Berlin, Jordan D.

Objectives: Cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) is an uncommon malignancy accounting for <5% of all esophageal carcinomas. Treatment of CEC varies and is adapted from established regimens used for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or the lower esophageal and head and neck. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision making for patients with CEC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design (PICOTS) framework, the evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II to III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2013 and February 23, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed through the American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. A systematic review PRISMA 2020 checklist confirmed the completion of essential elements. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) larynx preservation using endoscopic resection (EMR or ESD) alone for the typical case with pT1a cN0 cM0 CEC, (2) definitive CRT for the typical case with cT1bN0M0 in patients who cannot undergo endoscopic resection, (3) larynx-preserving using definitive CRT (with or without induction chemotherapy) for the typical case with nonmetastatic locally advanced CEC (advanced T-stage tumors or involved lymph nodes), with surgery reserved for those patients with incomplete response or locoregional recurrence. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the management of SCC of the cervical esophagus provides based on available evidence. Topics that warrant further investigation include optimization of (1) patient selection; (2) multimodality therapies including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents; (3) radiation dose, schedule, and treatment volume; and (4) supportive care for patients with CEC. Ongoing trials continue to improve outcomes for patients with CEC.

3077 Background: ATR protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA defects in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor irinotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in SCLC and GI cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This phase Ia trial assessed elimusertib in combination with irinotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom irinotecan can be considered standard care. Patients with previous irinotecan exposure were excluded. Two dosing schedules were used: 1) Biweekly - irinotecan IV (starting at 150 mg/m2) D1 + elimusertib (starting dose 20 mg PO BID) D1,D2 (cycle=14 days); 2) Weekly - irinotecan (starting at 50 mg/m2) IV on D1,8,15 with elimusertib (starting at 20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3,D9,D10 and D16,D17 (cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity. Results: A total of 21 patients were enrolled in dose escalation (N=9 [Biweekly] and N=12 [Weekly], median age 58 and 2 lines of prior therapy. For the Biweekly cohort: 3/3 patients enrolled at dose level (DL) 1 experienced hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); 6 patients received DL-1 without any DLTs. The weekly regimen escalation comprised of 12 patients: 6 enrolled in DL1 with 2/6 having hematologic DLT and 5/6 unable to complete ≥75% of cycle 1 dosing; 6 enrolled in DL-1 with no DLTs observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized (Table 1). The majority of evaluable patients in both schedules had initial disease control (56% [biweekly] and 67% [weekly]). One confirmed partial response was seen in the biweekly RP2D. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 mo [biweekly] and 2.5 mo [weekly]. PK results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: Both RP2D and MTD of elimusertib in combination with irinotecan were reached for both dosing schedules: irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV D1 + elimusertib 10 mg BID PO D1,D2 (biweekly) and irinotecan 25 mg/m2 IV on D1 + elimusertib (20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3 (weekly). Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansion but the concept of ATR + topo I combination remains scientifically relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

3076 Background: Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA abnormalities in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor topotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY 1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in small cell lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This is phase Ia study of elimusertib combined with topotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom topotecan can be considered as part of standard care. Patients with previous topotecan exposure were excluded. The study combination was assessed starting at Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV (D1-D5) plus elimusertib 20 mg BID (D2, D5) (Cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity of the combinations. Results: Eight patients were treated in dose escalation. Participants were a median of 63 years old and had received 2 median lines of previous therapy. The initial two patients enrolled into dose level (DL) 1 had dose-limiting toxicities with one of patient experiencing respiratory failure and cardiac arrest in setting of pancytopenia related to study drug. Six patients were subsequently enrolled in and received DL-1 (elimusertib decreased from 20 mg BID to 20 mg Daily) and no DLTs were observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized in Table. Disease control rate was 43% among evaluation patient including one unconfirmed partial response. Median progression-free survival in the RP2D cohort was 3.45 months. PK studies are in process and results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: RP2D and MTD was established for elimusertib in combination with Topotecan: Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV [D1-D5] plus elimusertib 20 mg Daily [D2, D5] every 3 weeks. Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansions cohorts but the concept of ATR + topo I inhibition remains relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

