Golan, Talia

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

Background: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy with a survival rate of only 12%. Surveillance is recommended for high-risk individuals (HRIs), but it is not widely adopted. To address this unmet clinical need and drive early diagnosis research, we established the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) Consortium. Methods: PRECEDE is a multi-institutional international collaboration that has undertaken an observational prospective cohort study. Individuals (aged 18–90 years) are enrolled into 1 of 7 cohorts based on family history and pathogenic germline variant (PGV) status. From April 1, 2020, to November 21, 2022, a total of 3,402 participants were enrolled in 1 of 7 study cohorts, with 1,759 (51.7%) meeting criteria for the highest-risk cohort (Cohort 1). Cohort 1 HRIs underwent germline testing and pancreas imaging by MRI/MR-cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound. Results: A total of 1,400 participants in Cohort 1 (79.6%) had completed baseline imaging and were subclassified into 3 groups based on familial PC (FPC; n=670), a PGV and FPC (PGV+/FPC+; n=115), and a PGV with a pedigree that does not meet FPC criteria (PGV+/FPC–; n=615). One HRI was diagnosed with stage IIB PC on study entry, and 35.1% of HRIs harbored pancreatic cysts. Increasing age (odds ratio, 1.05; P <.001) and FPC group assignment (odds ratio, 1.57; P <.001; relative to PGV+/FPC–) were independent predictors of harboring a pancreatic cyst. Conclusions: PRECEDE provides infrastructure support to increase access to clinical surveillance for HRIs worldwide, while aiming to drive early PC detection advancements through longitudinal standardized clinical data, imaging, and biospecimen captures. Increased cyst prevalence in HRIs with FPC suggests that FPC may infer distinct biological processes. To enable the development of PC surveillance approaches better tailored to risk category, we recommend adoption of subclassification of HRIs into FPC, PGV+/FPC+, and PGV+/FPC– risk groups by surveillance protocols.

Prognosis is generally poor for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. However, patients with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) may benefit from first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance therapy with the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib following at least 16 weeks of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression. Germline breast cancer gene (BRCA) testing is therefore important to ensure that patients receive the most effective treatment. In addition, testing for other DNA damage response gene mutations beyond gBRCAm may also guide treatment decisions. However, clinical pathways for genetic testing are often suboptimal, leading to delays in treatment initiation or missed opportunities for personalized therapy. Barriers to testing include low rates of referral and uptake, delays to referral and slow result turnaround times, cost, and biopsy and assay limitations if somatic testing is performed, leading to the requirement for subsequent dedicated germline testing. Low rates of referral may result from lack of awareness among physicians of the clinical value of testing, coupled with low confidence in interpreting test results and poor availability of genetic counseling services. Among patients, barriers to uptake may include similar lack of awareness of the clinical value of testing, anxiety regarding the implications of test results, lack of insurance coverage, fear of negative insurance implications, and socioeconomic factors. Potential solutions include innovative approaches to testing pathways, including ‘mainstreaming’ of testing in which BRCA tests are routinely arranged by the treating oncologist, with the involvement of genetic counselors if a patient is found to have a gBRCAm. More recently, the utility of multigene panel analyses has also been explored. Access to genetic counseling may also be improved through initiatives such as having a genetic counseling appointment for all new patient visits and telemedicine approaches, including the use of telephone consultations or DVD-assisted counseling. Educational programs will also be beneficial, and cost effectiveness is likely to improve as the number of targeted treatments increases and when the earlier detection of tumors in family members following cascade testing is considered.

