Richards, Donald

Abstract Background: T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor expressed on subsets of T-cells and natural killer (NK) cells. TIGIT inhibits T and NK cell function by binding to CD155 and CD112. SEA-TGT is an investigational human, nonfucosylated monoclonal antibody directed against TIGIT, blocking TIGIT's interaction with CD155 and CD112. SGNTGT-001 (NCT04254107) is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter study of SEA-TGT in patients (pts) with advanced malignancies (solid tumors and lymphomas). In this abstract, we present data from the dose-escalation phase (Part A). Methods: Pts received SEA-TGT ranging from 0.01 to 6.0 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SEA-TGT and identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the recommended dose and schedule of SEA-TGT. The optimal biological dose was defined using the Clinical Utility Index. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity. Antitumor activity was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or the Lugano classification criteria with Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria. Results: From June 12, 2020, to October 5, 2022, 41 pts were enrolled (2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 7 pts in the 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg cohorts, respectively). Among the 39 pts who were treated 23 pts had solid tumors and 16 had lymphomas. The median number of prior therapies across all cohorts was 5. Treatment emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in 100% of pts, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade were reported in 69.2%. TRAEs seen in ≥10% of the pts were infusion-related reaction (38.5%), chills (25.6%), pyrexia (17.9%), fatigue (12.8%), maculopapular rash (12.8%), and rash (10.3%). Seven pts (17.9%) reported TRAEs grade ≥3, and rash (5.1%) was the most frequently reported. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs were reported. One dose-limiting toxicity, pruritic rash, was observed in 1 pt in the 6 mg/kg cohort, and MTD was not exceeded. Based on the PK and pharmacodynamic data, 1 mg/kg Q3W was selected as the optimal biological dose for the expansion cohorts. One partial response was observed in a pt with gastric cancer, and 2 partial metabolic responses were seen in a pt with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a pt with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusions: Overall, clinical data for SEA-TGT from the SGNTGT-001 trial suggest a manageable and tolerable safety profile. Preliminary antitumor activity warrants further clinical evaluation of SEA-TGT. SGNTGT-001 is ongoing and evaluating monotherapy and combination therapies. Citation Format: Elena Garralda Cabanas, Elisa Fontana, Honey Kumar Oberoi, Nataliya V. Uboha, Ecaterina E. Dumbrava, Emiliano Calvo, Giuseppe Curigliano, Diwakar Davar, Bridget K. Keenan, Vincent K. Lam, Sudhir Manda, Amitkuma Mehta, Anna Minchom, Alison Moskowitz, Ravi Paluri, Vincent Ribrag, Donald Richards, Lillian Siu, Paul Swiecicki, Trisha Wise-Draper, Jasmine Zain, Andres Forero-Torres, Ping Xu, Stephen Ansell. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of SGN-TGT monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT265.

Background and Aims: This study aimed to investigate safety and efficacy of silmitasertib, an oral small molecule casein kinase 2 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (G+C) versus G+C in locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Approach and Results: This work is a Phase 1b/2 study (S4‐13‐001). In Phase 2, patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg twice daily for 10 days with G+C on Days 1 and 8 of a 21‐day cycle. Primary efficacy endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS) in the modified intent‐to‐treat population (defined as patients who completed at least one cycle of silmitasertib without dose interruption/reduction) from both phases (silmitasertib/G+C n = 55, G+C n = 29). The response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. The median PFS was 11.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6, 14.7) versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.1, not evaluable [NE]) ( p = 0.0496); 10‐month PFS was 56.1% (95% CI, 38.8%, 70.2%) versus 22.2% (95% CI, 1.8%, 56.7%); and median overall survival was 17.4 months (95% CI, 13.4, 25.7) versus 14.9 months (95% CI, 9.9, NE) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Overall response rate was 34.0% versus 30.8%; the disease control rate was 86.0% versus 88.5% with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C. Almost all silmitasertib/G+C (99%) and G+C (93%) patients reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib/G+C versus G+C were diarrhea (70% versus 13%), nausea (59% vs. 30%), fatigue (47% vs. 47%), vomiting (39% vs. 7%), and anemia (39% vs. 30%). Twelve patients (10%) discontinued treatment because of TEAEs during the study. Conclusions: Silmitasertib/G+C demonstrated promising preliminary evidence of efficacy for the first‐line treatment of patients with locally advanced/metastatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Abstract Introduction: A test that detects cancer signal across multiple cancer types and predicts signal (tissue) origin (SO) could aid in more efficient diagnostic workup and shorten time to cancer diagnosis in individuals with signs and symptoms.Methods: The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA; NCT02889978) study is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, case-control study to develop and validate a multi-cancer detection test. The 2nd CCGA substudy utilized a targeted methylation-based cell-free DNA assay and machine learning algorithm and included assessment of test performance (sensitivity and SO prediction accuracy) in a subgroup of participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) that were undiagnosed prior to blood draw. Specificity was assessed in the noncancer group and subgroups with confounding (nonmalignant) conditions (CCs; eg, cirrhosis) and noncancer participants enrolled in hematology clinics (HCs).Results: Specificity was 99.5% (95% confidence interval: 98.2-99.9%; 396/398), 93.8% (71.7-99.7%; 15/16), and 99.3% (96.0-100.0%; 136/137) for the noncancer group, CCs subgroup, and HCs subgroup, respectively. Overall sensitivity among those with CPCs was 66.4% (62.2-70.3%; 344/518). Sensitivity of cancer signal detection increased with increasing clinical stage (Table). SO prediction accuracy was 91.7% (88.3-94.3%; 300/327) among CPC participants with cancers detected, excluding those with multiple or unknown primaries. The test demonstrated prognostic value as detected cancer participants had worse survival probability than those not detected. Conclusions: This multi-cancer detection test detected cancer signals and predicted SO in individuals with CPCs with high specificity. These findings support further clinical development of this multi-cancer detection test that could accelerate the diagnostic resolution of symptomatic cancers. Table. Sensitivity by Clinical Stage Across Cancer Type in Clinically Presenting CancersClinical StagePositive Test/Total Cancer; Sensitivity (95% CI)All*344/518; 66.4% (62.2-70.3%)I33/122; 27.0% (20.0-35.5%)II60/102; 58.8% (49.1-67.9%)III103/121; 85.1% (77.7-90.4%)IV136/147; 92.5% (87.1-95.8%)Not expected to be staged9/21; 42.9% (24.5-63.5%)Non-informative2/4; 50.0% (15.0-85.0%)CI, confidence interval.*One participant who had a positive test result had multiple primaries with clinical stage I and not-expected-to-be-staged. Citation Format: Alan H. Bryce, Minetta C. Liu, Michael V. Seiden, David D. Thiel, Donald Richards, Carlos Becerra, Kathryn N. Kurtzman, Xiaoji Chen, Tony Wu, Quan Zhang, Jingjing Gao, Nan Zhang, Earl Hubbell, Arash Jamshidi, Eric T. Fung, Eric A. Klein. Performance of a cell-free DNA-based multi-cancer detection test as a tool for diagnostic resolution of symptomatic cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB058.

