Zemla, Tyler

116 Background: Constitutively activating KRAS or NRAS muts occur in ̃50% of CRC, increasing RAF-MEK-ERK signaling and causing overexpression of cyclin D1, which binds to cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) to drive cell cycle progression. Combination MEK and CDK4/6 inhibitors caused tumor regression in patient-derived xenografts of KRAS mut CRC. We hypothesized that binimetinib and palbociclib (B+P) would improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to TAS-102 in refractory KRAS/NRAS mut mCRC. Methods: ACCRU-GI-1618 was a multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial (NCT03981614). Key inclusion criteria were KRAS/NRAS mut mCRC, with prior fluoropyrimidine/ oxaliplatin/ irinotecan/ anti-VEGF therapy. There was a 6-patient safety run-in with binimetinib 30 mg po BID D1-28 and palbociclib 100 mg po daily D1-21. After, patients were randomized 1:1 to B+P vs TAS-102 (stratified by KRAS mut type and prior regorafenib use), with optional crossover at progression. The primary endpoint was PFS; 73 PFS events (from a sample size of 112) provided 90% power to detect improvement of PFS (hazard ratio = 0.5, i.e. median PFS of 2 vs. 4 months) with 1-sided α = 0.05. A prespecified interim analysis for futility was planned after 37 PFS events were observed, with completion of accrual if 1-sided stratified log-rank p-value < 0.551. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazards models. Results: After the safety run-in, 93 patients at 6 sites were randomized; 82 (41 B+P, 41 TAS-102) comprise the primary analysis population (eligible, consented, and started treatment). In this population, median age was 52 years, 50% female, 68% left-sided, 79% with KRAS codon 12/13 mut, 12% with prior regorafenib. Enrollment was halted at interim analysis as the futility boundary was crossed (1-sided p = 0.67). At final analysis, 68 subjects had a PFS event (34 in each arm). Median PFS was 2.1 mo (95% CI 2.0-3.0) with B+P vs 2.1 mo (2.0-2.4) with TAS-102; HR 0.86 (0.52-1.44). 4-mo PFS rate was 22.2% (11.9-41.6) with B+P vs 10.6% (3.8-30.0) with TAS-102. With 37 OS events (14 in B+P arm), median OS was 7.7 mo (5.1-NE) with B+P vs 6.6 mo (4.8-8.9) with TAS-102; HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.39-1.51). TAS-102 had greater grade 3-4 hematologic AEs (46% vs 22%), and B+P had more grade 3-4 non-hematologic AEs (47% vs 32%). Grade 3-4 AEs more common with B+P were fatigue (8% vs 0%), oral mucositis (6% vs 0%), and nausea (4% vs 2%). Though 63% of patients on B+P had acneiform rash, only 2% was grade 3-4. Grade 1-2 diarrhea occurred in 35% of B+P and 24% of TAS-102 patients. No new safety signal was observed. Conclusions: B+P did not significantly improve median PFS or OS compared to TAS-102 in KRAS/NRAS mut mCRC. Subgroup analyses and translational studies are ongoing to determine which subgroups may be more likely to attain 4-mo PFS or identify mechanisms of resistance. Clinical trial information: NCT03981614.

Abstract Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758

Prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a validated target for molecular diagnostics and targeted radionuclide therapy. Our purpose was to evaluate PSMA expression in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and hepatic adenoma (HCA); investigate the genetic pathways in HCC associated with PSMA expression; and evaluate HCC detection rate with 68Ga‐PSMA‐11 positron emission tomography (PET). In phase 1, PSMA immunohistochemistry (IHC) on HCC (n = 148), CCA (n = 111), and HCA (n = 78) was scored. In a subset (n = 30), messenger RNA (mRNA) data from the Cancer Genome Atlas HCC RNA sequencing were correlated with PSMA expression. In phase 2, 68Ga‐PSMA‐11 PET was prospectively performed in patients with treatment‐naïve HCC on a digital PET scanner using cyclotron‐produced 68Ga. Uptake was graded qualitatively and semi‐quantitatively using standard metrics. On IHC, PSMA expression was significantly higher in HCC compared with CCA and HCA (P < 0.0001); 91% of HCCs (n = 134) expressed PSMA, which principally localized to tumor‐associated neovasculature. Higher tumor grade was associated with PSMA expression (P = 0.012) but there was no association with tumor size (P = 0.14), fibrosis (P = 0.35), cirrhosis (P = 0.74), hepatitis B virus (P = 0.31), or hepatitis C virus (P = 0.15). Overall survival tended to be longer in patients without versus with PSMA expression (median overall survival: 4.2 vs. 1.9 years; P = 0.273). FGF14 (fibroblast growth factor 14) mRNA expression correlated positively (rho = 0.70; P = 1.70 × 10‐5) and MAD1L1 (Mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint protein MAD1) correlated negatively with PSMA expression (rho = −0.753; P = 1.58 × 10‐6). Of the 190 patients who met the eligibility criteria, 31 patients with 39 HCC lesions completed PET; 64% (n = 25) lesions had pronounced 68Ga‐PSMA‐11 standardized uptake value: SUVmax (median [range] 9.2 [4.9‐28.4]), SUVmean 4.7 (2.4‐12.7), and tumor‐to‐liver background ratio 2 (1.1‐11). Conclusion: Ex vivo expression of PSMA in neovasculature of HCC translates to marked tumor avidity on 68Ga‐PSMA‐11 PET, which suggests that PSMA has the potential as a theranostic target in patients with HCC.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between self‐identified race and overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and response to therapy among patients enrolled in the randomized Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB)/SWOG 80405 trial.MethodsPatients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were enrolled in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial were identified by race. On the basis of covariates (treatment arm, KRAS status, sex, age, and body mass index), each Black patient was exact matched with a White patient. The association between race and OS and PFS was examined using a marginal Cox proportional hazard model for matched pairs. The interaction between KRAS status and race was tested in the model. The association between race and response to therapy and adverse events were examined using a marginal logistic regression model.ResultsIn total, 392 patients were matched and included in the final data set. No difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73‐1.16), PFS (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.78‐1.20), or response to therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65‐1.52) was observed between Black and White patients. Patients with KRAS mutant status (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.67), a performance statusscore of 1 (reference, a performance status of 0; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.18‐1.88), or ≥3 metastatic sites (reference, 1 metastatic site; HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.22‐2.28) experienced worse OS. Black patients experienced lower rates and risk of grade ≥3 fatigue (6.6% vs 13.3%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24‐0.91) but were equally likely to be treated with a dose reduction (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.72‐1.65).ConclusionsNo difference in OS, PFS, or response to therapy was observed between Black patients and White patients in an equal treatment setting of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized controlled trial.Lay Summary Despite improvements in screening and treatment, studies have demonstrated worse outcomes in Black patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference in cancer‐specific outcomes among Black and White patients receiving equivalent treatment on the CALGB/SWOG 80405 randomized clinical trial. In this study, there was no difference in overall survival, progression‐free survival, or response to therapy between Black and White patients treated on a clinical trial. These findings suggest that access to care and differences in treatment may be responsible for racial disparities in colorectal cancer.

