Goff, Laura W.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

LBA490 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs 25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb). Clinical trial information: NCT#03768414 .

PURPOSE Increased awareness of the distinct tumor biology for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer has led to improvement in outcomes for this population. However, in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a paucity of data exist on the AYA population. To our knowledge, we present the largest study to date on AYA disease biology, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes in CCA. METHODS A multi-institutional cohort of patients with CCA diagnosed with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) was used for analysis. Retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who were 50 years old and younger (young; n = 124) and older than 50 years (older; n = 723). RESULTS Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (72% ICC, 28% ECC). Young patients had a larger median tumor size at resection compared with older patients (4.2 v 3.6 cm; P = .048), more commonly had N1 disease (65% v 43%; P = .040), and were more likely to receive adjuvant therapy (odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.64 to 9.74). Tumors of young patients were more likely to harbor an FGFR2 fusion, BRAF mutation, or ATM mutation ( P < .05 for each). Young patients were more likely to receive palliative systemic therapy (96% v 69%; P < .001), targeted therapy (23% v 8%; P < .001), and treatment on a clinical trial (31% v 19%; P = .004). Among patients who presented with advanced disease, young patients had a higher median overall survival compared with their older counterparts (17.7 v 13.5 months; 95% CI, 12.6 to 22.6 v 11.4 to 14.8; P = .049). CONCLUSION Young patients with CCA had more advanced disease at resection, more commonly received both adjuvant and palliative therapies, and demonstrated improved survival compared with older patients. Given the low clinical trial enrollment and poor outcomes among some AYA cancer populations, data to the contrary in CCA are highly encouraging.

Abstract Background Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. Methods This multicenter collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at 1 of 8 participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Among 1039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%) (all P &lt; .00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver-directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%) (all P &lt; .001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months; P &lt; .001). Conclusions Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part because of insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.

TPS4177 Background: The anti–PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab (ATEZO) prevents PD-L1 from interacting with PD-1 and B7.1, thus reinvigorating antitumor T cell activity. Anti-VEGF bevacizumab (BEV) increases dendritic cell maturation, enhances T cell infiltration, and reduces myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells in tumors. ATEZO + BEV is FDA approved for first-line treatment of advanced HCC based on the IMbrave 150 study. Locoregional radiotherapy (e.g., Y90 TARE) enhances the diversity of the intratumoral T cell receptor repertoire and increases tumor antigen release. We hypothesize that the Y90 TARE + BEV + ATEZO combination induces synergistic tumor killing and prolongs progression-free survival in patients (pts) receiving Y90 TARE (HR = 0.6 when compared to Y-90 TARE alone). Methods: Eligible pts have HCC that cannot be surgically resected (confirmed by pathology review), is at least BCLC stage B, and is outside Milan criteria. Other requirements include ECOG PS of 0-1 at screening, measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, no prior systemic therapy, and FLR estimated at ≥ 40% post local therapy. Pts must have a pretreatment liver biopsy taken and then be randomized 1:1 to TARE (Arm A) or TARE + ATEZO + BEV (Arm B). Pts will have TARE mapping followed by TARE treatment. In Arm B, pts will begin TARE treatment followed by BEV + ATEZO (4 wks [± 1 wk] later). Pts will have abdominal MRI or CT scans every 12 weeks and CT scans of the chest every 24 wks. The primary study objective is to assess and compare pts' progression-free survival (per mRECIST 1.1) in each study arm. The main secondary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) of pts in Arm B. Exploratory objectives are to define the use of cellular and circulating biomarkers in the prediction of improved clinical outcomes of pts in Arm B. Symptoms experienced by pts in both arms using patient-reported outcomes will be assessed. Disease progression will be captured by both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. We plan to assess the safety of Y90 TARE + BEV + ATEZO in the first 10 pts randomized to Arm B for two cycles, and if there are no grade ≥ 3 unexpected toxicities possibly, probably, or definitely related to combined TARE + BEV + ATEZO, continue to accrue 128 pts in total (current enrollment n- = 5). Pts will continue study treatment (Arm B) for a total of 24 months from initiation of TARE or until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occur, whichever is earlier. Enrollment began in September 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04541173.

