Bekaii‐Saab, Tanios

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

380 Background: KRAS amplifications (amp) occur in ~2% of solid tumors, representing a high unmet need for effective targeted therapies. BI3706674 binds to GDP-bound KRAS and locks KRAS protein in an inactive form. In preclinical models, BI3706674 has shown potent inhibition of KRAS-amp tumors. Methods: This is a Phase Ia/b trial (NCT06056024) to explore the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and efficacy of BI 3706674 in patients (pts) with unresectable or metastatic KRAS wild type amp or KRAS G12V mutated (mut) solid tumors. The trial aimed to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Pts (ECOG 0 -1) received BI 3706674 daily per os at 50 - 1200 mg doses. Dose escalation (DE) was guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model. This report focuses on KRAS wt amp pts from Phase Ia (DE). Results: As of 31 July 2025, 46 pts had received BI 3706674. Pts (n=15/46) with KRAS wt amp tumors had upper gastrointestinal tract (uGI) cancer [n=9: gastric (GAC;n=5), oesophageal (EAC; n=2), gastroesophageal junction (GEJC; n=2) cancers], Cholangiocarcinoma (n=1), colorectal (CRC; n=4), and ovarian (OC; n=1) cancers. Pts were treated at 200 mg (n=2), 400 mg (n=1), 800 mg (n=5), 1200 mg (n=7) doses; males: n=11; ECOG 1: n=10; median age - 62 years (range 38–83); median number of prior treatment lines was 3 (range 1-6). AEs were reported in 15 pts (100%), including 12 pts (80%) with treatment-related AEs (TRAE). High-grade AEs (Grade 3-5) were reported in 10 pts (66.7%), including 4 pts (26.7%) with TRAEs. SAEs were reported in 7 pts (46.7%), including 2 pts (13.3%) with TRAEs. The most-frequent AEs were mostly low-grade (Grade 1-2) diarrhoea (10 pts, 66.7%), nausea (10 pts, 66.7%), and vomiting (9 pts, 60.0%), often reported as TRAE. Two dose limiting toxicities were observed in 1200 mg group: nausea (Grade 3) and vomiting (Grade 3). MTD was not reached. BI 3706674 PK parameters followed the predicted non-linear PK model; dose dependent systemic exposure reached plateau at 800 mg. 12/15 pts with KRAS wt amp tumors, including 10/12 pts in 800 – 1200 mg groups, were efficacy evaluable; Disease control rate (DCR) was 58.3% (7/12 pts): 3/ 12 pts with partial response (PR), 4/12 had stable disease (SD), 5/12 pts - disease progression (PD). In 800 – 1200 mg groups 1 - OC, 2 – CRC pts achieved SD. PK/PD/efficacy correlation data is pending. Conclusions: BI 3706674 showed a tolerable safety profile and clinical efficacy in pts with KRAS amp tumors. Study results provide clinical proof of concept. KRAS wt amp is a druggable target and KRAS-targeting treatment is active in KRAS wt amp uGI cancer pts. Clinical trial information: NCT06056024 . Anticancer activity of BI 3706674 in efficacy evaluable pts with KRAS wt amp tumors. All pts, 200 – 1200 mg, N=12 Pts with uGI cancers,800 – 1200mg, N=7 ORR, n (%) 3* (25%) 3* (43%) SD, n (%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (14%) DCR, n (%) 7 (58.3%) 4 (57%) PD, n (%) 5 (41.7%) 3 (43%) *Tumor shrinkage: -60.3%, -34% and 34.3%.

373 Background: Recent studies have demonstrated encouraging outcomes with neoadjuvant ICIs in pts with localized deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and/or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) GEC, prompting discussions around the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM). However, current evidence is largely from phase 1 and 2 clinical trials with limited sample sizes. Thus, the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant ICI in this pt population remain subject to ongoing debate. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies evaluating neoadjuvant ICIs in pts with localized dMMR/MSI-H GEC according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were pathological complete response (pCR) and complete clinical response (cCR) rates. cCR was defined as no evidence of residual disease on tumor-specific imaging and on endoscopy with biopsy. Secondary outcomes included major pathologic response (MPR) rates and the incidence of grade 3–4 immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to pool event rates for occurrence of cCR, pCR, MPR and grade 3-4 irAEs. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used. NOM was assessed as part of the qualitative analysis. Results: 20 studies comprising 396 pts treated with neoadjuvant ICIs were included. Three studies utilized double ICI blockade (PD-1/ PD-L1 inhibitor plus CTLA-4 inhibitor), while the remaining studies primarily utilized monotherapy with a PD-1 inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy. Overall, 320 (81.0%) underwent surgical resection. The pooled pCR rate was 41.6% (95% CI, 33.1%–50.8%), cCR 63.8% (95% CI, 45.6%–78.8%), and MPR 64.2% (95% CI, 49.1%–76.9%). The pooled incidence of grade 3–4 irAEs was 5.1% (95% CI, 0.6%–12.2%). Subgroup analysis showed higher pCR with ≥3 months versus <3 months of ICI (50.2% [95% CI 42.2–58.3] vs 28.4% [18.9–40.2]; χ²=8.69, p=0.003). Forty-four pts were managed with NOM, two experienced early local regrowth over median follow-up ranging from 11.5 to 28 months. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant ICI therapy appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic strategy for pts with localized dMMR/MSI-H GEC. Neoadjuvant ICI exposure for ≥3 months seems to yield higher pCR rates than <3 months. The high and prolonged cCR rates support the nonoperative strategy in selected patients with dMMR/MSI-H GEC.

