Kelley, Robin Kate

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

Abstract Background FGFR2 fusions occur in ~15% of patients (pts) with iCCA, a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Futibatinib, a highly selective, irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor, has shown activity across tumor types, including iCCA, in a phase 1 study. The pivotal phase 2 FOENIX-CCA2 trial (NCT02052778) is evaluating futibatinib in iCCA harboring FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements. Here, we report the first efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) data for the complete FOENIX-CCA2 population. Methods Eligible pts had unresectable/metastatic iCCA with an FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and progressive disease (PD) after ≥1 prior treatment (tx; excluding FGFR inhibitors). Pts received futibatinib 20 mg QD until PD/intolerability. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by independent central review (target ORR: 20%). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Subgroup analyses were performed by pt characteristic and molecular alteration. Results Among 103 pts (56% female), 53% had received ≥2 prior tx. FGFR2 fusions were present in 78% (23% had FGFR2-BICC1 fusions) and FGFR2 rearrangements in 22%. At data cutoff (Oct 1, 2020), 72 pts (70%) had discontinued tx. The study met its primary objective with a confirmed ORR of 41.7% (43/103). Responses were durable, with a median (m) DOR of 9.7 mo and 72% of responses ≥6 mo. DCR was 82.5%. mPFS was 9.0 mo; mOS was 21.7 mo, with a 12-mo OS rate of 72%. ORR was consistent across pt demographic subgroups (≥65 y: 65.2%; 2 prior tx: 38.7%). Common tx-related AEs (TRAEs) were hyperphosphatemia (85%), alopecia (33%), and dry mouth (30%). The most frequent grade 3 TRAE, hyperphosphatemia (30%), resolved with adequate management (median 7 d). Retinal disorders (all grade 1-2) were reported in 8% of pts. TRAEs were managed with dosing interruptions (50%)/reductions (54%); 2 pts discontinued tx due to TRAEs. No tx-related deaths occurred. ORRs were consistent in pts with dosing interruptions (40.2%) or reductions (46.8%). PROs were stable through 11.0 mo of tx. In exploratory biomarker analyses, ORR was consistent in pts with FGFR2 fusions (43.8%) and other FGFR2 rearrangements (34.8%) and in pts with BICC1 (41.7%) and non-BICC1 (44.6%) fusion partners. Notably, no obvious differences in ORR were observed in pts with co-occurring genetic alterations, including TP53 comutations (ORR, 38.5% [5/13]). Additional biomarker data will be presented. Conclusions Futibatinib resulted in frequent, durable objective responses in pts with iCCA harboring FGFR2 fusion/rearrangements, regardless of pt baseline characteristic, molecular alteration, or comutation. AEs were manageable with dosing modifications that did not impact response. QoL was maintained. Citation Format: Lipika Goyal, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Antoine Hollebecque, Chigusa Morizane, Juan W. Valle, Thomas B. Karasic, Thomas A. Abrams, Robin Kate Kelley, Philippe Cassier, Junji Furuse, Heinz-Josef Klümpen, Heung-Moon Chang, Li-Tzong Chen, Yoshito Komatsu, Kunihiro Masuda, Daniel Ahn, Yaohua He, Nital Soni, Karim A. Benhadji, John A. Bridgewater. Primary results of phase 2 FOENIX-CCA2: The irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor futibatinib in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT010.

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.

4023 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTC) are increasingly subtyped by molecular alterations, but little is known about the relationship between gain-of-function mutations and the RNA transcript expression of immune-related pathways. Methods: A sample of retrospective, clinicogenomic and transcriptomic data from de-identified records of patients with BTC in the Tempus database was selected. We then investigated the relationship between the mutational landscape and immune-related RNA signatures of different anatomic and genomic BTC subtypes. Results: The cohort included 455 samples of intrahepatic bile duct (IH) (n=267), gallbladder (GB) (n=153), and extrahepatic bile duct (EH) (n=35) cancer subtypes. Across all subtypes, we detected alterations in TP53 (43.8%), ARID1A (19.8%), KMT2C (18.2%), BAP1 (14.6%), KRAS (12.7%), TERT (12.0%), IDH1 (11.4%), KMT2D (11.0%), LRP1B (11.0%), and PBRM1 (10.7%), along with FGFR2 fusions (2.6%). Potentially actionable biomarkers ( FGFR2 and NTRK1-3 fusions, IDH1 and BRAFV600E mutations, tumor mutational burden [TMB]>10, HER2 expression, and/or microsatellite instability) were identified in 21.1% of all BTC and 28.6% of IH samples. Mutually exclusive alterations observed between subtypes were TP53 & BAP1, KRAS & BAP1, TP53 & IDH1, KRAS & IDH1, and SMAD4 & BAP1 ( P < 0.001 for all). GB was more inflamed based on RNA signatures and classical immune biomarkers, including PD-L1 and TMB. RNA signature analyses revealed a higher expression of immune-related pathways in GB than IH ( P = 0.001) with no differences in comparison with EH. PD-L1 expression and continuous TMB were elevated in GB versus the other anatomical subtypes. Significant associations were noted between particular genetic mutations and immune profiling features (table). Conclusions: BTC subtypes are diverse in DNA alterations, RNA inflammatory signatures, and immune markers. Notably, potentially actionable biomarkers were identified in a sizable portion of the cohort and varied significantly between subtypes. These results provide guidance for targeted therapy development and support the use of multimodal immune profiling for BTC. For example, GB-specific clinical trials may be considered due to the relative increase in immune-related biomarkers observed in GB and the historically limited success of BTC trials.[Table: see text]

