Yoshino, Takayuki

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]

3571 Background: In colorectal cancer (CRC), mutations in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapies. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), ~90% of patients harbor KRAS mutations, while KRAS wild-type tumors often have clinically actionable fusion alterations. Thus, in both cancers, the accurate ascertainment of RAS and BRAF driver status is essential. Sequencing of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma allows convenient assessment of a tumor’s molecular profile, but sensitivity can be limited by low ctDNA shedding. We sought to establish a ctDNA shedding threshold at which actionable driver mutations can be reliably detected. Methods: Molecular reports and matched clinical data were obtained from the Duke Molecular Registry of Tumors and the SCRUM-Japan GOZILA and GI-SCREEN. CRC or PDAC patients with a pathogenic KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF activating point mutation (“driver”) present on tissue next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays and who also had cfDNA assay available were included. Tissue NGS included Foundation One CDx and Oncomine Comprehensive Assay. Guardant 360 (G360) was the sole plasma cfDNA assay. 131 CRC and 24 PDAC cases with 189 total G360 assays met criteria and were included. Samples were analyzed according to detection of the driver mutation and the maximum mutant allele frequency (MAF) of non-driver mutations on G360. An optimal cut-point for max MAF was explored among the CRC and PDAC patients using a maximally selected Wilcoxon rank statistic method. Results: 76.8% of driver mutations were in KRAS, 22.6% in BRAF, and 1.9% in NRAS with an overlap of 1 BRAF and 1 NRAS mutation with a KRAS mutation. Overall sensitivity of G360 for drivers was 83.0% for CRC and 54.2% for PDAC. No variants were detected on G360 in 9.1% of CRC and 37.5% of PDAC. Sensitivity for driver mutations increased with higher maximum non-driver MAF, with MAF > 1% predicting sensitivity > 98% (Table). Optimal cut-point analysis identified MAF of > 0.34% (p < 0.0001), above which the driver was identified in 97% of patients and below which only 27%. Conclusions: In our study, non-driver MAF > 1% on cfDNA NGS predicts high sensitivity for RAS and BRAF mutations and thus is adequate to guide clinical decisions such as anti-EGFR therapy in CRC, evaluation for fusions in PDAC, and validity in clinical trials. MAF ≤0.34% is a clear threshold to consider an assay inadequate and thus seek alternative testing. Sensitivity rises for MAF between 0.35 and 1% but will require greater patient numbers to establish clinically relevant sensitivity thresholds. These results will be updated with additional data for final presentation. [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.

TPS371 Background: Tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective HER2-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved in multiple regions for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, is being developed as a novel therapy for patients (pts) with GI tumors including gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEC). While trastuzumab (Tras) with chemotherapy is standard in the 1st-line setting for metastatic HER2+ GEC, no anti-HER2 therapy has demonstrated an OS benefit over chemotherapy as 2nd-line therapy, possibly due to loss of HER2 expression following Tras-based therapy. In GEC xenograft models, dual targeting of HER2 with TUC and Tras showed superior activity to either agent alone.(Kulukian 2020) Interim results from the MOUNTAINEER study have shown promising activity for TUC and Tras for HER2+ mCRC.(Strickler 2019) The MOUNTAINEER-02 study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of TUC with Tras, ramucirumab (Ram), and paclitaxel (Pac) in pts with HER2+ GEC in the 2nd-line setting. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-02 (NCT04499924) is a phase 2/3 study evaluating TUC + Tras with Ram and Pac. Pts receive TUC 300 mg or placebo PO BID, Tras (6 then 4 mg/kg) or placebo (IV on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle), Pac (IV on Days 1, 8, 15), and Ram (IV on Days 1 and 15). Eligible pts have locally-advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ GEC and have received a HER2-directed antibody and 1 prior line of therapy for advanced disease. Pts must be ≥18 years of age, with an ECOG ≤1, and have had no prior exposure to Ram, anti-HER2 or anti-EGFR TKI, HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugates, or taxanes ≤12 months before enrollment. Due to the potential impact of TUC on Pac metabolism, the study will include an initial Pac dose optimization stage. The open-label phase 2 part will determine the recommended dose of Pac (60 or 80 mg/m²) combined with TUC, Tras, and Ram in 6-18 pts, and evaluate safety and activity of the regimen in Cohorts 2A and 2B (30 pts each). The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 part will compare the efficacy and safety of TUC and Tras (Arm 3A; ̃235 pts) vs. placebo (Arm 3B; ̃235 pts), both in combination with Ram and Pac, and also evaluate activity of TUC with Ram and Pac (Arm 3C; ̃30 pts). The dual primary phase 3 endpoints are OS and PFS per investigator, with confirmed ORR as a key secondary endpoint. HER2 status is determined at baseline using a blood-based NGS assay, and IHC/ISH of fresh or archival tumor biopsies, if available. Pts must be HER2+ by blood-based NGS in Cohort 2A and phase 3; in Cohort 2B, pts must be HER2+ in a biopsy taken post-progression during/after 1st-line therapy, but HER2-negative by blood-based NGS. Disease assessments per RECISTv1.1 will occur q6 weeks for 36 weeks, then q9 weeks. The pharmacokinetics of TUC, Pac, and their metabolites will be evaluated in a subset of pts, including a cohort with gastrectomies. Enrollment in phase 2 is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04499924.

