Dasari, Arvind

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

3579 Background: Fruquintinib (F) is a highly selective, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of all 3 VEGF receptors. Based on FRESCO (NCT02314819) and FRESCO-2 (NCT04322539) data, F was approved by the US FDA for previously treatedmetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Efficacy and safety of F + best supportive care (BSC) vs placebo (P) + BSC were analyzed according to prior treatment (tx) sequence using FRESCO and FRESCO-2 data. Methods: In FRESCO and FRESCO-2, patients (pts) were randomized 2:1 to receive F 5 mg or matching P, PO daily x 21 days every 28 days. In FRESCO, eligible pts had received ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens and were permitted to have received prior anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR therapies, whereas in FRESCO-2, in addition to standard chemotherapies, anti-VEGF, and anti-EGFR therapies if indicated, prior exposure to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS) and/or regorafenib (rego) was required. FRESCO-2 pts must have also received a BRAF inhibitor and/or immunotherapy, if indicated and available in their country. Results: In FRESCO (F n=278 vs P n=138), no pts had received rego and 16/416 pts (4%) had received TAS. InFRESCO-2, prior therapies were balanced between F vs P arms; pts had received prior TAS or rego in these sequences: prior TAS only (n=240 vs n=121); prior rego only (n=40 vs n=18); prior rego then TAS (n=84 vs n=45); prior TAS then rego (n=95 vs n=44). Improvements in OS and PFS were seen with F vs P regardless of prior tx sequence (Table), with similar magnitudes of benefit for OS (HRs 0.53–0.77) and PFS (HRs 0.25–0.37). F safety profile was consistent regardless of prior tx sequence (Table). Conclusions: F is effective in mCRC with a manageable safety profile regardless of prior TAS or rego tx and sequence. Improvement with F was similar for OS and PFS despite the number and sequence of prior regimens. F provides a new tx option for pts with previously treated mCRC regardless of prior TAS or rego exposure. Clinical trial information: NCT04322539 . [Table: see text]

TPS3641 Background: Currently, there are no biomarkers validated prospectively in randomized studies for resected colon cancer (CC) to determine need for adjuvant chemotherapy (AC). However, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) represents a highly specific and sensitive approach (especially with serial monitoring) for identifying minimal/molecular residual disease (MRD) post-surgery in CC patients (pts), and may outperform traditional clinical and pathological features in prognosticating risk for recurrence. CC pts who do not have detectable ctDNA (ctDNA-) are at a much lower risk of recurrence and may be spared the toxicities associated with AC. Furthermore, for CC pts with detectable ctDNA (ctDNA+) who are at a very high risk of recurrence, the optimal AC regimen has not been established. We hypothesize that for pts whose CC has been resected, ctDNA status may be used to risk-stratify for making decisions about AC. Methods: In this prospective phase II/III trial, up to 1,912 pts with resected stage IIB, IIC, and III CC will be enrolled. Based on the post-operative ctDNA status using personalized and tumor-informed assay (Signatera, bespoke assay), those who are ctDNA- (Cohort A) will be randomized to immediate AC with fluoropyrimidine (FP)+oxaliplatin (Ox) for 3-6 mos per established guidelines vserial ctDNA monitoring. Patients who are ctDNA+ post-operatively, or with serial monitoring (Cohort B), will be randomized to FP+Ox v more intensive AC with addition of irinotecan (I) for 6 mos. One cycle of chemotherapy is allowed while awaiting ctDNA testing results for cohort assignment. The primary endpoints for Cohort A are time to ctDNA+ status (phase II) and disease-free survival (DFS) (phase III) in the immediate v delayed AC arms. The primary endpoint for Cohort B is DFS in the FP+Ox v FP+Ox+I arms for both phase II and phase III portions of the trial. Secondary endpoints include prevalence of detectable ctDNA post-operatively, time-to-event outcomes (overall survival and time to recurrence) by ctDNA status, and the assessment of compliance to adjuvant therapy. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, as well as post-operative plus serial matched/normal blood samples, will be collected for exploratory correlative research. Active enrollment across the NCTN started in June 2022 with CCTG sites joining in August 2023. Current accrual (as of 02-02-2024) is 240/1,912. NCT05174169. Support: U10-CA-180868, -180822; UG1CA-189867; Natera, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05174169 .