Abstract CCGA [NCT02889978] is the largest study of cfDNA-based early cancer detection; the first CCGA learnings from multiple cfDNA assays are reported here. This prospective, multi-center, observational study has enrolled 10,012 of 15,000 demographically-balanced participants at 141 sites. Blood was collected from participants with newly diagnosed therapy-naive cancer (C, case) and participants without a diagnosis of cancer (noncancer [NC], control) as defined at enrollment. This preplanned substudy included 878 cases, 580 controls, and 169 assay controls (n=1627) across 20 tumor types and all clinical stages. All samples were analyzed by: 1) Paired cfDNA and white blood cell (WBC)-targeted sequencing (60,000X, 507 gene panel); a joint caller removed WBC-derived somatic variants and residual technical noise; 2) Paired cfDNA and WBC whole-genome sequencing (WGS; 35X); a novel machine learning algorithm generated cancer-related signal scores; joint analysis identified shared events; and 3) cfDNA whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS; 34X); normalized scores were generated using abnormally methylated fragments. In the targeted assay, non-tumor WBC-matched cfDNA somatic variants (SNVs/indels) accounted for 76% of all variants in NC and 65% in C. Consistent with somatic mosaicism (i.e., clonal hematopoiesis), WBC-matched variants increased with age; several were non-canonical loss-of-function mutations not previously reported. After WBC variant removal, canonical driver somatic variants were highly specific to C (e.g., in EGFR and PIK3CA, 0 NC had variants vs 11 and 30, respectively, of C). Similarly, of 8 NC with somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) detected with WGS, 4 were derived from WBCs. WGBS data revealed informative hyper- and hypo-fragment level CpGs (1:2 ratio); a subset was used to calculate methylation scores. A consistent “cancer-like” signal was observed in <1% of NC participants across all assays (representing potential undiagnosed cancers). An increasing trend was observed in NC vs stages I-III vs stage IV (nonsyn. SNVs/indels per Mb [Mean±SD] NC: 1.01±0.86, stages I-III: 2.43±3.98; stage IV: 6.45±6.79; WGS score NC: 0.00±0.08, I-III: 0.27±0.98; IV: 1.95± 2.33; methylation score NC: 0±0.50; I-III: 1.02±1.77; IV: 3.94±1.70). These data demonstrate the feasibility of achieving >99% specificity for invasive cancer, and support the promise of cfDNA assay for early cancer detection. Additional data will be presented on detected plasma:tissue variant concordance and on multi-assay modeling. Citation Format: Alexander A. Aravanis, Geoffrey R. Oxnard, Tara Maddala, Earl Hubbell, Oliver Venn, Arash Jamshidi, Ling Shen, Hamed Amini, John A. Beausang, Craig Betts, Daniel Civello, Konstantin Davydov, Saniya Fazullina, Darya Filippova, Sante Gnerre, Samuel Gross, Chenlu Hou, Roger Jiang, Byoungsok Jung, Kathryn Kurtzman, Collin Melton, Shivani Nautiyal, Jonathan Newman, Joshua Newman, Cosmos Nicolaou, Richard Rava, Onur Sakarya, Ravi Vijaya Satya, Seyedmehdi Shojaee, Kristan Steffen, Anton Valouev, Hui Xu, Jeanne Yue, Nan Zhang, Jose Baselga, Rosanna Lapham, Daron G. Davis, David Smith, Donald Richards, Michael V. Seiden, Charles Swanton, Timothy J. Yeatman, Robert Tibshirani, Christina Curtis, Sylvia K. Plevritis, Richard Williams, Eric Klein, Anne-Renee Hartman, Minetta C. Liu. Development of plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assays for early cancer detection: first insights from the Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas Study (CCGA) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-343.