Yoshino, Takayuki

3554 Background: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases (LM). Liver is the most common organ of metastasis of CRC. The ARCAD database contains individual patient data of randomized trials that included CRC pts with initially unresectable metastases treated with systemic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the response and survival outcomes in non-LM (NLM) vs LM across different lines of treatment. Methods: We analyzed survival outcomes of mCRC pts with either single site (SS) or multiple sites (MS) according to LM status in the following treatment groups: A: chemotherapy (CT) alone, B: CT + VEGF-antibodies, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies in KRAS wild-type tumors, within first-line (1L) and second line (2L) of therapy and D: pts enrolled on third line (≥3L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib and placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) which were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox models on ECOG PS, age, and gender. Results: We included 26 trials with 17924 pts. 14066 pts had LM. Pts with LM had a higher rate of colon vs rectum as primary tumor (72 vs 62%; P < .001) and less SS (31 vs 47%; P < .001) than those with NLM. OS and PFS results in subgroups are reported in the table. In groups A and B, we found better OS and PFS outcomes in NLM pts as either SS or MS in 1L and 2L. In group C from 1L, we found better survival outcomes in pts with SS LM. In pts with MS, NLM superiority was observed in OS but not in PFS. However, these results were influenced by primary tumor sidedness. In group D, better OS and PFS was observed in pts without LM than those with LM whether in pts with SS or MS. Response rates were higher in LM than in NLM in most 1L and 2L subgroups. Conclusions: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from the 1L to ≥3L. Survival with CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF according to LM and NLM differs significantly in 1L and 2L but not with CT + anti-EGFR. This data justifies using LM as a stratification factor at least in ≥3L trials. [Table: see text]

TPS3631 Background: The current standard of care (SOC) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is multi-agent chemotherapy, with or without a VEGF or EGFR inhibitor. Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) is a validated clinical target in breast and gastric cancers. HER2 amplification occurs in 3%–5% of patients with mCRC; the rate of HER2 amplification can increase to approximately 10% in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC tumors. Tucatinib (TUC)—a highly selective, HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor—is approved in multiple regions for HER2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer, approved in the US for HER2+ metastatic colorectal cancer, and under investigation in gastrointestinal cancers. MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313) evaluated the safety and efficacy of TUC and trastuzumab (Tras) in patients with treatment-refractory RAS wild-type, HER2+ mCRC. Results from the primary endpoint analysis showed clinically meaningful activity, with a confirmed objective response rate (ORR) per blinded independent central review (BICR) of 38.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 27.7, 49.3) and median duration of response per BICR of 12.4 months (95% CI 8.5, 20.5). Results also demonstrated TUC + Tras was well tolerated, with a low discontinuation rate (5.8%) and no deaths due to adverse events. MOUNTAINEER-03 will further investigate TUC in combination with modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX) and Tras in patients with RAS wild-type HER2+ mCRC. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-03 (NCT05253651) is a global, open-label, randomized, phase III study for first-line treatment of HER2+ and RAS wild-type mCRC. Approximately 400 patients will be randomized 1:1 to the TUC experimental arm (TUC [300 mg orally twice daily] + Tras + mFOLFOX) or the SOC arm (mFOLFOX alone or in combination with either bevacizumab or cetuximab). HER2 status is determined centrally with tissue-based HER2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization assays. Eligible patients must not have received prior treatment in the metastatic setting but may have received adjuvant treatment if completed > 6 months prior to enrollment. Patients must be ≥18 years old with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of ≤1 and RAS wild-type mCRC. Patients with treated stable central nervous system metastases are eligible. Randomization is stratified by primary tumor location (left-sided vs other) and liver metastases (presence/absence). The primary endpoint is progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1 assessed by BICR. Key secondary endpoints are overall survival and confirmed ORR per RECIST v1.1 assessed by BICR. Enrollment is ongoing in North America, Asia, Australia, and Europe. Clinical trial information: NCT05253651 .

TPS268 Background: Among patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC, BRAF mutations occur in approximately 30%. MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF mutations are both associated with poor prognosis; in patients who have both biomarkers, poor prognosis is thought to be driven by the BRAF mutation. Pembrolizumab is indicated for the treatment of patients with MSI-H/dMMR unresectable or metastatic CRC (mCRC). The BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, an anti-EGFR antibody, is indicated for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Currently, there are no first-line treatment options indicated specifically for patients with both MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. To assess the safety and efficacy of combining pembrolizumab with encorafenib + cetuximab, the SEAMARK study will evaluate this combination vs pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Methods: SEAMARK (NCT05217446) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study. Approximately 104 patients (randomized 1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0 vs 1) will receive either pembrolizumab + encorafenib + cetuximab or pembrolizumab. Enrolled patients must be aged ≥16 or ≥18 years (per country-specific regulations) and have previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1); ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Patients who received prior treatment with BRAF/EGFR inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, or who have brain metastases (unless radiologically stable) or RAS mutation (or unknown RAS status), will be excluded. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and quality of life. Enrollment started in July 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05217446 .