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for all cancer sites, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP‐NETs), is meant to be dynamic, requiring periodic updates to optimize AJCC staging definitions. This entails the collaboration of experts charged with evaluating new evidence that supports changes to each staging system. GEP‐NETs are the second most prevalent neoplasm of gastrointestinal origin after colorectal cancer. Since publication of the AJCC eighth edition, the World Health Organization has updated the classification and separates grade 3 GEP‐NETs from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. In addition, because of major advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for GEP‐NETs, AJCC version 9 advocates against the use of serum chromogranin A for the diagnosis and monitoring of GEP‐NETs. Furthermore, AJCC version 9 recognizes the increasing role of endoscopy and endoscopic resection in the diagnosis and management of NETs, particularly in the stomach, duodenum, and colorectum. Finally, T1NXM0 has been added to stage I in these disease sites as well as in the appendix.

PURPOSE To develop recommendations for systemic therapy for well-differentiated grade 1 (G1) to grade 3 (G3) metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS Eight randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. RECOMMENDATIONS Somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are recommended as first-line systemic therapy for most patients with G1-grade 2 (G2) metastatic well-differentiated GI-NETs. Observation is an option for patients with low-volume or slow-growing disease without symptoms. After progression on SSAs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is recommended as systematic therapy for patients with somatostatin receptor (SSTR)–positive tumors. Everolimus is an alternative second-line therapy, particularly in nonfunctioning NETs and patients with SSTR-negative tumors. SSAs are standard first-line therapy for SSTR-positive pancreatic (pan)NETs. Rarely, observation may be appropriate for asymptomatic patients until progression. Second-line systemic options for panNETs include PRRT (for SSTR-positive tumors), cytotoxic chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. For SSTR-negative tumors, first-line therapy options are chemotherapy, everolimus, or sunitinib. There are insufficient data to recommend particular sequencing of therapies. Patients with G1-G2 high-volume disease, relatively high Ki-67 index, and/or symptoms related to tumor growth may benefit from early cytotoxic chemotherapy. For G3 GEP-NETs, systemic options for G1-G2 may be considered, although cytotoxic chemotherapy is likely the most effective option for patients with tumor-related symptoms, and SSAs are relatively ineffective. Qualifying statements are provided to assist with treatment choice. Multidisciplinary team management is recommended, along with shared decision making with patients, incorporating their values and preferences, potential benefits and harms, and other characteristics and circumstances, such as comorbidities, performance status, geographic location, and access to care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

TPS3640 Background: Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients (pts) with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated it as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and pt groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation and improve quality of life for pts. Methods: In this Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology randomized phase II trial (1:1), up to 312 pts with microsatellite stable LARC, clinical stage T4N0, any T, N+ or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N+ vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Pts will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long course CRT (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (w) + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Pts will undergo assessment 8-12 w post-TNT completion for the primary endpoint of cCR per previously validated criteria and recommended WW and surveillance if cCR is achieved or TME if an incomplete response is noted. Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (disease-free and overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse effects. Statistical power, based on cCR, incorporates a one-sided alpha = 0.048 and power = 90% yielding 312 patients (156 per arm). Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, matched / normal blood samples and serial rectal MRI will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and is actively recruiting. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG); Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163 Clinical trial information: NCT05610163 .

High-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms are a rare disease entity and account for approximately 10% of all neuroendocrine neoplasms. Because of their rarity, there is an overall lack of prospectively collected data available to advise practitioners as to how best to manage these patients. As a result, best practices are largely based on expert opinion. Recently, a distinction was made between well-differentiated high-grade (G3) neuroendocrine tumors and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, and with this, pathologic details, appropriate imaging practices and treatment have become more complex. In an effort to provide practitioners with the best guidance for the management of patients with high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, and gynecologic system, the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society convened a panel of experts to develop a set of recommendations and a treatment algorithm that may be used by practitioners for the care of these patients. Here, we provide consensus recommendations from the panel on pathology, imaging practices, management of localized disease, management of metastatic disease and surveillance and draw key distinctions as to the approach that should be utilized in patients with well-differentiated G3 neuroendocrine tumors vs poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas.

