Schellens, Jan H.M.

627 Background: The SLI of the BEACON CRC phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (ENCO) + MEK inhibitor binimetinib (BINI) + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (CETUX) in pts with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC after 1 or 2 prior regimens. CEA and CA19-9 are tumor markers that are widely used to monitor the effectiveness of systemic therapies for mCRC; here we report on the association of CEA and CA19-9 changes while on treatment with clinical outcomes in pts from the SLI. Methods: Pts in the SLI received the triplet of ENCO 300 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + CETUX 400 mg/m2 (initial dose) then 250 mg/m2 QW in 28-day cycles. Pts were evaluated for safety, radiographic response, and change in tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Results: 30 pts were treated. The triplet was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with known BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibitor toxicities. The rate of severe skin toxicities (grade 3/4) was lower than generally observed for CETUX in mCRC. Of the 29 pts with a BRAFV600E mutation, the median time on study treatment was 5.6 mo (range, 1.0–9.3 mo), and 22 (76%) remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) was 41%, with 1 complete and 11 partial responses. In addition, 9 pts had prolonged stable disease (SD) up to 9.3 mo.CEA and CA19-9 were analyzed in 28 pts. CEA and CA19-9 decreased in 96% and 82% of these pts, respectively. Among 15 pts with treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, median/mean % decreases were 97%/79% for CEA and 92%/82% for CA19-9 in confirmed responders (n=6). Respective decreases in pts with prolonged SD (n=9) were similar: 84%/68% for CEA and 89%/68% for CA19-9. Updated safety, efficacy, and tumor marker results will be provided. Conclusions: ENCO + BINI + CETUX is generally well tolerated and has encouraging clinical activity in BRAFV 600E mCRC, with a confirmed ORR of 41%. In pts with study treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, the tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 decreased markedly and to the same degree in responders vs pts with prolonged SD, providing additional evidence of the meaningful clinical activity of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

The purpose of this guideline is to provide information for the interpretation of clinical dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase ( DPYD ) genotype tests so that the results can be used to guide dosing of fluoropyrimidines (5‐fluorouracil and capecitabine). Detailed guidelines for the use of fluoropyrimidines, their clinical pharmacology, as well as analyses of cost‐effectiveness are beyond the scope of this document. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC ® ) guidelines consider the situation of patients for which genotype data are already available (updates available at https://cpicpgx.org/guidelines/guideline‐for‐fluoropyrimidines‐and‐dpyd/ ).