Ahn, Daniel H.

e16265 Background: The pivotal TOPAZ-1 trial established durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) as a new first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). However, weekly administration of GC can lead to significant toxicity limiting its tolerability in clinical practice. Based on previous studies, we implemented biweekly regimen of GC on days 1 and 15 together with durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle to optimize the treatment delivery and improve tolerability. Here, we report the Mayo Clinic experience with biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab in patients with ABTC. Methods: At our three-site institution, we retrospectively identified patients with ABTC between January 2021 and August 2024, who received biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment details - treatment related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to the NCTCAE V5.0 were collected. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and clinically assessed overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: 57 patients were included in our analysis, median age was 68 years (range 35-90), and 57.9% were females. 91.2% of patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. 71.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 19.3% extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 8.7% gallbladder carcinoma. 70.2% had metastatic disease, 21 % locally advanced unresectable disease and 8.7% recurrent metastatic disease. Patients were followed for a median of 9.1 months (2.3-28.5). 91.2% of the patients received biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab while 8.8% switched from weekly to biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab due to treatment toxicities. Median number of treatment cycles was 5. Maintenance regimens included durvalumab (19.3%), gemcitabine/durvalumab (8.8%) and GC/durvalumab (8.8%). Median duration of follow up was 9.1 months (range 2.3 – 28.5). ORR was 36.9% and DCR was 72% (complete response 5.3%, partial response 31.6% and stable disease 35.1%). mPFS was 7.2 months, while mOS was 16 months. Grade(G) 3 or 4 trAEs included abnormal liver function tests (15.7%), infections (11.5%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (5.2%), peripheral neuropathy (1.7%), acute kidney injury (1.7%). Immune-related AEs were noted in 6 patients (10.5%) including colitis, gastritis, hepatitis, myocarditis and hypothyroidism. There was no patient with severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Only 5 patients (8.8%) stopped treatment due to trAEs. Conclusions: Biweekly GC on days 1 and 15 plus durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle is associated with a more favorable toxicity profile while maintaining efficacy similar to that observed in the TOPAZ-1 trial indicating that a de-escalation strategy is feasible with improvement in patient centered outcomes.

e16157 Background: The optimal treatment for resectable gastric/GEJ AC is unclear due to limited direct comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. Addressing this gap is critical to improve patient outcomes. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of multimodality regimens for resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception till September 20, 2024, to identify phase III trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A frequentist NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for each outcome. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. Results: Fifteen trials (8,072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P score 91%) (Table), significantly outperforming surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF+nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P score 90%) and pFLOT (P score 87%) were the top regimens, with pFLOT significantly outperforming surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72), and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (CF/CX) (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT in terms of DFS (1.10, 0.71-1.69) or OS (1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions: pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ AC, surpassing surgery alone, nCROSS, and other perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy to pFLOT requires further investigation to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes. Regimen Overall Population GEJ cohort OS DFS OS DFS nPLF+nCRT(EP) 1 (90) 2 (84) 1 (85) NA pFLOT 2 (87) 1 (91) 2 (79) 2 (88) pPembrolizumab+CF/CX 3 (75) 3 (81) 5 (41) - nECX 4 (61) 5 (55) - - pCF 5 (59) 8 (51) 3 (72) - pECF/ECX 6 (47) 6 (55) 7 (40) 3 (57) nECX+aCRT(CX) 7 (45) 7 (52) 9 (31) - nCF 8 (42) 10 (28) 6 (40) - nCROSS 9 (41) 9 (35) 8 (34) 4 (43) pECF/ECX/FLOT+nCRT(F/X) 10 (38) 4 (57) 4 (72) 1 (90) nCRT(CF) 11 (9) 11 (6) - 5 (14) Surgery 12 (7) 12 (5) 10 (5) 6 (9) Data reported as rank (P-score). Abbreviations: n: neoadjuvant; p: perioperative; ECX: epirubicin + cisplatin + capecitabine; CF: cisplatin + fluorouracil; ECF: epirubicin + cisplatin + fluorouracil; aCRT(CX): adjuvant radiotherapy + cisplatin + capecitabine; CRT(F/X): fluorouracil/capecitabine + radiotherapy; CRT(CF): cisplatin + fluorouracil + radiotherapy.

