Deming, Dustin A.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Abstract Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) alterations occur across various malignancies and are potent oncogenic drivers in multiple tumor types. FGFR inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in several cancers with FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib is a novel kinase inhibitor with high potency to a variety of FGFR 1/2/3 kinase domain mutations and has shown promising efficacy in several ongoing clinical studies. Here, we present pooled data of tinengotinib in previously treated solid tumor patients (pts) with actionable FGFR1-3 mutations from four trials (NCT03654547, NCT04742959, NCT04919642, NCT05253053). Methods: Eligible pts received tinengotinib orally once daily (daily dose ranging from 5-12mg) until disease progression. Analyses of best overall response (BOR) rate, disease control rate (DCR), median progression-free survival (mPFS), median duration of response (mDOR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were performed. Results: As of 3-Aug-2023, 53 solid tumor pts with actionable FGFR1-3 mutations were enrolled between Dec-2019 to Aug-2023 in the US and China. The median follow-up time was 14.5 (range, 3.3-43.8) months. Median age was 58 years (range, 29-83). Most pts were female (62%), had ECOG of 1 (68%) and were heavily pretreated with 55% having ≥3 lines of prior antitumor therapy. The most frequent FGFR mutation enrolled was in FGFR2 (77%) followed by FGFR1 (19%) and FGFR3 (11%). 25 pts (47%) had received prior therapy with FGFR inhibitor. A total of 45 pts were efficacy-evaluable, including cholangiocarcinoma (CCA, n=25), colon cancer (n=5), breast cancer (n=3), prostate cancer (n=3), head and neck cancer (n=3), urothelial cancer (n=3), pancreatic cancer (n=1), gastric cancer (n=1) and leiomyosarcoma (n=1). mPFS reached 6.83 (95% CI, 4.90-8.34) months. Partial responses were observed in 16/45 (35.6%) pts across 6 distinct tumor types, including CCA, breast, prostate, urothelium, colon and head and neck cancer. mDOR was 6.74 (95% CI, 3.52-9.46) months. For 44 pts with measurable target lesions per RECISTv1.1, the BOR rate and DCR were 36.4% and 86.4%, respectively. For 22 pts with prior FGFR inhibitor, mPFS was 5.98 (95% CI, 3.75-9.10) months and their BOR rate and DCR were 40.9% and 86.4%. TRAEs were reported in 46 (86.8%) pts, with 13 (24.5%) Grade (G) 1-2, 30 (56.6%) G3, 2 (3.8%) G4, and no G5. The most common TRAEs (≥20%) were hypertension, stomatitis, diarrhea, nausea, blood thyroid stimulating hormone increased, fatigue and anemia. Side effects were manageable and reversible with dose hold and/or dose reduction. Conclusions: We observed promising clinical benefit with tinengotinib in heavily pretreated solid tumor pts with FGFR1-3 mutations. The side effects profile was manageable and no new safety signals have been identified. Further research is planned to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tinengotinib in pts with FGFR1-3 mutations across a wider variety of tumor types. Citation Format: Sarina A. Piha-Paul, Chih-Yi "Andy" Liao, Lionel Fonkoua, Amit MahipaI, Sanjay Goel, Christos Fountzilas, Lin Shen, Daneng Li, Dustin Deming, Farshid Dayyani, Weiqing Han, Zuoxing Niu, Jean Fan, Peng Peng, Hui Wang, Peng Huang, Frank Wu, Milind Javle. Tinengotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring actionable FGFR1-3 mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr LB162.

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 .

434 Background: Tinengotinib is a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR, potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant mutations in pre-clinical models and in phase I trials that included cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts). Here we present the efficacy and safety of tinengotinib in a phase II clinical trial. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy therapy and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD. Four cohorts included: Cohort A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFRi), A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFRi (acquired resistance); B: non-fusion FGFR alteration(s): C: FGFR wild-type ( FGFRwt). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. CTCAE V5.0 was used for safety assessments. Results: As of 7Aug2023, 48 pts with CCA were enrolled, 13 in Cohort A1, 10 in A2, 12 in B, 13 in C. Median age 61.5 [range 25-81] years old, 41.7% male, 58.3% had ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. ECOG PS 0 in 47.9% pts. Among 35 pts with FGFR alterations, 80.0% had ≥ 1 prior FGFRi therapy, and 97.1% had prior chemotherapy. Forty (40) pts were efficacy evaluable. In A1, 1 out of 11 pts (9.1%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 31.8%. In A2, 3 out of 8 pts (37.5%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 40.7%, 47.0% and 54.6%. In B, 3 out of 9 pts (33.3%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 36.5%, 48.6%, and 60.6%. No PR was observed in C. Overall DCR was 94.7% (18/19) in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement pts (A1+A2), 88.9% (8/9) in other FGFR alterations pts (B), and 75% (9/12) in FGFRwt pts (C). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.26 months (95%CI, 2.86-9.10) in A1+A2, 5.98 months (95%CI, 1.87-NA) in B and 3.84 months (95% CI, 1.84-4.80) in C. Among 48 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 45 (93.8%) pts, 14 (29.2%) in G1-2, 29 (60.4%) in G3 and 2 (4.2%) in G4. The most common G3 TRAEs were hypertension in 12 (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 3 (6.3%), diarrhea in 3 (6.3%) and stomatitis in 3 (6.3%). One subject had G4 increased TSH and G4 increased lipase, and another subject had G4 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. No G5 TRAE was observed. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has promising clinical benefit for FGFR2 fusion CCA after prior FGFRi and for non-fusion FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib-related toxicities were manageable. An ongoing randomized, controlled phase III study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic effect of Tinengotinib vs Physicians’ choice in subjects with FGFR2-altered refractory/relapsed CCA after prior chemotherapy and FGFRi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

