Price, Timothy Jay

3579 Background: Fruquintinib (F) is a highly selective, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of all 3 VEGF receptors. Based on FRESCO (NCT02314819) and FRESCO-2 (NCT04322539) data, F was approved by the US FDA for previously treatedmetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Efficacy and safety of F + best supportive care (BSC) vs placebo (P) + BSC were analyzed according to prior treatment (tx) sequence using FRESCO and FRESCO-2 data. Methods: In FRESCO and FRESCO-2, patients (pts) were randomized 2:1 to receive F 5 mg or matching P, PO daily x 21 days every 28 days. In FRESCO, eligible pts had received ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens and were permitted to have received prior anti-VEGF and/or anti-EGFR therapies, whereas in FRESCO-2, in addition to standard chemotherapies, anti-VEGF, and anti-EGFR therapies if indicated, prior exposure to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS) and/or regorafenib (rego) was required. FRESCO-2 pts must have also received a BRAF inhibitor and/or immunotherapy, if indicated and available in their country. Results: In FRESCO (F n=278 vs P n=138), no pts had received rego and 16/416 pts (4%) had received TAS. InFRESCO-2, prior therapies were balanced between F vs P arms; pts had received prior TAS or rego in these sequences: prior TAS only (n=240 vs n=121); prior rego only (n=40 vs n=18); prior rego then TAS (n=84 vs n=45); prior TAS then rego (n=95 vs n=44). Improvements in OS and PFS were seen with F vs P regardless of prior tx sequence (Table), with similar magnitudes of benefit for OS (HRs 0.53–0.77) and PFS (HRs 0.25–0.37). F safety profile was consistent regardless of prior tx sequence (Table). Conclusions: F is effective in mCRC with a manageable safety profile regardless of prior TAS or rego tx and sequence. Improvement with F was similar for OS and PFS despite the number and sequence of prior regimens. F provides a new tx option for pts with previously treated mCRC regardless of prior TAS or rego exposure. Clinical trial information: NCT04322539 . [Table: see text]

617 Background: There is limited, often conflicting evidence about AE timing, severity or associations with outcomes with the use of cytotoxic agents in cancer treatment. We investigated the impact on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of selected common AEs (neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, neuropathy) occurring in patients receiving first line oxaliplatin (Oxa)- and/or irinotecan(Iri)-based regimens for mCRC. Methods: The CTCAE grading scores of at least one AE of interest were available on 9812 pts treated with chemotherapy alone (median age 63; 62.4% male, 50.1% ECOG PS 0) from 17 1st-line randomized trials. Patients who also received biologics were excluded in the primary analyses. AEs occurring during the first 6 weeks of treatment and entire treatment were analyzed by stratified multivariable Cox models in relationship to OS/PFS. 55.7% pts received Oxa- regimens, 35.7% Iri-regimens, and 8.6% combined Oxa- and Iri-regimens. Results: Within the first 6 weeks of treatment, G3+ neutropenia (HRadj= 1.3, 95% CI, 1.06-1.59, padj 0.01), diarrhea (HRadj= 1.48, 95% CI, 1.23-1.79, padj < .0001), nausea (HRadj= 1.53, 95% CI, 1.17-1.99, padj 0.002) and vomiting (HRadj= 1.56, 95% CI, 1.18-2.07, padj 0.002) were associated with significantly worse OS for Iri-regimens, but only G3+ nausea predicted for worse OS for Oxa- regimens (HRadj= 1.61, 95% CI, 1.18-2.21, padj 0.003). For AEs experienced at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy were significantly associated with longer PFS and OS for Oxa-regimens, while G3+ vomiting and nausea were associated with worse OS for both Oxa- and Iri-based regimens. Sensitivity analysis showed largely concordant results by including pts who also received biologics. Conclusions: The association between more severe selected AEs and outcome varies between AEs and is influenced by timing of the occurrence. More severe selected AEs occurring early in treatment are associated with worse outcomes. In contrast, for AEs occurring at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy predicted for longer PFS and/or OS in Oxa-treated pts.

3582 Background: The prognostic importance of the incidence, severity, type and duration of AEs pts experience during chemotherapy varies between tumor types, and the available evidence across the board is often conflicting. Here we investigated the impact of the overall severity of AEs among pts with mCRC receiving first-line oxaliplatin (Oxa)- and/or irinotecan(Iri)-based regimens. Methods: The overall severity of AE data (i.e., max grade (G) of all AEs) were available on 3,971 pts (median age 61; 60% male, 47% ECOG PS 1+; 57% 2+ metastatic sites) enrolled onto 6 1st-line randomized trials. Around 46%, 45%, and 9% of pts had received Oxa-, Iri-, and Oxa+Iri-based regimens, respectively. Pts receiving biologic agents were excluded. Stratified multivariate Cox models were used to assess the associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Pts who only received Oxa-based treatment reported the lowest rate of G3+ AEs (p < .0001) compared to pts treated with Iri- or Oxa+Iri-based regimens. Older age, female gender, and PS 1 or 2+ were associated with higher grade AEs (all p < .0001). Considering AEs experienced within 6w after randomization, 10% and 61% of pts experienced G4+ and G2-3 AEs, respectively. G3+ AEs were associated with a shorter OS for both pts receiving Oxa- (HRadj= 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.3, padj < .0001) and Iri-based regimens (HRadj= 1.4, 95% CI, 1.2-1.5, padj < .0001). For the entire treatment course, 19% and 72% of pts experienced G4+ and G2-3 AEs, respectively. For Oxa-based regimens, pts with G3+ AEs had a longer OS (HRadj= 0.86, 95% CI, 0.78-0.94, padj = .0016), whereas G3+ AEs were associated with a shorter OS (HRadj= 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.4, padj = .0004) for pts treated with Iri-based regimens. Similar patterns were seen for PFS. Conclusions: Pts who reported higher grade AEs during initial treatment (≤6w) have significantly worse outcome than those who do not. Further analyses with treatment exposure/detailed dose-AE profile and its impact on survival are warranted.