Wasan, Harpreet

Objectives The ‘tumour, node, metastasis’ (TNM) classification of colorectal cancer (CRC) predicts prognosis and so is vital to consider in analyses of patterns and outcomes of care when using electronic health records. Unfortunately, it is often only available in free-text reports. This study aimed to develop regex-based text-processing algorithms that identify the reports describing CRC and extract the TNM staging at a low computational cost. Methods The CRC and TNM extraction algorithms were iteratively developed using 58 634 imaging and pathology reports of patients with CRC from the Oxford University Hospitals (OUH) and Royal Marsden (RMH) NHS Foundation Trusts (FT), with additional input from Imperial College Healthcare and Christie NHS FTs. The algorithms were evaluated on a stratified random sample of 400 OUH development data reports and 400 newer ‘unseen’ OUH reports. The reports were annotated with the help of two clinicians. Results The CRC algorithm achieved at least 93.0% positive predictive value (PPV), 72.1% sensitivity, 64.0% negative predictive value (NPV) and 90.1% specificity for primary CRC on pathology reports. On imaging reports, it demonstrated at least 78.0% PPV, 91.8% sensitivity, 93.0% NPV and 80.9% specificity. For the main T/N/M categories, the TNM algorithm achieved PPVs of at least 93.9% (T), 97.7% (N) and 97.2% (M), and sensitivities of 63.6% (T), 89.6% (N) and 64.8% (M). NPVs were at least 45.0% (T), 91.1% (N), 88.4% (M), and specificities 95.7% (T), 98.1% (N), 99.3% (M). Reductions in performance were mostly due to implicit staging. For extracting explicit TNM stages, current or historical, the algorithm made no errors on 400 pathology reports and six errors on 400 imaging reports. Conclusion The TNM algorithm accurately extracts explicit TNM staging, but other methods are needed for retrieving implicit stages. The CRC algorithm is accurate on non-supplementary reports, but outputs need additional review if higher precision is required.

LBA3500 Background: BREAKWATER (NCT04607421) is an open-label, global, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating first-line (1L) encorafenib + cetuximab (EC) ± chemotherapy (chemo) vs standard of care (SOC; chemo ± bevacizumab) in BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The study previously met one of its dual primary endpoints (EPs) demonstrating clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the ORR subset. These results were the basis for the FDA accelerated approval of EC+mFOLFOX6 for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC, including in the 1L, under Project Frontrunner. Here, we report the primary analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) by BICR, updated interim analysis of OS, updated safety, and other analyses. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with untreated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC; EC arm enrollment was closed after a protocol amendment. Dual primary EPs: ORR and PFS by BICR (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC); key secondary EP: OS (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC). Results: 637 pts were randomized to EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced between arms. EC+mFOLFOX6 (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2025) demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS improvement vs SOC, meeting the other dual primary EP; HR=0.53 (95% CI 0.407, 0.677; P<0.0001); median PFS 12.8 vs 7.1 mo. OS was clinically meaningful and statistically significant vs SOC; HR=0.49 (95% CI 0.375, 0.632; P<0.0001); median OS 30.3 vs 15.1 mo. Median PFS and OS in the EC arm were 6.8 and 19.5 mo. These data and response data for all randomized pts are shown in the table. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 30%, 46%, and 39% of pts in the safety analysis set. Safety was consistent with that known for each agent. Conclusions: BREAKWATER demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS and OS improvements with EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC and manageable toxicities. EC+mFOLFOX6 is potentially practice changing as the new SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04607421 . ECn=158 EC+mFOLFOX6n=236 SOCn=243 EC+mFOLFOX6vs SOCHR (95% CI)P-value a Median PFS b , mo (95% CI) 6.8(5.7, 8.3) 12.8(11.2, 15.9) 7.1(6.8, 8.5) 0.53 (0.407, 0.677) <0.0001 Median OS, mo (95% CI) 19.5(17.6, 22.5) 30.3(21.7, NE) 15.1(13.7, 17.7) 0.49 (0.375, 0.632)<0.0001 ORR, b % (95% CI) 45.6(38.0, 53.3) 65.7(59.4, 71.4) 37.4(31.6, 43.7) Median DOR b , mo (95% CI) c 7.0 (4.2, 11.6) 13.9 (10.9, 18.5) 10.8 (7.6, 13.4) DOR b ≥6 mo, n (%) c 29 (40.3) 110 (71.0) 38 (41.8) DOR b ≥12 mo, n (%) c 15 (20.8) 54 (34.8) 16 (17.6) Median time to response, b wk (range) c 6.6(4.3-86.4) 7.0(5.1-103.6) 7.3 (5.4-48.0) a 1-sided stratified log rank test. b By BICR. c Responders: n=72, n=155, and n=91. DOR, duration of response.

