Barzi, Afsaneh

e16686 Background: Genetic alterations in the FGFR pathway are emerging as promising therapeutic targets in CCA. The clinical and molecular features of patients (pts) with CCA harboring FGFR genetic alterations are reported here. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed in pts with CCA who were found to have an FGFR alteration on tumor molecular profiling as part of routine care between 9/2007 and 12/2019. Data on demographics, risk factors, pathology, molecular characteristics, systemic therapies, radiographical response, time on treatment, and overall survival (OS) were collected in a multi-center collaborative effort across seven academic centers. Results: Among 135 pts with FGFR-altered CCA, the median age at diagnosis was 57 years old (range = 25-92 years), and 80 (59.3%) pts were female, 129 (95.6%) had intrahepatic CCA, and 6 (5.6%) had chronic HBV. At presentation, 28.2% of pts had resectable disease, including 65.0% with Stage I-II, 22.5% with Stage III, and 5.0% with Stage IV. At the time of initial diagnosis, CA19-9 was < 35U/mL in 42.6% of pts. Bone metastases were observed in 41 (30.6%) pts with advanced disease. FGFR2 fusions were the most common FGFR alteration (68.2%), followed by FGFR2 mutations (21.5%), FGFR3 mutations (3.7%), FGFR2 rearrangements (1.5%), FGFR1 amplification (1.5%), and FGFR2 amplification (1.5%). The most common FGFR2 fusion partners were BICC1 (28.3%), SORBS1 (4.4%), POC1B (3.3%), and TACC2 (3.3%). The median lines of palliative systemic therapies received was 3 (range = 0-8), and 40/135 (29.6%) pts received a liver-directed therapy. For the 55 (59.8%) pts with FGFR2 fusions who received gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line palliative systemic therapy, the median time on treatment was 6.2 months (95% CI: 4.1-9.3). The median OS from time of initial diagnosis was 36.1 months (95% CI: 28.3-51.6) in the FGFR2 fusion positive cohort. Among the 92 pts with FGFR2 fusions, 70 (76.1%) pts received an FGFR inhibitor on a clinical trial; 12 (17.1%) were subsequently treated with a second FGFR inhibitor, and 58.3% stayed on the second FGFR inhibitor for ≥4 months. Pts with a BICC1 fusion partner (n = 16) had an overall response rate of 42.9% on FGFR-selective inhibitors compared to 30.8% in non-BICC1 fusion partners (n = 54). Conclusions: Pts with CCA harboring FGFR alterations were found to have a high rate of normal CA19-9, high rate of bone metastases, and short median time on treatment on first-line palliative gemcitabine/cisplatin. Additional comparative studies are necessary to evaluate these findings.

TPS4116 Background: Chemotherapy in combination with targeted agents are standard-of-care options for patients for mCRC with response rates >50% in first line. In the second line setting, efficacy of chemotherapy and targeted agents are much lower with response rates of 5% for FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) + bevacizumab (anti-VEGF). New treatment options are urgently needed in particular for the 50 % of patients harboring a KRAS mutation. PLK1 is a serine/threonine kinase, master regulator of the mitotic checkpoint and cell division. PLK1 is overexpressed in CRC and its overexpression is associated with poor prognostic. A genome wide RNAi screen identified PLK1 as a synthetic lethal target in KRAS mutant CRC cells, inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis upon inhibition. Onvansertib is an oral, highly selective PLK1 inhibitor that demonstrates single agent and synergistic activity with irinotecan in preclinical CRC models. Additionally, KRAS mutated vs wild-type cells showed higher sensitivity to onvansertib. PLK1 inhibition is a potential target in KRAS-mutated mCRC, and the combination of onvansertib + FOLFIRI + bevacizumab may provide a new second-line treatment option. Methods: The primary objective of this single-arm Phase 1b/2 study is to assess the safety and preliminary efficacy of onvansertib in combination with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in the second line setting for KRAS-mutated mCRC patients. For the Phase 1b segment, a standard 3 + 3 dose-escalation design is used to determine the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of onvansertib. As of January 24, 2020, enrollment in the second dose level is ongoing. Efficacy will be determined by objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST v1.1 (primary endpoint), progression-free survival and reduction in KRAS allelic burden in liquid biopsies (secondary endpoints). In the phase 2, based on a one-sided one sample log-rank test with 10% Type I error, there will be at least 90% power to detect an improvement in ORR from 5% to 20% with 26 patients. Exploratory endpoints include genomic studies of circulating tumor cells and ctDNA to evaluate altered pathways that correlate with patient clinical response. Clinical trial information: NCT03829410 .

