Zalcberg, John

11524 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the first interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS) in the INTRIGUE trial, data were immature (OS event rate, 22.3%), and median OS was not reached in either arm for the KIT exon 11 intent-to-treat (ITT) and all-patient (AP) ITT populations (S Bauer, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022). Additionally, ripretinib had a more favorable safety profile with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) than sunitinib. Here, we present the second IA of OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is a global, open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint; data cutoff for the second IA was Sept 1, 2022. Results: Of 453 pts in the AP ITT population, 444 received treatment; 51 remain on treatment (33/223 [14.8%] with ripretinib and 18/221 [8.1%] with sunitinib). Common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progressive disease (PD) assessed by independent radiologic review (55.4%), PD assessed by investigator (10.6%), clinical PD (5.9%), withdrawal of consent (5.4%), and adverse event (AE; 4.5%); fewer pts discontinued due to an AE for ripretinib vs sunitinib (2.7% vs 6.3%). Following study treatment discontinuation, 58 pts (25.6%) from the sunitinib arm received ripretinib; 139 pts (61.5%) from the ripretinib arm later received sunitinib. There were 185 OS events (40.8%) in the AP ITT population; median duration of follow-up was 28.7 and 28.5 months for ripretinib and sunitinib, respectively. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the AP ITT (median 35.5 vs 30.9 months; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18; nominal P = 0.39) and KIT exon 11 ITT populations (median 34.0 vs 31.5 months; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.48; nominal P = 0.77). The updated safety profile was consistent with the primary analysis; fewer pts had grade 3/4 TEAEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (95 [42.6%] vs 149 [67.4%]). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. The median (range) treatment duration was 7.9 (0.2–38.2) months for ripretinib and 6.5 (0.2–38.3) months for sunitinib. Conclusions: In the second IA from INTRIGUE, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent with additional data, and results demonstrate favorable safety with ripretinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 .

397784 Background: Ripretinib, a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may provide insight into the efficacy of these agents in second-line advanced GIST. Here, we present exploratory baseline ctDNA results from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay. Only KIT mutations are reported here. Results: Of 453 pts in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 362 (80%) samples were analyzed. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%), with KIT mutations detected in 213/280 (76%). Common resistance mutations were in the KIT activation loop (AL; exons 17/18; 89/213, 42%) and ATP-binding pocket (ATP-BP; exons 13/14; 81/213, 38%). Efficacy in pts with detectable ctDNA in the KIT exon 11 and overall ITT populations was consistent with the primary analysis based on tumor data used for randomization. Pts with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 (−9/13/14) mutations had superior progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) with ripretinib vs sunitinib, whereas pts with exon 11 + 13/14 (−9/17/18) mutations had better PFS, ORR, and OS with sunitinib vs ripretinib (Table). Subgroup safety profiles were consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: While KIT ATP-BP mutations predicted clinical benefit from sunitinib vs ripretinib, pts harboring resistance mutations in the KIT AL derived meaningful clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib. This study demonstrates the value of ctDNA NGS-based sequencing of the complex landscape of KIT mutations to predict the clinical benefit of ripretinib or sunitinib as second-line therapy in pts with advanced GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

118 Background: Anti-VEGF is widely used in the treatment (trt) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Only studies with bevacizumab (BEV) have shown survival benefit (bnf) in first line trt. The magnitude of bnf might differ based on the metastatic (met) site and the chemotherapy regimen (CTR) with which BEV is partnered. ARCAD database contains individual patient data (IPD) of randomized trials that evaluated BEV+ CT. In this pooled analysis, we aimed to evaluate BEV bnf in mCRC with lung metastases (mets) either as single or multiple sites. Methods: IPD from four trials (AVF2107g, N016966, AVF2192g, AGITG) comparing CT +/- BEV were pooled. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models according to number and type of met sites and CTRs, oxaliplatin or irinotecan (OX/IRI) based. The predictive bnf of BEV was evaluated by interaction test (int) between trt and lung mets status in subgroups and considered as significant (sig) with a P < 0.1. Results: 2728 patients (pts) with known met sites and survival data were pooled. 1020 pts had single met site, 133 had only lung mets. 1708 pts had multiple met sites, 1008 had lung mets. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Sig OS bnf of BEV was observed in the whole population. In pts subgroup according to the presence or absence of lung mets, sig bnf of BEV were observed with a non-sig int ( Pint=.590). Non-sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with single site regardless of met site (lung or no lung) or CTR. Sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites without lung mets whatever the CTRs. While sig bnf of BEV was observed in pts with multiple sites with lung mets, we found a sig int between BEV and OX/IRI-based regimens ( Pint=.022). The bnf of BEV was observed with IRI-based regimen but not in OX-based regimen. The bnf of BEV appears greater in multiple sites without lung mets than with lung mets with a sig stratified log-rank test ( PLRT<.001). Conclusions: In pts with multiple sites mCRC, a statistically sig OS bnf of BEV added to CT was observed mainly among pts without lung mets. The overall effect of CT partner choice when combined with BEV can be different. In pts with single site, BEV did not seem to improve OS but the evaluation of efficacy of BEV in presence or absence lung mets was based on small number of pts and needs to be evaluated in trials with larger pts sample, especially trials including pts with single site lung mets. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.

