Parikh, Aparna R.

3553 Background: Vilastobart (XTX101) is tumor-activated, high affinity, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4 designed to focus activity toward the tumor and minimize systemic adverse events. Fc-enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumors [Fakih ASCO GI 2025]. Vilastobart was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity in pts with immunologically “cold” advanced solid tumors, both as a monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab [Davar SITC 2024]. Methods: Phase 2 of the NCT04896697 study evaluated the initial recommended Phase 2 dose of vilastobart 100 mg Q6W in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W in pts with MSS CRC who had at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting, excluding pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pts with (LM) and without liver metastasis (NLM) were eligible. Tumor biopsies were obtained before and during treatment for translational analyses. Results: As of January 13, 2025, 40 pts were dosed in Phase 2. Median age was 55 (25-82) and 70% of pts had 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Of the 24 enrolled NLM pts, 11 were response-evaluable with an available on-treatment scan as of the data cut. In these 11 pts, two confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response (PR) were reported, all accompanied by significant decreases in ctDNA and serum tumor marker CEA and with each pt ongoing on therapy, for a preliminary ORR of 27%. One additional pt (with peritoneal metastasis) had a 24% reduction in target lesions (first scan) and was ongoing on therapy. Of the 16 enrolled LM pts, 7 were response evaluable, with one stable disease and another pt reporting a mixed response with significant serum tumor marker reductions, both ongoing on therapy. Of note, one LM pt in Phase 1C dose escalation treated with vilastobart (150 mg Q6W) combination had a confirmed PR with LM resolution. Six pts (15%) reported G3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with two G4 laboratory TRAEs and no G5 TRAEs. Only three pts discontinued therapy for TRAEs. TRAEs occurring in ≥10% (all grade) or ≥5% (G3) of pts are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of vilastobart, a novel tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced a-CTLA-4, and atezolizumab demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in late line, metastatic MSS CRC where immune checkpoint blockade has historically been relatively ineffective. Vilastobart was observed to have a differentiated safety profile distinct from systemically active a-CTLA-4, consistent with tumor-selective activation. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 . AE term All Graden (%) Grade 3n (%) Fatigue 12 (30%) 0 Diarrhea 8 (20%) 0 Infusion related reactions 5 (13%) 0 Pyrexia 4 (10%) 0 ALT increased 4 (10%) 0 AST increased 4 (10%) 1 (3%) Colitis 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

206 Background: XTX101 is an investigational tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced, high affinity binding aCTLA-4 designed to block CTLA-4 and deplete regulatory T cells upon activation in the tumor by proteases. XTX101 also contains mutations designed to enhance Fcγ receptor binding. Fc enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with “cold tumors”, including microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC). Parts 1A/1B of the study evaluated XTX101 monotherapy in pts with advanced solid tumors. XTX101 was generally well tolerated with limited peripheral XTX101 activation (~13%) compared to evidence of XTX101 activation in the tumor microenvironment (73-96%, in n=2 on-treatment tumor biopsies). A durable partial response (PR) and resolution of hepatic metastases was observed in a pt with PD-L1 negative NSCLC at the monotherapy recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 150 mg once every six weeks (Q6W) [1]. Methods: Part 1C evaluated the safety and feasibility of XTX101 in combination with atezolizumab in pts with advanced solid tumors using 3+3 dose escalation to establish the RP2D. Phase 2 is enrolling pts with MSS CRC with at least 1 prior regimen for metastatic CRC. Initial safety and anti-tumor activity data from Phase 2 in ~20 pts will be presented. Results: As of July 15, 2024, 15 pts were enrolled in Part 1C: MSS CRC (n=12), esophageal cancer, NSCLC, and ampullary carcinoma (n=1 each). Median age 69 and 3 prior lines of therapy (1-12). Across all XTX101 dose levels (75 mg to 150 mg), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade with >10% incidence included infusion reactions (n=4), fatigue and diarrhea (n=2 each), no G4 or G5 TRAEs were reported. In Part 1C, 2 pts experienced a dose limiting toxicity: 1 pt had G3 colitis, and 1 pt had G3 liver enzyme elevation (both were at the XTX101 150 mg dose level and resolved with immunosuppression). Two unconfirmed PRs were reported: in a pt with MSS CRC, including resolution of a liver target lesion, and in a pt with ampullary carcinoma (accompanied by a Ca 19-9 decrease from 700 to 41). In addition, a decrease in intra-tumoral Tregs was observed in paired tumor biopsies from a pt. The combination RP2D was established as XTX101 100 mg Q6W and atezolizumab 1200 mg once every three weeks (Q3W), and enrollment in the Phase 2 part of the study for pts with MSS CRC is ongoing at the RP2D. Conclusions: In Part 1C dose escalation, the combination of XTX101, a tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4, and atezolizumab was generally well tolerated in pts with advanced solid tumors and demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in cold tumors. These data support the initiation of an ongoing Phase 2 study evaluating the combination in pts with MSS CRC with and without liver metastases. 1. Davar ESMO IO 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 .

