treating FGFR2-altered (alt) cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Tinengotinib, a novel FGFRi, has shown promising activity overcoming acquired resistance to prior FGFRi. We present biomarker analyses evaluating tinengotinib’s ability to overcome prior FGFRi resistance and to elucidate mechanism of resistance to tinengotinib. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg daily across 4 Cohorts: A1: FGFR2 fusion (fus) with primary progressive disease (PD) on prior FGFRi; A2: FGFR2 fus with PD after prior response to FGFRi; B: FGFR alt without FGFR2 fus; C: FGFR wild-type. Efficacy was assessed by RECIST v1.1. All pts underwent liquid biopsy for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at baseline; additional timepoints include cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), time of PD, and end of treatment (EOT). Samples were analyzed using FoundationOne Liquid panel. Results: 27 out of 55 enrolled pts had biomarker samples collected at baseline and C3D1. Among them, pts in A1 (n=10, 107 mutations (mut)), B (n=8, 90 mut) and C (n=5, 74 mut) showed a significant decrease in short variant allele frequencies (VAF) from baseline to C3D1 by a median relative VAF reduction of 100% (p<0.0001) for each of the three cohorts. Although a median relative VAF reduction of 33.3% was seen in A2 (n=4, 15 mut), this was not significant (p=0.6093) likely due to low baseline mutation burden. A ≥50% reduction in ctDNA was associated with improved progression free survival (p<0.0014). Additionally, 100% of median relative reductions in FGFR2 kinase domain (KD) mut were seen in A1 and B (p<0.0001, 95% CI 100-100% and p=0.0156, 95% CI 83.6-100%, respectively), with 92% and 57% clearance of initial FGFR2 KD mut by C3D1. In a subgroup of 10 pts with biomarker sampling at baseline and EOT, 3 pts in A1 with acquired resistance showed emergence of novel FGFR2 mut, loss of FGFR-sensitive mut and new mut in alternate pathways (e.g., AKT, EGFR, RAS/MAPK) while retaining the original FGFR2 fus. 1 pt from B developed resistance due to new FGFR2 rearrangements and FGFR2 mut. 4 FGFR wild-type pts from C developed resistance involving mut in TP53, KRAS, and other oncogenic drivers. Conclusions: These findings provide genomic evidence that tinengotinib may overcome resistance to prior FGFRi treatment in FGFR2 fus-positive CCA, as reflected by significantly reductions in ctDNA VAFs and frequent clearance of FGFR2 KD mutations. The emergence of resistance alterations including de novo FGFR2 mutations and bypass pathways activations indicates acquired resistance that may limit long-term benefit. These results support further investigation with expanded biomarker sampling to better characterize resistance evolution and guide therapy optimization in an ongoing Phase 3 trial. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

608 Background: Tinengotinib, a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR , potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant/gatekeeper mutations in pre-clinical models and exhibited antitumor activity in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) in phase 1/2 trials. Here we present the overall survival (OS) data and biomarker correlative analysis from a phase 2 clinical trial of tinengotinib in CCA. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD across four Cohorts: A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFR i); A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFR i; B: FGFR alteration(s) without FGFR2 fusion(s); C: FGFR wild-type. Efficacy was evaluated per RECIST v1.1 and safety was assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were assessed by Foundation Medicine NGS panel at baseline, C3D1 and EOT. Planned correlative analyses of response (PR+SD>6 months) and PFS in pt subgroups based on ctDNA mutational status were performed. Results: 55 eligible pts were enrolled (18 in A1, 11 in A2, 13 in B, 13 in C) with median age 61.0 [range 24-81] years, ECOG PS 0 in 50.9% pts, 56.4% female, and 60.0% with ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. Among 42 pts with FGFR alterations, 78.4% had ≥ 1 prior FGFR i, and 97.6% had prior chemotherapy. Median follow up time was 8.6 months (0.4-30.5). The median OS (months) was 17.1 (95%CI 7.5-19.5) in A1; not reached (95%CI 9.6, -) in A2; 18.0 (95%CI 9.6, -) in A1+A2; not reached (95%CI 8.0, -) in B; 6.5 (95%CI 4.8-16.4) in C. The OS rate in A, B and C was 100%, 91.7% and 75% at month 3; 83.7%, 83.3% and 66.7% at month 6, and 65.8%, 55.6% and 23.8% at month 12. Partial response was observed in 26% (10/39) of evaluable FGFR-altered pts (A1+A2+B). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were hypertension (63.6%) and diarrhea (47.3%). Baseline ctDNA results were available in 46 pts, 35 in cohorts A+B and 11 in C. A positive correlation was shown in MED12 mutation vs response (P=0.03476). BCOR and ARID1A mutation were found to be negatively associated with PFS (P=0.01366 and P=0.0437). Acquired/secondary mutations at baseline were observed in cohort A, including V564F/I (3/24 and 5/24) and N549K/H (5/24 and 5/24); favorable anti-tumor activity was noted despite these resistant mutations, consistent with preclinical data. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has shown promising anti-tumor efficacy in CCA pts with FGFR fusion after prior FGFR i and in those with primary FGFR mutations. An ongoing randomized phase III study will investigate tinengotinib vs. chemotherapy in FGFR inhibitor refractory CCA (NCT05948475). Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

Background Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). Methods CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. Results From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. Trial registration number NCT03414983 .