4023 Background: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) remains a deadly disease with very limited treatment options. FFX is a standard first-line therapy for mPC with a median overall survival (mOS) of 11.1 months. CPI-613 is a stable intermediate of a lipoate analog that inhibits pyruvate dehydrogenase and α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase enzymes of the tricarboxylic cycle preferentially within the mitochondria of cancer cells. In a phase I study, CPI-613+mFFX was safe and exhibited promising signal of efficacy. Methods: A global, randomized phase 3 trial was conducted across 73 sites to investigate the efficacy and safety of CPI-613 in combination with mFFX compared to standard dose FFX in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment was administered in 2-weekly cycles until progression or intolerable toxicity. In the experimental arm, CPI-613 at 500 mg/m2 was given intravenously on days 1 and 3. The doses of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and 5-fluorouracil in the experimental arm were 65 mg/m2, 140 mg/m2, and 2,400 mg/2, respectively. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, pharmacokinetics, patient reported outcomes and safety. Results: 528 patients were randomly assigned (266 in test and 262 in control arm). There were 362 deaths, with a mOS of 11.1 months for CPI-613+mFFX vs. 11.7 months for FFX [hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18; P = 0.655]; mPFS was 7.8 months vs. 8.0 months respectively [HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29; P = 0.94]; ORR was 39% in the test arm vs. 34% in the control arm [ORR ratio, 1.23 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.75)]. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events with ≥ 10% frequency in CPI-613 plus mFFX vs. FFX arm were diarrhea (11.2% vs. 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% vs. 14.9%), anemia (13.9% vs. 13.6%), neutropenia (11.2% vs. 14.0%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% vs. 13.6%) and fatigue (10.8% vs. 11.5%). Conclusions: The addition of CPI-613 to mFFX failed to show significant improvements of ORR, PFS or OS. The mFFX in the test arm that had the lowest prospectively tested doses of FFX was without compromise on PFS or OS and may be considered as a reference for future FFX administration. Clinical trial information: NCT03504423.

3584 Background: Patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on ≥2 prior therapies have limited treatment options, with median OS ranging from 6-9 months (mo). In the dose-escalation phase of this first-in-human multicohort study (NCT02720068), the anti-lymphocyte activation gene (LAG)-3 antibody favezelimab (fave) was well tolerated alone and with pembrolizumab (pembro) across all dose levels (Lakhani, SITC, 2018, abstract O26). Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of fave alone or in combination with pembro in pts with advanced MSS CRC from the dose confirmation phase. Methods: Eligible pts with MSS PD-1/PD-L1-treatment-naïve mCRC that progressed on prior standard-of-care (3L+) were enrolled (cohort A) to receive the RP2D of 800 mg fave alone (Arm 1), 800 mg fave + 200 mg pembro (Arm 2C), or 800 mg fave + 200 mg pembro (MK-4280A) co-formulation (Arm 5), all Q3W. Treatment continued for 35 cycles or until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or investigator/pt decision. Pts with confirmed progression per irRECIST v1.1 on fave alone could crossover to 800 mg fave + pembro. Safety was assessed in all treated pts; efficacy in the full analysis set (FAS) of all treated pts with baseline scan. Objectives included safety (primary), ORR (RECIST v1.1 by investigator [secondary]), and DOR, PFS, and OS (exploratory). Interim analysis data cut-off was: Oct. 23, 2020. Results: A total of 20 pts received fave (Arm 1); 89 pts (including 9 crossover) received fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5); 12 pts (Arm 1) and 36 pts (Arms 2C+5), had PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors. At data cut-off, median follow-up was 5.8 months (mo) in Arm 1 and 6.2 mo in Arms 2C+5. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were 65% with fave (Arm 1) and 65.2% with fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5). Grade ≥3 TRAEs were 15% (Arm 1), and 20% [Arms 2C+5]). No grade 5 TRAEs were reported. Common TRAEs (≥15%) included fatigue (20.0%), nausea (15%) with fave, and fatigue (16.9%) with fave + pembro. Confirmed ORR was 6.3% (4PR, 1CR) with fave + pembro (Arms 2C+5). No pt receiving fave alone responded. In Arms 2C+5, median DOR was 10.6 mo (range, 5.6-12.7). ORR, OS and PFS by PD-L1 status are reported in the Table. Conclusions: Favezelimab alone or in combination with pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile, with no treatment-related deaths. Promising antitumor activity was observed with combination therapy, including with MK-4280A, compared with monotherapy most notably in pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT02720068. [Table: see text]