9022 Background: High quality education is crucial for hematology/oncology (H/O) training and lifelong learning. However, H/O has historically prioritized clinical and research careers over medical education careers. Consequently, few programs support H/O educators. A CoP is a group that shares “a concern or passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” We formed the ASCO Med Ed CoP in 2021 to provide a collaborative network and professional development venue for H/O educators. Methods: Following a published framework for developing a global health professions educator community (Establish-Grow-Sustain), we (ASCO Education Scholars Program graduates) developed CoP mission and vision statements and a leadership structure (Establish), formed committees and projects (Grow), and gathered at the ASCO Annual Meeting and via virtual Town Halls (Sustain). In 2023, we collected demographics and evaluated the CoP using a logic model focused on inputs, activities, outputs, and impact. Results: As of December 2023, the CoP includes 238 members from 143 institutions (38 [27%] non-U.S.): 207 (87%) ASCO members; 127 (53%) women, 106 (45%) men, 5 (2%) no response (NR); 111 (47%) White, 88 (37%) Asian/Pacific Islander, 27 (11%) Latinx/Hispanic, 12 (5%) Black/African-American, 8 (3%) Middle Eastern, 1 (0.4%) African, 16 (7%) NR; 146 (61%) hematologist/oncologists, 68 (29%) trainees, 6 (3%) radiation oncologists, 3 (1%) surgical oncologists, and 15 (6%) other professionals. The logic model is displayed (Table). Conclusions: The CoP has had an impact on its members, ASCO, and beyond and continues to grow and sustain itself by recruiting broadly, driving projects forward, and making structural adjustments for long-term sustainability. Upcoming projects include providing more educational resources and measuring outcomes such as changes in members’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Membership diversity continues to be a challenge and a priority. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Accurate understanding of the genomic and transcriptomic data provided by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for the effective utilization of precision oncology. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) aim to translate the complex data in NGS reports into effective clinical interventions. Often, MTB treatment recommendations differ from those in the NGS reports. In this study, we analyze the discordance between these recommendations and the rationales behind the discordances, in a non–high-income setting, with international input to evaluate the necessity of MTB in clinical practice. METHODS We collated data from MTB that were virtually hosted in Chennai, India. We included patients with malignancies who had NGS reports on solid tissue or liquid biopsies, and excluded those with incomplete data. MTB forms and NGS reports of each clinical case were analyzed and evaluated for recommendation concordance. Concordance was defined as an agreement between the first recommendation in the MTB forms and the therapeutic recommendations suggested in the NGS report. Discordance was the absence of the said agreement. The rationales for discordance were identified and documented. RESULTS Seventy MTB reports were analyzed with 49 cases meeting the inclusion criteria. The recommendation discordance was 49% (24 of 49). Discordant recommendations were mainly due to low level of evidence for the drug (75% of cases). CONCLUSION The discordance between MTB and NGS vendor recommendations highlights the clinical utility of MTB. The educational experiences provided by this initiative are an example of how virtual academic collaborations can enhance patient care and provider education across geographic borders.

Background Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). Methods CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. Results From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. Trial registration number NCT03414983 .

At the Summit on Cancer Health Disparities held in 2023, the session on Access to Cancer Care in Low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) highlighted several efforts globally. The collaborative efforts of Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Ministry of Health in spearheading the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE) in Rwanda was one such initiative. They were able to set up the BCCOE to address the unmet need of cancer care in this area and have trained nurses in East Africa to help establish other similar centers. They also serve as the single radiotherapy center for the entire of the country. Another such collaborative effort between Massachusetts General Hospital and the cancer center in Botswana in setting up sexual health education initiatives for women undergoing pelvic radiation was highlighted. They started with a quality improvement project to demonstrate the benefit of sexual health education and proper vaginal dilator use amongst women in this demographic. They were able to demonstrate that 90% of patients were able to complete an in-person 6-week workshop with clear benefits noted on a long-term basis. To highlight examples of best practice examples of equitable partnerships, examples of partnerships between Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia in Mexico City and UCSF was described. It was emphasized that for successful collaborations, equitable bidirectional partnerships are key. The thought leaders in this field also highlighted challenges associated with global oncology and the need for inclusion of minorities in clinical trials to improve cancer care for all globally.

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.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

e15050 Background: Molecular tumour boards (MTB) facilitate discussions among medical professionals, scientists, bioinformaticians and geneticists for clinical application of precision oncology, via interpretation of various genomic sequencing studies, most commonly Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). NGS test vendor recommendation may differ from the MTB recommendations. We aim to study the discordance rate between these recommendations. Methods: MTB discussions between April 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. MTBs which assessed NGS reports with or without significant genetic mutations but with drug recommendations were included. NGS testing was done with multiple vendors. Patients from all over India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Dubai and Abu Dhabi were discussed. We excluded MTBs which assessed NGS data without any drug recommendations. We compared therapeutic recommendations provided in the NGS report with the first-choice recommendation in the MTB discussion. Recommendation discordance was defined as disagreement between the NGS recommendation and the first MTB recommendation that either instructed its implementation either immediately or on disease progression. Results: 70 MTB data was studied. 49 MTBs assessing NGS reports of 49 unique patients (median age 54 years; range, 32-82) were included in the study. 13 patients had lung cancer, 10 colorectal, 6 breast, 7 hepatopancreatobiliary, 4 carcinoma of unknown primary and 9 others. 17 did not provide any treatment recommendations and hence were excluded. 4 were discussions based on NGS reports previously discussed in an MTB that was already included in the study, hence were excluded. Recommendation discordance rate was 49% (24 of 49). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that assessed discordance rate in recommendations between NGS report and MTB from a low- and middle-income country setting. Accurate clinical translation of complex genomic data is at the forefront of personalized cancer care.