Bekaii‐Saab, Tanios

Abstract Background It is unclear whether results from recent trials of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are generalizable to older patients, who are underrepresented. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of surgery and of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in older patients with resectable PDAC. Patients and Methods We included patients aged ≥65 years with upfront resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained pancreatic cancer registry from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into ages 65–75 and 75+ years. Overall survival (OS) was assessed in treatment comparisons: (A) surgery (n = 636) versus nonsurgical (n = 178), (B) neoadjuvant therapy (n = 139) versus upfront surgery (n = 497), and (C) adjuvant therapy (n = 379) versus surgery alone (n = 118). We compared neoadjuvant (n = 139) versus adjuvant therapy (n = 379) in an exploratory analysis. Results Nine hundred and three patients had a median age of 73.7 (range, 65–96.6) years. Median OS was 26.6 versus 11.9 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.52; p < .001) in Comparison A groups, 30.7 versus 25.8 months (HRadj, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.96; p = .03) in Comparison B groups, and 26.9 versus 17.4 months (HRadj, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88; p = .008) in Comparison C groups, respectively. OS benefit in these treatment comparisons was present in age group 75+ with HRadj 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.36; p < .001) in Comparison A and HRadj 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27–1; p = .049) in Comparison B, but not in Comparison C with HRadj 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43–1.08; p = .1). Statistically comparable median OS of patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy stratified by age groups was observed. Conclusion Older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. Implications for Practice Older patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in general are underrepresented in large clinical trials and less well studied in terms of the role of surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. This study collected data on older patients with resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained single-institutional pancreatic cancer registry of a tertiary referral center from 2007 to 2016. It was found that, with multidisciplinary evaluation, older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. These results are of substantial importance to practitioners who treat older patients, who are traditionally underrepresented in most clinical trials.

AbstractLutetium-177-dotatate (177Lu-dotatate), a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in 2018 based on the promising results of the NETTER-1 trial for grade 1–2 midgut NETs. Here, we present a patient with a grade 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and BRCA1 germline mutation who had a significant response to 177Lu-dotatate.

e16771 Background: AbGn-107 is an ADC directed against AG-7 antigen, a Lewis A-like glycol-epitope expressed in 24-61% of gastric (G), colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PDA), and biliary (BIL) cancers. Based on promising antitumor activity of AbGn-107 in both in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, we performed a Phase Ia trial in patients with the aforementioned GI malignancies. Methods: Standard 3+3 dose escalation was used. Key eligibility included locally advanced or metastatic G, CRC, PDA, or BIL cancer, previously treated, ECOG PS 0-1; positive AG-7 expression was not required. Two dosing intervals were tested: AbGn-107 administered i.v. Q4 weeks (at doses ranging from 0.1-1.2 mg/kg) and Q2 weeks (at doses from 0.8-1.0 mg/kg). Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were based on grade 3/4 hematologic and non-heme AEs occurring during the initial 4-week rx window. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, with tumor assessments Q8 weeks. 1o objectives: safety and MTD; 2o objectives: PK, immunogenicity, and efficacy defined by ORR (RECIST 1.1). Results: 35 patients were enrolled across 6 dose levels (median age 61.5 yo (range 40 – 81); G (0)/CRC (12)/PDA (20)/BIL (3); median # lines of prior rx = 3 (range 1-7). Safety: 5 patients experienced Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, all at higher dose levels, inc. 1 episode of febrile neutropenia. Other frequent drug-related AEs, mostly grade 1/2, inc. fatigue (29%), nausea (20%), and diarrhea (14%). DLTs included grade 4 CK elevation (n = 1) at 0.8 mg/kg Q4W and grade 3 arthralgias (n = 1) at 1.2 mg/kg Q4W. Based on safety profile and PK data, 1.0 mg/kg Q2W was selected as the dose schedule for cohort expansion phase. Efficacy: Median duration of treatment = 56 days (range, 8 – 225 days). Six pts have demonstrated a minor response by RECIST (range, -1.3 to -21.1%); 4 pts (all PDA) have had durable dz control > 180 days. Conclusions: Overall, AbGn-107 appears well-tolerated with encouraging prelim signs of efficacy in unselected pts with heavily pre-treated advanced GI cancers. Updated safety and efficacy data will be provided at the time of the meeting for the cohort expansion phase of this study (currently open across multiple sites in U.S. and Taiwan), in which subjects with G, CRC, PDA, and BIL cancers are pre-screened for high levels of AG-7 tumor expression. Clinical trial information: NCT02908451 .