158 Background: PIK3CA mutations are common in CRC and may be a negative prognostic factor. INAVO is a potent and selective PI3Kα inhibitor that also promotes mut p110α degradation. BEV and CETUX are standard treatment (tx) components for RAS mut and RAS -wildtype (wt) mCRC, respectively. The Phase I/Ib INTRINSIC open-label umbrella study (NCT04929223) evaluates targeted therapies in biomarker-selected mCRC subpopulations. We report INAVO + BEV and INAVO + CETUX results. Methods: Patients (pts) with PIK3CA mut, RAS mut mCRC received INAVO (9 mg oral once daily) + BEV (intravenous [IV] 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). Pts with PIK3CA mut, RAS wt mCRC received INAVO + CETUX (IV 400 mg/m 2 then 250 mg/m 2 weekly thereafter). Primary endpoint: confirmed objective response rate (cORR). Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were exploratory. Results: At the clinical cut-off dates, 16 pts were enrolled in the BEV arm; 35, in the CETUX arm. Most had ≥2 metastatic sites at enrollment (n = 16 [100%] and 30 [85.8%], respectively) and ≥2 prior lines of metastatic therapy (16 [100%] and 28 [80.0%]). In the BEV arm, 3 pts (18.8%) had no prior BEV. In the CETUX arm, 25 pts (71.4%) had no prior CETUX; 17 (48.6%) had prior anti-EGFR therapy. All pts in the BEV arm and 34 in the CETUX arm were evaluated for efficacy and safety. Median follow-up was 9.4 months (mo; interquartile range: 5.5–14.4) and 12.6 mo (8.9–16.6), respectively. Efficacy is shown in the Table. All pts had adverse events (AEs); 15 (93.8%) and 34 (100%), respectively, had tx-related AEs (TRAEs); 5 (31.2%) and 12 (35.3%), grade 3–4 TRAEs; 2 (12.5%) and 11 (32.4%), serious AEs. One grade 5 AE (infusion-related reaction) occurred (CETUX arm). Dose reduction/interruption due to AEs occurred in 12 (75.0%) and 27 (79.4%) pts; tx withdrawal due to AEs, in 0 and 4 (11.8%) pts, respectively. Hyperglycemia was the most common AE, TRAE, and AE leading to dose reduction/interruption in both cohorts. Hypertension was observed more frequently with BEV; dermatitis acneiform and dry skin, with CETUX. Conclusions: INAVO + BEV and INAVO + CETUX showed encouraging efficacy in pts with PIK3CA mut mCRC, with no new or unexpected safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT04929223 . INAVO + BEV(n = 16) INAVO + CETUX(n = 34) cORR, all PR, n (%) 1 (6.3) 7 (20.6)* SD, n (%) 10 (62.5) 17 (50.0) Progressive disease, n (%) 3 (18.8) 9 (26.5) Missing/NE, n (%) 2 (12.5) 1 (2.9) mDoR, mo (90% CI) 7.7 (NE) 4.4 (4.2–5.3) DCR, n (%) 11 (68.8) 15 (44.1) mPFS, mo (90% CI) 4.2 (2.8–6.8) 3.5 (2.8–4.4) mOS, mo (90% CI) 11.0 (8.5–14.5) 12.8 (10.7–13.8) CI, confidence interval; m, median; NE, not evaluable; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease. *3 pts with PRs received prior anti-EGFR therapy; 1 had a best prior response of SD (last dose 233 days before study tx) and 2 had best prior responses of PRs (last doses 134 and 171 days before study tx).