11541 Background: Ripretinib (R) is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs. In the INTRIGUE study (NCT03673501) there was no significant difference in median PFS (primary endpoint) between R and sunitinib (S). We present exploratory analyses of tolerability data and selected pt reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to R 150 mg QD or S 50 mg QD 4 weeks on/2 weeks off.Dose modification was allowed for toxicity management. The event of interest was severe or life-threatening (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse event prior to progression (sTRAE). Days with at least one sTRAE were summed for all treated pts and for pts with ≥1 sTRAE event. PROs were assessed using questions from EORTC QLQ-C30 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at cycle 1 (C1) day 1 (D1), D15, and D29; D1 and D29 of all other cycles; as well as at end of treatment. Differences in PRO scores between baseline and later assessments were calculated across visits. Long-term data will be presented. Results: Pts receiving R (n = 223) versus (vs) S (n = 221) experienced fewer sTRAEs (24% vs 51%, respectively). For all treated pts, the mean time with sTRAEs was 11 days for R and 42 days for S (ratio 0.27, P<0.0001). For pts with ≥1 sTRAE, the mean number of days with a sTRAE was 48 days for R vs 81 days for S (ratio 0.59, p = 0.037). Completion of PRO assessments across the two treatment arms was similar (baseline: R [n = 199], S [n = 199]; C1 D29: R [n = 167], S [n = 177]). Significant differences in self-reported functioning and symptoms were observed by C1 D29. For PROs relating to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, pts in the R arm reported better outcomes than pts in the S arm. Pts in the R arm reported significantly (p<0.05) less decline compared to baseline in pt-reported role function as well as less increase, or improvement, in symptoms of fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and pain vs pts in the S arm. Moderate or severe effect of skin toxicity on pt life, as measured by DLQI in the R arm (n = 165) and in the S arm (n = 175), was observed in 6.6% of pts in the R arm vs 14.8% of pts in the S arm (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In the INTRIGUE study the total number of days with sTRAEs was fewer for pts receiving R vs S. Pts in the R arm also reported significantly less decline in pt-reported role function and less increase in symptoms related to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, vs pts in the S arm. Medical writing provided by Costello Medical. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

3578 Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mab) targeting EGFR are recommended in L1 treatment (trt) for mCRC in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (WT) tumor and primary left CRC. ARCAD database contains individual data of randomized trials that evaluated anti-EGFR mab plus chemotherapy (CT). In this analysis we aimed to evaluate anti-EGFR benefit in mCRC with lung mets, either as single site or multiple sites. Methods: Individual pts data from four trials (PRIME, CRYSTAL, COIN, OPUS) comparing CT +/- anti-EGFR were pooled. KRAS status was not required at inclusion to these studies. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method, prognostic value of lung mets was evaluated by stratified Cox models in pts groups defined by KRAS status. The predictive value was evaluated by interaction test (Int) between trt and lung mets status in pts group defined by KRAS status and considered as significant with a P < 0.1. Results: 3681 pts with known KRAS status were included, 2171 WT and 1510 mutant (MT). Pts characteristics were well balanced. Significant median OS benefit of anti-EGFR was observed in the whole KRAS WT population and in the left colon and rectum subgroup but not in the right colon subgroup. In pts with KRAS WT single site mets, a non-significant benefit of anti-EGFR was observed only among pts without lung mets (N = 642). In pts with lung single site mets (N = 129), a significant benefit ( P= 0.018) in the KRAS MT population (N = 55) was observed, but Int was non-significant ( P =0.157). In pts with KRAS WT and multiple without lung mets sites (N = 673), no benefit of anti-EGFR was observed and Int was significant ( P= 0.054). Pts with KRAS MT multiple sites with (N = 656) or without (N = 397) lung mets, had no benefit of anti-EGFR. The same findings were found in the left primary pts and in the two fluoropyrimidine backbone. PFS analyses confirm the OS results. Conclusions: In this ARCAD analysis pts with lung mets as a single site appear to benefit from anti-EGFR L1 therapy in case of KRAS MT. This unexpected result based on a limited sample size cannot be explained on the knowledge of anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, pts with multiple mets sites have a benefit of anti-EGFR therapy only in the presence of lung mets even in KRAS WT left primary tumor. These findings need further confirmation and may initiate the search for a specific molecular phenotype associated with lung mets in CRC pts. [Table: see text]

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged &gt;70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status &gt;0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

80 Background: Higher baseline body mass index is associated with improved survival in metastatic CRC (mCRC). Whether weight gain or loss after mCRC diagnosis is associated with survival remains largely unknown. Methods: We analyzed individual patient data from 3504 patients with previously untreated mCRC enrolled in five phase III randomized trials (AVF2017g, AVF2192g, CRYSTAL, N9741, OPUS) conducted between 2000 and 2006. Weight measurements were prospectively collected at 3 months after diagnosis and then up to 5 years. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the percent weight change at 3 months: stable weight or gain, weight loss up to 5% of baseline weight, and ≥5% weight loss of baseline weight. Cox models were used to assess the prognostic associations of weight change at 3 months with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adjusting for baseline BMI, age, sex, performance score, chemotherapy backbone (oxaliplatin vs. irinotecan), and biologics type (cetuximab vs. bevacizumab). Sub-analyses included Cox models adjusted for additional clinical-pathological factors (primary tumor sidedness [right colon vs. left colon-rectum], and BRAF status; N=1,511). Results: Median percent weight change at 3 months was -0.5% (IQR -4.0 to+1.6%). OS was better in patients with weight stability or gain than in those with weight loss (up to 5% or ≥5%; (Table). Results were consistent for PFS for patients with ≥5% weight loss of baseline weight, as well as for sub-analyses. Conclusions: Patients losing weight during the first 3 months of systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with stable or increasing weight. Degree of weight loss is proportional to the observed increased risk of death and remains evident among underweight, normal weight and obese individuals. Further studies examining possible usefulness of on-treatment early weight loss as a novel intermediary end-point are needed.[Table: see text]