e16686 Background: Genetic alterations in the FGFR pathway are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in CCA. The clinical and molecular features of patients (pts) with CCA harboring FGFR genetic alterations are reported here. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed in pts with CCA who were found to have an FGFR alteration on tumor molecular profiling as part of routine care between 9/2007 and 12/2019. Data on demographics, risk factors, pathology, molecular characteristics, systemic therapies, radiographical response, time on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were collected in a multi-center collaborative effort across seven academic centers. Results: Among 135 pts with FGFR-altered CCA, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years old (range = 25-92 years), and 80 (59.3%) pts were female, 129 (95.6%) had intrahepatic CCA, and 6 (5.6%) had chronic HBV. At presentation, 28.2% of pts had resectable disease, including 65.0% with Stage I-II, 22.5% with Stage III, and 5.0% with Stage IV. At the time of initial diagnosis, CA19-9 was < 35U/mL in 42.6% of pts. Bone metastases were observed in 41 (30.6%) pts with advanced disease. FGFR2 fusions were the most common FGFR alteration (68.2%), followed by FGFR2 mutations (21.5%), FGFR3 mutations (3.7%), FGFR2 rearrangements (1.5%), FGFR1 amplification (1.5%), and FGFR2 amplification (1.5%). The most common FGFR2 fusion partners were BICC1 (28.3%), SORBS1 (4.4%), POC1B (3.3%), and TACC2 (3.3%). The median lines of palliative systemic therapies received was 3 (range = 0-8), and 40/135 (29.6%) pts received a liver-directed therapy. For the 55 (59.8%) pts with FGFR2 fusions who received gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line palliative systemic therapy, the median time on treatment was 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.3). The median OS from time of initial diagnosis was 36.1 months (95% CI: 28.3-51.6) in the FGFR2 fusion positive cohort. Among the 92 pts with FGFR2 fusions, 70 (76.1%) pts received an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial; 12 (17.1%) were subsequently treated with a second FGFR inhibitor, and 58.3% stayed on the second FGFR inhibitor for ≥4 months. Pts with a BICC1 fusion partner (n = 16) had an overall response rate of 42.9% on FGFR-selective inhibitors compared to 30.8% in non-BICC1 fusion partners (n = 54). Conclusions: Pts with CCA harboring FGFR alterations were found to have a high rate of normal CA19-9, high rate of bone metastases, and short median time on treatment on first-line palliative gemcitabine/cisplatin. Additional comparative studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.

TPS4661 Background: Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study in previously untreated locally advanced/metastatic PDAC showed promising anti-tumor activity with liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 free base + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin (OX) 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Wainberg et al. Ann Oncol 2019;30 Suppl 4: SO-005). Herein, we present the design of the phase 3 NAPOLI-3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of this regimen as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235) is a phase 3, open-label, randomized, global study in adults with histologically/cytologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma not previously treated in the metastatic setting. Patients are required to have one or more metastatic tumors measurable with computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–1. Site activation began in Dec 2019 and enrollment is ongoing. Random allocation (1:1) of 750 patients is planned to liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/LV + OX (regimen as per phase 1/2 study) or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 in a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints (progression-free survival [PFS] and overall response rate assessed with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria) will be compared only if the primary endpoint shows superiority for liposomal irinotecan + 5-FU/ LV + OX over nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Safety assessments include adverse-event monitoring. Patients will continue treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or study withdrawal, and will then be followed for survival every 2 months until death or study end (when all patients have died, withdrawn consent or are lost to follow-up). Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

TPS4116 Background: Chemotherapy in combination with targeted agents are standard-of-care options for patients for mCRC with response rates >50% in first line. In the second line setting, efficacy of chemotherapy and targeted agents are much lower with response rates of 5% for FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) + bevacizumab (anti-VEGF). New treatment options are urgently needed in particular for the 50 % of patients harboring a KRAS mutation. PLK1 is a serine/threonine kinase, master regulator of the mitotic checkpoint and cell division. PLK1 is overexpressed in CRC and its overexpression is associated with poor prognostic. A genome wide RNAi screen identified PLK1 as a synthetic lethal target in KRAS mutant CRC cells, inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis upon inhibition. Onvansertib is an oral, highly selective PLK1 inhibitor that demonstrates single agent and synergistic activity with irinotecan in preclinical CRC models. Additionally, KRAS mutated vs wild-type cells showed higher sensitivity to onvansertib. PLK1 inhibition is a potential target in KRAS-mutated mCRC, and the combination of onvansertib + FOLFIRI + bevacizumab may provide a new second-line treatment option. Methods: The primary objective of this single-arm Phase 1b/2 study is to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of onvansertib in combination with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in the second line setting for KRAS-mutated mCRC patients. For the Phase 1b segment, a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design is used to determine the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of onvansertib. As of January 24, 2020, enrollment in the second dose level is ongoing. Efficacy will be determined by objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 (primary endpoint), progression-free survival and reduction in KRAS allelic burden in liquid biopsies (secondary endpoints). In the phase 2, based on a one-sided one sample log-rank test with 10% Type I error, there will be at least 90% power to detect an improvement in ORR from 5% to 20% with 26 patients. Exploratory endpoints include genomic studies of circulating tumor cells and ctDNA to evaluate altered pathways that correlate with patient clinical response. Clinical trial information: NCT03829410 .