TPS4593 Background: Bone metastases are prevalent in approximately 30% of pts with advanced RCC. Pts with bone metastases have a worse prognosis compared to pts without bone metastases and are at risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Cabozantinib, a multitargeted inhibitor of multiple kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor and MET, has improved survival in pts with metastatic RCC and has enhanced activity in bone. Ra-223, an alpha-emitting radioisotope with natural bone-seeking proclivity, has been shown to prolong survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We previously conducted a pilot study of Ra-223 with VEGF inhibition and demonstrated safety and declines in markers of bone formation and resorption with the combination (McKay et al, CCR 2018). Given that decreasing rates of SSEs and improving outcomes for pts with RCC with bone metastases are unmet needs in pts with RCC, we designed a randomized phase 2 study through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) investigating cabozantinib with or without Ra-223 in patients with RCC with bone metastases. Methods: This is an open-label multicenter study. Eligible pts have metastatic RCC of any histology with ≥2 metastatic bone lesions untreated with prior radiation therapy and no more than 2 prior lines of systemic therapy. Pts with non-clear cell RCC are eligible and will be capped at 20% of the total accrual goal. Pts must have a Karnofsky performance status of ≥60%, have symptomatic bone pain defined as a prior SSE or need of analgesics, and be on osteoclast-targeted therapy unless otherwise contraindicated. Pts are randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) Ra-223. Starting dose of cabozantinib for Arm A is 40 mg by mouth daily to be escalated to 60 mg daily after cycle 1 (1 cycle = 28 days) if no persistent grade 2 or grade ≥3 toxicity. Ra-223 is administered at a fixed dose of 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days x 6 doses. The primary endpoint is SSE-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life measures, and correlative analyses including liquid biopsy studies and tumor tissue analysis. The study has 90% power to detect an improvement in 6-month SSE-free survival rate from 65% to 78% with one-sided α = 0.025 significance. To ensure 191 evaluable patients, target accrual is 210 pts. This design includes a safety run-in and an interim analysis for futility when 50% of the expected number of events (72 SSE events) have been observed. Final data analysis will occur when 143 events have been observed. The study was activated in December 2019 and accrual is currently ongoing throughout the NCTN. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223.

TPS595 Background: Patients (pts) with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than pts with a pathologic complete response (pCR). Post neoadjuvant T-DM1 has improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but pts with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes and recurrences in the central nervous system are a problem. More effective treatment strategies are needed. The CompassHER2 trials, EA1181 and A011801, leverage pCR to tailor post neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ EBC. EA1181 is a NAT de-escalation trial of a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) in clinical stage II-III HER2+ EBC; pts with a pCR complete HP +/- adjuvant radiation (RT) +/- endocrine therapy (ET). A011801 is an escalation trial for pts with high risk HER2+ RD after NAT, examining addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to adjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Pts. with high-risk HER2+ RD (e.g. ER-,node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1+ placebo (pb), vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of T and H +/- P. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (̃15-30% enrollees); these pts must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801. Pts who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is higher with addition of T-DM1 to tucatinib in pts with HER2+ EBC with RD after NAT; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in pts with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints will also be evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-),and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 pts; activation and completion dates are 01/6/21 and ̃ 01/2028. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Clinical trial information: NCT04457596.

TPS366 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase III trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through January 2021 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

Abstract Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.