Oh, Do‐Youn

4086 Background: Pemigatinib (PEMI), a potent, selective, oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor, has shown efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with CCA and FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions in FIGHT-202 (NCT02924376; objective response rate [ORR], 35.5%; duration of response [DOR], 7.2 months [mo]). Overall survival (OS: 21.1 mo) was not mature in the primary report (Abou-Alfa. Lancet Oncol 2020; cutoff: Mar 22, 2019); herein we report matured efficacy and safety data from FIGHT-202 (cutoff: Apr 7, 2020). Methods: Pts (≥18 y) with known FGF/FGFR alterations and progression after ≥1 prior therapy had FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions (cohort A), other FGF/FGFR alterations (B), or no FGF/FGFR alterations (C). Pts received PEMI 13.5 mg QD (21-d cycle; 2 wks on, 1 wk off) until progression or toxicity. Primary endpoint: independent, centrally confirmed ORR (cohort A); secondary endpoints: ORR (cohorts B, C; cohorts A and B combined); DOR, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. A post-hoc analysis in cohort A evaluated mOS in responders (pts with complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) vs non-responders (pts with progressive disease [PD] or stable disease (SD]). Results: At cutoff, 147 pts were enrolled (cohort A, n=108; B, n=20; C, n=17; FGF/FGFR status undetermined, n=2); median follow-up was 30.4 (range, 4.9–38.7) mo and median treatment duration was 5.9 (0.2–36.5) mo. In cohort A, 9.3% of pts remained on therapy at cutoff; in cohorts B and C, all pts had discontinued. Pts discontinued mainly for PD (67.6%, 75%, and 64.7% in cohorts A, B, and C respectively). Independent, centrally confirmed ORR was 37.0%; mOS was 17.5 mo (95% CI, 14.4-22.9) in cohort A (Table 1). mOS for responders (n=40) vs non-responders (n=68) was 30.1 (95% CI, 21.5-NE) mo vs 13.7 (9.6-16.1) mo. Overall, most common all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were hyperphosphatemia (58.5%; grade ≥3, 0%), alopecia (49.7%; 0%), diarrhea (46.9%; 3.4%), fatigue (43.5%; 5.4%), nausea (41.5%; 2%), and dysgeusia (40.8%; 0%); 10.2%, 13.6% and 42.2% of pts discontinued, had dose reduction, and treatment interruption due to TEAEs, respectively. Conclusions: These results reinforce the primary data, showing continued, durable responses and sustained tolerability in pts receiving PEMI for CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions. Notably, the matured OS is longer than historical data; OS for responders was more than twice as long vs for non-responders. Clinical trial information: NCT02924376. [Table: see text]

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

266 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

AbstractBackgroundHepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.MethodsEight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two.A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.ConclusionsThese guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher‐quality evidence.

Objectives Pancreatic resection is associated with postoperative morbidity and reduced quality of life (QoL). A systematic literature review was conducted to understand the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) landscape in early-stage pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods Databases/registries (through January 24, 2019) and conference abstracts (2014–2017) were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale/Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Searches were for general (resectable PC, adjuvant/neoadjuvant, QoL) and supplemental studies (resectable PC, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire [QLQ] – Pancreatic Cancer [PAN26]). Results Of 750 studies identified, 39 (general, 22; supplemental, 17) were eligible: 32 used QLQ Core 30 (C30) and/or QLQ-PAN26, and 15 used other PROMs. Baseline QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL scores in early-stage PC were similar to all-stage PC reference values but lower than all-stage–all-cancer values. The QoL declined after surgery, recovered to baseline in 3 to 6 months, and then generally stabilized. A minimally important difference (MID) of 10 was commonly used for QLQ-C30 but was not established for QLQ-PAN26. Conclusions In early-stage PC, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 are the most commonly used PROMs. Baseline QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL scores suggested a high humanistic burden. Immediately after surgery, QoL declined but seemed stable over the longer term. The QLQ-C30 MID may elucidate the clinical impact of treatment on QoL; MID for QLQ-PAN26 needs to be established.

