Jones, Robin L

11536 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling. In the INVICTUS study (NCT03353753), patients with advanced GIST (≥4th-line) receiving ripretinib had a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6.3 months vs 1.0 month for patients receiving placebo (HR = 0.15, p <0.0001). In an earlier phase 1 dose escalation study, the maximum tolerated dose was not reached with doses up to 200 mg twice daily (BID). Here, we report efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic data for IPDE patients initially randomized to ripretinib from the phase 3 INVICTUS study based on data as of 10 Aug 2020. Methods: A total of 129 patients were randomized 2:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD; n = 85) or placebo (n = 44). Patients receiving ripretinib 150 mg QD who had progressive disease (PD) as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) using mRECIST were given the option for IPDE to 150 mg BID. Tumor response assessments were performed every 28 days for 4 cycles and every 56 days thereafter (including after IPDE). The primary endpoint was PFS. For this exploratory analysis, PFS1 for IPDE patients was defined as the time from randomization to PD; PFS2 for IPDE patients was the time from the first dose of ripretinib 150 mg BID to PD or death. PFS1 and PFS2 were based on BICR. Results: Of 85 patients treated with ripretinib 150 mg QD, 43 patients with BICR PD dose escalated to 150 mg BID. Baseline characteristics of IPDE patients at time of study entry were similar to those observed in the original ripretinib QD arm and similar to the 22 patients with BICR PD who either remained on 150 mg QD or discontinued treatment. IPDE patients had a mPFS1 of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.7–6.4) and a mPFS2 of 3.7 months (95% CI, 3.1–5.3); mPFS2/mPFS1=80%. The IPDE dosing period was well tolerated without the emergence of new safety concerns. The most common new or worsening (unchanged or improving grades not included) treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for IPDE patients during the BID period was abdominal pain (30.2% all grades and 7% Grade 3–4 vs 41.9% and 4.7% in QD period, respectively). The most common Grade 3–4 TEAE in the BID period was anemia (14% vs 2.3% in QD period). IPDE from QD to BID resulted in an approximately 2-fold increase in the steady state trough concentration. Conclusions: Similar to the phase 1 study wherein IPDE to 150 mg BID following PD provided clinical benefit with a mPFS1 of 5.5 months and mPFS2 of 4.6 months (mPFS2/mPFS1=84%) for patients with ≥4th-line GIST, these analyses from INVICTUS indicate that IPDE to ripretinib 150 mg BID can also provide additional meaningful clinical benefit and a similar tolerability profile to the 150 mg QD regimen for patients with ≥4th-line GIST that progressed following treatment with ripretinib 150 mg QD. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753.

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]

As leiomyosarcoma patients are challenged by the development of metastatic disease, effective systemic therapies are the cornerstone of outcome. However, the overall activity of the currently available conventional systemic treatments and the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still poor, making the treatment of this patient group challenging. Therefore, in a joint effort together with patient networks and organizations, namely Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN), the international network of sarcoma patients organizations, and the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) in the United States, we aim to summarize state-of-the-art treatments for leiomyosarcoma patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and current unmet needs, thereby guiding the community to design innovative clinical trials and basic research and close these research gaps. This position paper arose from a leiomyosarcoma research meeting in October 2020 hosted by the NLMSF and SPAEN.

Purpose. Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer and a third of patients who have completed primary treatment will develop osteosarcoma recurrence. The Src pathway has been implicated in the metastatic behavior of osteosarcoma; about 95% of samples examined express Src or have evidence of downstream activation of this pathway. Saracatinib (AZD0530) is a potent and selective Src kinase inhibitor that was evaluated in adults in Phase 1 studies. The primary goal of this study was to determine if treatment with saracatinib could increase progression-free survival (PFS) for patients who have undergone complete resection of osteosarcoma lung metastases in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Patients and Methods. Subjects with recurrent osteosarcoma localized to lung and who had complete surgical removal of all lung nodules were randomized within six weeks after complete surgical resection. Saracatinib, or placebo, was administered at a dose of 175 mg orally, once daily, for up to thirteen 28-day cycles. Results. Thirty-seven subjects were included in the analyses; 18 subjects were randomized to receive saracatinib and 19 to receive placebo. Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated a median PFS of 19.4 months in the saracatinib treatment group and 8.6 months in the placebo treatment group (p=0.47). Median OS was not reached in either arm. Conclusions. Although saracatinib was well tolerated in this patient population, there was no apparent impact of the drug in this double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial on OS, and Src inhibition alone may not be sufficient to suppress metastatic progression in osteosarcoma. There is a suggestion of potential clinical benefit as evidenced by longer PFS in patients randomized to saracatinib based on limited numbers of patients treated.

