Das, Satya Narayan

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]

TPS3161 Background: The p53 pathway has been implicated in antitumor immunity, including antigen presentation and T-cell proliferation. Loss of p53 function can increase resistance to immunotherapy across many tumor types. Eprenetapopt (eprenet) is a small molecule that stabilizes the folded structure of p53, resulting in activation of mutant p53 and stabilization of wild-type (WT) p53. It also targets the cellular redox homeostasis, resulting in induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. In vivo, mice carrying supernumerary copies of the TP53 gene harbor a pro-inflammatory tumor microenvironment, an effect recapitulated in TP53 normal-copy mice treated with eprenetapopt. Combining eprenetapopt and anti-PD1 or anti-CTLA4 therapy resulted in enhanced tumor growth inhibition and improved survival in TP53 WT mice inoculated with B16 melanoma and MC38 colon adenocarcinoma cells . Based on these results, we hypothesized that eprenet-induced p53 stabilization may augment response to immunotherapy. To test this hypothesis, we are conducting a phase 1b/2 study of eprenet in combination with pembrolizumab (eprenet+pembro) in pts with solid tumors. Methods: The primary objectives are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to assess the safety and tolerability of eprenet+pembro in pts with advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives are to estimate the anti-tumor activity and to describe the pharmacokinetics of the combination. Exploratory objectives include assessing predictive and pharmacodynamic markers of response. The study includes a safety lead-in with a 3+3 dose de-escalation design for pts with advanced solid tumors with known tumor TP53 mutation status ( TP53 WT is acceptable) (max 18 pts), followed by expansion cohorts in pts with NSCLC, gastric/GEJ and urothelial cancer (max 100 pts). In expansion, pts with urothelial and gastric cancers must be naïve to anti-PD-1/ L1 therapy. Eprenet is given IV once daily on Days 1–4 while pembro is administered on Day 3 of each 21-day cycle. The RP2D of eprenet+pembro is considered the dose at which ≤ 1 of 6 pts in a cohort has a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Primary endpoints are occurrence of DLTs, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs with eprenet+pembro. Key secondary endpoints are best objective response, progression free survival and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints include gene mutations by next generation sequencing (including TP53), mRNA expression, multiplex immunohistochemistry and transcriptomics, multiplex flow cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells and cytokines in serum. Continuous monitoring of toxicity will be conducted. The trial opened in May 2020 and is actively enrolling patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04383938.

e15029 Background: ICIs induce durable responses in dMMR CRC pts with overall response rates (ORR) of 30-50%. Even though the loss of expression of any MMR gene predicts ICIs response, it is unknown if ORRs are similar across all MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6). In this study, we analyzed the impact of each specific MMR gene loss and clinical characteristics of pts with best response to ICIs. Methods: Pts were eligible if they had confirmed dMMR CRC by IHC or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) by PCR, and received ICIs between 01/01/2012 and 10/01/2018 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Mayo Clinic or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Due to the pattern of frequent concurrent loss and functional dependency, the groups were categorized as MLH1 ±PMS2 vs. MSH2 ±MSH6. Cox proportional hazard model and Fisher’s exact test were used for the best response and the distribution of variable among the subgroups. Results: A total of 45 pts with dMMR CRC were identified. ORRs in MLH1 ±PMS2 and MSH2 ±MSH6 groups were 68% and 57.1% respectively without statistical difference (Table). Pts with age < 50 and 50-65 years old had better ORRs compared to pts with age >65 (58.3%, 85.7% and 42.1% respectively, P=0.036). Left-sided tumors had a trend toward higher ORRs compared to right-sided tumors (83.3% vs 51.5% P=0.086). Gender and BRAF status were not predictors of response. BRAF mutations were more common in right-sided tumors (29.6% vs 11.1% respectively) and in older patients. Conclusions: Our data suggest that MSI-H CRC pts aged 50-65 treated with ICIs, have improved ORR compared to pts > 65; pts with left-sided tumors have a trend toward improved ORR compared to those with right sided tumors. [Table: see text]