3027 Background: Two rational strategies to interrogate the IGF-1R pathway were investigated in this parallel-arm phase I trial: 1) vertical inhibition with D and MK-2206 to potentiate PI3K pathway targeting, 2) horizontal crosstalk inhibition with D and MK-0752 to exert effects against cellular proliferation, angiogenesis and stem cell propagation. Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors and no prior exposure to agents of the same targets were eligible. Dose escalation was based on a modified toxicity probability interval method (Ji et al, 2010). Arm A is comprised of fixed D dose of 10 mg/m2 IV weekly plus MK-2206 at escalating doses of 90-200 mg PO weekly. Arm B is comprised of fixed MK-0752 dose of 1800 mg PO weekly plus D at escalating doses of 7.5-10 mg/m2 IV weekly. Each cycle = 4 weeks in both arms. Primary objectives were to determine DLT and RP2D of these combinations. Results: 30 patients were enrolled in the dose escalation phase (18 in Arm A and 12 in Arm B) with: median age = 56 (range 36-74); M:F = 13:17; ECOG 0:1 = 12:18; primary diagnosis = colorectal (CRC) (9), NSCLC (3), others (17); prior metastatic regimens = 3 (range 1-4). In Arm A, 1/6 DLT was observed with MK-2206 at 135 mg (G3 serum sickness-like reaction); 2/3 DLTs with MK-2206 at 200 mg (G4 leukopenia/neutropenia; G3 rash). No other G4 or worse adverse events (AEs) were observed. RP2D of Arm A = D 10mg/m2 IV weekly and MK-2206 150 mg PO weekly. Other common AEs in Arm A included: fatigue, rash and nausea. In Arm B, 2/6 DLTs were observed with D at 10 mg/m2 (G3 rash; G3 nausea/vomiting). RP2D of Arm B = D 10mg/m2 IV weekly and MK-0752 at 1800 mg PO weekly based on Ji et al. Other common AEs in Arm B included: anorexia, nausea and fatigue. No PR was observed and SD > 4 months occurred in 4 pts (all in Arm A). PK analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Targeted combinations of D with MK-2206 or with MK-0752 were both tolerable. Expansion cohorts based on biomarker selection are underway, specifically ovarian cancer with high IGF1 expression/low RAS score for Arm A; and KRAS wild-type CRC with high IGF1/low IGF2 expression for Arm B.

4009 Background: Interim analysis of a global, phase 2 KEYNOTE-059 study (NCT02335411) reported manageable safety and promising antitumor activity for pembro alone or pembro + chemo in pts with G/GEJ cancer. Here we report long-term efficacy and safety data of all cohorts. Methods: Pts with recurrent or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma were enrolled in 3 cohorts. Cohort 1 pts (PD-L1–positive or –negative) received pembro alone after ≥2 prior lines of therapy. Cohort 2 pts (PD-L1–positive or –negative) received pembro + cisplatin (80 mg/m2 day 1) + 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 days 1-5 Q3W) or capecitabine (in Japan only, 1000 mg/m2 twice daily) as first-line. Cohort 3 pts (PD-L1–positive, combined positive score ≥1% using the PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx assay) received pembro alone as first-line. All pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years. End points included safety, ORR, DOR, and OS. Results: At data cutoff (Aug 8, 2018), median (range) follow-up was 6 (1-38), 14 (2-40), and 21 (2-36) months for cohorts 1 (n = 259), 2 (n = 25), and 3 (n = 31), respectively. In cohort 1, confirmed ORR (95% CI) was 11.6% (8-16) overall, 15.5% (10-22) in PD-L1–positive, and 6.4% (3-13) in PD-L1–negative tumors. In cohort 2, confirmed ORR was 60.0% (39-79) overall, 73.3% (45-92) in PD-L1–positive, and 37.5% (9-76) in PD-L1–negative tumors. In cohort 3, confirmed ORR was 25.8% (12-45). Median (range) DOR in months was 16.1 (2-35+), 4.6 (3-37+), and not reached (2.1-32.5+) in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. OS at 1 year/2 years was 24.6%/12.5%, 52%/32%, and 63.6%/40.1% in cohorts 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In cohorts 1, 2, and 3, grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) incidence was 46 (18%), 20 (80%), and 8 (26%) respectively. TRAEs led to discontinuation in 6 (2%) and 3 (12%) pts in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively, and to death in 2 (1%) pts in cohort 1. No TRAEs led to discontinuation or death in cohort 3. Conclusions: These updated results demonstrate manageable safety, durable clinically meaningful activity of pembro in heavily pretreated pts, and promising efficacy of first-line pembro (alone or + chemo) in pts with advanced G/GEJ cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02335411.

