Cecchini, Michael

3109 Background: Poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG) is an enzyme that catalyzes the removal of poly-ADP-ribose (PAR) chains from proteins during DNA damage repair. PARG inhibition leads to selective cell death in tumors with underlying replication fork defects, including BRCAm tumors, through a mechanism distinct from PARP inhibition. ETX-19477 is an oral, potent, and selective PARG inhibitor that shows robust preclinical activity in mouse models of ovarian, breast, and gastric cancers. Methods: ERADIC8 is an open-label, multicenter, Phase 1/2 study, consisting of two parts, dose escalation and dose expansion. A Bayesian Optimal Interval Design was used to enroll patients (pts) into dose escalation cohorts, with enrichment for pts with BRCAm high grade serous ovarian (HGSOC) and breast cancers. The primary objective is to assess safety/tolerability of ETX-19477 and define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase 2 dose(s). Secondary and exploratory objectives include pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary anti-tumor activity per RECIST v1.1. ETX-19477 is given orally once or twice daily in 21-day cycles. Results: As of Jan 6 2026, 45 pts were enrolled into the study across 11 dose levels (range: 80-750 mg QD, 190-350 mg BID). Tumor types included ovarian (n=24, BRCAm: 18), breast (n=8, BRCAm: 7), endometrial (n=6, BRCAm: 0), colorectal (CRC, n=3, BRCAm: 1), and other (n=4, BRCAm: 0) cancers. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs; any grade) occurring in >20% of pts were nausea (53%), vomiting (38%), and fatigue (24%). The only Gr3 TRAE occurring in >5% of pts was neutropenia (16%). There was one Gr4 TRAE of neutropenia in 1 pt (2%) and no Gr5 TRAEs. ETX-19477 exposure is dose proportional, and the BID regimen achieves >85% PARG inhibition throughout the dosing interval in a blood-based PAR accumulation pharmacodynamic assay. As of the data cutoff, dose escalation is ongoing at 350 mg BID (MTD has not been defined) and dose expansion is ongoing at 200-300 mg BID. Among BRCAm, HGSOC pts enrolled at BID dose levels, there were 7 evaluable pts with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy (range 2–11): 2 pts achieved a partial response (PR, 29%) and 3 pts achieved stable disease (SD, 43%). Both pts with PRs were platinum-resistant and received prior PARP inhibitor treatment. 1 pt with BRCAm CRC remains on active therapy (250 mg BID) with SD for 7 months. Conclusions: ETX-19477 was well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated pts with BRCAm, platinum-resistant HGSOC during dose escalation. These findings provide the first clinical proof-of-concept of PARG inhibition in HGSOC. ETX-19477 is being further evaluated in the dose expansion phase of the study. Clinical trial information: NCT06395519 .

45 Background: dMMR tumors are characterized by rapid primary tumor growth with reduced likelihood for nodal and distant metastases compared to MMR proficient (pMMR) tumors. Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated promising efficacy for localized colon cancer with high pathologic complete response rates and low relapse rates. This raises the question if surgical treatment could be avoided with accurate radiographic staging while avoiding overtreatment of early stage tumors. This study assesses the utility of radiographic staging by CT for dMMR tumors compared to pathologic staging. Methods: Patients with stage I-III colon cancer treated with upfront surgical resection were retrospectively reviewed from a single institution from 2012 to 2023 in two cohorts: 1) dMMR colon cancer and 2) pMMR colon cancer limited to similar sample size as matched controls. Clinical stage was determined based on CT scans prior to surgical resection by 2 independent radiologists blinded to pathologic stage, and the results were correlated to pathologic stage. Clinical characteristics were extracted from the electronic medical record. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results: We identified 80 patients with dMMR colon cancer and 66 with pMMR tumors. CT clinical tumor staging was discordant from pathologic staging for 68% of dMMR tumors and 61% for pMMR tumors. For T4 dMMR tumors, CT had a 74% sensitivity and 44% specificity. T4 tumors were understaged by radiology to less than T4 for 56% of cases. For dMMR nodal staging, CT had 89% sensitivity and 50% specificity (Table 1). For pathologic node positive tumors, 14% were understaged by radiologist CT read to node negative. For pathologic node negative tumors, 50% of tumors were overstaged to node positive by radiologist CT read. There was poor inter-rater reliability for both T stage and N stage for dMMR and pMMR tumors. The weakest agreement between radiologists was for T stage (dMMR kappa = 0.246, mMMR kappa = 0.145). Conclusions: Radiologic clinical staging of dMMR and pMMR colon cancer does not correlate well with pathologic staging. There were high rates of understaging by CT evaluation for patients who may be candidates for neoadjuvant treatment (T4, N+). Furthermore, there was poor inter-rater reliability between radiologists, indicating that CT staging alone may not be sufficient. Additional diagnostic modalities for nodal detection may be necessary to accurately clinically stage patients before neoadjuvant ICIs in patients with locally advanced disease. Comparing utility of pMMR versus dMMR tumors for T4 and node positive disease. pMMR (n = 66) dMMR (n = 80) T4 versus T3 or less Sensitivity (%) 92 74 Specificity (%) 51 47 PPV (%) 80 77 NPV (%) 82 63 Node positive versus node negative Sensitivity (%) 60 50 Specificity (%) 75 89 PPV (%) 81 89 NPV (%) 53 50 Abbreviations: PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value.

