Parikh, Aparna R.

255 Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter has been instrumental in accelerating knowledge dissemination and forging collaborations within the medical community and amongst patient advocates. Tweetchats within Twitter are scheduled conversations on a specific topic. In oncology, Tweetchats have been used by cancer advocates to spread awareness and for patient and caregiver education. A colorectal cancer (CRC) specific tweetchat did not previously exist. This abstract describes the creation, and experiences with a CRC specific tweetchat. Methods: The #CRCTrialsChat tweetchat was created by a patient advocate for colorectal cancer patients, caregivers and clinicians to meet and exchange clinical trial-related information. Two gastrointestinal (GI) medical oncologists and two radiation oncologists were enlisted as moderators. The topic for each session is chosen by the patient advocate, who creates an outline and divides the content, which is designed to last a one hour session. The idea is to create engaging, technical, but easy to understand content. Each moderator then works on the answers to their assigned section, which is edited to fit tweet character limit. Sessions may also have guest moderators with expertise on a specific topic. Through tweeting, moderators answer specific questions that come up during the session and later. Results: To date, we have had four sessions covering the following topics: Clinical trial basics, CRC Updates from ASCO22, ClinicalTrialFinders and BRAF-mutated tumors. The content created has been simple and engaging, the format has functioned smoothly, and the reach of #CRCTrialsChat has been steadily increasing. After the most recent session on BRAF in September 2022, the @CRCTrialsChat has 281 followers, 17K impressions and 14.6K profile visits, a reflection of its excellent content. From a clinician perspective, this is a great format to interact with colleagues, discuss enrolling trials and also become familiar with using Twitter. Conclusions: A CRC clinical trial focused tweetchat is an engaging way to deliver trial-related content to an audience of clinicians, patients and caregivers. The current format appears to be an effective way to create and disseminate information. Future sessions will focus on ctDNA, molecular markers such as KRAS and HER2, and rectal cancer trials. Our hope is that #CRCTrialsChat will stimulate continued patient and clinician engagement, increase awareness of clinical trials, enhance trial participation and initiate patient-centric research and collaborations.

8 Background: Standard 1L therapies for mCRC include a fluoropyrimidine with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, and a biologic agent. NIVO may enhance antitumor activity in combination with 1L standard therapies within a subset of patients (pts) with mCRC. CheckMate 9X8 evaluated NIVO + mFOLFOX6/BEV vs mFOLFOX6/BEV in 1L mCRC (NCT03414983). Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable, mCRC were randomized 2:1 to NIVO 240 mg + mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (NIVO + standard-of-care [SOC]) or mFOLFOX6/BEV Q2W (SOC). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: 195 pts were randomized to NIVO + SOC (n = 127) or SOC (n = 68). Median (range) follow-up was 23.7 (0–33.2) months (mo; NIVO + SOC) vs 23.2 (0–32.3) mo (SOC). Median (range) duration of therapy was 9.9 (0.1–31.8+) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 7.7 (0.1–26.7+) mo (SOC). The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 0.81 (0.53–1.23; P = 0.30), which did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (median PFS, 11.9 mo in both arms; Table). PFS rates after 12 mo were higher with NIVO + SOC vs SOC (Table). ORR was 60% (NIVO + SOC) and 46% (SOC; odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI 0.96–3.10]) and median (95% CI) DOR was 12.9 (9.0–13.1) mo (NIVO + SOC) and 9.3 (7.5–11.3) mo (SOC; Table). Rates of grade 3−4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were higher with NIVO + SOC; however, no new safety signals were identified (Table). Biomarker analyses, including tumor mutational burden and baseline CD8 levels, will be presented. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of PFS was not met; however, NIVO + SOC showed higher PFS rates after 12 mo, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC, along with acceptable safety, in 1L mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT03414983. [Table: see text]

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.