TPS600 Background: Pts with adv CCA have poor survival outcomes, and chemotherapy offers limited survival benefit (5-year survival rates, 5–10%; median overall survival [OS], 8–12 months). FGFR2 gene rearrangements are known to be early drivers of oncogenesis in ~15% of pts with intrahepatic (i) CCA. Futibatinib, an oral, highly selective, irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor has shown antitumor activity against a broad spectrum of FGFR-deregulated tumors in preclinical studies. In a previous study, futibatinib demonstrated clinical activity and tolerability in heavily pretreated pts with adv CCA harboring FGFR2 gene rearrangements. This phase 3 trial (FOENIX-CCA3) is designed to evaluate futibatinib vs gem-cis as 1L therapy for pts with adv iCCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements. Methods: FOENIX-CCA3 is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 study that will be conducted in pts with metastatic or unresectable iCCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements (assessed at screening by a central laboratory). Pts must have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 and should not have received previous systemic anticancer therapy for adv disease (adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy ≥6 mo prior to randomization is permissible). Pts with clinically-significant alterations in calcium-phosphorus homeostasis or ectopic mineralization/calcification will be excluded. Approximately 216 pts will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive 20 mg futibatinib once daily until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria are met or gem-cis (on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) for 8 cycles or until disease progression, whichever occurs first. Pts will be stratified by prior surgical excision (yes vs no), geographic region, and locally adv vs metastatic disease. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by independent central review (ICR). Secondary endpoints include objective response rate and disease control rate based on ICR, OS, PFS per investigator assessment, and safety. The anticipated start date is in April, 2020.

TPS468 Background: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a cancer arising from the intrahepatic bile duct. Standard treatment of unresectable, recurrent, or metastatic iCCA is with cytotoxic chemotherapy. FGFR2 gene fusions have been identified as oncogenic drivers in 10–20% of iCCA tumors, but no targeted agents have been established to date. TAS-120 is an investigational irreversible FGFR1–4 inhibitor in development as a once-daily oral treatment for iCCA. Based on initial studies in multiple tumor types expressing FGFR abnormalities, iCCA was identified as a tumor type with potential susceptibility to FGFR inhibition and high unmet need. A phase I portion of the trial with an iCCA expansion cohort demonstrated tolerability and preliminary evidence of clinical efficacy with TAS-120 as a continuous, once-daily oral treatment in patients with iCCA. The most common AEs in the phase I portion of the trial were hyperphosphatemia, a mechanism-based on-target side effect, cutaneous AEs, and gastrointestinal AEs. The phase I portion of the study is continuing to enroll, and final results are anticipated in early 2019. Based on preliminary findings, a phase II portion of the study (FOENIX-101; clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT02052778) has been initiated. Methods: The phase II portion of the trial is a global, single-arm study of TAS-120 in patients with iCCA harboring FGFR2 gene rearrangements. The study will enroll approximately 100 adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic iCCA that progressed after ≥ 1 systemic therapies and with an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. Prior systemic therapy must include gemcitabine plus platinum-based chemotherapy. Screening for FGFR2 gene rearrangements will be performed at a central laboratory. The primary endpoint is objective response rate based on RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints include duration of response, disease control rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, safety, and health-related quality of life. Clinical trial information: NCT02052778.

