Kang, Yoon‐Koo

In the INTRIGUE phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ), adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor previously treated with imatinib were randomly assigned 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily or sunitinib 50 mg once daily (4 weeks on/2 weeks off). In the primary analysis, overall survival (OS) was immature. In this study, we report the final planned analysis of OS (key secondary end point), progression-free survival (PFS) on third-line therapy (second PFS; prespecified exploratory end point), and long-term safety. Final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with approximately 200 and ≥145 events in the overall and KIT exon 11 intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, respectively. As of March 15, 2023, there were 211 and 151 OS events in the overall ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Median OS was similar between second-line ripretinib and sunitinib in both populations (overall, 35.5 v 31.5 months; KIT exon 11, 35.5 v 32.8 months). Median second PFS (on third-line therapy) for the overall ITT population was similar between the ripretinib and sunitinib arms (7.7 v 7.4 months). Safety was consistent with the primary analysis. OS from this analysis was similar between arms, and second PFS suggests that receiving ripretinib did not adversely affect the PFS of third-line therapy.

TPS11588 Background: Imatinib is the worldwide standard for first-line therapy of advanced KIT-mutant GIST. However, secondary resistance mutations in the KIT ATP-binding domain (exons 13, 14), activation loop (exons 17, 18), or both develop and result in loss of imatinib-sensitivity. Bezuclastinib has a highly selective inhibition profile, leading to minimal off-target toxicities and allowing for combination with sunitinib. While no single tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) inhibits all KIT mutations, the combination of bezuclastinib + sunitinib targets commonly occurring primary (exons 9, 11) and secondary (exons 13, 14, 17, and 18) KIT mutations and may provide more durable responses. The early signs of clinical activity, tolerability, and safety observed with the combination thus far in Peak Part 1 (Somaiah et al. [presentation] CTOS 2023. Paper 62) are consistent with the completed Phase 1/2 study (PLX121-01). Methods: Peak (NCT05208047) is a global, randomized, open-label, multi-part Phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of bezuclastinib + sunitinib versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in adult pts who were intolerant to imatinib or whose tumors had imatinib-resistance. Current Peak study sites are located in North America (3 countries), South America (3 countries), Europe (12 countries), and Asia-Pacific (4 countries). The lead-in portion to test a new formulation of bezuclastinib, (Part 1) completed enrollment in April 2023. Based upon PK and safety, a dose of bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD was determined for Part 2 of the Peak study. Part 2 will enroll ~388 pts to be randomized (1:1) to bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD or sunitinib 37.5 mg QD alone. Key inclusion: >1 measurable lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) v1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2, adequate organ function, and prior imatinib therapy (no other prior therapy). Key exclusion: known PDGFR mutations or succinate dehydrogenase deficiency, clinically significant cardiac disease, and use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) confirmed by blinded independent central review per mRECIST v1.1. Additional efficacy (including overall survival and objective response rate) and safety endpoints will be evaluated and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected and assessed. Clinical trial information: NCT05208047 .

748 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with 3 or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS) from the phase 3 INTRIGUE study, the OS event rate was 41% in the all-patient (AP) intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and OS was similar between treatment arms in both the KIT exon 11 ITT and AP ITT populations. Here, we present the final OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE (NCT03673501) is an open-label, phase 3 study of adults with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib. Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint (the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously); final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with ≥200 and ≥145 events in the AP ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Data cutoff was March 15, 2023. Results: Of 453 pts, 444 received treatment; 40 remain on treatment (ripretinib, 28/223 [13%]; sunitinib, 12/221 [5%]). Treatment discontinuation was due to progressive disease (PD) by independent radiologic review (56%), PD by investigator (11%), clinical PD (6%), withdrawal of consent (6%), and adverse events (AEs; 5%). Fewer pts discontinued treatment due to AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (3% vs 6%). There were 211 OS events (47%) in the AP ITT population and 151 OS events (46%) in the KIT exon 11 ITT population. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the 2 ITT populations (Table). Fewer pts had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (43% vs 67%). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. Median treatment duration for ripretinib vs sunitinib was 7.9 vs 6.5 months. Conclusions: In the finalOS analysis from the INTRIGUE study, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent and more favorable for ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

