Chakrabarti, Sakti

Abstract Background Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the first-line setting, although was only evaluated in patients with Child-Pugh (CP) A liver function in the IMbrave150 trial. We sought to determine the outcomes of these patients based on CP score and ALBI grade in the US population. Methods This multicenter cohort study included patients with HCC who received atezolizumab with bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy between March 2018 and November 2023. Overall survival (OS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression method. Results Among 322 patients, 226, 86, and 10 patients had CP-A, CP-B, and CP-C liver function, respectively. Median age was 66.5 years, 78.6% were male, and 82.6% were White. Median OS (mOS) was 21.6 months for those with CP-A, 9.1 months for those with CP-B7, and 4.7 months for those with CP-B8-C12 (P < .0001). Among patients with CP-A, those with ALBI grade 1 had an mOS of 34.9 months versus 14.2 months in those with grade 2. In multivariate analyses, CP score, ALBI grade, hepatitis B, performance status, and macrovascular invasion were significantly associated with survival. Conclusions CP score is an important prognostic tool for patients with HCC receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and this regimen remains a viable option for patients with CP-B7 with no additional safety concern, although the benefit is significantly less than those with CP-A. ALBI score has independent predictive value in patients with CP-A liver function.

4099 Background: A+B is standard of care for advanced HCC in the first line setting, although was only evaluated in patients with CP class A liver function in IMbrave150. We sought to determine outcomes of patients in the real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a multi-institution retrospective analysis of patients with HCC who received A+B as first-line systemic therapy between March 2018 and November 2023, at Mayo Clinic and University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center. Treatment response was evaluated, and progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined using the Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard regression method. Results: Among patients with HCC (n=322), 226, 86, and 10 had CP-A, -B, and -C liver function, while 120, 177, and 25 had ALBI grade 1, 2, and 3 liver function. Median age was 66.5 years, 78.6% were male, and 82.6% were white. Liver disease causes included hepatitis B (5.3%) and C (34.8%), ethanol use (26.1%), and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (15.5%). Macrovascular invasion was seen in 42.9%, and 30.4% had extrahepatic metastatic disease. Median OS for patients with CP-A5/6 was 21.6 months, B7 (n=49) was 9.1 months, and B8-C12 was 4.7 months ( p<0.0001). Median OS by ALBI grade was 34.9, 11.7, and 4.7 months for grades 1, 2, and 3. Median PFS was 8.9, 6.4, and 2.7 months for CP-A5/6, B7, and B8-C12 ( p<0.0001). Median PFS by ALBI grade was 11.0, 6.4, and 3.7 months for grades 1, 2, and 3 ( p=0.0001). Among patients with CP-A, those with ALBI grade 1 had mOS of 34.9 months versus 14.2 months for those with grade 2. Partial response was seen in 29.2%, 19.8% and 10.0% of patients with CP-A, -B, and -C, while 32.7%, 33.7%, and 40.0% had stable disease. In a univariate analysis, factors predictive of shorter OS included CP-B7 or CP-B8-C12, ALBI grade 2 or 3, hepatitis B, poorer ECOG performance status (PS), macrovascular invasion, non-white race, and lack of prior surgery or embolization. In multivariate analyses, CP score, ALBI grade, hepatitis B, ECOG PS, and macrovascular invasion were significantly associated with survival. There was significant interaction between CP and ALBI grade (Table). Conclusions: A+B remains a viable option in patients with CP-B7 liver function, although benefit is significantly less than those with CP-A. ALBI score has predictive value and can identify two prognostic groups among those with CP-A liver function. [Table: see text]

Background: The predictive and prognostic role of BRAF alterations has been evaluated in colorectal cancer (CRC); however, BRAF alterations have not been fully characterized in non-CRC gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. In the present study, we report the frequency and spectrum of BRAF alterations among patients with non-CRC GI malignancies. Methods: Patients with CRC and non-CRC GI malignancies who underwent somatic tumor profiling via a tissue-based or liquid-based assay were included in this study. Gain-of-function BRAF alterations were defined as pathogenic/likely pathogenic somatic short variants (SVs), copy number amplifications ≥8, or fusions (RNA or DNA). Results: Among 51,560 patients with somatic profiling, 40% had CRC and 60% had non-CRC GI malignancies. BRAF GOF alterations were seen more frequently in CRC (8.9%) compared to non-CRC GI malignancies (2.2%) (p < 0.001). Non-CRC GI malignancies with the highest prevalence of BRAF GOF alterations were bile duct cancers (4.1%) and small intestine cancers (4.0%). Among BRAF GOF alterations, class II (28% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and class III (23% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) were more common in non-CRC GI malignancies. Among class II alterations, rates of BRAF amplifications (3.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) and BRAF fusions (12% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in non-CRC GI malignancies compared to CRC. Conclusions: Non-CRC GI malignancies demonstrate a distinct BRAF alteration profile compared to CRC, with a higher frequency of class II and III mutations, and more specifically, a higher incidence of BRAF fusions. Future studies should evaluate clinical implications for the management of non-CRC GI patients with BRAF alterations, especially BRAF fusions.

