Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation.
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.
Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase III, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation.
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.
Guidelines for Management of Urgent Symptoms in Patients with Cholangiocarcinoma and Biliary Stents or Catheters Using the Modified RAND/UCLA Delphi Process
Background: Patients with cholangiocarcinoma often have indwelling biliary stents or catheters which are prone to obstructions and/or infections; studies show that 20–40% present with fever and/or jaundice requiring urgent treatment in the outpatient setting for which there are no uniform guidelines. The goal was to develop an expert panel consensus on this topic using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process to rate treatment appropriateness. Methods: Thirteen expert physicians from relevant specialties, geography, and practice settings were recruited for the panel. Patient scenarios were developed and panelists rated the therapies before and after a face-to-face discussion. The appropriateness of various therapies was rated on a scale from 1–9 and classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Scenarios with greater than 2 (>2) ratings of 1–3 (inappropriate) and greater than 2 (>2) ratings of 7–9 (appropriate) were considered to have disagreement and were not assigned an appropriateness rating. Results: Panelists were from all US regions and the UK (8%) and had practiced for a mean 16.5 years (4–33 years). Panelists rated 480 scenarios before the meeting and re-rated 288 of the clinical scenarios after the meeting. The panelists agreed that ongoing treatment with chemotherapy did not influence decision-making and, therefore, 192 scenarios were excluded from the final list. Disagreement decreased from 37.5% before to 10.4% after the meeting. Consensus on stent/tube manipulation and inpatient antibiotic therapy was obtained and summarized in patients as “appropriate” or “maybe appropriate” based on a patient’s bilirubin level at presentation. Conclusions: The Delphi process produced consensus guidelines to fill an unmet need in the urgent management of ascending cholangitis in patients with cholangiocarcinoma.
Mental Health Disorders are More Common in Colorectal Cancer Survivors and Associated With Decreased Overall Survival
Objectives: To determine the risk and risk factors for mental illness among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors across short-term and long-term follow-up periods. Methods: We used the Utah Cancer Registry to identify CRC survivors diagnosed between 1997 and 2013. Mental health diagnoses were available in electronic medical records and statewide facilities data that were linked by the Utah Population Database. CRC survivors were matched to individuals from a general population cohort. The risk of developing a mental illness was compared between cohorts. The association between mental illness and mortality was also analyzed. Results: In total, 8961 CRC survivors and 35,897 individuals in a general population cohort were identified. CRC survivors were at increased risk for any mental health diagnosis at 0 to 2 years (hazard ratio [HR], 3.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.47-3.95), >2 to 5 years (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09-1.38), and >5 years (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.36) after cancer diagnosis. CRC survivors were also at increased risk of depressive disorders specifically during the same time periods. At >5 years, CRC survivors still had an increased risk of developing many mental health diagnoses. Factors associated with increased risk of any mental health disorder among CRC survivors included colostomy and Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1+. There was an increased risk of death for CRC survivors diagnosed with any mental health disorder (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.02-2.35) and depression (HR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.92-2.28). Conclusions: CRC survivors are at increased risk for mental health disorders in the short-term and long-term. Survivors who develop mental health disorders also experience decreased survival.
Guidelines for management of urgent symptoms in cholangiocarcinoma (CC) patients (pts) with biliary stents or catheters using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process.
e15641 Background: CC pts with biliary stents or catheters are prone to have obstruction/infection and studies show 20-40% present with fever/or jaundice requiring urgent treatment for which there is no uniform guideline. We aimed to develop an expert panel consensus on this topic using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process to rate treatment appropriateness. Methods: We recruited 13 physician experts from relevant specialty, geography, and practice settings. Patient scenarios were developed and panelists rated the therapies before and after a face-to-face discussion. The appropriateness of various therapies was rated on a 1-9 scale and classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Scenarios with > 2 ratings of 1-3 (inappropriate) and > 2 ratings of 7-9 (appropriate) were considered to have disagreement and were not assigned an appropriateness rating. Results: Panelists were from all US regions (92%) and the UK (8%); had practiced for a mean 16.5 years (4-33 years). Panelists rated 480 scenarios before the meeting, but re-rated only 288 clinical scenarios as they felt that ongoing treatment with chemotherapy did not influence decision-making. Disagreement decreased from 37.5% before the meeting to 10.4% after. Consensus statements are summarized in the table below. Conclusions: The Delphi process produced consensus guidelines to fill an unmet need in urgent management of ascending cholangitis in pts with CC. (Support: The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation). [Table: see text]
Consensus treatment guidelines for urgent symptoms in cholangiocarcinoma (CC) patients (pts) with biliary stents or catheters using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process.
452 Background: CC pts with biliary stents or catheters often present with fever and/or jaundice requiring urgent treatment for which there is no uniform guideline. We aimed to develop an expert panel consensus on this topic using the modified RAND/UCLA Delphi process to rate treatment appropriateness. Methods: We recruited 13 physician experts from relevant specialty, geography, and practice settings. Patient scenarios were developed based on a literature review, and therapies were rated by the experts before and after a face-to-face discussion. The appropriateness of various therapies was rated on a 1-9 scale and classified as appropriate, inappropriate, or uncertain. Scenarios with > 2 ratings of 1-3 (inappropriate) and > 2 ratings of 7-9 (appropriate) were considered to have disagreement and were not assigned an appropriateness rating. Results: Panelists were from all US regions (92%) and the UK (8%); had practiced for a mean 16.5 years (4-33 years) and reported seeing an average of 120 unique CC patients a year (0-900 pts). Panelists rated 288 clinical scenarios. Experts decided that ongoing treatment with chemotherapy did not influence decision-making. Disagreement decreased from 37.5% before the meeting to 10.4% after. Consensus statements are summarized in table 1. Conclusions: The Delphi process produced consensus guidelines to fill an unmet need in urgent management of ascending cholangitis in pts with CC. Studies of the impact of these guidelines on cost of care and pt outcomes are warranted. (Support: The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation)[Table: see text]