Ahn, Daniel H.

619 Background: Regorafenib (at a starting dose of 160 mg/day, rego 160), regorafenib (with a weekly dose escalation, rego 80+) and TAS-102, are suggested treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these 3 strategies. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS 102 or regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients who progressed on/intolerant of previous oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included OS and PFS. The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White’s multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Results: Six trials (3 of regorafenib and 3 of TAS-102) at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to BSC in terms of PFS (Rego 160: HR = 0.4, CI 0.26 to 0.63; TAS-102: HR = 0.46, CI 0.40 to 0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR = 0.67, CI 0.48 to 0.93; TAS-102: HR = 0.67, CI 0.57 to 0.80). Network analysis showed that there was no difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR = 0.44, CI 0.23 to 0.84) and PFS (HR = 0.37, CI 0.21 to 0.66). There was a numerical advantage for Rego 80+ compared to TAS-102 and Rego 160 (see table). Conclusions: Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. [Table: see text]

291 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) has limited treatment options. Genomic analyses have led to development of targeted therapies now in clinical trials, and may enable discovery of new treatment options. However, biopsy often yields limited tissue, thus hampering tissue-based profiling opportunities. Comparative data regarding circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis and tissue based profiling in CCA are limited. Methods: We performed ctDNA NGS analysis along with tissue based profiling in pts with advanced CCA (January 2015- February 2018). ctDNA analysis was performed using Guardant 360 (Guardant Health, CA) which detects single nucleotide variants, amplifications, fusions, and specific insertion/deletion mutations in up to 73 different genes and the majority of tissue based profiling using Foundation One. The mutant allele fraction (MAF) for detected alterations was calculated relative to wild type in ctDNA. Therapeutic relevance was defined as alterations within OncoKB levels 1-3B and R1. The study was conducted in accordance with Mayo Clinic IRB requirements. Results: Among 124 pts and 139 total samples, ctDNA NGS revealed at least one genomic alteration (excluding variants of uncertain significance and synonymous mutations) in 89% of pts. Median number of alterations per pt was 3 [range, 1-15], with a median MAF of 0.42% (range, 0.1% - 94.2%). The total number of unique alterations was 321. The most commonly altered genes: TP53 (31%), KRAS (11%), FGFR2 (7%), APC and PIK3CA (each 5%) and ARID1A (3%). Amplifications were noted in 14 genes: BRAF, CCND1, CCND2, CCNE1, CDK4, CDK6, EGFR, ERBB2, FGFR1, FGFR2, MET, MYC, PDGFRA, and PIK3CA. Tissue-based profiling was available in 57 (46%) pts, with a median of 63 days between liquid and tissue biopsy. IDH1, FGFR2, TP53 and KRAS were most common gene mutations found in pts who had both liquid and tissue biopsy done. (Comparative results to be shown). Conclusions: ctDNA plasma profiling of pts with advanced CCA is a feasible alternative method to gather comprehensive genomic data. Further larger cohort studies comparing landscape of alterations seen on ctDNA versus tissue-based assays are needed.

289 Background: PDAC has limited treatment options. Genomic analyses have led to development of targeted therapies now in several clinical trials, and may enable the discovery of new treatment options. However, biopsy often yields limited tissue, thus hampering tissue-based profiling opportunities. Data regarding circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling in PDAC during real time clinical practice is limited. Methods: We performed ctDNA NGS analysis in pts with advanced PDAC (December 2014–August 2018). ctDNA analysis was performed using Guardant 360 (Guardant Health, CA), which detects single nucleotide variants, amplifications, fusions, and specific insertion/deletion mutations in up to 73 different genes. The mutant allele fraction (MAF) for detected alterations was calculated relative to wild type in ctDNA. Therapeutic relevance (TR) was defined as possible treatments within OncoKB levels 1-3B and R1. The study was conducted in accordance with Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board requirements. Results: Among 171 pts and 206 total samples, ctDNA NGS revealed at least one genomic alteration in 150 pts (88%). Median number of alterations per patient was 3 [range, 1-15]. The total number of unique alterations was 450 with the most commonly altered genes being: TP53 (181 alterations, 40%), followed by KRAS (118 alterations, 26%), CDKN2A (23 alterations, 5%), SMAD4 (15 alterations, 3%), EGFR (11 alterations, 2.4%), PIK3CA (9 alterations, 2%), GNAS (8 alterations, 1.5%). Amplifications were noted in 16 genes, including BRAF, CCND2, CCNE1, CDK4, CDK6, EGFR, ERBB2, FGFR1, FGFR2, KIT, KRAS, MET, MYC, PDGFRA, PIK3CA and RAF1. Therapeutically relevant alterations were seen in 95 pts of the 150 pts (63%). Tissue based profiling (Results to be shown) was done in 56 (33%) pts of total 171 pts with a median of 130 days between ctDNA and tissue biopsy. KRAS and TP53 were the most common gene mutations found in patients with both liquid and tissue biopsy results. Conclusions: ctDNA plasma profiling of pts with advanced PDAC is a feasible alternative method to gather comprehensive genomic data.

