Jiang, Yixing

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

507 Background: Navitoclax (ABT-263) is an oral Bcl-2 homology-3 mimetic that binds with high affinity to pro-survival Bcl-2 proteins, resulting in apoptosis. Sorafenib, an oral multi kinase inhibitor inhibits tumor angiogenesis and also promotes apoptosis. The efficacy of either agent alone is limited; however, preclinical studies demonstrate synergy with the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib. Methods: In this phase 1 pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study (NCT01364051), we evaluated the combination of navitoclax and sorafenib in a dose escalation cohort of patients with refractory solid tumors, with an expansion cohort in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study agents were provided by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at National Cancer Institute under CRADA. Navitoclax and sorafenib were administered continuously on days 1 through 21 of 21-day cycles. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined using the continual reassessment method. Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the dose escalation cohort and 15 patients with HCC were enrolled in the expansion cohort. Two dose levels were tested, dose level 1 (navitoclax 150 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily) and dose level 2 (navitoclax 200 mg daily plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily). At dose level 1, one dose limiting toxicity (DLT) [grade 3 aspartate aminotransferase elevation] was observed among 6 patients treated at this dose level. In a cohort of 3 patients treated at dose level 2, two DLTs were observed (grade 3 hypertension, and grade 3 rash), hence dose level 1 was identified as the MTD. Among all patients, the most common grade 3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (5 patients, 20%): there were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities (Table). Patients received a median of 2 cycles (range 1-36 cycles) and all patients were off study treatment at data cut off. Six patients in the expansion cohort had stable disease, 5 had progressive disease and 4 with unavailable data. There were no partial or complete responses. Drug-drug interaction between navitoclax and sorafenib was not observed. The combination of navitoclax and sorafenib did not increase induction of apoptosis compared with navitoclax alone. Conclusions: Navitoclax plus sorafenib resulted in manageable, but not ideal toxicities for continuous oral administration which precluded dose escalation. The lack of clinical benefit in the HCC expansion cohort does not support further development of this combination for the treatment of advanced HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT01364051 . [Table: see text]

TPS629 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 IMbrave150 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 (NCT04541173). 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. 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. Clinical trial information: NCT04541173 .

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.

Abstract Prior in vitro work in the human hepatoma cell lines Huh7 and HEP3B indicated that combination treatment of the BH3 mimetic, navitoclax, and the multi-kinase inhibitor, sorafenib, was more effective at inducing apoptosis than either compound alone. This current study was part of a phase I clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose of concurrent navitoclax and sorafenib treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory solid organ tumors and sought to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of both agents in combination. Cleavage of cytokeratin 18 by caspase 3 was used as a biomarker for therapy-induced activation of apoptosis to determine if combination treatment results in an increase in apoptosis as previously observed in in vitro work. PK were assessed in 26 patients (ages 32 - 80) enrolled in a phase I clinical trial (NCT02143401). 150 mg of oral navitoclax was administered once daily for a seven day run-in (beginning Day -7) prior to 150 mg (Dose level 1) or 200 mg (Dose level 2) navitoclax concomitant treatment with 400 mg of twice daily oral sorafenib (Day 1). Samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were obtained on Day -7 and Day 1 prior to dosing and at 1, 2, 4, 8-12, and 24 hours post dosing. PK parameters were estimated by noncompartmental analysis using Phoenix® WinNonlin® Version 6.4. To examine the PD of both agents in combination, cytokeratin 18 cleavage was quantified by ELISA after the 7-day navitoclax run-in and on Day 2 or 4 and Day 8 of navitoclax and sorafenib combination treatment. PK estimates of maximum concentration, exposure, volume of distribution, and clearance for navitoclax on Day -7 and Day 1 were not significantly different, indicating a lack of navitoclax accumulation. Finally, no correlation was found between navitoclax exposure and apoptosis as indicated by cytokeratin-18 cleavage. This work was supported by the NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA15083 and NCI Experimental Therapeutics Phase I Grant UM1 CA186686. Citation Format: Emily J. Koubek, Brian A. Costello, Jun Yin, Renee M. McGovern, Sarah A. Buhrow, Renee A. Schoon, Carrie A. Strand, Yixing Jiang, Mitesh J. Borad, Naoko Takebe, Scott H. Kaufmann, Alex A. Adjei, Joel M. Reid. Pharmacokinetic analysis of navitoclax in combination with sorafenib in patients with relapsed or refractory solid organ tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT114.

Purpose: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. Methods: Eligibility—within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm—6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm—gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. Results: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, ( P =0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P =0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.

4007 Background: NRG/RTOG 0848 is a 2-step study designed to determine whether erlotinib (E) added to gemcitabine (G) (randomized Ph II) &/or adjuvant radiation with concurrent 5-FU or capecitabine following 6 months of systemic chemotherapy (Ph III), improve survival in patients (pts) with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. The erlotinib results are reported here. Methods: Eligible pts include those with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma, pathologic stage T1-T3, N0-1, M0; PS 0-1, & CA19-9 ≤ 180 IU/L. Pts in Arms 1 & 2 received G 1 gm/m2 weekly for 3 weeks in a 28-day cycle for 6 cycles. Pts in Arm 2 also received E 100 mg/day. The primary hypothesis for the E portion was that G+E would increase overall survival (OS) compared to G alone. With a 1-sided alpha of 0.15, 200 OS events provide 80%/90% power to detect a signal for an increase in median OS from 22 to 28.8/30.6 months (mos). OS was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method & arms compared using the log rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze treatment effect. Results: 336 pts were randomized from 11/17/2009 to 2/28/2014, with 163 pts evaluable for G and 159 for G+E. Median age was 63 years (39-86). Most pts had pathologic T3 disease (78%) & CA19-9 ≤ 90 (93%). There are 32 pts (20%) with grade 4 adverse events (AEs) & 2 pts (1%) with grade 5 AEs on G and 27 (17%) & 3 (2%) on G+E arm, respectively. There are fewer grade ≥ 3 GI AEs on the G arm (22%) as compared to the G+E arm (28%), and 110 (69.2%) & 93 (59.6%) pts received at least 85% of planned G dose for the G & G+E arms, respectively. 58% of E pts received at least 85% of planned E dose. The median follow-up for alive pts is 42.5 mos (min-max: < 1-75). With 203 deaths, median & 3-yr OS (95% CI) are 29.9 mos (21.7-33.4) & 39% (30, 45) for G and 28.1 mos (20.7-30.9) & 39% (31, 47) for G+E; log-rank p = 0.62. The hazard ratio (95% CI) comparing OS of G+E to G is 1.04 (0.79- 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant E to G did not provide a signal for increased OS in pts with resected pancreatic head cancer compared to G alone. Accrual to the trial is continuing to answer the Ph III radiation question. Clinical trial information: NCT01013649.