Tella, Sri Harsha

4130 Background: KRAS is mutationally activated in over 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Compared to pts with KRAS mutation, KRAS wild-type (wt) PDAC seem to have better response to therapy and may harbor potentially actionable molecular alterations. Here, we analyze the molecular profile and clinical outcome of a cohort of pts with KRAS wt PDAC. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on pts with PDAC who underwent CLIA-certified Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) testing at Mayo Clinic between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2021. Pts with KRAS wt PDAC with available reports were included. Their genomic drivers, RNA expression, demographics, disease characteristics, therapies offered, and clinical outcome data were collected. The study was approved by the institutional IRB. Results: Of the 241 eligible pts, 8% (19) has KRAS wt PDAC. Among those, 2 pts had no mutation identified by the gene/molecular panel used. Of the 17 pts (89%) with identified alterations, mutations found in ³ 2 pts were TP53 (53%), CDKN2A (16%) and CDKN2B/ERBB2/PTEN/MSH3/RNF43/FBXW7/KMT2D/GNAS (11% each). Chromosomal rearrangements were identified in 5 (26%): CADPS2-BRAF, GP2-ERBB2, PTPRK-RSPO3, EML4-NTRK3 and TFG-MET. RNA expression results were available in 12 pts: common overexpression were ERBB2 (27%) and MET/NRAS/MYC/CCDN1/CCNE1/AR (18% each); and the under-expression MGMT (18%). Among the 13 pts with available MSI status via NGS, 2 (11%) were MSI-high (both had high TMB [28.4 and 23.7 m/MB]) while all others were TMB < 10 m/MB. The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (68% males). 8/19 (42%) were Stage IV at diagnosis with 15/19 (79%) pts ultimately diagnosed with metastatic disease. Among metastatic pts, median lines of treatment received was 2.5 (range:0-4). 4 pts received FOLFIRINOX (FFX), 2 gemcitabine/ nab-paclitaxel (GP) and tumor response were comparable to previously reported results. 1 received 1st-line pembrolizumab and remained on therapy at the time of analysis. The median length of follow up from diagnosis was 29 months. A patient with TFG-MET re-arrangement previously progressed on FFX and GP was treated using a MET inhibitor, and achieved significant CA19-9 drop and pancreas tumor shrinkage at 1st restaging, with ongoing response. Conclusions: The molecular profile of KRAS wt PDAC is highly heterogeneous and difficult to generalize. Novel approaches (e.g., basket trials) are needed to develop therapy for this rare PDAC subgroup.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy accounting for 90% of primary liver malignancies. Therapeutic options for HCC are primarily based on the baseline functional status, the extent of disease at presentation and the underlying liver function that is clinically evaluated by the Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer system and Child–Pugh score. In patients with advanced HCC, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) approved systemic therapies include the combination of atezolizumab–bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting while cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL), pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination are reserved for patients who progressed on sorafenib. European Medical Agency (EMA) approved the use of atezolizumab–bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting, while cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL) are approved for use in patients that progressed on first-line therapy. In the first line setting, sorafenib demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) benefit of 3 months as compared to that of best supportive care in randomized phase III trials, while lenvatinib was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib. Recently, phase 3 studies with immunotherapeutic agents including atezolizumab plus a bevacizumab combination and tremelimumab plus durvalumab combination demonstrated a better OS and progression free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting, making them attractive first-line options in advanced HCC. In this review, we outlined the tumorigenesis and immune landscape of HCC in brief and discussed the role and rationale of combining immunotherapy and anti-VEGF therapy. We further expanded on potential limitations and the future directions of immunotherapy in combination with targeted agents in the management of advanced HCC.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology promises improved outcomes but the cost-effectiveness and accessibility of targeted therapies is debatable. We report price change patterns from 2015 to 2019 for several oral anticancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. METHODS: We collected provider utilization and payment data from the public Medicare Part D database and extracted drug price information for commonly prescribed targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. We then calculated median Pearson correlation coefficient values for various drugs (containing more than two data points) within each therapeutic class. We also calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) for medication costs within each class and compared them with the consumer price index (CPI). RESULTS: Our study included six epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi; one generic), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (ALKi), two B-Raf inhibitors (BRAFi), three hormonal agents (one generic), three cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i), two poly-ADP-ribose inhibitors (PARPi), and seven antiandrogen agents (two generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for cost of drugs within each therapeutic class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (–0.522 to 0.962) for antiandrogens. Therapies with two or fewer data points (generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide) were excluded. The median CAGRs in costs over the 5-year period were 4.56% (EGFRi), 6.40% (ALKi), 2.58% (BRAFi), 5.48% (hormonal agents), 5.21% (CDK4/6i), 27.29% (PARPi), and 34.8% (antiandrogens). The CPI over 5 years was 2.26%/year, and the average inflation rate was 1.90%/year. CONCLUSION: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI and the average inflation. Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients to ensure that rising costs do not limit access to targeted therapies.