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

Objectives Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) is a topoisomerase inhibitor proven to improve survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). This study describes real-world characteristics of patients treated with nal-IRI for mPC. Methods Patients 18 years or older diagnosed with stage IV mPC and treated with nal-IRI were selected retrospectively from a deidentified electronic health record database of more than 2 million US cancer patients. Demographics, clinical and dosing characteristics, and treatment outcomes were collected. Results Of 257 total patients, 145 (57%) received nal-IRI as first- or second-line therapy. Median nal-IRI treatment duration was 51 days, longer when nal-IRI was used as first/second versus as third-line therapy or later (62 vs 44.5 days). Seventy patients (27.2%) experienced dose modification. Median time to treatment discontinuation was 2.3 versus 1.6 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Median overall survival from nal-IRI initiation was 5.6 versus 4.1 months for first-/second- versus third-line therapy or later, respectively. Prior irinotecan treatment, baseline serum albumin less than 40 g/L, and baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio greater than 5 were associated with reduced overall survival. Conclusions This is the first large US study of real-world US mPC patients treated with nal-IRI. These results, comparable to the NAPOLI-1 trial, can help inform future studies and the efficacy of nal-IRI in mPC therapy.

e18367 Background: Regorafenib at 160mg daily 21/28 days is a standard therapeutic option in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the cost of treatment and management of its side-effects is more than the cost-effectiveness threshold for oncology drugs in US and many countries around the world. ReDOS (Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study), is a randomized phase II trial in refractory mCRC and established that weekly dose escalation of regorafenib over the conventional dosing is superior in the composite endpoint of safety and efficacy. We explored the impact of the new dosing strategy on CE of regorafenib. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib (standard), regorafenib (ReDOS), and best supportive care (BSC). Model inputs for clinical efficacy and safety were from the CORRECT trial for regorafenib (standard) and BSC, and the ReDOS study for regorafenib (ReDOS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The model used a US payer’s perspective with 5% annual discount rate, and all costs were measured in 2018 US dollars. Results: Regorafenib (ReDOS) dominated regorafenib (standard), producing higher quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost. When compared to BSC, regorafenib (ReDOS) resulted in the ICER of $112,705 while regorafenib (standard) resulted in the ICER of $384,687. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters under univariate sensitivity analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, regorafenib (ReDOS) was more cost-effective than regorafenib (standard) and BSC in 70% of repetition at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $120,000 per QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) and 98% at a WTP threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes demonstrated in the ReDOS study, the dose optimization strategy of regorafenib results in favorable cost-effectiveness under a typical US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

606 Background: Between 3-5% of CRC patients have BRCA1/2 pathogenic mutations. This study aims to identify associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and clinical characteristics in CRC. Methods: A total of 6396 CRC tumor samples were tested with Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) on a 592-gene panel, pathogenic or presumed pathogenic variants were counted as mutations (mt). Microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were tested by NGS. Statistical correlations were investigated using ANOVA, Chi-square and t-test. Results: Among tumors sampled, 53% derived from male patients and median age was 60 years. BRCA1 mt were detected in 1.1% (n = 72) of tumors, while BRCA2 in 2.8% (n = 179). BRCA1 mt were more frequent in women (W;65%) than men (M;35%) (p = 0.0019) while no relationship with sex was seen for BRCA2 mt (42% F vs. 58% M). No significant associations with age were noticed. Majority of pathogenic mt in BRCA1 (52%; n = 34) and BRCA2 (62%; n = 103) occurred in MSI-High (MSI-H) cases. MSI-H pts had more frameshift mt in both BRCA1/2 than MSS pts. MSS cases had lower rates of BRCA1 and 2 pathogenic mt (44% and 37%, respectively). Right-sided tumors were significantly associated with BRCA1 (p = 0.0056) and BRCA2 (p < 0.0001) mt in MSI-H cases only. BRCA1/2 mt were associated with higher TMB in all CRCs, including MSI-H and MSS cases (p < 0.001). POLE mt (n = 31) were associated with higher BRCA1/2 mt rates (9.6%, 55% respectively). Among MSS cases with POLE wild-type status, BRCA1 (p = 0.0269) and BRCA2 (p = 0.0151) mt were associated with high TMB and combining both BRCA1/2 mutations led to an even higher TMB (3.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusions: This is the first study to show that BRCA1/2 mutations are more frequent in MSI-H, and independently associated with higher TMB, pathogenic POLE mutations, and right-sided tumors in MSI-H CRCs. Given their relationship with TMB, the presence of BRCA1/2 mutations may be potential predictive biomarkers for checkpoint or PARP inhibitors in CRC, a finding that should be prospectively evaluated.