TPS358 Background: The anti–PD-L1 antibody ATEZO prevents PD-L1 from interacting with PD-1 and B7.1, thus reinvigorating antitumor T cell activity. Anti-VEGF BEV can increase dendritic cell maturation, enhance T cell infiltration, and reduce myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T-cells in tumors. This combination has been FDA approved for first-line treatment of advanced HCC based on the IMbrave 150 study. On the other hand, locoregional radiotherapy (e.g., Y90 TARE) enhances the diversity of the intratumoral T cell receptor repertoire. It is the standard of care for pts with intermediate-stage HCC (iHCC). Based on preclinical and clinical data, we hypothesize that the combination of Y90 TARE, BEV, and ATEZO induces synergistic tumor-killing. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study of Y90 TARE and BEV plus ATEZO compared with Y90 TARE alone in pts with unresectable IHCC. The primary study objective is to assess and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) (per mRECIST 1.1) of pts in each arm. The main secondary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) of TARE combined with ATEZO and BEV in pts with HCC. Exploratory objectives are to assess the role of the immunoscore and PD-L1 expression levels in the prediction of improved clinical outcome in pts receiving Y-90 TARE and BEV plus ATEZO; the composition of tumor-infiltrating immune cell subtypes in predicting response to a chosen therapy; how Y90 therapy affects the proportion of antigen-presenting cells in the tumor; and symptoms experienced by pts receiving TARE and BEV plus ATEZO treatment, using patient-reported outcomes. Eligible pts have either HCC that is not amenable to surgical resection, confirmed by pathology review, or at least BCLC stage B HCC outside of downstaging criteria. Other standard eligibility criteria apply. Pts must have a pretreatment liver biopsy taken and then be randomized 1:1 to TARE (Arm A) or TARE followed by ATEZO and BEV (Arm B). Pts will have TARE mapping during week (wk) 1 and TARE treatment during wk 2. In Arm B, pts will start BEV plus ATEZO 4 wks (±1 wk) after TARE treatment. Pts will have abdominal MRI or CT scans every 12 weeks, CT scans of the chest every 24 wks, and a second tumor biopsy at 4 wks. Disease progression will be captured by both RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. We plan to assess the safety of TARE with BEV and ATEZO in the first 10 pts randomized to Arm B for two cycles. If there are no grade ≥ 3 unexpected toxicities possibly, probably or definitely related to combined TARE plus BEV plus ATEZO, the study will continue to accrue 128 pts in total. Pts will continue study treatment (Arm B) for a total of 24 months from initiation of TARE or until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occur, whichever is earlier. Enrollment began in September 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT04541173.

580 Background: Though studies indicate that the genomic profiles of ICC and ECC are distinct, the clinical features that differentiate them still remain to be well characterized. The purpose of this study was to further analyze these differences and patient treatment patterns in a multi-center cohort. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at 8 institutions on patients (pts) with ICC or ECC diagnosed after June 2009. Data on demographics, risk factors, treatments, pathology and overall survival (OS) were collected. Tumor genotyping results from CLIA-certified tissue assays were analyzed. Fisher’s exact, Wilcoxon rank sum and log-rank tests were used to compare sub-groups. Results: In a database of 737 pts with cholangiocarcinoma, 538(73%) had ICC and 199(27%) had ECC. Pts with ICC more often presented in later stages, had tumors > 5cm at resection (p < 0.0001) and had metastases to the liver, lymph nodes, lung and/or bone (p < 0.01). Pts with ICC more often received liver directed therapy, targeted therapy and multiple lines of systemic therapy and they more often enrolled in a clinical trial (all p < 0.01). Pts with ECC were more likely to be male, undergo surgery, receive adjuvant chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (all p < 0.05). Mutation profiling performed in 381 (52%) pts (ICC/ECC = 301/80) showed that pts with ICC were more likely to have IDH1 mutations and FGFR2 fusions, whereas pts with ECC were more likely to have KRAS, APC, SMAD4, WNT, TGFb and TP53 mutations (all < 0.05). Factors that did not differ significantly between pts with ICC and ECC include race, rates of primary sclerosing cholangitis, median diagnosis CA19-9 levels and R1 resection rate. Median OS from diagnosis was 18.9 months in ICC and 17.3 months in ECC (p = 0.8471). Conclusions: While pts with ICC and ECC have some similarities in their clinical features, differences in metastases patterns and molecular profiling significantly impact their management such that pts with ICC receive more liver-directed therapy, targeted therapy and more lines of systemic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed as referral patterns to tertiary care centers may have impacted these results.