101 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years, named early-onset CRC, eoCRC) has been increasing. eoCRC patients with metastatic disease are treated with the same standard regimens as late-onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50 years) although detailed response data for eoCRC are largely missing. Methods: Individual patient data on 7,604 subjects with metastatic eoCRC from 11 first line randomized bevacizumab studies between 2000 and 2012 in the ARCAD advanced colorectal cancer database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables. Results: Female eoCRC are more commonly seen compared to loCRC (46.8% vs. 38.7%, p<0.0001). Patients with eoCRC (n=1,289) were significantly more likely to have had prior metastasectomy (17.5% vs. 13.5%, p=0.043) and lung metastatic disease (67% vs. 59.8%, p<0.001), but less likely to have distant lymph node metastatic disease (58.8 vs. 62.9%, p=0.036) or KRAS mutation (29.2% vs. 34.4%, p=0.042) compared to those with loCRC (n=6,315). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distributions according to PS, primary tumor sidedness, prior primary tumor resection, liver involvement, peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites, NRAS and BRAF. Age of disease onset was not a statistically significant prognostic factor for PFS in univariate and multivariate analysis (seen in table). Bevacizumab in addition to chemo improved PFS in eoCRC population (9.9 vs. 6.8 months, HR = 0.66, p<0.001), which was similar to the findings in loCRC population (9.4 vs. 7.3 months, HR= 0.73, p<0.001, interaction p=0.54). By multivariate analysis, a greater improvement in PFS was noted for the addition of bevacizumab in eoCRC relative to LoCRC patients (HR = 0.62 vs. HR = 0.82). Conclusions: Treatment naive eoCRC patients with metastatic disease derive similar benefit from bevacizumab relative to their average age counterparts.[Table: see text]

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]

11 Background: Six months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Early treatment discontinuation (ETD) could worsen the prognosis. In addition, there is current lack of data on the prognostic impact of early oxaliplatin only discontinuation (EOD). Methods: We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC who participated in 11 relevant clinical trials of the ACCENT and IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or CAPOX). ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment before 75% of cycles of chemotherapy. EOD was defined as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only, while continuing the fluoropyrimidine, before 75% of cycles of oxaliplatin. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was assessed by Cox model adjusted for prognostic factors. Results: ETD analysis included 10,444 patients (FOLFOX n = 7,033; CAPOX n = 3,411), with 20.9% of patients with ETD (17.8% with FOLFOX and 27.2% with CAPOX, p < 0.001). Out of 7,243 patients, 18.8% experienced EOD (17.4% FOLFOX versus 21.4% with CAPOX, p < 0.001). Compared to patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, older, with higher ECOG-PS ≥ 1, and in addition for ETD, a Body Mass Index (BMI) < 18.5 kg/m2. In multivariate analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in DFS and OS in the overall population (HR: 1.40 95%CI 1.23-1.58, p < 0.001 and HR: 1.51 95%CI 1.31-1.74, p < 0.001, respectively). The same pattern was present with FOLFOX and CAPOX regimen, and also in low-risk and high-risk groups for each regimen with the exception of the CAPOX regimen in the low-risk group for DFS and OS. By contrast, EOD was not associated with reduced DFS or OS in the overall population (HR: 1.10 95%CI 0.77-1.58, p = 0.6 and HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.62-1.52, p = 0.9, respectively), in the low-risk group (HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.56-1.66, p = 0.9 and HR: 0.97 95%CI 0.51-1.82, p = 0.9, respectively) and high-risk group (HR: 1.22 95%CI 0.74-2.02, p = 0.4 and HR: 1.05 95%CI 0.53-2.08, p = 0.9, respectively) and for all subgroups of regimen. Conclusions: In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with a decrease in DFS and OS. By contrast, EOD was not significantly associated with poorer outcomes. In case of relevant neurotoxicity during a 6 months schedule, these data are not in favor of continuing oxaliplatin beyond 75% of planned cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, and demonstrate that fluoropyrimidines remain the cornerstone of adjuvant chemotherapy in localized CC.

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.