4108 Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing can be used for the assessment of molecular residual disease (MRD) in patients with early-stage or advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Prospective evaluation of this methodology in clinical practice has been limited to-date. Methods: A personalized and tumor-informed multiplex PCR assay (Signatera 16-plex bespoke mPCR NGS assay) was used for the detection and quantification of ctDNA for MRD assessment. We analyze and present results from an ongoing early adopter program of ctDNA testing across the spectrum of CRC management. Results: Here we present a total of 250 patients with colon (n=200), rectal (n=40), and other lower gastrointestinal cancers (n =10; anal, appendiceal, small bowel). MRD positivity rates and ctDNA quantification (mean tumor molecules/mL) are shown in Table. ctDNA detection was significantly associated with stage of disease (p<0.0001 Chi-square: 70.33). Additionally, in patients with radiologically measurable active metastatic disease, ctDNA detection rate was 100%. On the contrary, patients with advanced/metastatic disease who had partial response to treatment or no evidence of disease (NED) showed 28.5% and 19.2% of ctDNA-positivity, respectively. Conclusions: This is the first large, real-world study reporting on the results from a clinically validated MRD assay. For the first time we delineate MRD rates and quantify ctDNA concentration in patients with early-stage and advanced CRC. Furthermore, we provide an initial readout that effective ongoing treatment in patients with CRC may be correlated with ctDNA clearance. Ongoing analysis expanded to a cohort of 1200 clinical cases including correlation with genomic and serial testing will be presented. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: Targeted therapies are increasingly under evaluation in clinical trials for the treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC), and cell-free tumor DNA assays are an emerging technology for the detection of actionable alterations. Methods: ctDNA analysis was performed in patients with BTC using the CLIA-certified Guardant360 liquid biopsy assay as part of routine clinical care. The assay screens up to 73 genes for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), 23 for insertions or deletions (INDELs), 18 for copy number variations (CNVs), and 6 for fusions. Results: 855 samples were analyzed from 751 unique BTC patients. Median age was 64 years (range, 29-89), 53% were female, and 631 (84%) had at least one alteration in their first sample. In the 751 patients, the most common genes altered were TP53 (39%), KRAS (15%), PIK3CA (13%), ARID1A (13%), EGFR (11%), FGFR2 (11%), ERBB2 (11%), NF1 (10%), IDH1 (10%), APC (9%), BRAF (9%), MYC (8%), MET (7%), CCNE1 (7%), and FGFR1 (7%). Alterations in DNA damage response genes were also seen, including BRCA2 (6%), BRCA1 (5%), ATM (4%), and MLH1 (1%). The median number of alterations per sample was 3 (range, 0-40). In a clinically annotated dataset from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, 112 samples were obtained from 61 unique patients. Among these, 52 (85%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), 3 (5%) had extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 6 (10%) had gallbladder cancer. 20/61 (33%) patients were treated with targeted therapy. Among 20 patients with both ctDNA and tumor sequencing results, the targetable mutation was found in both ctDNA and tumor tissue in 7/20 (35%), solely in ctDNA in 1/20 (5%), and solely in tissue in 12/20 (60%) patients. The patient with the alteration detected solely in ctDNA had insufficient tissue for analysis; she was found to have an FGFR2 F276C mutation and benefited for 8.5 months from an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial. Of the 12 patients whose targetable mutation was not detected in plasma, 10 (83%) had an FGFR2 fusion, 1 had an INDEL in FGFR2 (Leu262_Ala266delinsAsp), and 1 had an FGFR3 splice site mutation. 15/20 (75%) patients treated with targeted therapy were followed with serial ctDNA analysis, and a potential resistance mechanism was identified in 5/15 (33%). All 5 patients had FGFR2-fusion positive ICC and developed mutations in the FGFR2 kinase domain as a potential resistance mechanism to FGFR inhibition, including the FGFR2 V564F gatekeeper mutation in 4/5 patients. Conclusions: In patients with BTC, ctDNA-based genomic profiling can detect alterations in IDH, FGFR, PIK3CA, ERBB2, BRAF, and MET. The technology is still evolving for the detection of FGFR2 fusions, which is hindered in capture-based methods in plasma by the large number of unique breakpoints and fusion partners. ctDNA analysis may also provide a noninvasive mechanism to study resistance to targeted therapy and clonal dynamics in BTC. Citation Format: Lipika Goyal, Robin Kate Kelley, Lesli Kiedrowski, Daniel Catenacci, Kabir Mody, Rachna Shroff, Aparna Parikh, Stephanie Reyes, Jordan R. Maurer, Ryan B. Corcoran, Paul Fanta, Mike Cusnir, Becky Nagy, Richard Lanman, Michael Morse, Benjamin Tan, Milind Javle, Andrew Zhu. Blood-based genomic profiling of cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients with biliary tract cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A183.