TPS261 Background: Current standard of care (SOC) for treatment (tx) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is multi-agent chemotherapy, w/ or w/o a VEGF- or EGFR-inhibitor. HER2 is a validated clinical target in breast and gastric cancers. HER2 amplification occurs in 3%-5% of patients (pts) w/ mCRC; the rate of HER2 amplification can increase to ~10% in pts w/ RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC tumors. Tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective, HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved in multiple regions for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer and is being investigated in gastrointestinal cancers. MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313) evaluated the safety and efficacy of TUC and trastuzumab (Tras) in pts w/ tx refractory RAS wild-type, HER2+ mCRC. Results from the primary endpoint analysis showed clinically meaningful activity (confirmed ORR of 38.1% and median DOR of 12.4 months) and demonstrated TUC + Tras was well tolerated with a low discontinuation rate (5.8%) and no deaths due to AEs. MOUNTAINEER-03 will further investigate TUC in combo w/ mFOLFOX and Tras in pts w/ RAS wild-type, HER2+ mCRC. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-03 (NCT05253651) is a global, open label, randomized, phase 3 study for 1L tx of HER2+ and RAS wild-type mCRC. Approximately 400 pts will be randomized 1:1 to the TUC experimental arm (TUC [300 mg PO BID] + Tras + mFOLFOX) or the SOC arm (mFOLFOX alone or in combo w/ either bevacizumab or cetuximab). HER2 status is determined centrally w/ tissue based HER2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization assays. Eligible pts must not have received prior tx in the metastatic setting but may have received adjuvant tx if completed > 6 months prior to enrollment. Pts must be ≥18 years of age w/ an ECOG performance status of ≤1 and RAS wild-type mCRC. Pts w/ treated stable central nervous system metastases are eligible. Randomization is stratified by primary tumor location (left-sided vs other) and liver metastases (presence/absence). Primary endpoint is progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Key secondary endpoints are overall survival and confirmed objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 assessed by BICR. Enrollment is ongoing in the US, w/ global sites planned. Clinical trial information: NCT05253651 .

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 Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) for 6 months remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Data are lacking as to whether early discontinuation of all treatment (ETD) or early discontinuation of oxaliplatin (EOD) could worsen the prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC from the ACCENT/IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment and EOD as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only before patients had received a maximum of 75% of planned cycles. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by Cox models adjusted for established prognostic factors. RESULTS Analysis of ETD and EOD included 10,447 (20.9% with ETD) and 7,243 (18.8% with EOD) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and for ETD, older with a lower body mass index. In multivariable analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in disease-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61, P < .001 and HR, 1.73, P < .001), which was not the case for EOD (HR, 1.07, P = .3 and HR, 1.13, P = .1). However, patients who received < 50% of the planned cycles of oxaliplatin had poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with poorer oncologic outcomes. However, this was not the case for EOD. These data favor discontinuing oxaliplatin while continuing fluoropyrimidine in individuals with significant neurotoxicity having received > 50% of the planned 6-month chemotherapy.

4086 Background: Abnormalities in the MAPK pathway are potential therapeutic targets in various cancers. However, the clinical impact of alterations in the MAPK pathway in BTC have not been elucidated, especially outside of canonical mutations in KRAS and BRAF. We investigated the clinical outcomes of advanced BTC with MAPK pathway alterations treated with chemotherapy in Japan and the United States. Methods: Patients with advanced BTC who received gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy were included from the GOZILA study in Japan and Duke Molecular Registry of Tumors in the US. Genetic abnormalities were detected by Guardant360, a cell-free DNA assay, in Japan and by blood or tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) at Duke University. Two hundred and seven patients with BTC from Japan were included in an exploratory cohort to evaluate the association of MAPK alterations with overall survival (OS) according to MAPK alteration status. One hundred and ten patients with BTC from both Japan and the US harboring oncogenic alterations in the MAPK pathway were included in a biomarker selected cohort to assess the association of specific MAPK alterations with OS. Multivariate analysis was performed using a Cox regression model based on a univariate p-value < 0.2. Results: MAPK pathway-related oncogenic alterations detected in each cohort are shown in the table below. In the exploratory cohort, median OS was shorter for patients with MAPK alterations vs. no MAPK alteration (15.9 m vs. 24.9 m, log-rank p = 0.001). Based on univariate analysis, the following covariates were selected for multivariate analyses: age, prior resection, and MAPK pathway alteration in the exploratory cohort; country, the timing of NGS, distant metastasis, KRAS amplification, and BRAF class 2 mutation in the biomarker selected cohort. In the exploratory cohort, multivariate analysis identified MAPK pathway alterations as an independent predictor of shorter OS with a HR of 1.92 (95% CI = 1.28-2.87, p = 0.001). In the biomarker selected cohort, multivariate analysis identified BRAF class 2 mutations and KRAS amplification as independent predictors of shorter OS with a HR of 16.2 (95% CI = 3.26-80.8, p = 0.001) and 5.97 (95% CI = 1.74-19.3, p = 0.002) respectively. Conclusions: MAPK pathway alterations, especially BRAF class 2 mutation and KRAS amplification, had a significant negative impact on clinical outcomes in BTC receiving first-line chemotherapy. These results are newly confirmed in BTC. [Table: see text]