e23317 Background: mCRC poses significant challenges, particularly in patients (pts) who progress after multiple lines of therapy. Limited effective treatment options are available in the advanced chemotherapy-refractory setting. The FRESCO-2 trial demonstrated that Fruq, a selective VEGFR inhibitor, provides meaningful overall survival (OS) benefit in pts with refractory mCRC. However, there is limited real-world evidence regarding Fruq's efficacy in patients treated after approved third-line therapies. Methods: This retrospective, multi-site cohort study evaluated outcomes in 33 mCRC pts who received Fruq following treatment with Rego and/or TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab. Patients were stratified into two groups: Fruq as a second late-line therapy, after either Rego or TAS-102, (27 patients) and as a third late-line therapy, after both Rego and TAS-102, (6 patients). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from Fruq initiation to death, while time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) was defined as the duration from Fruq initiation to cessation for any reason, including death. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate median survival, and the comparison between groups were done using the log-rank test. Results: Among the 33 pts, the median age was 58 years (range: 35–84), with 57.6% being male. Hepatic metastases were present in 78.8%, and 60.6% had left-sided primary tumors. RAS mutations were observed in 63.6%, and 97% were BRAF wild-type. Median OS was significantly longer in pts who received Fruq as a second late-line therapy (7.2 months) compared to those receiving it as a third late-line therapy (4.0 months) (p = 0.039). Median TTD was similar between groups (2.4 vs. 2.8 months, p = 0.916). Conclusions: This real-world analysis highlights the clinical benefit of Fruquintinib in mCRC patients following treatment with Regorafenib and/or TAS-102. The data suggest flexibility in treatment choices, with Fruquintinib showing improved OS when used earlier in the treatment sequence. These findings underscore the importance of exploring optimal sequencing strategies and evaluating Fruquintinib as a potential option before other approved agents in the refractory setting. Clinical outcomes with fruquintinib as second vs. third late-line therapy. Fruq as Second Late-Line Fruq as Third Late-Line p-value Median OS 7.2 months 4 months 0.039 Median TTD 2.4 months 2.8 months 0.916 OS: Overall Survival; TTD: Time to Treatment discontinuation.

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.

e15527 Background: Fruquintinib, regorafenib, and trifluridine-tipiracil (TAS-102) alone or in combination with bevacizumab (bev) are approved for use in treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following progression on or intolerance to fluoropyrimidine-based therapy with irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and targeted agents if indicated. All three medications have established overall survival (OS) benefit when used third line or later; however, there is a paucity of literature and guideline recommendations regarding optimal sequencing of these agents. The aim of this study was to investigate OS in patients (pts) with mCRC based on the sequencing of these three “late-line” treatments. Methods: This retrospective, multi-site cohort study evaluated OS in pts with mCRC who received fruquintinib possibly sequenced with regorafenib and/or TAS-102 +/- bev between 11/01/2023 and 11/19/2024. Pts prescribed fruquintinib (N = 64) were identified utilizing SlicerDicer within EPIC. Pts were excluded from final analysis for incomplete information, non-mCRC diagnosis, or failure to initiate fruquintinib (N = 21). OS was defined as the time from initiation of first late-line therapy to death from any cause. Cox regression models were utilized for multivariable adjustment. P-values were calculated using Chi-Square for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous variables. Results: Forty-three pts were included in the final analysis. The median age at initiation of first late-line therapy was 56 years old. Most pts had left-sided primary tumors (60.5%) and liver metastases (79.1%). RAS and BRAF V600E mutations occurred in 65.1% and 4.7% of pts, respectively, and 83.7% of pts had received prior bev therapy. All pts were pMMR/MSI-S. TAS-102 +/- bev was the most common first late-line agent utilized (72.1%), and fruquintinib the most common second late-line agent (73%). Regorafenib was prescribed in only 12 pts (27.9%) and used primarily as a second or third late-line option. OS was not statistically different based on initial late-line therapy chosen (median OS 19.2 months for TAS-102 +/- bev and not estimable for fruquintinib and regorafenib, p = 0.058). This result was maintained on multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, liver metastases, and RAS mutation status. However, fruquintinib sequenced after TAS-102 +/- bev demonstrated improved OS (median 20.5 months) compared to fruquintinib as first or last late-line therapy (median not estimable vs. 15.8 months, p = 0.049). Conclusions: Fruquintinib sequenced after TAS-102 +/- bev may confer an OS advantage in the treatment of mCRC. However, prospective studies evaluating sequencing strategies representative of standard prescribing patterns are still needed to firmly establish optimal sequencing of fruquintinib, regorafenib, and TAS-102-based therapy.

