Wagner, Andrew J.

11507 Background: Single agent or combination chemotherapy, typically Dox- or gemcitabine-based, are standard 1st- and 2nd-line therapies in patients (pts) with metastatic LMS; however, objective response rates (ORR), progression-free, and overall survival (PFS/OS) remain inadequate. Lurbi (PharmaMar S.A. / Jazz Pharmaceuticals) binds to DNA inhibiting transcription and inducing double strand breaks leading to apoptosis and delaying S/G2 progression. In a prior pilot study, we showed Lurbi+Dox is well-tolerated, with signs of activity, particularly in LMS. We designed this phase 1b to optimize dosing to lead into a randomized (1:1) phase 2 trial of Dox+/-Lurbi in anthracycline-naïve LMS. Herein we provide updated efficacy and tolerability data for this Phase 1b cohort. Methods: Pts > 18 yrs with locally advanced/metastatic, unresectable non-GIST STS (Phase 1b only) w/o prior anthracycline or Lurbi/trabectedin, ECOG PS < 3, RECIST 1.1 measurable, and normal organ function were eligible. The phase 1b followed a 3+3 design. Dosing included fixed Lurbi (3.2 mg/m2 d1) with two Dox dose levels (DL; DL1: 25 mg/m2 d1; DL2 25 mg/m2 d1+8). All pts received GCSF prophylaxis. Tumor assessments were every 2 cycles. DL1 was chosen as RP2D and the phase 2 trial began accrual in Aug 2022 aiming to enroll 50 LMS pts randomized 1:1 (stratified by uterine LMS [uLMS]] v. other LMS) with PFS as primary endpoint. Pts progressing on Dox are allowed to cross to Lurbi monotherapy. Results: 10 patients were enrolled in Phase 1b. Histologies included 5 LMS (4 uLMS) and 1 each of myxofibrosarcoma (myxFS), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS), endometrial stromal sarcoma (ESS), and solitary fibrous tumor (SFT). With a median follow-up of 344 days, 5/10 pts remain on treatment with median PFS of 357 days (95%CI 175-ND). 6 pts demonstrated partial response (PR; 5 confirmed), 3 with stable disease (SD), and 1 with progressive disease (PD, Table). Median time to PR was 81 days (range 46-207). Duration of response was over 132 days in all responders with 3 still on treatment. Treatment-related AEs were typical for Dox/Lurbi, including nausea, fatigue, and reversible LFT elevations/cytopenias. Updated safety and response data will be provided at the time of the meeting. Conclusions: Lurbi+Dox is well-tolerated with efficacy in STS including 6/10 pts achieving PR, 9/10 pts staying on treatment for >120d, and 6/10 pts >200d. The randomized phase 2 study is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT05099666 . [Table: see text]

46 Background: Tumor boards (TBs) are considered a key component for ensuring high quality cancer care. However, little is known about TB operational aspects that impact effectiveness. We aimed to understand how TBs leverage Electronic Health Record (EHR) functionalities and how pandemic-driven transitions from in-person TBs to virtual TBs impacted TB quality and effectiveness. Methods: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Oncology EHR Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the current state of TBs, obtain providers’ views on ideal TB state, and develop recommendations for improving TB quality and effectiveness. The Workgroup surveyed providers in various specialties at 31 NCCN Member Institutions in March 2022. Results: 846 providers from 27 institutions responded to the survey (n = 76 respondents were excluded from analysis because they reported not participating in TBs). Almost all (n = 764/767, 99%) indicated that one or more participants always or frequently attended TB meetings virtually. When comparing (newly established) virtual to (pre-pandemic) in-person TBs, 69% indicated increased attendance at virtual TBs. 65% reported no change in case volume, and 56% reported unchanged discussion quality while 19% reported increased discussion quality when comparing virtual to in-person TB meetings. In regards to EHR integration, several gaps between current and ideal state were noted. For instance, 40% always or frequently added patients to the TB roster via the EHR, but 57% reported this functionality to be very important or important for TBs. Additionally, 53% always or frequently document TB recommendations within the EHR, while 87% indicated EHR documentation of recommendations as very important or important. Respondents reported that barriers to documentation include resource constraints, concerns with patient access to documentation, legal and liability concerns, and poor EHR functionality. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of responding providers reported virtual TBs to be at least similar in quality to in-person TB meetings. A major gap identified by this study is the lack of documentation of TB recommendations in the EHR. Workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to fully optimize the EHR for TB management and documentation.[Table: see text]