3077 Background: ATR protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA defects in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor irinotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in SCLC and GI cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This phase Ia trial assessed elimusertib in combination with irinotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom irinotecan can be considered standard care. Patients with previous irinotecan exposure were excluded. Two dosing schedules were used: 1) Biweekly - irinotecan IV (starting at 150 mg/m2) D1 + elimusertib (starting dose 20 mg PO BID) D1,D2 (cycle=14 days); 2) Weekly - irinotecan (starting at 50 mg/m2) IV on D1,8,15 with elimusertib (starting at 20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3,D9,D10 and D16,D17 (cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity. Results: A total of 21 patients were enrolled in dose escalation (N=9 [Biweekly] and N=12 [Weekly], median age 58 and 2 lines of prior therapy. For the Biweekly cohort: 3/3 patients enrolled at dose level (DL) 1 experienced hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (DLT); 6 patients received DL-1 without any DLTs. The weekly regimen escalation comprised of 12 patients: 6 enrolled in DL1 with 2/6 having hematologic DLT and 5/6 unable to complete ≥75% of cycle 1 dosing; 6 enrolled in DL-1 with no DLTs observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized (Table 1). The majority of evaluable patients in both schedules had initial disease control (56% [biweekly] and 67% [weekly]). One confirmed partial response was seen in the biweekly RP2D. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 mo [biweekly] and 2.5 mo [weekly]. PK results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: Both RP2D and MTD of elimusertib in combination with irinotecan were reached for both dosing schedules: irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV D1 + elimusertib 10 mg BID PO D1,D2 (biweekly) and irinotecan 25 mg/m2 IV on D1 + elimusertib (20 mg PO daily) on D2,D3 (weekly). Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansion but the concept of ATR + topo I combination remains scientifically relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