TPS592 Background: For advanced CCA, standard of care 1L systemic treatment is GEM + CIS. Genetic alterations in intrahepatic CCA provide potential therapeutic targets. Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 2 gene rearrangements driving CCA tumorigenesis were identified almost exclusively in intrahepatic CCA patients (pts) (incidence, 10–16%). In phase 2, PEM (INCB054828), a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor elicited an objective response rate (ORR) of 35.5% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.9 months (mo) in previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA with FGFR2 rearrangements (NCT02924376). FIGHT-302, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study will evaluate efficacy and safety of 1L PEM vs GEM + CIS in unresectable/metastatic CCA with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements (NCT03656536). Methods: Eligible pts are adults with confirmed unresectable/metastatic CCA; no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease < 6 mo before enrollment; radiographically measurable/evaluable disease (per RECIST v1.1); ECOG PS ≤1; documented FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. Exclusions include clinically significant corneal or retinal disorder; history of calcium and phosphate homeostasis disorder or systemic mineral imbalance with ectopic soft tissue calcification; untreated CNS metastases or history of uncontrolled seizures. Pts will be randomized (1:1; stratified by region and tumor burden) to PEM 13.5 mg QD on a 21-day (d) cycle or GEM (1000 mg/m2) + CIS (25 mg/m2) on D1 and D8 of 21-d cycles (max 8). Crossover to PEM allowed after confirmed progression. PEM titration to 18 mg from cycle 2 allowed for pts without hyperphosphatemia (serum phosphate > 5.5 mg/dL) and Grade ≥2 treatment-related adverse events during cycle 1. Hyperphosphatemia will be managed with diet modifications, phosphate binders, diuretics, or dose adjustments. Treatment will continue until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint is PFS (by independent review). Secondary endpoints are ORR, overall survival, duration of response, disease control rate, safety, and quality of life. Four pts (target N = 432) are enrolled as of Sep 25, 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03656536.

188 Background: Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the prognostic and predictive impact of PTS on outcomes. Methods: PTS data of 7,828 mCRC patients (pts) from 10 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. PTS was defined as right-sided (RS) or left-sided (LS) if tumor arose from the cecum to the hepatic flexure or from the splenic flexure to the rectum, respectively; transverse colon cancers were not included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status (PS), prior radiation/chemo, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone). Results: Compared to RS pts (2407, 31%), LS pts (5421, 69%) had better OS (median: 21.6 v 16.8 mos; HRadj: 0.73, 95% CI 0.69-0.78, P < .001) and PFS (median 8.4 v 7.2 mos; HRadj: 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.86, P < .001). Results were consistent among subgroups defined by age, sex, PS, metastatic sites and chemo backbone (irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was significant (Pinteraction< .001): LS is associated with better prognosis only among KRAS wild-type (wt) (HRadj: OS 0.62, 95% CI, 0.55-0.70; PFS 0.71, 95% CI 0.63-0.80), but not among KRAS mutated pts. Among KRAS wt pts, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was observed for LS, but not for RS (table). Conclusions: The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS wt population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a significant improvement of survival for LS mCRC pts. These results suggest treatment stratification in mCRC studies by both PTS and KRAS status. [Table: see text]

627 Background: The SLI of the BEACON CRC phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (ENCO) + MEK inhibitor binimetinib (BINI) + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (CETUX) in pts with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC after 1 or 2 prior regimens. CEA and CA19-9 are tumor markers that are widely used to monitor the effectiveness of systemic therapies for mCRC; here we report on the association of CEA and CA19-9 changes while on treatment with clinical outcomes in pts from the SLI. Methods: Pts in the SLI received the triplet of ENCO 300 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + CETUX 400 mg/m2 (initial dose) then 250 mg/m2 QW in 28-day cycles. Pts were evaluated for safety, radiographic response, and change in tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Results: 30 pts were treated. The triplet was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with known BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibitor toxicities. The rate of severe skin toxicities (grade 3/4) was lower than generally observed for CETUX in mCRC. Of the 29 pts with a BRAFV600E mutation, the median time on study treatment was 5.6 mo (range, 1.0–9.3 mo), and 22 (76%) remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) was 41%, with 1 complete and 11 partial responses. In addition, 9 pts had prolonged stable disease (SD) up to 9.3 mo.CEA and CA19-9 were analyzed in 28 pts. CEA and CA19-9 decreased in 96% and 82% of these pts, respectively. Among 15 pts with treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, median/mean % decreases were 97%/79% for CEA and 92%/82% for CA19-9 in confirmed responders (n=6). Respective decreases in pts with prolonged SD (n=9) were similar: 84%/68% for CEA and 89%/68% for CA19-9. Updated safety, efficacy, and tumor marker results will be provided. Conclusions: ENCO + BINI + CETUX is generally well tolerated and has encouraging clinical activity in BRAFV 600E mCRC, with a confirmed ORR of 41%. In pts with study treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, the tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 decreased markedly and to the same degree in responders vs pts with prolonged SD, providing additional evidence of the meaningful clinical activity of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.