126 Background: NNT/NNH analyses can estimate the magnitude of benefit vs harm of therapeutic agents and can inform clinical decision making. We quantified the benefit/risk profile of fruquintinib (F; a highly selective, oral inhibitor of all 3 VEGFRs) vs other later-line mCRC monotherapies. Methods: Six phase 3 randomized (2:1), placebo (P)-controlled trials (F: FRESCO, FRESCO-2; regorafenib [rego]: CONCUR, CORRECT; TAS-102: TERRA, RECOURSE) were identified. NNT (average number of pts needing treatment to prevent 1 additional death/progression event) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the inverse of difference in survival function between treatment and P. NNH (average number of pts needing treatment for 1 additional pt to have an adverse event; AE) for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was calculated as the inverse of absolute risk increase relative to P. Low NNTs and high NNHs suggest a more favorable treatment profile. Results: F had the lowest NNT (most favorable) for 6-month OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO) vs rego and TAS-102 (Table). F had the highest NNH (most favorable) for grade ≥3 TEAEs, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO). TAS-102 (TERRA) had the highest NNH for diarrhea, followed by F (FRESCO-2). Consistent with mechanism of action of anti-VEGFRs, F and rego had lower NNHs for hypertension (HTN) vs TAS-102 (TERRA). F (FRESCO) had the lowest NNH for discontinuation due to TEAEs. Conclusions: In this cross-trial comparison, F had the lowest NNT for OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO/FRESCO-2), indicating survival benefit. F had the highest NNHs for grade ≥3 TEAEs, PPE (FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO), indicating a low risk profile. The analysis highlights fruquintinib as a favorable treatment for pts with mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02314819 , NCT04322539 , NCT01584830 , NCT01103323 , NCT01955837 , NCT01607957 . NNT/NNH (95% CI) for mCRC treatments.* F Rego TAS-102 FRESCO NCT02314819 N=416 FRESCO-2 NCT04322539 N=691 CONCUR NCT01584830 N=204 CORRECT NCT01103323 N=760 TERRA NCT01955837 N=406 RECOURSE NCT01607957 N=800 6-month OS 6.5(5.5–8.1) 5.3(4.8–5.9) 5.9(NA) 9.8(NA) 14.1(NA) 7.2(NA) 6-month PFS 4.2(3.7–4.8) 4.4(3.9–5.1) 5.0(NA) 9.1(NA) 7.1(NA) 7.2(NA) Grade ≥3 TEAEs 2.4 (2.0–3.1) 8.1 (5.0–22.5) 2.6 (2.0–3.7) 2.5 (2.2–3.0) 2.8 (2.3–3.6) 5.9 (4.1–10.2) TEAE leading to discontinuation 10.8 (6.7–28.5) NA † (18.0–NA) 12.5 (6.2–NA) 17.5(11.3–39.2) 250.0 (15.3–NA) 50.0 (22.9–NA) PPE 2.2 (1.9–2.5) 6.0 (4.8–8.0) 1.4 (1.3–1.7) 2.6 (2.2–3.0) NA (NA) NA (46.0–NA) HTN 2.4 (2.0–3.0) 3.6 (3.0–4.5) 5.3 (3.6–9.5) 4.5 (3.7–5.8) 14.3 (10.0–25.2) NA (NA) Diarrhea 5.1 (3.8–7.4) 7.3 (5.2–12.3) 6.2 (4.3–11.4) 3.8 (3.2–4.8) 7.9 (5.7–13.0) 5.0 (3.9–6.9) Fatigue 32.5 (10.3–NA) 25.8 (10.1–NA) 10 (5.3–80.3) 5.3 (3.8–8.4) 7.4 (5.0–13.9) 8.3 (5.4–18.1) *All trials except TERRA included best supportive care in both arms. † Lower rate of pts discontinued F vs P due to TEAEs, thus NNH was not applicable (NA).

Abstract Background The increasing reliance on accelerated approvals and surrogate endpoints for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer therapies raises concerns about their clinical benefit and long-term patient outcomes. The shift toward single-arm trials in regulatory decisions further complicates treatment evaluation. Material and Methods This retrospective observational study evaluated all FDA approvals for GI cancer therapies from January 2006 through January 2025. Data were extracted from FDA archives, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed. Approvals were categorized by regulatory pathway (accelerated vs regular), trial design (single-arm vs randomized), and primary endpoint (surrogate vs overall survival [OS]). Clinical benefit was assessed based on OS improvement and the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). The primary outcome was the proportion of approvals based on surrogate versus OS endpoints. Secondary outcomes included use of single-arm designs, frequency of accelerated approvals, OS gain, and the proportion meeting ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit (score ≥ 4). Results The FDA granted 60 GI cancer drug approvals from 67 trials. Approvals rose from 15 (25%) in 2006-2014 to 45 (75%) in 2015-2025. Single-arm trials increased to 24%, and surrogate endpoints were used in 41.8% (ORR 20.9%, PFS 19.4%). Median OS improvement was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.6-2.65). Only 24.3% of trials met ESMO-MCBS substantial benefit. Of 15 accelerated approvals, 66.7% remained pending, 13.3% received full approval, and 20% were withdrawn. Conclusion Expedited approvals have improved drug access in GI oncology, but modest benefits highlight the need to balance speed with outcomes that truly matter to patients.