759 Background: BRAF V600E mutations are present in 5-10% of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) and associated with poor prognosis. Recently, there was tumor agnostic FDA approval of dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E mutated solid tumors. However, the frequency of BRAF alterations ( BRAF alt), especially non-V600E, in other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are not well described. This study characterizes BRAF alt in CRC vs other GI cancers (non-CRC). Methods: De-identified records from 51,560 patients diagnosed with GI cancers were retrospectively analyzed from the Tempus database. The molecular landscape including presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRAF alt was evaluated by panel-based tissue DNA, RNA or ctDNA NGS sequencing (Tempus Labs, Inc.). The frequency of BRAF alt, co-mutations, MSI, TMB and MMR were compared between CRC and (non-CRC) by Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. False-discovery rate correction was used for multiple testing. Results: BRAF alt were identified in 8.9% of CRC and 2.2% of non-CRC cohort. BRAF alt frequency varied by tumor type with the highest observed in colon (11%), jejunum (9.6%), intrahepatic bile duct (5.3%), rectal (4.5%), and ampulla of vater (4.5%) and lower in esophageal (0.9%) and gastric (1.6%). BRAF alt CRC had higher frequency of females (57% vs 45%, p <0.001) and older age at diagnosis (67 vs 66 yrs, p=0.029) compared to non-CRC group. Race was also significantly different, with white patients being more predominant in both groups (85% CRC,77% non-CRC). Among the BRAF alt, fusions (12% vs 2.2%, p <0.001) and amplifications (3.1% vs 0.3%, p <0.001) were higher in non-CRC vs CRC (Table). BRAF V600E was most common in all GI tumors, but higher in CRC vs non-CRC (75% vs 27%, q<0.001). Mutations higher in non-CRC vs CRC (q<0.009) included class II (G469A, K601E, BRAF-SND1, and BRAF amplification) and class III (D594N & N581S) BRAF alt. BRAF co-occurring mutations in CRC were TP53 (70%), APC (42%), RNF43 (30%), SMAD4 (22%), and PIK3CA (21%), and in non-CRC: TP53 (52%), CDKN2A (32%), CDKN2B (20%) SMAD4 (17%) and MTAP (16%). Among tissue samples, MSI-H (30% vs 4.%, p <0.001) and TMB-H ≥10 mut/MB (32% vs 6.7%, p <0.001) were more frequent in BRAF alt CRC vs non-CRC. Conclusions: Meaningful differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics, frequency, and type of BRAF alt and co-occurring mutations. In particular, certain BRAF fusions were present in a higher proportion of other GI cancers and could be an important therapeutic target for this patient population.[Table: see text]

736 Background: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastrointestinal (GI) cancer occasionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIT) due to various clinical considerations. To systematically evaluate the outcome of these patients, we initiated the DREAM-GI national database, intending to harness real-world data to provide crucial insights into the outcomes, safety profile, and response patterns of dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer patients undergoing NIT. Herein, we present the initial findings. Methods: We developed a centralized database to collect de-identified clinical data from patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers receiving NIT. We collected data retrospectively and prospectively through September 15, 2023. Results: The current report includes 50 patients with a median age of 67 years (range 32 to 90); 21 (42%) were female, 9 (18%) were Black, and the remaining were White. The cohort included the following tumor types- 31 (62%) colorectal, 7 (14%) gastroesophageal, and 12 (24 %) pancreaticobiliary. Most patients had localized disease (34, 68%), while the rest had oligometastatic disease. NIT consisted of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 40 (80%) patients, ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 8 (16%), and nivolumab plus chemotherapy in 2 (4%) patients. Most patients, 33 (66%), were treatment-naive. The median duration of NIT was 6 months (range: 1.5 to 55), with a time to best response of 3 months (range: 1.5 to 12). Among 47 evaluable patients, the best responses were as follows: an overall response rate of 75% (35/47), consisting of radiologic complete response (CR) in 20 (43%), pathologic CR in 4 (9%), and partial response in 11 (24%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached after a median follow-up of 14 months (range: 2-80), calculated from the date of the first immunotherapy dose to the last follow-up or death. Among 24 patients achieving CR, all remained progression-free after a median follow-up of 25.5 months (range: 3-80). Stable and progressive diseases were observed in 7 (15%) and 5 (10%) patients, respectively. Only 5 (10%) patients underwent surgery following NIT, with 4 (80%) achieving pathologic CR. The reasons for not proceeding with surgery were comorbidities in 40 (80%) patients, disease extent in 4 (8%), and patient refusal in 1 (2%). Out of the 12 patients who expired at the data cut-off, 1 was due to immunotherapy-related pneumonitis, 6 due to disease progression, and the remainder from underlying comorbidities. Conclusions: Our study underscores the remarkable response rates and durability of responses achieved with NIT in patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers. Progression on NIT was infrequent. These real-world data support further investigation into non-operative approaches for patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers.