Objectives: Survival benefit of combination over single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was demonstrated in younger patients in clinical trials. The authors aimed to evaluate whether this survival benefit of combination chemotherapy is present in elderly patients with metastatic PDAC. Materials and Methods: The authors identified elderly patients (age 65 y or older) with stage IV PDAC and extracted available clinical information from a prospectively maintained institutional pancreatic cancer registry from 2007 to 2016. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Cox proportional hazards regression was used for multivariable survival analyses. Survival outcomes for the entire cohort and by age group I (elderly, 65 to 75 y) and age group II (very elderly, older than 75 y) were assessed. Results: A total of 606 patients were included with a median age of 73.8 years. Among them, 239 patients (39%) received combination chemotherapy and 152 patients (25.1%) received single-agent chemotherapy as first-line treatment. Combination chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer median overall survival compared with single-agent chemotherapy (10.9 vs. 7.5 mo, P<0.001) with hazard ratio 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.81; P=0.001) after adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level. Analyses by age groups indicated that very elderly patients (age group II) benefited from combination chemotherapy compared with single-agent chemotherapy with hazard ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.31-1; P=0.049), comparable with the age group I (P age-treatment interaction=0.81). Conclusion: Elderly patients, even those older than 75 years, with metastatic PDAC benefited from combination chemotherapy.

Abstract Although the last two decades have seen a broad improvement in overall survival, colorectal cancer is still the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Patient populations continue to face poor disease prognoses due to the challenges of early detection and the molecular subtypes driving their colorectal cancer. Consequently, many patients present with metastatic colorectal cancer, which often limits options and shifts treatment focus away from curative interventions. BRAFV600E mutations are present in approximately 10% of colorectal cancer tumors and are associated with uninhibited cell proliferation, reduced apoptosis, and resistance to standard therapeutic options. In colorectal cancer, BRAFV600E mutations are associated with decreased overall survival, poor treatment responses, and different patterns of metastatic spread compared with tumors with wild-type BRAF. Success in treating other BRAFV600E-mutant cancers with BRAF inhibitors as monotherapy has not translated into efficacious treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Consequently, combination therapy with inhibitors of BRAF, MEK, and EGFR, which overcomes the innate treatment-resistant characteristics of BRAFV600E-mutant colorectal cancer, is now recommended by treatment guidelines.

Abstract Purpose: The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is critical to the development of colorectal cancers, and KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations foster resistance to radiation. We performed a phase I trial to determine the safety of trametinib, a potent MEK1/2 inhibitor, with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemoradiation therapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Patients and Methods: Patients with stage II/III rectal cancer were enrolled on a phase I study with 3+3 study design, with an expansion cohort of 9 patients at the MTD. Following a 5-day trametinib lead-in, with pre- and posttreatment tumor biopsies, patients received trametinib and CRT, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy. Trametinib was given orally daily at 3 dose levels: 0.5 mg, 1 mg, and 2 mg. CRT consisted of infusional 5-FU 225 mg/m2/day and radiation dose of 28 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy (total 50.4 Gy). The primary endpoint was to identify the MTD and recommended phase II dose. IHC staining for phosphorylated ERK (pERK) and genomic profiling was performed on the tumor samples. Results: Patients were enrolled to all dose levels, and 18 patients were evaluable for toxicities and responses. Treatment was well tolerated, and there was one dose-limiting toxicity of diarrhea, which was attributed to CRT rather than trametinib. At the 2 mg dose level, 25% had pathologic complete response. IHC staining confirmed dose-dependent decrease in pERK with increasing trametinib doses. Conclusions: The combination of trametinib with 5-FU CRT is safe and well tolerated, and may warrant additional study in a phase II trial, perhaps in a RAS/RAF-mutant selected population.