3076 Background: Ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase is activated by replication stress and recruited to stalled forks or single strand DNA abnormalities in various cancers. The topoisomerase-I (Top1) inhibitor topotecan induces DNA damage. The ATR inhibitor BAY 1895344 (elimusertib) has demonstrated cytotoxic potential in small cell lung cancer and gastrointestinal cancer xenografts when combined with Top1 inhibitors . Methods: This is phase Ia study of elimusertib combined with topotecan in adult patients with refractory advanced solid tumors for whom topotecan can be considered as part of standard care. Patients with previous topotecan exposure were excluded. The study combination was assessed starting at Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV (D1-D5) plus elimusertib 20 mg BID (D2, D5) (Cycle=21 days). Dose escalation utilized a 3+3 design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability and estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination. Secondary objectives included estimating pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and assessing anti-tumor activity of the combinations. Results: Eight patients were treated in dose escalation. Participants were a median of 63 years old and had received 2 median lines of previous therapy. The initial two patients enrolled into dose level (DL) 1 had dose-limiting toxicities with one of patient experiencing respiratory failure and cardiac arrest in setting of pancytopenia related to study drug. Six patients were subsequently enrolled in and received DL-1 (elimusertib decreased from 20 mg BID to 20 mg Daily) and no DLTs were observed. Notable grade 3+ treatment-related adverse events and summary best response are summarized in Table. Disease control rate was 43% among evaluation patient including one unconfirmed partial response. Median progression-free survival in the RP2D cohort was 3.45 months. PK studies are in process and results will be presented at time of meeting. Conclusions: RP2D and MTD was established for elimusertib in combination with Topotecan: Topotecan 1 mg/m2 IV [D1-D5] plus elimusertib 20 mg Daily [D2, D5] every 3 weeks. Dose escalation was notably limited by myelotoxicity. Due to sponsor decision, the study was halted prior to planned expansions cohorts but the concept of ATR + topo I inhibition remains relevant. Clinical trial information: NCT04514497 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: ATRi and PARPi combinations kill tumor cells via synergistic modulation of complementary DDR pathways but clinical utility is limited by overlapping toxicities. A genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screen identified DDR alterations that sensitize tumors to the ATRi camonsertib (cam) plus PARPi. Based on preclinical models, tolerability and efficacy of cam plus PARPi given intermittently at low doses in pts with solid tumors with DDR alterations, including BRCA-mutated PARPi-resistant cancers, was evaluated. Methods: Pts (≥ 18 yrs) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) solid tumors with DDR alterations were treated with cam plus talazoparib (tala), niraparib (nira), or olaparib (ola) in 2 phase I trials (NCT04497116, NCT04972110). An adaptive BOIN design was used to optimize dose/schedule. Endpoints were safety, recommended phase II dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics (PK), response (RECIST v1.1 [confirmed/unconfirmed], CA 125, or PSA), clinical benefit rate (CBR; RECIST/tumor marker response or treatment duration ≥ 16 wk), and ctDNA molecular response rate (MRR; best reduction in mean variant allele frequency [mVAF] ≥ 50%). Results: As of Nov 2022, 99 pts were enrolled (61 with ≥ 3 prior lines of therapy, 36 PARPi-pretreated); 43, 27, 29 pts in tala, nira, and ola combinations, respectively. Tumors included ovarian (n=20), prostate (n=13), breast (n=17), bile duct (n=3); most common genotypes were ATM (n=26), BRCA1 (n=19), and BRCA2 (n=33). Grade 3+ toxicities included reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia in 35%, 28%, and 14% of pts overall; 33%, 16%, and 11% at preliminary RP2Ds), fatigue (3%), and alkaline phosphatase increase (2%). Two pts discontinued treatment due to drug-related toxicity. Forty pts remain on therapy, up to 63 wks. Preliminary RP2Ds: cam 80 mg QD (d 5-7) + tala 0.25 mg QD, 1 wk on/1 wk off; cam 80 mg QD + nira 100 mg QD, 2 d on/5 d off; cam 50 mg QD + ola 100 mg BID, 3 d on/4 d off. As of abstract submission, response rate was 13% in 85 evaluable pts; CBR was 49%. Responders included pts with ovarian (n=6), bile duct (n=2), and breast, pancreatic, and carcinoma of unknown primary (n=1 each) cancers harboring alterations in BRCA1/2 (n=9), IDH1 (n=1), and ATM (n=1). Of 30 evaluable PARPi-pretreated pts, response rate was 23% and CBR was 52%. MRR was 64% (14/22 evaluable); change in mVAF correlated with a change in target lesion size (r=0.63, P=0.001). PK of each drug in the combination was consistent with respective monotherapy PK. Conclusion: Combination of cam plus PARPi at low doses on intermittent schedules was generally well-tolerated with clinical activity in DDR-aberrant tumors, including those pretreated with PARPi. RP2D optimization and translational correlative studies are ongoing. Citation Format: Timothy A. Yap, Siddhartha Yadav, Benjamin Herzberg, Benedito A. Carneiro, Elisa Fontana, Martin Højgaard, Michael J. Pishvaian, Ruth Plummer, Theresa L. Werner, Vaibhav Sahai, Stephanie Lheureux, Elizabeth K. Lee, Niharika B. Mettu, Gregory M. Cote, Joseph D. Schonhoft, Victoria Rimkunas, Ian M. Silverman, Marisa Wainszelbaum, Gerson Peltz, Adrian J. Fretland, Kezhen Fei, Danielle Ulanet, Insil Kim, Maria Koehler, Ezra Rosen, Michael Cecchini. Safety and efficacy of three PARP inhibitors (PARPi) combined with the ataxia telangiectasia- and Rad3-related kinase inhibitor (ATRi) camonsertib in patients (pts) with solid tumors harboring DNA damage response (DDR) alterations [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 CT018.

Background and Purpose: Chemotherapy followed by margin-negative resection (R0) is the treatment of choice for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Neoadjuvant multiagent chemotherapy (MAC) or MAC then radiotherapy (RT) may optimize surgical candidacy. The purpose of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of MAC followed by conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CRT) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with resected PDAC. Methods: Patients diagnosed with nonmetastatic PDAC between 2012 and 2017 and who received preoperative MAC or MAC+RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Variables associated with R0 and overall survival were identified with logistic regression and Cox analysis (P<0.05). Results: A total of 5273 patients were identified (MAC: 3900, MAC+CRT: 955, MAC+SBRT: 418). The median RT dose/fraction (fx) in the MAC+CRT and MAC+SBRT cohorts was 50.4 Gy/28 fx and 33 Gy/5 fx. Patients receiving MAC+CRT versus MAC+SBRT had similar rates of ypT3-T4 disease (54% vs. 58%, P=0.187), R0 (87% vs. 84%, P=0.168), and pathologic complete response (pathologic complete response; 6% vs. 4%, P=0.052), however, MAC+CRT was associated with less regional lymphatic disease (ypN+: 28% vs. 41%, P<0.001). The median overall survival of patients receiving MAC+CRT versus MAC+SBRT was 24.6 versus 29.5 months (P=0.045). Conclusions: For patients with resected PDAC, MAC+CRT, and MAC+SBRT had similar rates of R0 and pathologic complete response, although MAC+CRT was associated with lower ypN+. Prospective evaluation of neoadjuvant RT regimens with attention to radiation therapy design is warranted.