TPS532 Background: Recent studies have shown that FGFR2 fusions may represent recurrent (prevalence ~10-15% in larger cohorts) driver events amenable to therapeutic targeting in patients with advanced, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Methods: This single arm pilot study (NCT02265341) is being conducted at 3 centers (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Florida and Mayo Clinic Rochester; enrollment initiated December 2014). Next-generation sequencing based assays and a FISH-break apart assay are used to identify tumors with FGFR2 fusions. Patients must additionally have histologically/cytologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma, ECOG performance score 0-2, measurable disease, preserved hematologic/renal and hepatic function and absence of cardiac events/stroke in the preceding 6 months. Ponatinib is administered at 45 mg once daily. Patients will be treated until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or patient decision to not pursue further therapy. The primary objective of the study is to estimate the clinical benefit rate (defined as composite of partial response rate, complete response rate and stable disease rate ≥ 4 months; as defined by RECIST criteria v1.1). Secondary endpoints include estimation of progression-free survival, overall survival, CA19-9 response rate (defined as > 50% reduction from baseline) and evaluation of the overall adverse event profile of ponatinib in this patient population. Translational objectives include serial circulating DNA (ct-DNA) monitoring, target knockdown assessments in tumor tissue (p-FGFR2, p-FRS2, p-Akt and p-ERK) and evaluation of mechanisms of resistance through comparison of baseline and progression biopsy samples using multi-platform sequencing (exome, RNA-Seq and methyl-Seq). Additionally, quality of life assessments will be evaluated using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and BIL21 tools. A total of 30 patients will be enrolled into the study (12 of 30 patients have been enrolled). The trial is designed using an underlying assumption of clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 5% with significance level of 0.15 and 80% power to detect a 20% CBR. Clinical trial information: NCT02265341.

611 Background: Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with survival benefit in refractory mCRC patients (pts). Toxicities such as Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), fatigue and hypertension (HTN) have limited its use. Despite absence of supportive data, various dosing or interval scheduling have been implemented into clinical practice. Methods: A randomized phase II study of regorafenib dose-escalation (Arm A: 80 mg/day, weekly dose escalation if no significant drug-related toxicities, up to 160 mg/day) vs. standard dose (Arm B: 160 mg/day) in pts with mCRC for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Pts were randomized 1:1:1:1 to arms A1 and B1 (Pre-emptive Clobetasol for PPES); A2 and B2 (Reactive Clobetasol). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 2 cycles of treatment and initiated the 3rd in Arm A (Pooled A1 + A2) vs. Arm B (Pooled B1 + B2). Superiority for Arm A was to be declared if the one-sided p-value calculated using Fisher’s exact method was less than 0.2. Results: From June 2015 to June 2017, 123 pts were randomized with 116 (A = 54, B = 62) evaluable for the primary endpoint. Demographic data were well balanced with overall median age of 61yrs (range: 29-81), M/F (61/39%) and ECOG PS 0/1 (37/63%) and KRAS MT/WT/UNK (47/44/9%).The study met its primary endpoint with 43% of pts on Arm A initiating the 3rd vs. only 25% of pts Arm B [one-sided p-value 0.028]. Median Overall Survival (OS) was improved in Arm A vs. Arm B (9.0 mos vs. 5.9 mos; p = 0.094). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 2.5 mos for Arm A vs. 2.0 mos for Arm B (p=0.553). Overall rates of grade 3/4 toxicity were more favorable for Arm A vs. Arm B (% PPES 15 vs. 16, HTN 7 vs. 15 and fatigue 13 vs. 18, respectively). Multiple QOL parameters were improved in A vs. B primarily at week 2 of the first cycle. Conclusion: A strategy with weekly dose escalation of regorafenib from 80 mg to 160 mg/day was found to be superior to a starting dose of 160 mg/day. These results establish a new standard for optimizing regorafenib dosing. Further data on outcomes of preemptive vs. reactive clobetasol strategies are undergoing analysis and will be presented later. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