TPS3634 Background: Among patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC, BRAF mutations occur in approximately 30%. MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF mutations are both associated with poor prognosis; in patients who have both biomarkers, poor prognosis is thought to be driven by the BRAF mutation. Pembrolizumab is indicated for the treatment of patients with MSI-H/dMMR unresectable or metastatic CRC (mCRC). The BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, is indicated for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Currently, there are no first-line treatment options indicated specifically for patients with both MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. To assess the safety and efficacy of combining pembrolizumab with encorafenib + cetuximab, the SEAMARK study (NCT05217446) will evaluate this combination vs pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Methods: SEAMARK is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study. Approximately 104 patients (randomized 1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0 vs 1) will receive either pembrolizumab + encorafenib + cetuximab or pembrolizumab. Enrolled patients must be aged ≥16 or ≥18 years (per country-specific regulations) and have previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1); ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Patients who received prior treatment with BRAF/EGFR inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, or who have brain metastases (unless radiologically stable) or RAS mutation (or unknown RAS status), will be excluded. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and quality of life. Enrollment will begin in April 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05217446.

3606 Background: Standard adjuvant CT for stage III CC are FOLFOX and CAPOX. Recently, IDEA study separated stage III patients (pts) into low risk (T1 to 3, N1) and high risk (T4 or N2). We recently confirmed benefit of OX in both risk groups. However, we observed a difference in the two high-risk subgroups, with benefit in N2 but not in T4 (Margalit O et al; Clin Colorectal Cancer 2021). This prompted us to compare outcomes (OS/TTR) between treatment with OX vs. without OX within sub-stage III CC groups defined by T and N. Methods: We pooled 4941 stage III CC pts from the three studies evaluating 6 months of CT with fluoropyrimidine (FP) ± OX: MOSAIC, C-07 and XELOXA. Baseline characteristics were compared using χ2 and t-test. OS was compared between OX and no OX in T and N subgroups. Kaplan-Meier analyses, adjusted and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study were used. Sub-groups classification was done according to OX benefit and verified by interaction test (Int) considered as significant with a P<0.1. We considered for recommendation of using OX-based adjuvant CT, 1) significant benefit in OS, 2) significant Int between substage and adjuvant therapy, and 3) the three individual trials showing similar results (benefit or non-benefit of OX). Results: In stage III population, T3 pts were 74.9%, T1-2 12.4%, T4 13.1%, while N stage was N1 64.7% and N2 35.3%. Population was well balanced according to treatment allocation in most subgroups. A significant benefit of OX was only observed in T3N1 and T3N2 (OS HR 0.76). Whatever N stage, there was no significant benefit of OX in the T1-2 and T4 subgroups. The effect of OX+FP vs FP alone in OS of the three studies differed between T3 and T1-2 subgroups (P = 0.047). Interaction was borderline between T3 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.10) but there was no interaction between T1-2 and T4 subgroups (P = 0.429). A benefit of OX in TTR remained in the T4 population. Discrepancy between advantage in time to relapse (TTR) and no advantage in OS was not explained by survival post relapse. Conclusions: Our analysis suggested that pts with T1-2N1-2 and T4N1-2 disease had no OS benefit of addition of OX to FP. The good survival achieved with FP alone in T1-2N1-2 pts (5-yr OS 89%) question the addition of OX. In the T4 population our results suggested that benefit of OX was limited and that further studies should assess this issue or at least stratify pts on T stage in the future adjuvant trials in CC. [Table: see text]

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]