PURPOSE Pancreatic cancer (PC) carries a poor prognosis with high rates of unresectable/metastatic disease at diagnosis, recurrence after resection, and few systemic therapy options. Deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) PCs demonstrated uncharacteristically poor outcomes in KEYNOTE-158, evaluating pembrolizumab in MSI-H solid tumors. Our study aggregates the Mayo Clinic experience with dMMR/MSI-H PCs, characterizing the clinical, molecular, and treatment response patterns with a focus on response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). METHODS Retrospective data were collected from the electronic medical record from December 2009 to February 2023. Patients were included if they had a pathologically confirmed pancreatic malignancy and had (1) deficient expression of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins by tumor immunohistochemistry, (2) pathogenic mutation of MMR genes on genomic sequencing, and/or (3) MSI-H by polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were identified for inclusion, with all stages of disease represented. Sixteen of these patients underwent surgery or chemoradiotherapy. Of these patients, uncharacteristically favorable responses were seen, with a recurrence rate of only 19% (n = 3) despite a median follow-up of 25 months. In the palliative setting, excellent responses to ICI were seen, with overall response rate (ORR) of 75% (20% complete response). Median time to disease progression was not reached. Response rates to cytotoxic chemotherapy in the palliative setting were poor, with 30% ORR and median time to progression of 4 months. We observed a high rate of discrepancy between MMR and MSI testing methods, representing 19% of the entire cohort and 26% of evaluable cases. CONCLUSION Our data argue for the preferential use of ICI over cytotoxic chemotherapy in any patient with dMMR/MSI-H PC requiring systemic therapy, including in the metastatic and adjuvant/neoadjuvant settings.

PURPOSE We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the outcome of patients with early-stage (stages I-III) mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIT) with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–based regimens. METHODS MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications reporting the outcome of patients with early-stage dMMR CRC receiving NIT. The primary outcome measures were the complete response (CR) rate (clinical CR [cCR] or pathologic CR [pCR]) and the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities. RESULTS The search identified 37 publications that included 423 patients with colon (n = 326, 77%) and rectal (n = 97,23%) cancers aged 19-82 years; most patients had stage III CRC (88%). Approximately 67% of patients received monotherapy with anti–PD-1 agents; the rest received dual ICIs (ipilimumab plus nivolumab). The CR rate (pCR + cCR) in the overall population was 72% (305 of 423). The R0 resection and pCR rates were 99.3% and 70% among the patients undergoing surgery, respectively. Only four (0.9%) patients had primary resistance to NIT. After median follow-up periods ranging from 4 to 27 months, 3 (0.7%) patients progressed after an initial response. Grade 3 or higher toxicities were uncommon (6.3%), rarely delaying planned surgery. CONCLUSION NIT in patients with early-stage dMMR CRC is associated with a high response rate, low primary resistance to immunotherapy and cancer recurrence rate, and an excellent safety profile. The findings of the present systematic review support further investigation of NIT in patients with early-stage dMMR CRC, with a particular emphasis on the organ-preserving potential of this strategy.

PURPOSE Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely considered a nonimmunogenic malignancy; however, approximately 1%, of patients may have tumors with deficient mismatch repair, high microsatellite instability, or high tumor mutational burden (TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb), which may be predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We sought to analyze outcomes of patients with high-TMB and pathogenic genomic alterations observed in this population. METHODS This study included patients with PDAC who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) at Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA). Clinical data were obtained from a US-wide real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database. We report genomic alterations in those with high and low TMB, and compare outcomes on the basis of receipt of single-agent ICI or therapy regimens not containing ICI. RESULTS We evaluated 21,932 patients with PDAC who had tissue CGP data available, including 21,639 (98.7%) with low-TMB and 293 (1.3%) with high-TMB. Among patients with high-TMB, a greater number of alterations were observed in BRCA2, BRAF, PALB2, and genes of the mismatch repair pathway, whereas fewer alterations were observed in KRAS. Among patients who received an ICI (n = 51), those with high-TMB had more favorable median overall survival when compared with the low-TMB subset (25.7 v 5.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.91; P = .034). CONCLUSION Longer survival was observed in patients with high-TMB receiving ICI compared with those with low-TMB. This supports the role of high-TMB as a predictive biomarker for efficacy of ICI therapy in PDAC. Additionally, we report higher rates of BRAF and BRCA2 mutations and lower rates of KRAS mutation among patients with PDAC and high-TMB, which to our knowledge, is a novel finding.