355 Background: In this study, we sought to determine the prognostic factors impacting survival of patients with NELM who underwent LT at Mayo Clinic. Methods: We performed a three-site retrospective analysis of patients with unresectable NELM treated with LT from 1990 -2017. Cases were identified from clinical databases at Mayo Clinic. Data on demographics, timing of diagnosis and transplant, extent of liver involvement, and tumor grade, were extracted. Extent of liver involvement was calculated using previously validated standardized volumetry with high defined as > 25% increase in the weight of the extracted liver at the time of the transplant as compared to the standard liver volume. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We identified 37 patients. Median age at LT was 47 (range 17.0-64.0), male: female (73% vs. 27%, respectively). Primary tumor site was in the pancreas in 51.3% and in the small bowels in 43.2%; 78.4% had NELM at presentation. While primary tumor resection was done at the time of LT in 5 (13.9%) cases, most patients (80.6%) had ˃6-months interval between primary tumor resection and LT surgery. Prior to LT, 25 (74.3%) patients received somatostatin analogues and 18 (61.3%) had liver-directed therapy. Median time from diagnosis to transplant was 33.6 months (0-246). High extent of liver involvement was identified in 12 patients (33.3%). Disease-Free Survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 56.8%, 43.1%, and 22.4% respectively. Overall-survival (OS) at 3, 5, and 10 years was 86.9%, 79.6%, and 52.6% respectively. High extent of liver involvement at the time of transplantation was associated with inferior DFS and OS and patients˃45 years-old at the time of transplantation had worse DFS. Patients whose disease met the OPTN (Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network) criteria for NELM transplantation had significantly better DFS and OS with median 10-year OS of 80.7 % vs. 17%. Conclusions: LT is a reasonable therapeutic option for selected patients with unresectable NELM with 10-year OS of 52.6%. High extent of liver involvement was associated with worse long-term outcomes while meeting OPTN criteria resulted in best outcomes.

350 Background: BTCs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis. The standard therapy for aBTCs is the combination of GC. However, the median overall survival (mOS) is dismal at 11.7 months (mos) with a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 8 mos. Methods: A single arm, phase II study was conducted at MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients (pts) with aBTC were treated at initial dose level of G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 1000/25/125 (n = 30) which was reduced to lower doses due to grade 3/4 hematological (heme) toxicity (tox) - G/C/N: 800/25/100 (n = 30). Cycles were q21 days with restaging q3 cycles until progression. PFS was the primary endpoint (endpt). Using a Bayesian hypothesis test-based design, we assumed mPFS of 8 mos under the null hypothesis (H0), 10 mos under the alternative (H1). Secondary endpts included mOS, RECIST v1.1 response rate (RR), safety and CA19-9 response. Results: 60 pts were enrolled with 51 being response-evaluable having received more than 1 cycle of therapy (age: median 60 yrs [range 31-77], ECOG PS 0/1 (22/38), M/F (33/27), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/extrahepatic/gallbladder (38/9/13). Median follow-up was 14 mos and median number of treatment (trmt) cycles = 5.24. Pts at initial dose level had significant grade 3/4 heme tox: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia leading to trmt discontinuation in 6/30 pts. After dose reduction to G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 800/25/100, trmt was better tolerated with only 3 pts experiencing grade 4 heme tox. Non-heme tox were grade 3 in 19 pts: nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, thromboembolic event/CVA, hypokalemia, constipation, cystitis, LFT elevations. The mPFS = 11.4 mos (95% CI: 6.1, 16.1) and mOS = 19.2 (95%CI: 13.6, NA), 1-year survival rate 67.6%. 51 pts evaluable for response: disease control rate (PR+CR+SD)-84.3% and RR-39%. 12 unresectable cases were operated post trmt with 1 pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCN was well tolerated at adjusted doses and demonstrates encouraging efficacy having met its mPFS endpt and an impressive mOS higher than historical control. These results merit evaluating GC +/-N in a randomized controlled study. Clinical trial information: NCT02392637.

