Catenacci, Daniel V.T.

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.

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.

TPS264 Background: Trastuzumab (T), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting HER2, is standard of care 1st-line therapy for advanced HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. M, an investigational Fc-engineered anti-HER2 mAb, targets the same HER2 epitope but with higher affinity for both 158V (high binding) and 158F (low binding) alleles of activating Fc receptor CD16A. Data suggest margetuximab coordinately enhances both innate and adaptive immunity, including antigen-specific T-cell responses to HER2. PD-1 and LAG-3 are T-cell checkpoint molecules that suppress T-cell function. Retifanlimab (also known as MGA012 or INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized, IgG4 Κ anti-PD-1 mAb blocking binding of PD-L1 or PD-L2 to PD-1. Tebotelimab (also known as MGD013) is a humanized Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent DART® protein that binds to both PD-1 and LAG-3, inhibiting their respective ligand binding. We previously reported that a CTX-free regimen of M+PD-1 blockade was well tolerated in GEJ/GC patients, and induced a 44% objective response rate (ORR) in a double-positive biomarker population. This was 2- to 3-fold greater than in historical controls with checkpoint inhibitors alone. This registration-directed trial assesses efficacy, safety, and tolerability of M+checkpoint inhibition ± CTX in metastatic/locally advanced, treatment-naïve, HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. Methods: This is a 2-cohort, adaptive open-label phase 2/3 study (NCT04082364). The first single arm, CTX-free cohort A, evaluates M+retifanlimab in HER2+ (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+) and PD-L1+ (excluding microsatellite instability high) patients. After 40 patients are evaluated for response/safety, additional patients will be enrolled if the threshold for continuation is met. In randomized cohort B, HER2+ (IHC 3+ or 2+/fluorescent in situ hybridization+) patients are enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. Part 1 of cohort B randomizes patients to 1 of 4 arms (50 patients each): control arm (T+CTX) or 1 of 3 experimental arms (M+CTX; M+CTX+retifanlimab; M+CTX+tebotelimab). CTX is investigator’s choice XELOX or mFOLFOX-6. Part 2 of cohort B consists of control (T+CTX) vs 1 experimental arm (M+CTX) + either retifanlimab or tebotelimab, depending on results from part 1; with 250 patients each. The primary efficacy endpoint for cohort A (both parts) is ORR per RECIST 1.1; for cohort B part 2 it is overall survival. Clinical trial information: NCT04082364.

TPS252 Background: Tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective HER2-directed TKI recently approved for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), is being developed as a novel therapy for patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and other GI tumors. While trastuzumab (Tras) with chemotherapy is standard in the 1st-line setting for metastatic HER2+ gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEC), no anti-HER2 therapy has demonstrated an OS benefit over chemotherapy in 2nd-line, 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. Interim results from the MOUNTAINEER study have shown promising activity for TUC and Tras in HER2+ mCRC. The MOUNTAINEER-02 study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of TUC in combination with Tras, ramucirumab (Ram), and paclitaxel (Pac) in pts with HER2+ GEC. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-02 (NCT04499924) is a phase 2/3 study evaluating TUC and Tras with the 2nd-line standard of care, 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, 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 finding 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 6-12 patients, and evaluate the safety and activity of the regimen in Cohorts 2A and 2B (30 patients each). The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 part will compare the efficacy and safety of TUC and Tras (Arm 3A; ~235 patients) vs. placebo (Arm 3B; ~235 patients), both in combination with Ram and Pac, and also evaluate activity of TUC with Ram and Pac (Arm 3C; ~30 patients). 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 is ongoing in the U.S. Clinical trial information: NCT04499924.

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.