11536 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis from INTRIGUE showed pts with second-line advanced GIST with primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations exclusively in KIT exons 17/18 derived clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib (Bauer S et al. J Clin Oncol. 2023; Abs 397784). Outcomes in pts with advanced GIST with ctDNA not detected (ctDNA-ND) had not been evaluated. Here, we present exploratory data from INTRIGUE in pts who had baseline ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA detected (ctDNA-D). Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled pts with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) and stratified by mutation according to local pathology report. Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA NGS-based assay. Pts with ctDNA-D had ≥1 somatic alteration in the 74 genes analyzed. Results: Pts with ctDNA-ND (82/362, 22.7%) were younger (median: 55.5 vs 62.0 years) and had smaller sums of longest diameters of target lesions (median [range]: 57.6 [11–459] vs 108.8 [15–418] mm) vs ctDNA-D (280/362, 77.3%). Progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in pts with ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA-D and numerically higher with ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with ctDNA-ND (Table). Pts with ctDNA-ND categorized as not having a KIT exon 9 mutation at randomization ( KIT exon 11, other KIT/PDGFRA, or KIT/PDGFRA wild-type; n = 71) had longer PFS with ripretinib vs sunitinib (median not estimable [NE] vs 11 months; HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.12). Objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were higher with ctDNA-ND vs ctDNA-D. Safety was similar between groups and consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: Pts with ctDNA-ND had better efficacy outcomes vs pts with ctDNA-D in both treatment arms; PFS was numerically higher with ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with ctDNA-ND. Although little is known about the biology driving ctDNA in GIST, these data suggest pts may have improved outcomes and different treatment sensitivity based on ctDNA detectability. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

11524 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the first interim analysis (IA) for overall survival (OS) in the INTRIGUE trial, data were immature (OS event rate, 22.3%), and median OS was not reached in either arm for the KIT exon 11 intent-to-treat (ITT) and all-patient (AP) ITT populations (S Bauer, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2022). Additionally, ripretinib had a more favorable safety profile with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) than sunitinib. Here, we present the second IA of OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is a global, open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint; data cutoff for the second IA was Sept 1, 2022. Results: Of 453 pts in the AP ITT population, 444 received treatment; 51 remain on treatment (33/223 [14.8%] with ripretinib and 18/221 [8.1%] with sunitinib). Common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progressive disease (PD) assessed by independent radiologic review (55.4%), PD assessed by investigator (10.6%), clinical PD (5.9%), withdrawal of consent (5.4%), and adverse event (AE; 4.5%); fewer pts discontinued due to an AE for ripretinib vs sunitinib (2.7% vs 6.3%). Following study treatment discontinuation, 58 pts (25.6%) from the sunitinib arm received ripretinib; 139 pts (61.5%) from the ripretinib arm later received sunitinib. There were 185 OS events (40.8%) in the AP ITT population; median duration of follow-up was 28.7 and 28.5 months for ripretinib and sunitinib, respectively. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the AP ITT (median 35.5 vs 30.9 months; HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.18; nominal P = 0.39) and KIT exon 11 ITT populations (median 34.0 vs 31.5 months; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.48; nominal P = 0.77). The updated safety profile was consistent with the primary analysis; fewer pts had grade 3/4 TEAEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (95 [42.6%] vs 149 [67.4%]). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. The median (range) treatment duration was 7.9 (0.2–38.2) months for ripretinib and 6.5 (0.2–38.3) months for sunitinib. Conclusions: In the second IA from INTRIGUE, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent with additional data, and results demonstrate favorable safety with ripretinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 .

397784 Background: Ripretinib, a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may provide insight into the efficacy of these agents in second-line advanced GIST. Here, we present exploratory baseline ctDNA results from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay. Only KIT mutations are reported here. Results: Of 453 pts in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 362 (80%) samples were analyzed. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%), with KIT mutations detected in 213/280 (76%). Common resistance mutations were in the KIT activation loop (AL; exons 17/18; 89/213, 42%) and ATP-binding pocket (ATP-BP; exons 13/14; 81/213, 38%). Efficacy in pts with detectable ctDNA in the KIT exon 11 and overall ITT populations was consistent with the primary analysis based on tumor data used for randomization. Pts with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 (−9/13/14) mutations had superior progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) with ripretinib vs sunitinib, whereas pts with exon 11 + 13/14 (−9/17/18) mutations had better PFS, ORR, and OS with sunitinib vs ripretinib (Table). Subgroup safety profiles were consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: While KIT ATP-BP mutations predicted clinical benefit from sunitinib vs ripretinib, pts harboring resistance mutations in the KIT AL derived meaningful clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib. This study demonstrates the value of ctDNA NGS-based sequencing of the complex landscape of KIT mutations to predict the clinical benefit of ripretinib or sunitinib as second-line therapy in pts with advanced GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