e18584 Background: Cancer progression rates following diagnosis are readily measured. However, the progression rate of cancer during the preclinical sojourn time is generally unobserved. Understanding the duration of preclinical stages (“dwell time”) would allow clinicians to better identify appropriate screening intervals for cancer. We therefore elicited estimates of progression rate during the preclinical sojourn time for a wide variety of malignancies from a panel of clinical experts. Methods: We used a validated consensus methodology (RAND/UCLA modified Delphi panel method) to elicit per-stage dwell time estimates for 20 solid cancers and lymphoma from experts. Eleven experienced oncologists (general and subspecialists) from community and academic centers reviewed literature on the natural history of disease and estimated in number of years (<1 to 9+ years) how long it would take each cancer to progress from the beginning of clinically detectable Stage I/II/III to the beginning of the next stage in untreated adults. Cancer histological subtypes were grouped and experts were asked to provide an overall rating. Ratings were completed before and after a discussion of areas of disagreement. Results: Expert estimates and range of dwell time for 21 cancer types are provided in Table. Prostate and thyroid cancer were estimated to be the slowest growing, taking approximately 7 and 5 years respectively to progress through Stage I (range 4-8), 5 years to progress through Stage II (range 3-7), and 3 and 4 (range 2-5) years respectively to progress through Stage III. Esophageal, lung, liver/intrahepatic bile-duct, gallbladder, and pancreatic cancers were estimated to progress quickly through all three stages (1-2 years per stage). Conclusions: These findings summarize practicing oncologists’ estimates of dwell time in preclinical disease. Experts agreed on dwell times although ranges were large and differences in cancer subtypes were not captured. Generally, estimates trend with published data on survival with treatment: cancers with higher survival (e.g., prostate, thyroid) were estimated to grow slower, while cancers with lower survival (e.g., pancreatic, liver/intrahepatic bile-duct, gallbladder) were estimated to grow faster. These estimates could be useful when determining screening intervals for these or any subset of these cancers. [Table: see text]

e16686 Background: Genetic alterations in the FGFR pathway are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in CCA. The clinical and molecular features of patients (pts) with CCA harboring FGFR genetic alterations are reported here. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed in pts with CCA who were found to have an FGFR alteration on tumor molecular profiling as part of routine care between 9/2007 and 12/2019. Data on demographics, risk factors, pathology, molecular characteristics, systemic therapies, radiographical response, time on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were collected in a multi-center collaborative effort across seven academic centers. Results: Among 135 pts with FGFR-altered CCA, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years old (range = 25-92 years), and 80 (59.3%) pts were female, 129 (95.6%) had intrahepatic CCA, and 6 (5.6%) had chronic HBV. At presentation, 28.2% of pts had resectable disease, including 65.0% with Stage I-II, 22.5% with Stage III, and 5.0% with Stage IV. At the time of initial diagnosis, CA19-9 was < 35U/mL in 42.6% of pts. Bone metastases were observed in 41 (30.6%) pts with advanced disease. FGFR2 fusions were the most common FGFR alteration (68.2%), followed by FGFR2 mutations (21.5%), FGFR3 mutations (3.7%), FGFR2 rearrangements (1.5%), FGFR1 amplification (1.5%), and FGFR2 amplification (1.5%). The most common FGFR2 fusion partners were BICC1 (28.3%), SORBS1 (4.4%), POC1B (3.3%), and TACC2 (3.3%). The median lines of palliative systemic therapies received was 3 (range = 0-8), and 40/135 (29.6%) pts received a liver-directed therapy. For the 55 (59.8%) pts with FGFR2 fusions who received gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line palliative systemic therapy, the median time on treatment was 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.3). The median OS from time of initial diagnosis was 36.1 months (95% CI: 28.3-51.6) in the FGFR2 fusion positive cohort. Among the 92 pts with FGFR2 fusions, 70 (76.1%) pts received an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial; 12 (17.1%) were subsequently treated with a second FGFR inhibitor, and 58.3% stayed on the second FGFR inhibitor for ≥4 months. Pts with a BICC1 fusion partner (n = 16) had an overall response rate of 42.9% on FGFR-selective inhibitors compared to 30.8% in non-BICC1 fusion partners (n = 54). Conclusions: Pts with CCA harboring FGFR alterations were found to have a high rate of normal CA19-9, high rate of bone metastases, and short median time on treatment on first-line palliative gemcitabine/cisplatin. Additional comparative studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.