Zhou, Katherine Ismei

Abstract Introduction: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are observed in ~20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the U.S., ivosidenib (ivo) is approved with or without azacitidine (aza) in the frontline (FL) and as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) IDH1-mutated (mut) AML. Olutasidenib (oluta) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH1-mut AML. Enasidenib (ena) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH2-mut AML. This study describes real-world IDH inhibitor (IDHi) administration patterns and evaluates their outcomes in on-label settings. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IDH1/2-mut AML who received ivosidenib, olutasidenib, or enasidenib was conducted at 12 academic institutions in the U.S. Best response at any time during treatment, including complete response (CR) and complete response with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 criteria. Results: A total of 387 patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mut AML were treated with an IDHi in the FL or R/R setting. Median follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 0.03-90.7). Demographics include 79% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, and 4% other/unknown race; 5% were Hispanic ethnicity; 46% were female; the median age was 70 years (range, 28-95). 70% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, 26% had secondary AML, and 10% had therapy-related AML. Per the ELN 2024 less-Intensive risk classification, 58% were favorable risk, 29% intermediate, 7% adverse, and 6% unknown. Overall, 209 of 387 patients (54%) received IDHi regimens on-label. In FL IDH1-mut AML (n=45), 11 received ivo monotherapy, 25 aza/ivo, and 9 used off-label combinations: 3 hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax (ven) + ivo, 5 decitabine/ivo, 1 intensive chemotherapy (IC)/ivo. Among R/R IDH1-mut AML (n=109), 47 received ivo monotherapy, 7 oluta monotherapy, and 55 off-label (31 HMA/ivo, 16 HMA/ven/ivo, 3 IC/ivo, and 5 other). 44 received off-label ena for FL treatment of IDH2-mut AML (25 ena monotherapy, 9 HMA/ena, 8 HMA/ven/ena, and 2 IC/ena). In R/R IDH2-mut AML (n=189), 119 patients received ena monotherapy and 70 received off-label combinations (25 HMA/ena, 30 HMA/ven/ena, 7 IC/ena, 6 ena/gilteritinib, and 2 other). In on-label treatment of FL IDH1-mut AML, one of four patients with response assessment of FL ivo monotherapy had a CR/CRh. Of 19 patients with response assessment on FL aza/ivo, 13 patients (68.4%) had a CR as best response (95% CI, 46.0-84.6%). Median OS was 14.9 mo (95% CI, 4.17-NR) for ivo monotherapy (n=11) and 31.9 mo (95% CI, 9.1-NR) for aza/ivo (n=25), with 0 and 2 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT), respectively. In R/R IDH1-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh was 35.5% (95% CI, 21.1-53.1) for on-label ivo monotherapy. All 4 patients with response assessment for on-label oluta monotherapy had a CR. Median OS was 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.1-22.4) for ivo monotherapy and NR for oluta monotherapy (95% CI, 10.1-NR), with 10 and 0 receiving allo-SCT, respectively. The CR/CRh rate for ivo was 38.1% (8 of 21 assessed; 95% CI, 20.8-59.1) in age < 70, and 30.0% (3 of 10 assessed; 95% CI, 10.8-60.3) in age ≥ 70. Median OS was 15.2 mo (95% CI 9.3-NR) in age < 70 (n=27) and 10.4 mo (95% CI 8.0-18) in age ≥ 70 (n=20). In R/R IDH2-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh for on-label ena monotherapy was 38.2% (95% CI, 27.6-50.1). Median OS was 12.1 mo (95% CI, 8.2-16.6), with 5 having received allo-SCT. In demographic subgroups for ena monotherapy, 52 non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with response assessment had a CR/CRh rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 0.30-0.56). Only 1 of 13 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with response assessment had a CRh (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33.0) as best response, with none attaining CR. Median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI 10.3-26.3) in NHW (n=82), 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NR) in NHB (n=18), and 69.1 mo (95% CI, 52.6-NR) in Hispanic patients (n=8). The CR/CRh rate was 48.6% (17 of 35 assessed; 95% CI, 33.0-64.4) for age < 70, and 27.3% (9 of 33 assessed; 95% CI, 15.1-44.2) for age ≥ 70. Median OS was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.9-22.1) in age < 70 (n=48) and 5.8 mo (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in age ≥ 70 (n=69). Conclusion: Practice patterns for IDH inhibitors in AML vary considerably, with high amounts of off-label use. Response rates for ivosidenib and enasidenib in the real-world setting are comparable to those of clinical trials. Descriptive analyses of demographic subgroups highlight areas in need of further research.

3571 Background: In colorectal cancer (CRC), mutations in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapies. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), ~90% of patients harbor KRAS mutations, while KRAS wild-type tumors often have clinically actionable fusion alterations. Thus, in both cancers, the accurate ascertainment of RAS and BRAF driver status is essential. Sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma allows convenient assessment of a tumor’s molecular profile, but sensitivity can be limited by low ctDNA shedding. We sought to establish a ctDNA shedding threshold at which actionable driver mutations can be reliably detected. Methods: Molecular reports and matched clinical data were obtained from the Duke Molecular Registry of Tumors and the SCRUM-Japan GOZILA and GI-SCREEN. CRC or PDAC patients with a pathogenic KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF activating point mutation (“driver”) present on tissue next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays and who also had cfDNA assay available were included. Tissue NGS included Foundation One CDx and Oncomine Comprehensive Assay. Guardant 360 (G360) was the sole plasma cfDNA assay. 131 CRC and 24 PDAC cases with 189 total G360 assays met criteria and were included. Samples were analyzed according to detection of the driver mutation and the maximum mutant allele frequency (MAF) of non-driver mutations on G360. An optimal cut-point for max MAF was explored among the CRC and PDAC patients using a maximally selected Wilcoxon rank statistic method. Results: 76.8% of driver mutations were in KRAS, 22.6% in BRAF, and 1.9% in NRAS with an overlap of 1 BRAF and 1 NRAS mutation with a KRAS mutation. Overall sensitivity of G360 for drivers was 83.0% for CRC and 54.2% for PDAC. No variants were detected on G360 in 9.1% of CRC and 37.5% of PDAC. Sensitivity for driver mutations increased with higher maximum non-driver MAF, with MAF > 1% predicting sensitivity > 98% (Table). Optimal cut-point analysis identified MAF of > 0.34% (p < 0.0001), above which the driver was identified in 97% of patients and below which only 27%. Conclusions: In our study, non-driver MAF > 1% on cfDNA NGS predicts high sensitivity for RAS and BRAF mutations and thus is adequate to guide clinical decisions such as anti-EGFR therapy in CRC, evaluation for fusions in PDAC, and validity in clinical trials. MAF ≤0.34% is a clear threshold to consider an assay inadequate and thus seek alternative testing. Sensitivity rises for MAF between 0.35 and 1% but will require greater patient numbers to establish clinically relevant sensitivity thresholds. These results will be updated with additional data for final presentation. [Table: see text]