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.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org , covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

3580 Background: Monoamine oxidases (MAOs), including MAOA and MAOB, are mitochondrial enzymes responsible for catalyzing monoamine oxidation. Increased expression of MAOs were found in several cancer types and high MAOB was associated with worse disease stage and poorer survival in CRC. Positive and negative correlations of MAOB expression with mesenchymal type and epithelial type gene expressions, respectively, have been reported. Hence, we investigated whether MAOB expression is predictive for targeted therapies in mCRC. Methods: 430 mCRC pts treated with either bevacizumab (BEV, n = 224) or cetuximab (CET, n = 206) in combination with first-line chemotherapy within the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial were included in the analysis. MAOB RNA was isolated from FFPE tumor samples and sequenced on the HiSeq 2500 (Illumina). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups of pts categorized by tertiles of MAOB expression into high (H), medium (M) and low (L). Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed from multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age, sex, location, number of metastases, KRAS, MSI status, and treatment with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted after stratifying by sex. Logrank P-values describe differences without adjustment for patient characteristics. Results: In CET-treated pts, MAOB-L showed significantly longer OS (median 39.2 vs 30.9 vs 15.9 months, logrank P = 4.7E-05, L vs H (as reference) adjusted HR 0.42, 95% CI [0.27, 0.65]) and PFS (median 13.2 vs 11.8 vs 7.6 months, logrank P = 0.006, L vs H adjusted HR 0.59 [0.40, 0.88]) compared to MAOB-M and MAOB-H, respectively. Similar results were observed when evaluating MAOB expression as a continuous variable. In BEV-treated pts, no significant differences were observed when comparing MAOB expression tertiles; however, pts with lower MAOB expression had significantly better OS, but not PFS, when evaluating MAOB as a continuous variable (Cox LRT P = 0.015, covariate adjusted). In CET-treated pts, the effect of MAOB expression was observed in male but not female pts (OS: median 40.3 vs 30.9 vs 16.1 months by MAOB-L, M, H, respectively, logrank P = 6.8E-05, L vs H adjusted HR 0.33 [0.19, 0.59]; PFS: median 13.8 vs 12.6 vs 7.9 months, logrank P = 0.001, L vs H adjusted HR 0.46 [0.28, 0.79]). A significant interaction was observed between MAOB expression and treatment for OS ( P = 0.010) in males and females combined, but only in males ( P = 0.018) when stratified by sex. Conclusions: Our results suggest that pts with MAOB-L tumors may have greater benefit from CET-based treatment and that targeting MAOB may be a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes. Further validation studies are warranted to develop a novel personalized approach based on MAOB expression in mCRC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT00265850.

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.

108 Background: Primary tumor sidedness has emerged as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Tumor bulk has also been postulated to predict response to anti-EGFR therapy. We sought to evaluate the role of tumor bulk as a predictive biomarker to anti-EGFR therapy in pts with left- (LS) and right-sided (RS) mCRC. Methods: Data from 476 pts with mCRC enrolled across 2 first-line trials of anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy were pooled. Pts were included if there was available information on tumor sidedness and tumor bulk. All were KRAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type or unknown BRAF status. The right colon was defined as the cecum through the transverse colon, and the left colon as the splenic flexure through the rectum. Tumor bulk was the mean tumor size of target lesions at baseline, bulky defined as > 3.5 cm. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for performance status (PS), platelet count, primary tumor (PT) resection, number of metastatic sites, and stratified by study. Results: Pts with bulky tumors (211, 44%) had higher PS, white blood cell and platelet counts, higher CEA, fewer sites of metastatic disease, more liver than lung metastases, and fewer had PT resection. OS and PFS medians in months (mos) are presented in the table with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Bulky tumors had inferior median OS compared with non-bulky (mOS, 17.9 vs. 21.3 mos, HRadj 1.33, 95% CI 1.05-1.69, P = 0.016) although median PFS was similar (mPFS, 8.6 vs. 8.7 mos, HRadj 1.15, 95% CI 0.92-1.42, P = 0.21). Conclusions: Tumor bulk is an independent prognostic factor for OS in KRAS wild-type and BRAF wild-type or unknown BRAF status pts. Pts with non-bulky RS tumors have survival outcomes similar to pts with bulky LS tumors. Although the mPFS for pts with RS tumors treated with anti-EGFR therapy was the lowest across subgroups, this finding was not statistically significant. Further research is warranted into whether pts with bulky RS tumors benefit from anti-EGFR therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00182715, NCT00640081. [Table: see text]