93 Background: Fruquintinib (F) is a highly selective, novel, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR) -1, -2, and -3. The phase (Ph) 3 FRESCO study (NCT02314819) that investigated F (5mg daily, 3 weeks (wks) on 1 wk off) showed improved median overall survival in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in third line and beyond when compared to placebo (9.3 vs. 6.6 months); hazard ratio 0.65 (P < 0.001) and led to its approval in China. Methods: This is an ongoing Ph 1/1b open-label, dose escalation/expansion study conducted in the US. Here we present the preliminary safety and antitumor efficacy data from pts with refractory mCRC in Cohort (Coh) B (progressed on all standard therapies including TAS-102 [TAS] and/or regorafenib [R]) and in Coh C (did not receive TAS or R). Results: As of data cutoff on 27 July 2021, 81 mCRC pts had been treated (41 in Coh B and 40 in Coh C); median age of 57 years (range: 34─77), Caucasian (81.5%), female (44.4%), and ECOG PS 1 (59.3%). In Coh B, the median number of prior therapies was 5 (range: 3-9), 8 pts (19.5%) received R, 19 (46.3%) received TAS and 14 (34.1%) received both R and TAS. In Coh C, the median number of prior therapies was 4 (range: 1-10). Five pts remain on treatment; reasons for treatment discontinuation included: 56 pts (69.1%) due to progressive disease or death, 8 pts (9.9%) due to adverse events (AE), and 12 pts (14.8%) due to withdrawal of consent or physician decision. The median duration of F treatment was 4.4 months (range: 0.7– 20.0) in Coh B and 3.7 months (range: 0.02-14.3) in Coh C. The most frequently reported AEs of any grade in Coh B were fatigue (53.7%), proteinuria (51.2%), and hypertension (HTN; 48.8%). In Coh C the most frequently reported AEs of any grade were HTN (75.0%), proteinuria (40.0%), and myalgia (32.5%). Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was reported in 29.3% of Coh B pts and 22.5% of Coh C pts. The disease control rate [DCR] was 68.3% in Coh B (1 partial response [PR] and 27 stable disease [SD]) and 59.5% for the 37 patients with at least one post-baseline tumor assessment in Coh C (2 PRs and 20 SDs). Conclusions: F is generally well-tolerated in heavily-pretreated pts with refractory mCRC. Evidence of antitumor activity was observed in cohorts B and C. The multi-cohort dose expansion is ongoing. F is being further investigated in refractory mCRC in a global Ph 3 study (NCT04322539). Clinical trial information: NCT03251378.

Background: The incidence and prevalence of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rapidly rising. Epidemiologic trends have been reported for common NENs, but specific data for lung NENs are lacking. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Associated population data were utilized to report the annual age-adjusted incidence and overall survival (OS) trends. Trends for large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) and atypical carcinoid (AC) were reported from 2000–2015, while those for typical carcinoid (TC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were reported from 1988–2015. Results: We examined a total of 124,969 lung NENs [103,890—SCLC; 3303—LCNEC; 8146—TC; 656—AC; 8974—Other]. The age-adjusted incidence rate revealed a decline in SCLC from 8.6 in 1988 to 5.3 in 2015 per 100,000; while other NENs showed an increase: TC increased from 0.57 in 1988 to 0.77 in 2015, AC increased from 0.17 in 2001 to 0.22 in 2015, and LCNEC increased from 0.16 in 2000 to 0.41 in 2015. The 5-year OS rate among SCLC, LCNEC, AC, and TC patients was 5%, 17%, 64%, and 84%, respectively. On multivariable analyses, OS and disease-specific survival (DSS) varied significantly by stage, sex, histological type, insurance type, marital status, and race, with a better survival noted in earlier stages, females, married, insured, Hispanic and other races, and urban population. Similarly, TC and AC had better survival compared to SCLC and LCNEC. Conclusion: The incidence of lung NENs is rising, possibly in part because of advanced radiological techniques. However, the incidence of SCLCs is waning, likely because of declining smoking habits. Such population-based studies are essential for resource allocation and to prioritize future research directions.