348 Background: The proportion of females in medicine is increasing (approx. 50% in medical school/workforce), but disparities in female authorship in oncology research publications exist; female corresponding authorship reportedly ranges from 7.2-39.1% in oncology clinical trials (Ludmir et al 2019). This study aimed to describe and assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in BTC and to identify any changes over time. Methods: Embase/Medline were used to identify final primary trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) (excluding phase I (PI) (expected to move to later phase), mixed tumour site trials, reviews, editorials and trial-in-progress publications). Gender was determined by inspection of names, google search and author communication. Chi-square tests and log regression were used to assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship, including changes over time (STATA16). Results: Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria; 80% single-arm PII and 15% and 5% randomised PII and PIII respectively; 73% enrolled ≤50 patients. Tumour primary sites were all BTC: 86%, cholangiocarcinoma: 8%, gallbladder cancer: 6%; 80% involved chemotherapy, 13% targeted therapy and 5% localised/systemic combinations; 65% were in first-line (1L) advanced setting, 17% post 1L, 13% advanced non-specified and 5% neo-adjuvant/adjuvant. Forty-eight percent received industry funding and 65% met primary end-point. Sixty-four percent were published post ABC-02 (Valle et al 2010). Publication impact factor (IF) was ≤5 in 50% and >20 in 12%. Median number of authors in all publications was 11. Geographic location of all first and senior authors were Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Median individual trial female author representation was 25%; there were no female authors in 12% of trials. Overall, female first and senior author representation was 21% and 11%, respectively. Median position of first female author was second. In publications with IF ≤20 and >20, there were 22% and 16% female first and 13% and 0% female senior authors, respectively. The phase of trial, journal IF, industry funding, or whether met primary end-point did not impact female first or senior author representation (all P>.05). There were more female senior authors associated with “other” geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (P=.016) vs Asia (7%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in female first or senior author representation over time (‘00-05: 21%/18%, ‘06-10: 27%/5%, ‘11-15: 15%/15%, ‘16-20: 22%/9%, P=.738, and P=.508 respectively). Conclusions: Female first and senior author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.

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.

e16686 Background: Genetic alterations in the FGFR pathway are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in CCA. The clinical and molecular features of patients (pts) with CCA harboring FGFR genetic alterations are reported here. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed in pts with CCA who were found to have an FGFR alteration on tumor molecular profiling as part of routine care between 9/2007 and 12/2019. Data on demographics, risk factors, pathology, molecular characteristics, systemic therapies, radiographical response, time on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were collected in a multi-center collaborative effort across seven academic centers. Results: Among 135 pts with FGFR-altered CCA, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years old (range = 25-92 years), and 80 (59.3%) pts were female, 129 (95.6%) had intrahepatic CCA, and 6 (5.6%) had chronic HBV. At presentation, 28.2% of pts had resectable disease, including 65.0% with Stage I-II, 22.5% with Stage III, and 5.0% with Stage IV. At the time of initial diagnosis, CA19-9 was < 35U/mL in 42.6% of pts. Bone metastases were observed in 41 (30.6%) pts with advanced disease. FGFR2 fusions were the most common FGFR alteration (68.2%), followed by FGFR2 mutations (21.5%), FGFR3 mutations (3.7%), FGFR2 rearrangements (1.5%), FGFR1 amplification (1.5%), and FGFR2 amplification (1.5%). The most common FGFR2 fusion partners were BICC1 (28.3%), SORBS1 (4.4%), POC1B (3.3%), and TACC2 (3.3%). The median lines of palliative systemic therapies received was 3 (range = 0-8), and 40/135 (29.6%) pts received a liver-directed therapy. For the 55 (59.8%) pts with FGFR2 fusions who received gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line palliative systemic therapy, the median time on treatment was 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.3). The median OS from time of initial diagnosis was 36.1 months (95% CI: 28.3-51.6) in the FGFR2 fusion positive cohort. Among the 92 pts with FGFR2 fusions, 70 (76.1%) pts received an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial; 12 (17.1%) were subsequently treated with a second FGFR inhibitor, and 58.3% stayed on the second FGFR inhibitor for ≥4 months. Pts with a BICC1 fusion partner (n = 16) had an overall response rate of 42.9% on FGFR-selective inhibitors compared to 30.8% in non-BICC1 fusion partners (n = 54). Conclusions: Pts with CCA harboring FGFR alterations were found to have a high rate of normal CA19-9, high rate of bone metastases, and short median time on treatment on first-line palliative gemcitabine/cisplatin. Additional comparative studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.