Abstract Background This phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of rucaparib (RUB), a poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) and 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. RUB targets DNA repair pathways, showing efficacy in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, such as BRCA mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy with irinotecan, but overlapping toxicities pose challenges. Methods Eighteen patients with metastatic GI cancers, who previously progressed on at least one systemic therapy, were enrolled. A novel sequential dosing regimen, informed by nal‐IRI pharmacokinetic analysis, was used. Twelve patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and 12 for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria. Results The MTD was established as RUB 600 mg twice daily, nal‐IRI 50 mg/m 2 , and 5‐FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours. The objective response rate (ORR) was 33% (4 of 12), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75% (9 of 12). Common grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and neutropenia (25%), with no grade 4/5 events. Responses were notable in patients with somatic ATM and BRCA mutations, especially those with prior platinum exposure. No DLTs occurred at the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions This optimized dosing schedule successfully established the MTD for RUB with nal‐IRI and 5‐FU, overcoming prior challenges with PARP inhibitor and irinotecan combinations. The promising ORR and DCR support further evaluation of this regimen in advanced GI malignancies.

PURPOSE Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (nICIs) have demonstrated high response rates in deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability–high (dMMR/MSI-H) gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). The NEONIPIGA and INFINITY trials demonstrated high rates of pathologic complete response (pCR) in this patient population. Furthermore, the INFINITY trial explored the feasibility of managing these patients nonoperatively, demonstrating promising results. This study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of nICIs in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, with a focus on the feasibility of nonoperative management (NOM). MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study included patients with resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA and treated with nICIs ± surgery at the Mayo Clinic. Patients were identified from institutional records, and clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes were clinical complete response (cCR) and pCR. Secondary outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), radiologic complete response (rCR), and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). RESULTS A total of 26 patients treated between April 1, 2017, and July 30, 2025, were identified. Nine patients (34.6%) underwent surgery, of whom six (66.7%) achieved pCR. Seventeen patients (65.4%) pursued NOM, with 10 (71.4%) of 14 evaluable patients achieving cCR and 14 (82.4%) of 17 evaluable achieving rCR. One patient who initially achieved cCR had a local recurrence on surveillance endoscopy and underwent salvage endoscopic resection. At a median follow-up of 19.3 months, 15 (88.2%) of 17 patients in the NOM cohort were alive and metastasis-free, with EFS rates of 87.3% at 12 and 24 months for all patients. irAEs occurred in nine patients (34.6%), with no grade ≥3 toxicities. CONCLUSION In this retrospective cohort study, nICIs led to high cCR and pCR rates in resectable dMMR/MSI-H GEA, supporting the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in this setting and the feasibility of NOM in select patients.

ABSTRACT Background We recently published the first real‐world multicenter and multi‐institutional study of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Here we present an expanded patient cohort with an increased sample size and longer median follow‐up. Methods The study population included patients with advanced BTC, who received cisplatin/gemcitabine plus durvalumab at 55 centers across 12 countries in Europe, the United States, and Asia. The primary endpoints of the study were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Results Overall, 1358 patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI: 7.2–8.1), and median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI: 14.8–16.5). ORR was 35.6%, and DCR was 82.7%. Any grade AEs occurred in 1213 patients (89.3%). Grade 3–4 AEs occurred in 597 patients (43.2%). The rate of immune‐related AEs (irAE) was 20.3%. Grade 3–4 irAE occurred in 3.0% of patients. At the multivariate analysis for OS, normal albumin level (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.81, p < 0.0001), CEA levels within normal ranges (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57–0.82, p < 0.0001), NLR < 3 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.74, p < 0.0001), ECOG PS 0 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.42–0.61, p < 0.0001), and prior surgery (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.99, p = 0.036) were positive prognostic factors. Conclusion The updated findings, derived from an expanded cohort, further support the adoption of durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in routine clinical practice, reinforcing the efficacy and safety outcomes demonstrated in the phase III TOPAZ‐1 trial.