408 Background: Standard of care for CCA/GBC is C-G therapy. MAbs (ATZ, pembrolizumab) targeting PD-L1 show promise in treating CCA/GBC. Hyaluronan (HA), which may impede drug and immune cell access, is high (67%) in CCA/GBC tumors. PEGPH20 enzymatically degrades HA. HALO 110-101 (NCT03267940) evaluates safety and activity of PEG-C-G-ATZ or PEG-C-G versus C-G in CCA/GBC pts. Methods: This study comprises two parts. In Run-In (RI) six pts were enrolled in PEG-C-G arm, then six pts in PEG-C-G-ATZ arm. Eight additional pts may be enrolled for tolerability. In Expansion (EX), up to 50 pts will be enrolled for efficacy. Treatment (Tx) cycle is 21 days (d). PEGPH20 dose is 3 μg/kg on d1, eight and 15 and ATZ dose is 1200 mg (one–three hours after PEGPH20) on d1 (PEG-C-G-ATZ only). C-G is dosed at 25 mg/m2 C and 1000 mg/m2 G on d2 and nine. In C-G arm (EX only), C-G is dosed on d1 and 8. Primary endpoints are ORR (RECIST v1.1), AEs (NCI CTCAE v4.03), laboratory/safety (RI only); secondary endpoints are PK; DOR, DCR, PFS; OS, OS by PD-L1 expression; ORR and DOR (imRECIST). Results: Eighteen pts have been enrolled (nine in each arm). The mean (SD) age is 57 (12.2) yrs in PEG-C-G and 69 (8.8) yrs in PEG-C-G-ATZ. 56% were men. All pts experienced ≥ 1 AE. The most common AEs are nausea, fatigue (50% each); decreased appetite (44%); anemia, constipation (39% each); thrombocytopenia, oedema peripheral, AST increased, myalgia (33% each). To date, there has been one dose-limiting toxicity (febrile neutropenia) in the PEG-C-G arm. There have been no deaths due to AEs. Conclusions: The overall safety profile of PEGPH20 + C + G ± ATZ is acceptable and consistent with safety observed for the individual components. There were no DLTs resulting in a dose reduction of PEGPH20, which is being dosed at 3 μg/kg in the EX phase. Clinical trial information: NCT03267940. [Table: see text]

TPS543 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is treated with CIS and GEM (CISGEM), but prognosis is poor. Hyaluronan (HA) accumulation in solid tumors may impede drug and immune cell access. PEGPH20 targets tumors that accumulate HA (HA-high). This study (NCT03267940) plans to enroll 70 subjects to evaluate the safety and activity of PEGPH20 + programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) agent atezolizumab, (PEGCISGEMATEZO), & PEGPH20 + CISGEM (PEGCISGEM) in HA-high subjects with CCA and gallbladder cancer. Study will comprise initial run-in and expansion portions. Primary endpoints include incidence of AEs and other laboratory/safety parameters and ORR (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints include PK parameters; DOR, DCR, PFS, and ORR (RECIST v1.1 and immune-modified RECIST); and OS and OS by PD-L1 expression. Methods: ~6 HA-high subjects will be enrolled in PEGCISGEM arm run-in portion and undergo at ≥1 cycle; subsequently, 6 HA-high subjects will enter the PEGCISGEMATEZO arm. Treatment period will be 21-day cycles. In the expansion portion, ~50 HA-high subjects will be enrolled and randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio into PEGCISGEMATEZO, PEGCISGEM, and CISGEM arms. PEGPH20 is planned to be administered at 3.0 μg/kg on Days 1, 8 and 15 of all cycles in both portions. ATEZO will be administered at 1200 mg 1–3 hours after PEGPH20 on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle in the PEGCISGEMATEZO arm in both portions. In the PEGCISGEM & PEGCISGEMATEZO arms, dosing schedule for CISGEM is the same during both portions, with administration of 25 mg/m2 CIS and 1000 mg/m2 GEM on Days 2 and 9 of each cycle. In CISGEM control arm (expansion only), dosing schedule will be on Days 1 and 8 of each cycle. Treatment will continue until death, withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Tumor response will be evaluated using RECIST v1.1. AEs will be graded per NCI CTCAE v4.03. Tumor samples will be tested retrospectively for PD-L1 expression. Safety data will be periodically monitored by an independent data monitoring committee. Clinical trial information: NCT03267940.