2505 Background: ATRC-101 monoclonal antibody targets tumor-specific ribonucleoprotein complex (RNP) and elicits anti-tumor immunity, innate and adaptive, in preclinical models. Methods: Phase 1b is evaluating ATRC-101 as monotherapy, every 3 (3M) or 2 (2M) weeks (wk), and ATRC-101 in combination with pembrolizumab (3P) in participants (pts) with advanced solid tumors. ATRC-101 target expression is determined by CAP-CLIA IHC assay. For pts described herein, pre-treatment (tx) tumor biopsies were assessed for target expression by IHC retrospectively or prospectively. Enrollment in 3M and 3P is currently open to pts who are target positive (RNP+ve) by IHC with an H-score ≥ 50. Objectives are safety (primary), PK, immunogenicity, recommended dose for expansion, activity by RECIST1.1 and biomarker analyses in pre-tx and on-tx tumors. Results: As of Nov 18th, 2022, 67 pts received ≥1 dose of ATRC-101 (median prior tx 5, range 1-12). Tumor types were colorectal (CRC, 28), ovarian (10), breast (9), melanoma (8), non-small cell lung (NSCLC, 6), head and neck squamous cell (3), urothelial (1), esophageal (1) and small bowel (1). Tx emergent adverse events (TEAEs) Grade ≥3 occurred in 22 (33%) pts and were related to ATRC-101 in 2 (3%). No tx discontinuations or dose reductions related to ATRC-101. RECIST1.1 best overall responses in efficacy evaluable 61 pts included 1 complete response (CR) in RNP+ve melanoma (3P, 10mg/kg), and 1 partial response (PR) in RNP+ve NSCLC (3M, 30mg/kg). Further, disease stabilized (SD) in 24 pts (39%) and 35 pts had disease progression (PD, 57%) with evidence of association between anti-tumor activity and target expression. Of 24 SD, 22 were in monotherapy cohorts and included 9 CRC pts with highly refractory disease. Conclusions: ATRC-101 alone and in combination with pembrolizumab continues to be well tolerated with evidence of anti-tumor activity. Interim data support ongoing enrollment of pts with RNP+ve pre-tx tumors. Updated and new data including durability of disease control will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT04244552 . [Table: see text]

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.

Background This phase I multicenter study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and translational effects on the tumor microenvironment of itacitinib (Janus-associated kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor) in combination with epacadostat (indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) inhibitor) or parsaclisib (phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase δ (PI3Kδ) inhibitor). Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors were enrolled and received itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus epacadostat (50–300 mg two times per day; group A), or itacitinib (100–400 mg once a day) plus parsaclisib or parsaclisib monotherapy (0.3–10 mg once a day; group B). Results A total of 142 patients were enrolled in the study. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached for either the combination of itacitinib plus epacadostat (n=47) or itacitinib plus parsaclisib (n=90). One dose-limiting toxicity of serious, grade 3 aseptic meningitis was reported in a patient receiving itacitinib 300 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 10 mg once a day, which resolved when the study drugs were withdrawn. The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with itacitinib plus epacadostat included fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, and vomiting, and for patients treated with itacitinib plus parsaclisib were fatigue, pyrexia, and diarrhea. In the itacitinib plus epacadostat group, no patient had an objective response. Among patients receiving itacitinib 100 mg once a day plus parsaclisib 0.3 mg once a day, three achieved partial response for an objective response rate (95% CI) of 7.1% (1.50 to 19.48). Treatment with itacitinib plus epacadostat demonstrated some increase in tumor CD8+ T cell infiltration and minor changes in six plasma proteins, whereas treatment with itacitinib plus high-dose parsaclisib resulted in downregulation of 20 plasma proteins mostly involved in immune cell function, with no observed change in intratumoral CD8+ T cell infiltration. Conclusion Adverse events with JAK1 inhibition combined with either IDO1 or PI3Kδ inhibition were manageable, but the combinations demonstrated limited clinical activity or enhancement of immune activation in the tumor microenvironment. Trial registration number NCT02559492.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is highly effective in metastatic mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-D) colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, we evaluated molecular and clinical predictors of ICI response in MMR-D CRC. Materials and Methods Patient databases at four cancer institutions were queried. The Fisher exact test was performed to test the association of clinical and molecular markers. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and compared by the log-rank test. Twelve- and 24-month PFS rates were compared by the Z test. Results A total of 60 patients with CRC with MMR-D/microsatellite instability-high who previously received ICIs were identified. Patients with liver metastasis had a lower overall response rate as compared with other sites of metastasis (36.4% vs. 68.7%; p = .081). Patients with MLH1/PMS2 loss had worse 1-year and 2-year PFS rates compared with patients with MSH2/MSH6 loss (84.2% vs. 57.8% and 78.2% vs. 54.2%, respectively; p &lt; .001). There were improved 1-year and 2-year PFS rates in patients with wild-type BRAF when compared with patients with BRAF V600E mutation (73.3% vs. 40%, and 73.3% vs. 26.7%; respectively; p &lt; .001). Patients aged &gt;65 had significantly worse PFS rates as compared with patients aged ≤65 (p &lt; .001). Conclusion BRAF V600E mutation, MLH1 and/or PMS2 loss, as well as age &gt;65 years and liver metastasis, may be predictive of duration of ICI response in patients with MMR-D CRC. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm our findings. Implications for Practice The results of this study reveal clinically important biomarkers that potentially predict immune checkpoint inhibitor response in patients with mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer.