Münster, Pamela N.

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.

11507 Background: Advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Standard-of-care treatments, including trabectedin (Tb) or pazopanib (P), provide median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3-4 months (mo) and objective response rates (ORR) of ~11%. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in a subset of uLMS supports the use of PARP inhibitors combined with DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic activity of olaparib and temozolomide (T+O), and a prior single-arm Phase II study of T+O showed promising efficacy independent of an established biomarker, warranting further investigation in a randomized setting. Methods: Alliance A092104 is a Phase II/III trial evaluating olaparib (200 mg BID) plus temozolomide (75 mg/m² daily, days 1-7, every 21 days) versus investigator’s choice of Tb or P in patients (pts) with advanced uLMS who progressed on ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Stratification factors included ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and prior lines (2 vs. ≥3). The Phase II (Phase III) primary endpoint was PFS (OS), with a planned suspension of accrual at the end of Phase II. A total of 70 evaluable pts (58 PFS events) were needed to detect an improvement in PFS from 4 vs. 8 mo with power of 90% and 1-sided type I error of 10%, with futility assessed after 29 PFS events. Upon meeting the Phase II futility threshold for PFS, the trial was permanently closed. Data were released from the data and safety monitoring board. Pts continue to be followed for outcomes. Results: 74 pts enrolled (Arm 1: T+O, n = 37; Arm 2: investigator’s choice, n = 37 (Tb, 18; P, 13; 6 pts did not start treatment). The arms were balanced for baseline demographics except race, with the T+O arm having a higher proportion of black/African American (29.7% vs. 16.2%). 21 pts remain on treatment. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the T+O arm, with Grade 4 neutropenia (19.5%) and thrombocytopenia (8.3%) both managed by dose reductions. Non-hematologic Grade 3 AEs were higher in the investigator’s choice arm (45.2% vs. 13.9%). No Grade 5 AEs were reported. In the first 70 pts, with a median follow-up of 5.9 mo, and 39 total PFS events, the median PFS was 3.2 mo (95% CI: 2.0-NE) for T+O versus 5.6 mo (95% CI: 2.8-NE) for investigator’s choice (HR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.60-2.17; 1-sided stratified log rank p = 0.50). Within Arm 2, the median PFS for Tb and P were respectively 5.6 (95% CI: 3.1-NE) and 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5-NE) mo. 3 pts in the T+0 arm and 1 patient in the investigator’s choice arm (Tb) had a confirmed partial response. Conclusions: The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS in Phase II. This suggests that a biomarker may be needed before there is further exploration of PARP inhibitor-based regimens in uLMS. Overall survival and analysis of tissue-based biomarkers will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT05432791 .

6002 Background: There is a need for continued improvement in outcomes with systemic therapy for advanced cSCC. Pre-clinical data suggest immunologic synergy between IgG1 mAb therapy targeting EGFR and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Methods: Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (AV) (800 mg) plus cetuximab (C) (500 mg/m2) vs. AV alone every 2 weeks for up to 2 years (yrs). C was given for 1 yr in the AV+C arm. Crossover at progression to AV+C was allowed in the AV arm. Randomization was 1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 [+(>1%) vs. -] and HIV status (+ vs. -). Eligible patients (pts) had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb naive, no prior cetuximab in the advanced setting, ECOG PS 0-2, HIV+ if CD4 >200 and VL <200. Pts with CLL, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (Ho: Median=12 mo vs Ha: 21 mo or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha 0.2, n=57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), confirmed response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. After 31/37 events, an early unplanned analysis (along with sensitivity analyses) was performed because it became apparent that 37 events would not be reached. These results were submitted to the Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which recommended releasing the data. Data cutoff was 1/16/25. Results: 60 pts were enrolled between 2019-2023; 57 pts were evaluable. Median age was 72 yrs (41‒93), 96.5% were white, 91.2% male, all HIV-; 75.4% PD-L1+. 84.2% were head/neck origin, 47.1% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. AV+C significantly improved PFS compared to AV [median 11.1 months (mo) (7.6‒not reached (NR)) vs. 4.8 mo (2.8‒NR) hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 95% CI (0.26‒1.09), one-sided p=0.041]. The median OS of AV+C vs. AV was NR (25.2‒NR) vs. 35.8 mo (18.6‒NR) HR 0.77 (0.33‒1.78) p=0.267. ORR was 31.0% in the AV+C arm and 21.4% in the AV arm. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of any grade (G) occurred in 93% and 78.6%, respectively, and were G>3 in 48.3% and 21.5% of pts in the AV+C [most common G3 TRAEs were rash (20.7%) and infusion-related reaction (20.7%)] and AV arms, respectively. There were no G5 events. Outcomes after crossover and by PD-L1 status will be presented subsequently. Conclusions: Avelumab plus cetuximab significantly improved PFS vs. avelumab alone in advanced cSCC pts, without unexpected toxicity. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with combination cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology); U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . EMD Serono CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755. Clinical trial information: NCT03944941 .

TPS4196 Background: Advanced BTC patients have poor prognosis. Up to 40% of BTCs have KRAS mutations and are associated with worse overall survival (OS). With a median OS of 7.7 months in KRAS wild-type compared to 1.7 months in KRAS mutated disease, these alterations are independent poor prognostic factors in BTC. Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with or without immunotherapy are often used as 1st-line therapies. However, there is a lack of data on best 2nd-line regimens. mFOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil [5-FU], leucovorin [LV], oxaliplatin) or liposomal irinotecan+5-FU+LV are options when no biomarkers are found (e.g., MSI-H, BRAFV600E, FGFR-fusions, IDH1-mutation, HER2-overexpression). Prior studies do not demonstrate benefit with MEK inhibitors (MEKi), but none of the studies had biomarker selection. Pre-clinical studies in BTC cell lines suggest synergy between MEKi and 5-FU. Thymidylate synthase (TS )levels induced by 5-FU are downregulated by addition of binimetinib. Early clinical studies show safety and tolerance of this combination. In this study, we will evaluate if the combination of mFOLFOX6+binimetinib improves OS for patients with BTC and MAPK mutations compared to mFOLFOX6 alone in 2nd-line therapy. Methods: EAY191-A6 is a treatment study arm of the NCI ComboMATCH master registration trial EAY191. The A6 trial has a randomized phase II design, enrolling a maximum of 66 patients. Patients with any MAPK pathway mutations except those with available therapies will be eligible. Patient must first enroll to the EAY191 master trial. Local molecular results may be used for enrollment. Submission of tissue at baseline is mandatory. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to mFOLFOX6 vs mFOLFOX6 + binimetinib (45 mg oral twice a day every 14 days). Stratification factors include location and stage of disease. Primary efficacy analysis will compare OS in the intent-to-treat population. If the observed hazard ratio (HR) of experimental arm vs standard of care is < 0.545 (corresponding to an observed increase in OS by 5 months or longer), experimental treatment will be considered superior. An interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events will be conducted. If the observed HR is ≥ 1, experimental treatment will not be considered superior, and accrual maybe suspended. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate and toxicity of treatments. Exploratory objectives include prognostic modeling, correlations of genomic alterations with response or resistance and use of machine learning for outcome prediction. This study is active and open to accrual. Clinical trial information: NCT05564403 .

The 2023 Precision Oncology Summit was held in San Francisco on October 7 th and 8 th , focusing on actionable strategies addressing personalized treatment to improve patient outcomes. This manuscript summarizes the discussion and key learning points from “The Revolution in Germline DNA Testing” session.

Abstract Purpose: The safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of elraglusib, a glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) small-molecule inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors or hematologic malignancies was studied. Patients and Methods: Elraglusib (intravenously twice weekly in 3-week cycles) monotherapy dose escalation was followed by dose escalation with eight chemotherapy regimens (gemcitabine, doxorubicin, lomustine, carboplatin, irinotecan, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel/carboplatin, and pemetrexed/carboplatin) in patients previously exposed to the same chemotherapy. Results: Patients received monotherapy (n = 67) or combination therapy (n = 171) elraglusib doses 1 to 15 mg/kg twice weekly. The initial recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of elraglusib was 15 mg/kg twice weekly and was defined, without dose-limiting toxicity observation, due to fluid volumes necessary for drug administration. The RP2D was subsequently reduced to 9.3 mg/kg once weekly to reduce elraglusib-associated central/peripheral vascular access catheter blockages. Other common elraglusib-related adverse events (AE) included transient visual changes and fatigue. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 55.2% and 71.3% of patients on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Part 1 monotherapy (n = 62) and part 2 combination (n = 138) patients were evaluable for response. In part 1, a patient with melanoma had a complete response, and a patient with acute T-cell leukemia/lymphoma had a partial response (PR). In part 2, seven PRs were observed, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2–2.6] and 6.9 (95% CI, 5.7–8.4) months, respectively. Conclusions: Elraglusib had a favorable toxicity profile as monotherapy and combined with chemotherapy and was associated with clinical benefit supporting further clinical evaluation in combination with chemotherapy.

TPS8603 Background: Peritoneal mesothelioma is a rare and poorly studied disease with few treatment options. For patients (pts) who are not surgical candidates, treatment recommendations for systemic therapy have been extrapolated from clinical trials for pleural mesothelioma that commonly exclude pts with peritoneal mesothelioma. Recently, the combination of the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab and the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab received FDA-approval for the frontline treatment of non-resectable pleural mesothelioma. Additionally, a prospective, non-randomized phase 2 trial demonstrated activity with combined PD-L1 (atezolizumab) and VEGF (bevacizumab) blockade in peritoneal mesothelioma. In parallel, encouraging activity with combined chemo-immunotherapy has been reported in pleural mesothelioma. Given the benefits observed with immunotherapy, and the potential to improve upon those with chemotherapy and VEGF inhibition, we seek to determine whether the addition of the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab improves outcomes with chemotherapy and bevacizumab in pts with newly diagnosed peritoneal mesothelioma. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A092001 is a prospective, randomized phase 2 clinical trial. All pts with newly diagnosed peritoneal mesothelioma will be randomized 1:1 using a dynamic allocation Pocock-Simon procedure to receive carboplatin, pemetrexed and bevacizumab, with or without atezolizumab, every 21 days for four cycles. Patients who are eligible to proceed with surgery after four cycles of therapy will then do so. Pts who are not eligible to proceed with surgery may receive maintenance bevacizumab and atezolizumab, or second-line atezolizumab with bevacizumab until progression of disease or toxicity. The primary objective is to determine if frontline treatment with carboplatin, pemetrexed, bevacizumab and atezolizumab results in a superior best response rate (RR) to carboplatin, pemetrexed and bevacizumab as determined by RECIST. With 31 eligible pts per arm (62 eligible total), this randomized design has 80% power to detect an improvement in the RR from 20% to 45%, with a 1-sided significance level of 0.10 where an interim futility analysis will be conducted after 32 pts are enrolled. Stratification factors include eligibility for cytoreductive surgery at diagnosis and histologic subtype. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse events. As integrated biomarkers, we will determine if soluble mesothelin-related peptides and megakaryocyte potentiating factor correlate with responses. This trial was recently approved by the National Cancer Institute Central IRB and is activating at sites across the country. Clinical trial information: NCT05001880 .

e14555 Background: 9-ING-41 (elraglusib) is a novel inhibitor of GSK-3β that has shown early signs of clinical benefit in a phase 1/2 clinical trial (ACT1801; NCT03678883). Early data support a multi-modal mechanism of action for elraglusib that targets both the tumor and immune system. Thus, the discovery and validation of biomarkers of drug sensitivity to elraglusib is a high priority. Here, we take inspiration from the literature on checkpoint inhibitor therapy and explore the potential of cytokines to predict elraglusib clinical response. Methods: Peripheral plasma samples from 59 patients enrolled in the 1801 phase 1/2 trial of elraglusib were assayed for 40 circulating cytokine levels. Patients advanced solid tumors refractory to standard treatments and received either elraglusib (1.0-15.0 mg/kg) as a single agent or in combination with other chemotherapies. Samples were taken from time points prior to elraglusib administration (pre-dose), after cycle 1, or after cycle 2. Each cytokine time point combination was used to stratify patients into high and low categories using an optimal cut-point determined using maximally selected rank statistics. Kaplan Meier and Cox Proportional Hazards analysis was used to determine the efficacy of each cytokine as a biomarker. The change in cytokine values between pre-dose and cycle 1 or pre-dose and cycle 2 was evaluated in a similar manner. Results: A total of 142 samples spanning eight different tumor histologies were collected and analyzed. A total of 240 cytokine-timepoint combinations were evaluated, and 53 significantly stratified patients by overall survival (p-value < 0.05). Of those, 35 showed that higher levels of the given cytokine correlated with a survival benefit and 18 a survival decrease. Notable among the cytokines demonstrating survival benefits were Granzyme B at Cycle 1 Day 4 (HR: 9.54, p-value:0.015) and TGF β at Cycle 1 Day 4 (HR: 8.48, p-value:0.0063). Strong hazard ratios were also observed for cytokines that correlated with survival decreases including TRAIL-R2 at Cycle 1 Day 2 (HR: 9.56e-02, p-value:0.0001), and IL-10 at Cycle 1 Day 4 (HR: 8.77e-02, p-value:0.007). Delta between timepoints was also able to stratifying patients by overall survival. Conclusions: Plasma cytokine profiling is a promising approach for discovery and validation of biomarkers prognostic for elraglusib clinical benefit. Numerous cytokines measured pre-dose stratified patients into significant survival groups suggesting a potential strategy for patient enrichment in clinical trials of elraglusib. These initial findings are being expanded by 1) increasing the cohort to accommodate histology specific investigations; 2) examining which cytokines are elraglusib response-specific versus drug-agnostic; and 3) combining cytokines in multivariate and machine learning models for optimal predictive capacity. Clinical trial information: NCT03678883 .