611 Background: Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with survival benefit in refractory mCRC patients (pts). Toxicities such as Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), fatigue and hypertension (HTN) have limited its use. Despite absence of supportive data, various dosing or interval scheduling have been implemented into clinical practice. Methods: A randomized phase II study of regorafenib dose-escalation (Arm A: 80 mg/day, weekly dose escalation if no significant drug-related toxicities, up to 160 mg/day) vs. standard dose (Arm B: 160 mg/day) in pts with mCRC for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Pts were randomized 1:1:1:1 to arms A1 and B1 (Pre-emptive Clobetasol for PPES); A2 and B2 (Reactive Clobetasol). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 2 cycles of treatment and initiated the 3rd in Arm A (Pooled A1 + A2) vs. Arm B (Pooled B1 + B2). Superiority for Arm A was to be declared if the one-sided p-value calculated using Fisher’s exact method was less than 0.2. Results: From June 2015 to June 2017, 123 pts were randomized with 116 (A = 54, B = 62) evaluable for the primary endpoint. Demographic data were well balanced with overall median age of 61yrs (range: 29-81), M/F (61/39%) and ECOG PS 0/1 (37/63%) and KRAS MT/WT/UNK (47/44/9%).The study met its primary endpoint with 43% of pts on Arm A initiating the 3rd vs. only 25% of pts Arm B [one-sided p-value 0.028]. Median Overall Survival (OS) was improved in Arm A vs. Arm B (9.0 mos vs. 5.9 mos; p = 0.094). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 2.5 mos for Arm A vs. 2.0 mos for Arm B (p=0.553). Overall rates of grade 3/4 toxicity were more favorable for Arm A vs. Arm B (% PPES 15 vs. 16, HTN 7 vs. 15 and fatigue 13 vs. 18, respectively). Multiple QOL parameters were improved in A vs. B primarily at week 2 of the first cycle. Conclusion: A strategy with weekly dose escalation of regorafenib from 80 mg to 160 mg/day was found to be superior to a starting dose of 160 mg/day. These results establish a new standard for optimizing regorafenib dosing. Further data on outcomes of preemptive vs. reactive clobetasol strategies are undergoing analysis and will be presented later. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.

4016 Background: No standard treatment options are available for patients with advanced BC who fail gemcitabine/platinum therapy. The rationale for evaluation of trametinib was based on the presence of MAPK alterations and on earlier promising results with other MEK inhibitors in BC. Methods: Pts with histologically proven BC who progressed on gemcitabine/platinum were randomized to trametinib (2mg qd) (Arm A) vs infusional 5FU at 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours or capecitabine (1000 mg/m2PO days 1-14 BID) (Arm B). Patients were stratified by planned chemotherapy 5FU/LV vs capecitabine; and disease site: cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). 80 eligible patients (40 for each arm) were needed to detect an improvement in median OS from 5 months to 8.25 months (1.65 HR). A planned interim futility analysis of objective response was performed on the first 14 pts registered to the trametinib arm. Results: The study was stopped early based on the lack of measurable response in the trametinib arm. 53 pts were randomized (27 pts in Arm A vs 26 pts in Arm B). Median age was 62 years and the primary sites of tumor were cholangiocarcinoma (77%) and gallbladder (23%). Median OS was 4.3 months (95% CI 3.1-5.1) for Arm A, and 8.0 months (95% CI 3.2-14.6) for Arm B with a HR of 2.02 (95% CI 1.01-4.03, p=0.05). The median PFS was 1.3 months (95% CI 1.2-1.5) for arm A and 2.8 months (95% CI 1.4-6.9) for arm B with a HR of 2.95 (95% CI 1.38-6.30, p=0.01). Overall RR was 8% (95% CI 0%, 19%) in Arm A vs 10% (95% CI 0%, 23%) in Arm B (p>0.99), and 8% vs 45% had stable disease. Eight pts in Arm A experienced treatment-related ≥ grade 3 toxicities, including one death due to vomiting/dehydration. Seven pts in Arm B experienced treatment-related grade 3 toxicities; no higher grade toxicities were reported. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective randomized study of a targeted agent versus chemotherapy for the second line treatment of BC. In this unselected population, the lack of response to trametinib resulted in early closure. The PFS and OS for trametinib were inferior to 5FU. Clinical trial information: 02042443.