Abstract Background Optimal treatment for resectable gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains unclear due to limited head-to-head comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine the relative efficacy of available multimodality treatment regimens in these patients. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched till September 20, 2024. Phase 3 randomized trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Fifteen trials (8072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P-score 91%), achieving significant improvements compared to surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF + nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P-score 90%) and pFLOT (P-score 87%) were the top regimens. pFLOT significantly outperformed surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72) and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Based on the limited data available, adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT (DFS: 1.10, 0.71-1.69; OS: 1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma, outperforming surgery alone, nCROSS, and alternative perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy requires further investigation to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

Abstract Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a disease with guarded prognosis with a 5-year overall survival (OS) of 3.1% in patients with metastatic disease. The need for innovative treatments for this lethal disease is paramount. TTFields is a novel treatment modality that employs low intensity, alternating, and intermediate frequency electrical fields that abrogates cancer cell proliferation through different mechanisms. These include inhibition of mitosis, disruption of cancer cell membranes, metabolomic dysregulation of cancer cells, and immunogenic activation of the tumor microenvironment (TME). TTFields are approved in glioblastoma multiforme, non-small cell lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma. The PANOVA trial demonstrated promising efficacy for TTFields plus chemotherapy in patients with PDA. A trial of GCN in patients with PDA demonstrated exceptional efficacy in patients with metastatic disease. Here in, we present our ongoing clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of TTFields plus GCN in patients with PDA (NCT04605913). Methods: This a phase I/II trial with an initial safety run-in phase followed by the phase II portion. The primary objective of the trial is to determine the safety (CTCAE v 5.0) of GCN plus TTFields. Secondary objectives include determining the 6-month progression free survival (PFS) rate, overall response rate (ORR, RECIST v1.1), 12-month survival rate, OS, and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, version 3.0.2.3). Inclusion criteria include PDA with liver metastasis (patients can have additional sites of metastasis), ECOG 0-1, measurable disease, and ability to operate the Novo TTF-100L (P)/Novo TTF-200T system. Treatment consisted of TTFields (150 kHz 18 hours/day) and GCN (G: 1000 mg/m2, C 30 mg/m2, and N: 150 mg/m2 every 2 weeks, 28 days cycle), followed by a maintenance phase after 6 months (G: 1000 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) plus TTFields until progression. Six patients were to be enrolled in the phase I portion and if ≤1/6 patients experienced a dose limiting toxicity (DLT, treatment emergent adverse event, or skin toxicity of Gr4), the plan would be to move to a phase II trial enrolling 34 more patients. If 2/6 patients experienced a DLT, 6 patients would be enrolled in dose level -1 (GCN plus TTFields for 9 hours/day followed by the maintenance treatment) and if tolerated the phase II portion would start with dose level -1 regimen. The phase I portion was completed without any DLTs and the trial is currently enrolling to the phase II portion. The total number of patients (40) was powered to the 6-months PFS rate and ORR (estimated using the lower bound of exact one-sided 90% confidence intervals). The goal is to "reject" a 6-month PFS rate of 66% and an ORR of 71% (based on previous GCN trial). Time-to-event endpoints will be assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Citation Format: Hani M. Babiker, Jason Starr, Jeremy Jones, Conor O’Donnell, Robert Jones, Jacqueline Boni, Lashundra Stewart, Josh Cameron, Oudom Kour, Kabir Mody, Robert R. McWilliams, Daniel H. Ahn, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Mitesh J. Borad, Umair Majeed. A phase I/II pilot trial, single arm, open label, of gemcitabine, cisplatin, protein-bound paclitaxel (GCN) combined with Tumor Treatment Fields (TTFields) in patient with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT190.

Background: Regorafenib (R) and Trifluridine/Tipiracil ± bevacizumab (T) are approved for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but their optimal sequence is unclear. This study describes the characteristics/clinical outcomes of patients with mCRC in U.S. clinical practice treated sequentially with R-T or T-R. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 818 patients treated with R-T or T-R between January 2015 and November 2022 was conducted using an electronic health record-derived database. The primary objective was to describe the demographic/clinical characteristics and biomarker status of patients treated with R-T or T-R, stratified by treatment line/age. Secondary objectives were to evaluate/estimate the frequency of neutropenia and myelosuppression-related treatments, the number/type of subsequent therapies, time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and overall survival (OS). Results: Baseline characteristics were similar among patients who received R-T (n = 393) or T-R (n = 425). Lower rates of moderate/severe neutropenia (26%/12% vs. 32%/16%) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor/erythropoietin use (22% vs. 24%) were observed with R-T versus T-R. The median TTD was 8.7 months and 8.5 months with R-T versus 8.1 months and 7.9 months with T-R as third- and fourth-line treatment, respectively. The median OS was 13.1 months and 11.6 months with R-T versus 11.5 months and 10.3 months with T-R as third- and fourth-line treatment, respectively. Conclusions: This study did not show a statistically significant difference in OS with R-T versus T-R. Although limited by its retrospective nature, the study suggested R-T may be preferable to T-R given the observed reduction in neutropenia/myelosuppression-related treatments.

In a retrospective study of patients with Lynch syndrome vs non‐Lynch syndrome and microsatellite instability high colorectal cancer, there were no observed differences with immune checkpoint inhibitors toward progression‐free survival or overall survival. Univariate analysis of Stage IV patients showed BRAF V600E mutations were associated with decreased survival.