Abstract 9-ING-41 (elraglusib) is a potent and selective GSK-3 inhibitor that has shown anti-tumor activity in patient-derived xenograft models and phase1/2 clinical studies in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that elraglusib downregulates PD-1, TIGIT and LAG-3, upregulates expression of MHC class I proteins in tumor cells from “cold tumors”, and shows synergy when combined with PD-1 blockade in mouse xenografts. Clinical activity has been observed both as a single agent and in combination with standard of care chemotherapies in several advanced cancer histologies. Here we present initial ‘omics data from our phase 1/2 study (NCT03678883; ACT1801) spanning &gt;100 pts with advanced cancer evaluating both single agent and chemotherapy combinations. The patients (pts) included in this study received elraglusib as a ≥3rd line therapy for advanced disease. Most pts with melanoma treated with elraglusib monotherapy (8/9; 89%) stayed on study for &gt;2 cycles. One patient with melanoma refractory to checkpoint inhibitors achieved a confirmed and durable CR. Clinical benefit was also observed among pts with colorectal cancer with 4/12 (33.3%) pts treated with monotherapy and 12/15 (80%) that received elraglusib plus irinotecan rechallenge stayed on study &gt;2 cycles reaching median overall survival of 106 and 211 days, respectively. Based on emerging in vivo and in vitro results demonstrating that elraglusib activates T and NK cells promoting anti-tumor immune responses, we hypothesize immunomodulation by elraglusib may be contributing to anti-tumor immune response in the 1801 trial. We have acquired TCRseq and RNAseq profiles of PBMC samples from seven patients in 1801 during the first two weeks of treatment with elraglusib monotherapy. In these pts, reduced TCR clonality was observed and specific TCR clonotypes expanded after treatment, indicating T cell activation and expansion. These pts also showed changes in PBMC populations during elraglusib therapy as measured by immune deconvolution of PBMC RNAseq. Taken together, these data support a novel, previously unrecognized immunomodulatory mechanism of action for elraglusib and could provide rationale for future clinical development of elraglusib in pts with advanced malignancies. Additional analysis from TCRseq, immune profiling and cytokine analysis from expanded cohort of pts is ongoing. Citation Format: Taylor Weiskittel, Joseph McDermott, Daniel Billadeau, Hu Li, Anwaar Saeed, Devalingam Mahalingam, Solmaz Sahebjam, Pamela Munster, Ludimila Cavalcante, Frank J. Giles, Andrew Mazar, Benedito Carneiro. Multimodal mechanism of action of the GSK-3 inhibitor 9-ING-41 (elraglusib) includes an immunomodulatory component: preliminary results from the 1801 phase 1/2 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT222.

PURPOSE The androgen receptor (AR) is expressed (+) in a subset of salivary gland cancers (SGCs). This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of the antiandrogen enzalutamide in AR+ SGC. METHODS Patients with locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic AR+ SGCs were enrolled. Enzalutamide (160 mg) was given orally once daily. The primary end point was the best overall response rate per RECIST v1.1 within eight cycles. Confirmed responses in ≥ 5 of 41 patients would be considered promising. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS Forty-six patients were enrolled; 30 (65.2%) received prior systemic therapy, including 13 (28.3%) with AR-targeted drugs. Of seven (15.2%) partial responses (PRs), only two (4.3%) were confirmed per protocol and counted toward the primary end point. Twenty-four patients (52.2%) had stable disease; 15 (32.6%) had progression of disease as best response. Twenty-six patients (56.5%) experienced tumor regression in target lesions; 18 (39.1%) had partial response/stable disease ≥ 6 months. Tumor regressions were observed in female patients (5 of 6 [83.3%]) and those who received prior AR– (6 of 13 [46.2%]) or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted therapies (5 of 8 [62.5%]). Three patients remained on treatment at data cutoff (duration, 32.2-49.8 months). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 7.5); the median overall survival was 17.0 months (95% CI, 11.8 to 30.0). The most common adverse events were fatigue, hypertension, hot flashes, and weight loss. Total and free testosterone levels increased by a mean of 61.2% and 48.8%, respectively, after enzalutamide. CONCLUSION Enzalutamide demonstrated limited activity in AR+ SGC, failing to meet protocol-defined success in part because of a lack of response durability. Strategies to enhance the efficacy of antiandrogen therapy are needed.