ImportanceApproval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has generated controversy. Exploratory analyses from individual trials indicate a lack of meaningful benefit from ICI in patients with absent or low PD-L1 expression; however, analysis of a single variable while ignoring others may not consider the instability inherent in exploratory analyses.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the predictive value of tissue-based PD-L1 status compared with that of other variables for ICI benefit in aGEC to assess its stability.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register (2000-2022).Study Selection, Data Extraction, and SynthesisRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included of adults with aGEC (adenocarcinoma [AC] or squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) randomized to anti−PD-1 or PD-L1−containing treatment vs standard of care (SOC). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 5752 records screened, 26 were assessed for eligibility; 17 trials were included in the analysis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified primary end point was overall survival. The mean hazard ratio (HR) for ICI vs SOC was calculated (random-effects model). Predictive values were quantified by calculating the ratio of mean HRs between 2 levels of each variable.ResultsIn all, 17 RCTs (9 first line, 8 after first line) at low risk of bias and 14 predictive variables were included, totaling 11 166 participants (5067 with SCC, 6099 with ACC; 77.6% were male and 22.4% were female; 59.5% of patients were younger than 65 years, 40.5% were 65 years or older). Among patients with SCCs, PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was the strongest predictor of ICI benefit (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68] for high TPS; and HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95] for low TPS), yielding a predictive value of 41.0% favoring high TPS (vs ≤16.0% for other variables). Among patients with AC, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) was the strongest predictor (after microsatellite instability high status) of ICI benefit (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.81] for high CPS; and HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07] for low CPS), yielding a predictive value of 29.4% favoring CPS-high (vs ≤12.9% for other variables). Head-to-head analyses of trials containing both levels of a variable and/or having similar design generally yielded consistent results.Conclusions and RelevanceTissue-based PD-L1 expression, more than any variable other than microsatellite instability-high, identified varying degrees of benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC among patients with aGEC in 17 RCTs.

PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.

11541 Background: Ripretinib (R) is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs. In the INTRIGUE study (NCT03673501) there was no significant difference in median PFS (primary endpoint) between R and sunitinib (S). We present exploratory analyses of tolerability data and selected pt reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to R 150 mg QD or S 50 mg QD 4 weeks on/2 weeks off.Dose modification was allowed for toxicity management. The event of interest was severe or life-threatening (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse event prior to progression (sTRAE). Days with at least one sTRAE were summed for all treated pts and for pts with ≥1 sTRAE event. PROs were assessed using questions from EORTC QLQ-C30 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at cycle 1 (C1) day 1 (D1), D15, and D29; D1 and D29 of all other cycles; as well as at end of treatment. Differences in PRO scores between baseline and later assessments were calculated across visits. Long-term data will be presented. Results: Pts receiving R (n = 223) versus (vs) S (n = 221) experienced fewer sTRAEs (24% vs 51%, respectively). For all treated pts, the mean time with sTRAEs was 11 days for R and 42 days for S (ratio 0.27, P<0.0001). For pts with ≥1 sTRAE, the mean number of days with a sTRAE was 48 days for R vs 81 days for S (ratio 0.59, p = 0.037). Completion of PRO assessments across the two treatment arms was similar (baseline: R [n = 199], S [n = 199]; C1 D29: R [n = 167], S [n = 177]). Significant differences in self-reported functioning and symptoms were observed by C1 D29. For PROs relating to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, pts in the R arm reported better outcomes than pts in the S arm. Pts in the R arm reported significantly (p<0.05) less decline compared to baseline in pt-reported role function as well as less increase, or improvement, in symptoms of fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and pain vs pts in the S arm. Moderate or severe effect of skin toxicity on pt life, as measured by DLQI in the R arm (n = 165) and in the S arm (n = 175), was observed in 6.6% of pts in the R arm vs 14.8% of pts in the S arm (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In the INTRIGUE study the total number of days with sTRAEs was fewer for pts receiving R vs S. Pts in the R arm also reported significantly less decline in pt-reported role function and less increase in symptoms related to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, vs pts in the S arm. Medical writing provided by Costello Medical. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.