4508 Background: The combination of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) T (anti–CTLA-4) and D (anti–PD-L1) showed tolerability with a promising objective response rate (ORR) in the initial cohort of this study (NCT02519348). Subsequent evaluation of pts with solid tumors treated with increasing doses of T suggested priming with a higher dose of T may induce a stronger immune response and enhance anti-tumor activity. Thus, the randomized expansion cohorts comprised 4 arms evaluating T and D as monotherapies and 2 T+D regimens, including a novel T+D regimen featuring a single, priming dose of T. Methods: ICI-naïve pts with aHCC who progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomized to one of two T+D combinations: T300+D (T 300 mg + D 1500 mg 1 dose followed by D Q4 weekly [Q4W]) or T75+D (T 75 mg Q4W + D 1500 mg Q4W [4 doses] followed by D Q4W); or single agent D (1500 mg Q4W) or T (750 mg Q4W). Safety was the primary endpoint. ORR by blinded, independent central review using RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DoR), circulating lymphocytes, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (09/02/2019), 332 pts were enrolled. Median follow-ups were 11.7 months (mo) for T300+D, 14.6 (T75+D), 8.9 (D), and 15.8 (T). Treatment-related adverse event (trAE) incidences are shown (Table); no deaths were attributed to trAEs for T300+D or T. The T300+D arm had the highest confirmed ORR (DoR not reached [NR]) and longest OS (Table). A unique proliferative T cell profile was identified for pts in the T300+D arm, suggesting additive biologic activity for the combination, and showed pts with an OR exhibited high cytotoxic (CD8) counts. Conclusions: The encouraging clinical activity and tolerable safety profile suggest T300+D provides the best benefit-risk profile as opposed to T75+D or monotherapies. The unique pharmacodynamic activity of the T300+D regimen further supports its use in aHCC. T300+D and D are being evaluated in the ongoing phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in first-line HCC vs sorafenib. Funding: AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348 . [Table: see text]

580 Background: Though studies indicate that the genomic profiles of ICC and ECC are distinct, the clinical features that differentiate them still remain to be well characterized. The purpose of this study was to further analyze these differences and patient treatment patterns in a multi-center cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at 8 institutions on patients (pts) with ICC or ECC diagnosed after June 2009. Data on demographics, risk factors, treatments, pathology and overall survival (OS) were collected. Tumor genotyping results from CLIA-certified tissue assays were analyzed. Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon rank sum and log-rank tests were used to compare sub-groups. Results: In a database of 737 pts with cholangiocarcinoma, 538(73%) had ICC and 199(27%) had ECC. Pts with ICC more often presented in later stages, had tumors > 5cm at resection (p < 0.0001) and had metastases to the liver, lymph nodes, lung and/or bone (p < 0.01). Pts with ICC more often received liver directed therapy, targeted therapy and multiple lines of systemic therapy and they more often enrolled in a clinical trial (all p < 0.01). Pts with ECC were more likely to be male, undergo surgery, receive adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (all p < 0.05). Mutation profiling performed in 381 (52%) pts (ICC/ECC = 301/80) showed that pts with ICC were more likely to have IDH1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions, whereas pts with ECC were more likely to have KRAS, APC, SMAD4, WNT, TGFb and TP53 mutations (all < 0.05). Factors that did not differ significantly between pts with ICC and ECC include race, rates of primary sclerosing cholangitis, median diagnosis CA19-9 levels and R1 resection rate. Median OS from diagnosis was 18.9 months in ICC and 17.3 months in ECC (p = 0.8471). Conclusions: While pts with ICC and ECC have some similarities in their clinical features, differences in metastases patterns and molecular profiling significantly impact their management such that pts with ICC receive more liver-directed therapy, targeted therapy and more lines of systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed as referral patterns to tertiary care centers may have impacted these results.