Parseghian, Christine Megerdichian

TPS143 Background: Patients with KRAS and NRAS ( RAS) wild-type mCRC benefit from the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (Abs) panitumumab and cetuximab, but nearly all patients experience resistance. Blood-based profiling of cell free DNA (cfDNA) can identify genomic alterations that drive acquired EGFR Ab resistance. After discontinuation of anti-EGFR Abs, acquired genomic alterations decay over time to undetectable levels. Some studies have suggested clinical benefit from EGFR Ab rechallenge, but there is limited evidence that EGFR Ab rechallenge improves survival compared to standard of care (SOC) therapies. We hypothesize that cfDNA profiling will identify patients appropriate for panitumumab rechallenge, and that these molecularly selected patients will have improved survival compared to current SOC therapies. Methods: This is a randomized phase II, open label study designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of panitumumab rechallenge versus SOC (investigator choice TAS-102 or regorafenib). Secondary objectives include comparisons of progression free survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, and quality of life as measured by the linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) questionnaire. Eligible patients have radiographically measurable KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF codon 600 wild-type mCRC based on tumor tissue testing, and must have experienced progression or intolerance to treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, an anti-VEGF Ab, and an anti-PD-1 Ab if the tumor has mismatch repair deficiency or is MSI-H. Progression after at least 4 months treatment with an anti-EGFR Ab is required. All patients must be enrolled in the COLOMATE cfDNA screening protocol (NCT03765736) and meet molecular eligibility based on Guardant360 cfDNA profiling (absence of amplification of ERBB2, KRAS, NRAS, and MET; absence of mutations of BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, KRAS, NRAS, and MET [mutant allele frequency > 0.5%]). Greater than 90 days must have elapsed between the most recent treatment with an anti-EGFR Ab and cfDNA profiling. Dosing for all study drugs is according to clinical SOC. 120 patients will be randomized 1:1 to panitumumab rechallenge or SOC. With 83 OS events, this study will have 80% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 6.5 to 10 months (HR=0.65; 1-sided α= 0.15). This study began enrollment in 6/2020. Recruitment is ongoing at 16 sites in the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) network (ACCRU-GI-1623). Clinical trial information: NCT03992456.

4047 Background: BRAFV600E mutations occur in fewer than 10% of all patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and arise from sessile serrated adenomas. Despite efficacy with targeted therapies against MAPK signaling and with immunotherapies in this population, survival outcomes for pts with BRAFV600E mCRC in general are poor. Characteristics distinguishing pts with BRAFV600E mCRC with favorable versus unfavorable outcomes have not been well annotated. Methods: Records of 188 pts with BRAFV600E mCRC evaluated at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 3/2010-1/2020 were reviewed. Pts with the shortest and longest metastatic survival (N = 25 for each group) were compared. Associations between prognostic group and clinical/pathologic features were measured by odds ratio and for median survival by log-rank testing. Results: Median metastatic survival differed between the 2 BRAFV600E mCRC populations (8.6 vs 84 months, p < .0001). Pts with poor survival more commonly had primary tumors arising from the hepatic flexure/proximal transverse colon (44% vs 16%, p = .04) and more frequent hepatic involvement (75% vs 28%, p = .001). Pts with favorable survival were more likely to develop metachronous metastases (52% vs 16%, p = .01), have fewer distant organ involvement (median 1 vs 2, p = .02), and undergo definitive locoregional therapy to metastatic disease (44% vs 0%, p = .01). Microsatellite instability (36% vs 4%, p = .008) and a history of tobacco use (44% vs 16%, p = .04) were associated with a favorable prognosis. Durable responses to MAPK-targeted therapies (5/25) and immunotherapy (3/25) were noted in the favorable group. Conclusions: Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC can achieve excellent long-term survival which belies conventional context and is driven by locoregional and systemic treatment options alike. Anatomic localization of the primary tumor and prior exposures may highlight environmental influences on tumor biology which account for the clinical heterogeneity of pts with BRAFV600E mCRC.

e15055 Background: An increasing number of pt and tumor c have predictive and prognostic implications in mCRC. However, there is no consensus on their reporting in trial results. Methods: Pt c and SF from 136 phase III trials of systemic therapies (Rx) in mCRC published between 1988 and 2018 (68,326 pts) were collected. Trials were also grouped per publication date (G1: 1988-97; G2: 98 – 2007; G3: 08-18). Patterns of reporting and trends across G were evaluated. Results: Pt c consistently reported were performance status, PS (98.5%), age (92.6%) and gender (90.4%); race (20.6%) & weight/BMI/BSA were not (13.2%). Tumor c frequently reported were metastatic (met) spread (70.6%) while time intervals related to disease course (25%) and synchronous met vs not (19.1%) were omitted. Of note, primary site was largely reported as colon vs rectum (69%) and sidedness or anatomical location was discernable only in 10.3%. Prior Rx reporting focused on chemo (58.5%) with radiation and surgery and reported in 34% & 28.7%. Reporting of prognostic factors was variable and limited: histology grade CEA, alk phos, LDH (range 10.3-15.4%). Only 11.8% of trials reported genomic factors - KRAS MT was included in all with BRAF MT in 4.4%. Of 140 trials used for SF analysis, 115 had ≥ 1 (range 1-7). Common SF were PS (60%), geography /institution (55.7%). Prior Rx (27%), met spread (24.3%) were sometimes used while primary site (7.8%), genomic factors (6.1%) rarely were. Trends across G are per Table. Conclusions: There is marked inconsistency in pt c & SF reporting in mCRC trials. Consensus guidelines will aid in standardization of trial interpretation and future meta-analyses; and will need to be updated based on emerging data. [Table: see text]

656 Background: Despite multiple trials of new agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), long term outcomes remain poor. This study explores the changing trends in the design, interpretation and outcomes of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mCRC over time. Methods: Phase III RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC with enrollment between 1986 and 2016 were identified through 4 electronic databases and grouped into 3 time periods (1986-1996 – T1; 1997-2006 – T2 & 2007-2016 – T3). Study selection, quality appraisal and data collection were performed by 2 independent investigators. Study characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, and authors’ interpretation of results and conclusions were analyzed. Improvement in overall survival (OS) was the difference between experimental and control arms. A study was deemed positive if it met its end point, was recommended for further study or for adoption for clinical use (p ≤ 0.05 significant for all analyses). Results: One hundred fifty trials (T1=36, T2=62, T3=52) with 77494 patients (T1=12406, T2=39158, T3=25930) were included. Although 1st line therapy trials continued to be the most common across all T, the percentage (%) of trials evaluating 3rd line and beyond (T1=0, T2=3, T3=27) have increased significantly over time as have trials with targeted agents (T1=11, T2=34, T3=79). Although OS remains the most common primary end point, more trials in T2 & T3 have used progression-free survival instead (14 vs 47 & 44). The % of trials with negative results but interpreted as positive increased over time (T1=18; T2=42; T3=35). Across all T, the median improvement in OS (months, m) of these trials was significantly lower compared to the trials that met primary end point across all T (T1 = 0 vs 1.8 m, T2 = -0.1 vs 3.25, T3 = -0.25 vs 2.55). Conclusions: A significant shift has occurred over the past three decades in the design and interpretation of phase III trials in advanced CRC. Any interpretations of potential survival benefits from trials that have not met primary end point must be made with significant caution.