Abstract Background We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with irinotecan in a phase II trial setting for refractory, advanced unresectable biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). Methods A total of 28 patients (27 were evaluable) with advanced BTCs who progressed on at least one prior systemic therapy were enrolled and were treated with trifluridine/tipiracil 25 mg/m2 (days 1-5 of 14-day cycle) and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (day 1 of the 14-day cycle). The primary endpoint for the study was 16-week progression-free survival (PFS16) rate. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were pre-specified secondary endpoints. Results Of 27 patients, PFS16 rate was 37% (10/27; 95% CI: 19%-58%), thereby meeting the criteria for success for the primary endpoint. The median PFS and OS of the entire cohort were 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.5-7.4) and 9.1 months (95% CI: 8.0-14.3), respectively. In the patients evaluable for tumor response (n = 20), the ORR and DCR were 10% and 50%, respectively. Twenty patients (74.1%) had at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event (AE), and 4 patients (14.8%) had grade 4 AEs. A total of 37% (n = 10/27) and 51.9% (n = 14/27) experienced dose reductions in trifluridine/tipiracil and irinotecan, respectively. Delay in therapy was noted in 56% of the patients while 1 patient discontinued the therapy, primarily due to hematologic AEs. Conclusion The combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus irinotecan is a potential treatment option for patients with advanced, refractory BTCs with good functional status and no targetable mutations. A larger randomized trial is needed to confirm these results. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04072445)

4146 Background: Currently, ICI therapy is recommended for patients with metastatic PDAC whose tumors exhibit dMMR, MSI-H, or high TMB (≥10 mutations/Mb). However, due to the low prevalence of high TMB in PDAC (~1%), few studies have evaluated the role of ICI therapy in this subpopulation. This study aimed to compare GA between PDAC patients with high TMB and low TMB ( < 10 mutations/Mb) and to evaluate the effectiveness of ICIs in real-world PDAC patients by TMB status. Methods: This study included PDAC patients who underwent genomic testing using Foundation Medicine tissue comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) assays. GA were compared between tissue specimens with high and low TMB by chi-squared, adjusted for multiple comparisons. Patient clinical data was obtained by the US-wide de-identified Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database (CGDB), originated from ~280 US cancer clinics between 01/2011 and 09/2022. Real-world overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were compared between patients receiving an ICI (high TMB versus low TMB) and between patients with high TMB (ICI versus other therapies) by Cox models. Results: We included 21,932 patients with PDAC with tissue CGP data available; 98.7% with low TMB and 1.3% with high TMB. Among actionable alterations, patients with high TMB had higher prevalence of mutations in BRCA2 (p < 0.0001), BRAF (p < 0.0001), PALB2 (p < 0.0001), and genes of the mismatch repair pathway ( MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2, p < 0.0001), but lower prevalence of KRAS mutations (p < 0.0001). The most common KRAS mutation in both groups of patients was G12D. In CGDB, 51 patients received an ICI (10 with high TMB and 41 with low TMB) and 17 patients with high TMB received other therapies. Among patients receiving an ICI, those with high TMB had more favorable median OS compared to those with low TMB (25.7 versus 5.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 - 0.76, p = 0.01) and median TTD (20.7 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.82, p = 0.02). Among patients with high TMB, those receiving an ICI had more favorable OS compared to those receiving other therapies (25.7 versus 6.6 months, HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.96, p = 0.043), nominally favoring ICI use in this small cohort (n = 10 versus 17). Conclusions: There is no randomized clinical trial evaluating ICI versus other therapies in PDAC. To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort to date comparing ICI effectiveness in PDAC. We observed more favorable OS among PDAC patients with high TMB receiving ICI versus those with low TMB who received an ICI and more favorable to those with high TMB receiving other therapies. This study supports the FDA-approved use of ICIs in patients with PDAC and high TMB and demonstrates the importance of TMB assessment for patients with PDAC.