434 Background: Tinengotinib is a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR, potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant mutations in pre-clinical models and in phase I trials that included cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts). Here we present the efficacy and safety of tinengotinib in a phase II clinical trial. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy therapy and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD. Four cohorts included: Cohort A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFRi), A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFRi (acquired resistance); B: non-fusion FGFR alteration(s): C: FGFR wild-type ( FGFRwt). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. CTCAE V5.0 was used for safety assessments. Results: As of 7Aug2023, 48 pts with CCA were enrolled, 13 in Cohort A1, 10 in A2, 12 in B, 13 in C. Median age 61.5 [range 25-81] years old, 41.7% male, 58.3% had ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. ECOG PS 0 in 47.9% pts. Among 35 pts with FGFR alterations, 80.0% had ≥ 1 prior FGFRi therapy, and 97.1% had prior chemotherapy. Forty (40) pts were efficacy evaluable. In A1, 1 out of 11 pts (9.1%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 31.8%. In A2, 3 out of 8 pts (37.5%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 40.7%, 47.0% and 54.6%. In B, 3 out of 9 pts (33.3%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 36.5%, 48.6%, and 60.6%. No PR was observed in C. Overall DCR was 94.7% (18/19) in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement pts (A1+A2), 88.9% (8/9) in other FGFR alterations pts (B), and 75% (9/12) in FGFRwt pts (C). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.26 months (95%CI, 2.86-9.10) in A1+A2, 5.98 months (95%CI, 1.87-NA) in B and 3.84 months (95% CI, 1.84-4.80) in C. Among 48 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 45 (93.8%) pts, 14 (29.2%) in G1-2, 29 (60.4%) in G3 and 2 (4.2%) in G4. The most common G3 TRAEs were hypertension in 12 (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 3 (6.3%), diarrhea in 3 (6.3%) and stomatitis in 3 (6.3%). One subject had G4 increased TSH and G4 increased lipase, and another subject had G4 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. No G5 TRAE was observed. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has promising clinical benefit for FGFR2 fusion CCA after prior FGFRi and for non-fusion FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib-related toxicities were manageable. An ongoing randomized, controlled phase III study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic effect of Tinengotinib vs Physicians’ choice in subjects with FGFR2-altered refractory/relapsed CCA after prior chemotherapy and FGFRi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

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.

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test as a complement to existing screening tests could increase the number of cancer cases detected in a population, potentially improving patient outcomes and survival as well as decreasing harmful and aggressive treatments. The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978) was designed to develop and validate a blood-based MCED test analyzing plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to detect cancer signals across multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict their signal origin. Here, the results of the third and final pre-specified CCGA validation sub-study for a refined MCED test in a large cohort in preparation for clinical use are reported. Methods: CCGA is a prospective, multicenter, case-control, observational study with longitudinal follow-up (overall population N=15,254). In this sub-study (n=5309), key primary objectives were to evaluate test performance for cancer signal detection (specificity, overall sensitivity, sensitivity by clinical stage) and signal origin prediction (accuracy). cfDNA from evaluable samples was analyzed using a targeted methylation bisulfite sequencing assay and a machine learning algorithm. The classifier was trained to target a specificity of 99.4% and locked before analysis of the independent validation set. Overall, 4077 participants comprised the independent validation set with confirmed status (cancer: n=2823; non-cancer: n=1254 with non-cancer status confirmed at year-one follow-up). MCED test results are reported for this confirmed status set. Results: Mean (SD) age in the cancer and non-cancer groups was 62.6 (11.76) and 56.2 (12.63) years, respectively. Specificity for cancer signal detection was 99.5% (1248/1254; 95% confidence interval: 99.0-99.8%). Overall sensitivity for cancer signal detection was 51.5% (1453/2823; 49.6-53.3%); sensitivity increased with stage (Stage I: 16.8% [14.5-19.5%], Stage II: 40.4% [36.8-44.1%], Stage III: 77.0% [73.4-80.3%], Stage IV: 90.1% [87.5-92.2%]). Stage I-III sensitivity was 67.6% (593/877; 64.4-70.6%) in a pre-specified set of 12 high-signal cancers accounting for ~63% of annual US cancer deaths [1] and was 40.7% (863/2118; 38.7-42.9%) in all cancers. Cancer signals were detected across &gt;50 cancer types [2]. Overall accuracy of signal origin prediction in true positives was 88.7% (87.0-90.2%). Conclusions: In this pre-specified, large-scale, clinical validation sub-study of CCGA, the MCED test detected cancer signals across &gt;50 cancer types, which is critical to maximize the number of cancer cases detected in a population. This MCED test performed with high specificity and high accuracy of signal origin prediction. These data lay the foundation for population-scale clinical implementation of this test. 1.US Mortality Data 1969-2016 (www.seer.cancer.gov); based on 2015-2016. 2.Amin et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:93e99. Citation Format: Eric A. Klein, Donald Richards, Allen Cohn, Mohan Tummala, Rosanna Lapham, David Cosgrove, Gina Chung, Jessica Clement, Jingjing Gao, Nathan Hunkapiller, Arash Jamshidi, Kathryn Kurtzman, Michael V. Seiden, Charles Swanton, Minetta C. Liu. Clinical validation of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB013.