TPS11592 Background: Single agent or combination chemotherapy regimens, typically including doxorubicin or gemcitabine, represent standard of care options for first- and second-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic LMS. However, response rates (ORR) and progression-free (PFS)/overall survival (OS) remain poor. Lurbinectedin (PharmaMar S.A. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals) uniquely binds DNA, inducing DNA double strand breaks leading to apoptosis and delaying progression through phase S/G2 of the cell cycle. Lurbinectedin is a novel structural analog of trabectedin with improved toxicity profile, potency, and pharmacokinetics. In a prior pilot study, we showed that the combination of lurbinectedin and doxorubicin (L+D) was safe, with early signs of clinical activity, particularly in LMS. Thus, we designed this investigator-initiated/investigator-sponsored phase 1b lead-in to optimize doses of L+D, to be followed by a randomized (1:1) phase 2 study of L+D versus doxorubicin monotherapy in anthracycline-naïve LMS. Methods: Pts age > 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic, unresectable LMS (non-GIST soft-tissue sarcoma histologies allowed in Phase 1b), without prior anthracycline or lurbinectedin/trabectedin, ECOG PS < 3, measurable disease by RECIST 1.1, and normal organ function, are eligible. Phase 1b dosing will include a fixed dose of lurbinectedin and two dose levels of doxorubicin. The Phase 1b lead-in follows a standard 3+3 design where dose escalation will occur if 0/3 or 1/6 patients experience a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Tumor assessments are conducted every two cycles. Once the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) is confirmed, Phase 2 will be initiated. Fifty pts will be randomized 1:1 including doxorubicin +/- lurbinectedin. Randomization will be stratified by uterine v. non-uterine origin of LMS. Pts progressing on single agent doxorubicin will be allowed to cross over to lurbinectedin monotherapy. The Phase 2 primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, ORR, OS, PFS2 (for doxorubicin monotherapy patients who cross to lurbinectedin monotherapy). Archival tumor, germline DNA, and ctDNA will be collected for correlative studies exploring genomic markers of sensitivity/resistance. We will provide respective point estimate along with 90% confidence interval for each of the arms. Log-rank test will be performed to test the difference in survival (both PFS and OS) between groups. Regression analyses of survival data will be based on the Cox proportional hazards model. The first pt in dose-level 1 of the Phase 1b lead-in was enrolled in February 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05099666.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]

Background Ontuxizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, targets endosialin (tumor endothelial marker 1 [TEM‐1] or CD248), which is expressed on sarcoma cells and is believed to be involved in tumor angiogenesis. This is the first trial to evaluate ontuxizumab in patients with sarcoma. Methods Part 1 was an open‐label, dose‐finding, safety lead‐in: 4, 6, or 8 mg/kg with gemcitabine and docetaxel (G/D; 900 mg/m 2 gemcitabine on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m 2 docetaxel on day 8). In part 2, patients were randomized in a double‐blind fashion in 2:1 ratio to ontuxizumab (8 mg/kg) or a placebo with G/D. Randomization was stratified by 4 histological cohorts. Results In part 2 with 209 patients, no significant difference in progression‐free survival between ontuxizumab plus G/D (4.3 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7‐6.3 months) and the placebo plus G/D (5.6 months; 95% CI, 2.6‐8.3 months) was observed ( P = .67; hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.77‐1.49). Similarly, there was no significant difference in median overall survival between the 2 groups: 18.3 months for the ontuxizumab plus G/D group (95% CI, 16.2‐21.1 months) and 21.1 months for the placebo plus G/D group (95% CI, 14.2 months to not reached; P = .32; HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.82‐1.82). No significant differences between the treatment groups occurred for any efficacy parameter by sarcoma cohort. The combination of ontuxizumab plus G/D was generally well tolerated. Conclusions Ontuxizumab plus G/D showed no enhanced activity over chemotherapy alone in soft‐tissue sarcomas, whereas the safety profile of the combination was consistent with G/D alone.