723 Background: The US FDA approved pembro for treating pts with 1) recurrent locally advanced or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, whose disease has progressed on or after ≥2 prior therapies and whose tumors express PD-L1 (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1), and 2) unresectable or metastatic, microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) solid tumors that have progressed after prior therapy and who have no fitting options. We report Asian subgroup analyses from cohort 1 of KEYNOTE-059 (NCT02335411), a global, phase 2 study in advanced G/GEJ cancer. Methods: Eligible pts had measurable recurrent or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma whose disease has progressed on ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens. Pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W up to 2 y. PD-L1+ tumors had a CPS ≥1. Primary end points were ORR (RECIST 1.1, by central review) and safety. Results: Cohort 1 enrolled 259 pts; 57% had PD-L1+ tumors. MSI status was evaluable in 174 tumor samples; of these, 7 were MSI-H. At data cutoff (4/21/2017), median (range) follow-up was 6 mo (1-25). Overall ORR was 12% (95% CI, 8-17) and median (range) DOR was 14 mo (2-19+). PFS6-mo rate was 15% and OS6-mo rate was 46%. In pts with PD-L1+ tumors, ORR was 16% (95% CI, 11-23) and median (range) DOR was 14 mo (3+-19+). In pts with PD-L1+ tumors, PFS6-mo rate was 20% and OS6-mo rate was 50%. In pts with MSI-H tumors, ORR was 57% (95% CI, 18-90) and median (range) DOR was not reached (5-14+ mo). In cohort 1, 41 pts were Asian and 218 pts were non-Asian. PD-L1+ tumors occurred in 42% of Asian pts and 60% of non-Asian pts. ORR was 12% (95% CI, 2-36) in Asian pts with PD-L1+ tumors and 17% (95% CI, 11-24) in non-Asian pts with PD-L1+ tumors. One of 7 pts with MSI-H tumors was Asian; this pt had CR. Grade 3-5 treatment-related AEs occurred in 17% and 18% of Asian and non-Asian pts, similar to the overall cohort. Conclusions: Pembro showed durable clinical benefit in previously treated pts with advanced G/GEJ cancer, especially those with PD-L1+ or MSI-H tumors. Safety and efficacy were similar in Asian and non-Asian pts. These findings highlight pembro as a standard treatment option in Asian and non-Asian pts with advanced G/GEJ cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT02335411.

276 Background: BL-8040 is a novel CXCR4 antagonist being developed for multiple oncology indications. Preclinical studies demonstrated that BL-8040 increases the number of immune cells in peripheral blood and promotes CD8+ T cell infiltration into orthotropic pancreatic mouse tumors, reducing tumor load. BL-8040 is being evaluated in a Phase 2a, multicenter, open label trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (the COMBAT study). Patients are undergoing a 5-day period of monotherapy in which they receive daily doses of BL-8040, followed by 21-day cycles in which patients receive one dose of pembrolizumab and 3 doses/week of BL-8040 until disease progression or discontinuation. To date, 32 patients have been enrolled. Methods: On Day 1 and Day 5, blood samples were taken at pre- and post-dosing, to evaluate peripheral immune cell subset frequency by flow cytometry. In addition, core biopsies were taken from liver metastases, where possible, to assess immune cell infiltration into tumors and the tumor microenvironment (TME). Results: Here we present interim PD biomarker data from the BL-8040 monotherapy portion of the trial. Flow cytometry shows that BL-8040 monotherapy caused an approximately two-fold reduction in frequency of peripheral T regulatory cells, but had no effect on the frequency of T cells, NKT cells or cell populations that contain B cells (CD3- CD56-). Additionally, BL-8040 remained bound to CXCR4 on peripheral immune cells throughout the period of monotherapy. Analysis of available biopsies (N = 7) shows an up to 15-fold increase in the CD3+ population, and up to two-fold increase of CD8+ cells, in the tumor periphery and TME of 43% (3/7) of the patients after five days of BL-8040 monotherapy compared to baseline. Conclusions: In summary, the PD biomarker results in humans support the proposed mechanism of action for BL-8040 that was based on preclinical mouse models. Analysis of tumor biopsies is ongoing, with an emphasis on investigating the effects of BL-8040 on tumor-resident immune cells and the TME. Clinical trial information: NCT02826486.