Attia, Steven

In the INTRIGUE phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ), adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib were randomly assigned 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily or sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). In the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) was immature. In this study, we report the final planned analysis of OS (key secondary end point), progression-free survival (PFS) on third-line therapy (second PFS; prespecified exploratory end point), and long-term safety. Final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with approximately 200 and ≥145 events in the overall and KIT exon 11 intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively. As of March 15, 2023, there were 211 and 151 OS events in the overall ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Median OS was similar between second-line ripretinib and sunitinib in both populations (overall, 35.5 v 31.5 months; KIT exon 11, 35.5 v 32.8 months). Median second PFS (on third-line therapy) for the overall ITT population was similar between the ripretinib and sunitinib arms (7.7 v 7.4 months). Safety was consistent with the primary analysis. OS from this analysis was similar between arms, and second PFS suggests that receiving ripretinib did not adversely affect the PFS of third-line therapy.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ–CAMTA1 (calmodulinbinding transcription activator 1) operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of the MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. Patients and Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management before enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ– CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS), 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ– CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. TheORRwas 3.7%[95% confidence interval (CI), 0.094–19.0], median PFS was 10.4 months (95%CI, 7.1–NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3%(95%CI, 19.1–58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common adverse events related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia, and edema; one grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. Conclusions: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months, providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal. See related commentary by Van Tine and Haarberg, p. 4552

PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.