3536 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival when added to standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). BRiTE is a large, community-based observational registry of patients with mCRC receiving BV plus first-line chemotherapy. Safety and efficacy information in unselected patients with mCRC are collected. Chemotherapy regimen choice is at the physician’s discretion. Methods: To facilitate and evaluate enrollment of a typical community-based mCRC population, eligibility criteria were minimized. Cohort demographics were consistent with the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database for mCRC. Patients are followed for up to 3 years, and safety data including targeted BV-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) are updated every 3 months (mo). Results are based on descriptive analyses and are not adjusted for propensity of treatment, baseline characteristics, and treatment effects. Results: 1968 patients were enrolled between Feb 2004 and Jun 2005. Median study follow-up was 10 mo by Nov 4, 2005. SAEs were reported in 12.0% of patients including gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) (1.7%), postoperative bleeding/wound healing complications (1.2%), arterial thromboembolic events (ATE) (2.1%), and grade 3–4 bleeding (1.9%). 3.2% of patients discontinued BV due to a BV-related toxicity, most commonly bleeding. For patients with the respective event(s), median time to first event was 2.1 mo for GIP, 3.5 mo for ATE and 4.0 mo for grade 3–4 bleeding. 8.9% of patients with no history of hypertension (HTN) developed HTN requiring medication and 6.2% of patients who had HTN requiring medication at baseline experienced worsening of their HTN while on study treatment. Conclusions: In this unselected population of patients with mCRC, the safety profile of BV plus various chemotherapy regimens appears consistent with that observed in the pivotal BV trial. Overall discontinuation of BV due to a BV-related toxicity was uncommon. In this large community-based observational registry, no new BV associated safety issues have been identified. [Table: see text]

3535 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival when added to standard chemotherapy in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). BRiTE is a large, community-based observational registry of pts with mCRC receiving BV plus first-line chemotherapy (CT). Incidence rate, temporal pattern, and potential risk factors associated with gastrointestinal perforation (GIP) were explored. Methods: Baseline patient characteristics (BC), including prospectively identified potential risk factors for GIP, were collected at study entry. Safety data were collected every 3 months (mo). Logistic regression models, adjusted and unadjusted for treatment assignment, were used to identify BC potentially associated with GIP. Results: 1968 pts were enrolled between Feb 2004 and Jun 2005. Median study follow-up was 10 mo as of Nov 4, 2005. GIPs were observed in 34 pts (1.7%). For pts with GIP, median time to first event was 2.1 mo; the majority of events were non-fatal and occurred within the first 3 mo after starting BV. BC including GI medical history (chronic aspirin or NSAID use, peptic ulcer disease, diverticulosis) were similar in pts with or without GIP and with earlier or later GIP onset (≤ or >3 mo from start of BV). Although adjusted models did not show any significant BC, GIP rates were numerically higher in pts with primary tumor intact (2.6%) vs. resected (1.6%). Furthermore, univariate analyses revealed a significant difference between intact (2.3%) and resected (0.8%) primary tumor for earlier GIP (≤3 mo from start of BV). The majority of pts with GIP had at least one of the following: acute diverticulitis, intra-abdominal abscess, gastrointestinal obstruction, tumor at GIP site, abdominal carcinomatosis, prior abdominal or pelvic radiation therapy. Conclusions: Preliminary analyses indicate the incidence of GIP in this large, community-based observational registry is similar to that previously reported in phase III mCRC trials with BV. No associations between specific BCs and an increased risk of GIP were identified. Patients with primary tumor intact were more likely to incur a GIP within the first 3 mo of starting BV and CT. [Table: see text]