e15779 Background: There is paucity of data regarding the best available second-line treatment following progression on gemcitabine-based regimens in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While a Nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan (MM398) is considered a standard of care, there is conflicting data relating to the use of oxaliplatin in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan (IRI) formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) as a second-line in PDAC patients. Methods: We searched different databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy to FP combination therapy that includes either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in PDAC patients who progressed after first-line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared to FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results: Five studies (2 with FPIRI and 3 with FPOX) with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.74, CI 0.62 to 0.89) and a trend towards an improved OS compared to FP monotherapy (HR = 0.88, CI 0.65 to 1.19). When comparing FPIRI to FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (HR = 0.64, CI 0.47 to 0.87) and OS (HR = 0.70, CI 0.55 to 0.89) in patients treated with the combination. Conversely, FPOX showed only a modest improvement in PFS (HR = 0.81, CI 0.67, 0.97) with no improvement in OS (HR = 1.03, CI 0.64 to 1.67). Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or various irinotecan formulations seem to improve PFS vs. single agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX seem to confer an OS advantage. Oxaliplatin with FP following gemcitabine failure may need further confirmatory studies to establish its role in refractory pancreas cancer.

4018 Background: BTCs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis. The standard therapy for aBTCs is the combination of GC. However, the median overall survival (mOS) is dismal at 11.7 months (mos) with a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 8 mos. Methods: A single arm, phase II study was conducted at MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients (pts) with aBTC were treated at initial dose level of G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 1000/25/125 (n = 27) which was reduced to lower doses due to grade 3/4 hematological (heme) toxicity (tox) - G/C/N: 800/25/100 (n = 33). Cycles were q21 days with restaging q3 cycles until progression. PFS was the primary endpoint (endpt). Using a Bayesian hypothesis test-based design, we assumed mPFS of 8 mos under the null hypothesis (H0), 10 mos under the alternative (H1). Secondary endpts included mOS, RECIST v1.1 response rate (RR), safety and CA19-9 response. Results: 60 pts were enrolled with data on 51 available as of the time of this abstract (age: median 60 yrs [range 31-77], ECOG PS 0/1 (17/34), M/F (30/21), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/extrahepatic/gallbladder (32/8/11). Median follow-up was 11.5 mos and median number of treatment (trmt) cycles = 5. Pts at initial dose level had significant grade 3/4 heme tox: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia leading to trmt discontinuation in 6/27 pts. After dose reduction to G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 800/25/100, trmt was better tolerated with only 4 pts experiencing grade 4 heme tox. Non-heme tox were grade 3 in 10 pts: nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, thromboembolic event/CVA, hypokalemia, constipation, cystitis, LFT elevations. In the initial 51 pts, mPFS = 11.4 mos (95% CI: 6.1, not reached) and mOS not reached (estimated > 20 mos, 1-year survival rate 66.7%; 95%CI: 65.9-92.2%). 34 pts evaluable for response: disease control rate (PR+CR+SD)-82.3% and RR-32.3%. 3 unresectable cases were operated post trmt with 1 pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCN was well tolerated at adjusted doses and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy having met its mPFS endpt and a 1-year survival rate higher than historical control. These results merit evaluating GC +/-N in a randomized controlled study. Clinical trial information: NCT02392637.