Abstract Purpose: LV305 is a modified, third-generation, nonreplicating, integration-deficient lentivirus-based vector designed to selectively transduce dendritic cells in vivo. LV305 induces expression of the New York Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) cancer testis antigen in dendritic cells, promoting immune responses against NY-ESO-1–expressing tumors. This phase I study evaluated the safety, immunogenicity, and preliminary efficacy of LV305 in patients with sarcoma or other solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Adults with previously treated, advanced, NY-ESO-1–positive solid tumors and limited tumor burden were eligible. LV305 was administered every 3 weeks by intradermal injection in four dose cohorts (Cohort 1: 108 vector genomes (vg) x 3 doses; Cohorts 1A, 2, and 3: 108 vg, 109 vg, 1010 vg x 4 doses). Results: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled: 3 patients each in Cohorts 1, 1A, and 2, and 30 patients in Cohort 3. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Tumor types included sarcoma (n = 24), ovarian (n = 8), melanoma (n = 6), and lung cancer (n = 1). All treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Common treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (49%), injection site reactions (46%), and myalgia (21%). The disease control rate was 56.4% in all patients and 62.5% in sarcoma patients. One patient with synovial sarcoma achieved a partial response lasting &gt;36 months. Anti–NY-ESO-1-specific CD4+ and/or CD8+ T cells were induced in 57% of evaluable sarcoma patients. Induction of an anti–NY-ESO-1 immune response was associated with improved 1-year survival in an exploratory analysis. Conclusions: This first-in-class, first-in-human study of LV305 demonstrated a favorable safety profile, induction of antigen-specific responses, and potential clinical activity in patients with advanced cancer.

Background Ontuxizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets endosialin (tumor endothelial marker 1 [TEM‐1] or CD248), which is expressed on sarcoma cells and is believed to be involved in tumor angiogenesis. This is the first trial to evaluate ontuxizumab in patients with sarcoma. Methods Part 1 was an open‐label, dose‐finding, safety lead‐in: 4, 6, or 8 mg/kg with gemcitabine and docetaxel (G/D; 900 mg/m 2 gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel on day 8). In part 2, patients were randomized in a double‐blind fashion in 2:1 ratio to ontuxizumab (8 mg/kg) or a placebo with G/D. Randomization was stratified by 4 histological cohorts. Results In part 2 with 209 patients, no significant difference in progression‐free survival between ontuxizumab plus G/D (4.3 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7‐6.3 months) and the placebo plus G/D (5.6 months; 95% CI, 2.6‐8.3 months) was observed ( P = .67; hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.77‐1.49). Similarly, there was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups: 18.3 months for the ontuxizumab plus G/D group (95% CI, 16.2‐21.1 months) and 21.1 months for the placebo plus G/D group (95% CI, 14.2 months to not reached; P = .32; HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.82‐1.82). No significant differences between the treatment groups occurred for any efficacy parameter by sarcoma cohort. The combination of ontuxizumab plus G/D was generally well tolerated. Conclusions Ontuxizumab plus G/D showed no enhanced activity over chemotherapy alone in soft‐tissue sarcomas, whereas the safety profile of the combination was consistent with G/D alone.

TPS11081 Background: AAS is an aggressive soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of endothelial cell origin with an expected median overall survival of 8-12 months. Pazopanib (P) is approved for treatment of advanced STS following progression on chemotherapy. In a retrospective study of 40 AAS patients treated with single agent P the median PFS was 3.1 months and median OS 9.9 months with no complete responses. Endoglin is an essential angiogenic receptor expressed on AAS that is upregulated following VEGF inhibition, and TRC105, an endoglin antibody, given with P produced durable complete responses in AAS patients with median PFS of 5.6 months in refractory patients including those receiving prior P. The TAPPAS trial is the first randomized Phase 3 trial performed in AAS, and was initiated following protocol assistance from the EMA and Special Protocol Assessment from the FDA. Methods: TAPPAS is a randomized multicenter study of TRC105/P vs P alone in the United States and Europe that is actively enrolling cutaneous and non-cutaneous AAS patients and incorporates an adaptive enrichment design. Key inclusion criteria: 0, 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy, ECOG ≤ 1. Primary endpoint is PFS and secondary endpoints include ORR and OS. The initial sample size of 124 patients, followed until 95 PFS events, provides more than 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.55. At the time of interim analysis, projected to occur upon the occurrence of 40 events in approximately 70 patients, the result will be classified as belonging to either the favorable, promising, enrichment or unfavorable zones, based on conditional power. The sample size and PFS events will be unchanged in the favorable and unfavorable zones, and will be increased to a total of 200 patients followed for 170 PFS events in the promising zone. The trial will enroll 100 additional patients, with cutaneous disease only, in the enrichment zone and will follow them until 110 events are observed in the total cutaneous population. An independent DMC will follow the trial for safety and futility. The adaptive design requires the enrollment of fewer patients, preserves type-1 error, and protects power to detect a clinically meaningful survival benefit. (NCT 02979899). Clinical trial information: NCT02979899.