512 Background: The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-NEC) has yet to be established. While objective responses have been observed, it is still unknown which patients are likely to derive benefit. We investigated the genomic profiles of patients who did and did not benefit from ICIs. Methods: Previously we reported the objective responses to ICI in a retrospective series of patients with EP-NEC. RECIST 1.1 criteria were used to categorize patients as achieving disease control (DC = CR, PR, or SD) vs progressive disease (PD). The EMR was reviewed to identify patients who had genomic panels performed, and results were extracted for analysis. Results: Of 31 patients eligible for RECIST assessment, 19 had genomic panels available (9 with DC: 4 SD, 5 PR vs 10 with PD). Of those with NEC histology specified, 9 were small cell, 1 combined large and small cell, 3 were large cell. All tumors were microsatellite-stable. All but one (with TMB = 25) of 16 tumors with TMB status available were < 10 m/MB. Of those with disease control, 67% had both TP53 and RB1 alterations, compared with only 10% in those with progressive disease; this was statistically significant ( p = 0.0198, Fisher exact). Of 7 tumors with TP53 + RB1 alterations, 4 were specified as small cell carcinoma. Half of those with PD showed alterations in β-catenin pathway genes CTNNB1 or APC, compared to only one of the DC group, but this did not reach significance ( p = 0.1409, Fisher exact). In an analysis of all Mayo patients (not just those treated with ICI) with NGS data available (Tempus and FoundationOne), concurrent TP53 + RB1 alteration was significantly more common in SCLC than in EP-NEC (Table). Conclusions: In this small series of patients with EP-NEC treated with ICIs, the SCLC-like genomic signature of concurrent TP53 + RB1 alterations was significantly more common in those with disease control than in those with progressive disease. An analysis of all patients with NGS data (not just on ICI) showed that the dual alteration was more common in SCLC, and SCLC also had more TMB-high tumors. This may explain why ICIs are more effective in SCLC than in EP-NEC. Further study is warranted to determine whether TP53 + RB1 mutations predict response to ICI in NEC.[Table: see text]

248 Background: Esophageal carcinoma is the 6th most common cause of death worldwide. While squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was the most common among the histologic subtypes in the 20th century, recent reports have demonstrated an increased incidence of adenocarcinoma in both Eastern and Western world. With this changing paradigm of esophageal carcinoma, it is important to estimate the future burden of esophageal carcinoma by histology, age, sex, and race, that could help plan prevention, control, and treatment strategies for this cancer. Methods: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 14 registries to obtain incidence data from 2000 to 2016. We applied age-period-cohort models to estimate future esophageal carcinoma incidence rates and the estimated disease burden by multiplying incidence forecasts by corresponding US Census population projections. Results: Our estimate suggests that the incidence (per 100,000 persons) of esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasing in people within the age group of 40-65 years. Our prediction showed that the incidence will increase from 2.12 in 2021 to 2.82 in 2030 (3.2% per year, 95% CI –2.3% to 9.1%, p=0.26). Notably, we noticed a similar marginal increase in incidence among Asians, Black, and Whites in the 40-65 years age group (3.1%, 3.2%, and 4.2%, per year, respectively). White males aged >65 years had the highest incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (17.34 in 2021), and incidence decreased 1.3% per year. We noticed a marginally decreased incidence in Black male (-1.1% per year, p=0.71) and Asian male (-3.9% per year, p=0.17) population aged >65 years. Interestingly, we found a decrease in the incidence of SCC in the current age groups 40-65 (-2.7% per year, p=0.31) and >65 years (-4.6% per year, p=0.081). We observed that Asians had the greatest decrease in incidence (-4.3% per year) as compared to that of Blacks (-4.2% per year) and Whites (-2.9% per year), although there was no statistically significant difference in the annual decrease among races. Conclusions: In our study of esophageal cancer, we predict an increased incidence of adenocarcinoma histology subtype in the younger age group (40-65 years) while the SCC subtype will have a decreased trend. Strategies to prevention esophageal adenocarcinoma, including dietary changes, should preferentially target patients <65 years of age.[Table: see text]

7 Background: Despite the promise of precision oncology, the cost-effectiveness of targeted treatments is debated. Until now, the increase in price of oral targeted anti-cancer treatments used in common malignancies has not been evaluated. Here, we report patterns in price changes from 2015-2019 for multiple oral anti-cancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. Methods: We utilized the publicly available Medicare Part D provider utilization and payment database from 2015 to 2019. We extracted drug prices (using generic names) for commonly used targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. The primary outcome was the correlation of average change in Medicare spending per dosage unit among the multiple brand-name medications within each class available. We additionally calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) [i.e. mean annual growth rates over a specified period of time] for medication costs within each class, and compared it with the consumer price index (a measure of the average change over time in the prices of consumer items). Results: The study included 6 EGFR inhibitors (1 generic), 5 ALK inhibitors, 2 BRAF inhibitors, 3 hormonal agents (1 generic), 3 CDK4/6 inhibitors, 2 PARP inhibitors, and 7 anti-androgen agents (2 generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for drugs within each class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (-0.522-0.962) for anti-androgens. Except for anti-androgens, all other drug classes showed strong linear association in price increase between two drugs within the same-class. A coefficient could not be calculated for therapies with 2 or fewer data points ( i.e., generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, generic abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide). There was no significant correlation between expenditure for anti-estrogen agents. The median (range) CAGRs in costs over this 5-year period were: were 4.56% for EGFRi, 6.40% for ALKi, 2.58% for BRAFi, 5.48% for hormonal agents, 5.21% for CDK4/6i, 27.29% for PARPi, and 34.8% for anti-androgen agents. Conclusions: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI (2.26%/year), and the average inflation rate (1.90%/year). Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients. For most classes despite there being multiple agents, the rise in drug expenditures correlated closely, calling into question the true value of within class competition. There is an urgent need for drug pricing reform given the average expenditure of Medicare part D, and ultimately out of pocket costs for our patients with cancer continues to trend upwards. Increased advocacy efforts are needed to ensure precision therapeutics remains an attainable and sustainable goal.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Fibroblast Growth Factor receptor (FGFR) pathway aberrations have been implicated in approximately 7% of the malignancies. As our knowledge of FGFR aberrations in cancer continues to evolve, FGFR inhibitors emerged as potential targeted therapeutic agents. The promising results of pemigatinib and infigratinib in advanced unresectable cholangiocarcinoma harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangement, and erdafitinib in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with FGFR2 and FGFR3 genetic aberrations, lead to their accelerated approval by the United States (USA) FDA. Along with these agents, many phase II/III clinical trials are currently evaluating the use of derazantinib, infigratinib, and futibatinib either alone or in combination with immunotherapy. Despite the encouraging results seen with FGFR inhibitors, resistance mechanisms and side effect profile may limit their clinical utility. A better understanding of the unique FGFR-inhibitor-related toxicities would invariably help us in the prevention and effective management of FGFR-inhibitor-induced adverse events thereby enhancing their clinical benefit. Herein, we summarized the physiology of FGF/FGFR signaling and briefly discussed the possible mechanisms that could lead to FGFR inhibitor resistance and side effects. In addition, we proposed treatment guidelines for the management of FGFR-inhibitor-associated toxicities. This work would invariably help practicing oncologists to effectively manage the unique toxicities of FGFR inhibitors.

Abstract Abstract Importance: The benefit of routine screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of cancer patients diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by routine screening in comparison with those diagnosed based on clinical suspicion or exposure history (non-routine screening). Objective: To describe and compare the outcomes of cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on routine screening vs. non-routine screening at a multi-site tertiary cancer center. To identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospital admission. Design: A multi-site prospective observational study was conducted between March 18 and July 31, 2020. Setting: Three major and 5 satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Participants: Adult patients diagnosed with active cancer within the past five years and confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Primary Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and laboratory data were assessed as independent variables. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and all-cause mortality. Results: Between March 18 and July 31, 2020, 5452 patients underwent routine screening in the outpatient setting, 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Routine screening detected additional 19 patients from inpatient and pre-procedural settings; 161 patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on non-routine screening. The median age of the entire cohort at diagnosis was 54 years, and 95 patients (42.2%) were female. COVID-19 related-hospitalization rate (17.5% vs. 26.7%, p=0.14), ICU admission (1.6% vs. 5.6%, p=0.19), and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.7%, p=0.72) were not significantly different between routine screening and non-routine screening groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio: 4.4, p=0.023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio: 9.2, p=0.002) were independent predictors of COVID-19-related hospital admission. Conclusions and Relevance: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low based on routine screening. Comparing the outcome with the non-routine screening cohort, there was no significant difference. These results led to an important practice change at our cancer center. We currently follow a testing strategy based on symptoms, exposure, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Citation Format: Zhuoer Xie, Antoine N. Saliba, Jithma Abeykoon, Umair Majeed, Daniel Almquist, Julia Wiedmeier-Nutor, Evandro Bezerra, Xavier Andrade-Gonzalez, Ashley Hickman, Karl Sorenson, Sagar Rakshit, Christopher Wee, Sri Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Nadine Abdallah, Joshua Pritchett, Mariza De Andrade, Dipesh Uprety, Andrew Badley, Joleen Hubbard, Naseema Gangat, Carrie A. Thompson, Thomas Witzig, Robert R. McWilliams, Konstantinos Leventakos, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson. Outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with cancer: Results of a prospective observational comparison of routine screening strategy versus testing based on clinical suspicion [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2021 Feb 3-5. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2021;27(6_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-03.