Kang, Yoon‐Koo

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

379 Background: A single priming dose of T (anti-CTLA-4) added to D (anti-PD-L1) in the STRIDE (Single T Regular Interval D) regimen, formerly T300+D, showed encouraging clinical activity and limited toxicity in a phase 2 uHCC study (Study 22, NCT02519348), suggesting single exposure to T is sufficient to improve upon D activity. HIMALAYA (NCT03298451) evaluated the efficacy and safety of STRIDE or D vs sorafenib (S) in uHCC. Methods: HIMALAYA is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study, in which pts with uHCC and no prior systemic therapy were initially randomized to STRIDE (T 300 mg plus D 1500 mg [one dose] plus D 1500 mg every 4 weeks [Q4W]), D (1500 mg Q4W), S (400 mg twice daily), or T 75 mg Q4W (4 doses) plus D 1500 mg Q4W (T75+D). Recruitment to T75+D ceased after a planned analysis of Study 22 showed T75+D did not meaningfully differ from D. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) for STRIDE vs S. The secondary objective was OS noninferiority (NI) of D to S (NI margin: 1.08). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR; RECIST v.1.1), duration of response (DoR), and safety. Results: In total, 1171 pts were randomized to STRIDE (N=393), D (N=389), or S (N=389). At data cutoff (DCO), the primary objective was met: OS was significantly improved for STRIDE vs S (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 96% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–0.92; p=0.0035; Table). D met the objective of OS NI to S (HR, 0.86; 96% CI, 0.73–1.03). ORRs were higher for STRIDE (20.1%) and D (17.0%) than for S (5.1%). No new safety signals were identified. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 25.8% (STRIDE), 12.9% (D), and 36.9% (S) of pts. Grade 3/4 hepatic TRAEs occurred in 5.9% (STRIDE), 5.2% (D), and 4.5% (S) of pts. No TRAE of esophageal varices hemorrhage occurred. Rates of TRAEs leading to discontinuation were 8.2% (STRIDE), 4.1% (D), and 11.0% (S). Conclusions: HIMALAYA was the first large phase 3 trial with a diverse, representative uHCC population and extensive long-term follow-up to assess both mono- and combination immunotherapy. D was noninferior to S with favorable safety. The combination of a single priming dose of T plus D in STRIDE displayed superior efficacy and a favorable benefit-risk profile vs S. STRIDE is a proposed, novel, first-line standard of care systemic therapy for uHCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03298451. [Table: see text]

344 Background: ICI with anti-PD-1 therapy was approved by the US FDA as 1st/2nd-line treatment of advanced GEC regardless of PD-L1 status. It is argued that patients (pts) with PD-L1-low GEC do not benefit from ICI. To avoid spurious exclusion of pts, we systematically reviewed phase 3 trials to assess the magnitude and consistency of PD-L1 to predict benefit from ICI. We also examined other potential predictive factors to understand their magnitude and consistency in comparison with PD-L1 status. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register were searched for all randomized clinical trials (RCT; 2000-2021) in advanced GEC comparing ICI, alone or with chemotherapy, vs standard of care (SOC). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were done independently by two reviewers per PRISMA guidelines. The mean HR for ICI vs SOC was calculated by random effects model. The predictive value of a factor was quantified using relative magnitude and consistency (table). Results: 14 RCTs at low risk of bias were included (N = 9,210 pts; KN62, CM649, CM648, ESCORT1st, KN590, ATT4, JAV100, KN181, KN61, ATT3, ESCORT, RATIONALE302, JAV300, ATT2). 6 trials were 1st-line, 8 were after 1st-line. Treatment comparisons were ICI + chemo vs chemo (6 trials), ICI vs chemo (9 trials), and ICI vs placebo (1 trial). ICI was always anti-PD-1/-L1 (1 trial also had anti-CTLA-4). Table shows primary results. To enable head to head comparisons, subgroup analyses of trials containing both levels of a factor or having similar design were done and generally yielded consistent results. Conclusions: PD-L1 CPS is the strongest predictive biomarker, after MSI, for OS benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC. Additional research on gender is warranted.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

TPS264 Background: Trastuzumab (T), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting HER2, is standard of care 1st-line therapy for advanced HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. M, an investigational Fc-engineered anti-HER2 mAb, targets the same HER2 epitope but with higher affinity for both 158V (high binding) and 158F (low binding) alleles of activating Fc receptor CD16A. Data suggest margetuximab coordinately enhances both innate and adaptive immunity, including antigen-specific T-cell responses to HER2. PD-1 and LAG-3 are T-cell checkpoint molecules that suppress T-cell function. Retifanlimab (also known as MGA012 or INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized, IgG4 Κ anti-PD-1 mAb blocking binding of PD-L1 or PD-L2 to PD-1. Tebotelimab (also known as MGD013) is a humanized Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent DART® protein that binds to both PD-1 and LAG-3, inhibiting their respective ligand binding. We previously reported that a CTX-free regimen of M+PD-1 blockade was well tolerated in GEJ/GC patients, and induced a 44% objective response rate (ORR) in a double-positive biomarker population. This was 2- to 3-fold greater than in historical controls with checkpoint inhibitors alone. This registration-directed trial assesses efficacy, safety, and tolerability of M+checkpoint inhibition ± CTX in metastatic/locally advanced, treatment-naïve, HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. Methods: This is a 2-cohort, adaptive open-label phase 2/3 study (NCT04082364). The first single arm, CTX-free cohort A, evaluates M+retifanlimab in HER2+ (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+) and PD-L1+ (excluding microsatellite instability high) patients. After 40 patients are evaluated for response/safety, additional patients will be enrolled if the threshold for continuation is met. In randomized cohort B, HER2+ (IHC 3+ or 2+/fluorescent in situ hybridization+) patients are enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. Part 1 of cohort B randomizes patients to 1 of 4 arms (50 patients each): control arm (T+CTX) or 1 of 3 experimental arms (M+CTX; M+CTX+retifanlimab; M+CTX+tebotelimab). CTX is investigator’s choice XELOX or mFOLFOX-6. Part 2 of cohort B consists of control (T+CTX) vs 1 experimental arm (M+CTX) + either retifanlimab or tebotelimab, depending on results from part 1; with 250 patients each. The primary efficacy endpoint for cohort A (both parts) is ORR per RECIST 1.1; for cohort B part 2 it is overall survival. Clinical trial information: NCT04082364.

4508 Background: The combination of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) T (anti–CTLA-4) and D (anti–PD-L1) showed tolerability with a promising objective response rate (ORR) in the initial cohort of this study (NCT02519348). Subsequent evaluation of pts with solid tumors treated with increasing doses of T suggested priming with a higher dose of T may induce a stronger immune response and enhance anti-tumor activity. Thus, the randomized expansion cohorts comprised 4 arms evaluating T and D as monotherapies and 2 T+D regimens, including a novel T+D regimen featuring a single, priming dose of T. Methods: ICI-naïve pts with aHCC who progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomized to one of two T+D combinations: T300+D (T 300 mg + D 1500 mg 1 dose followed by D Q4 weekly [Q4W]) or T75+D (T 75 mg Q4W + D 1500 mg Q4W [4 doses] followed by D Q4W); or single agent D (1500 mg Q4W) or T (750 mg Q4W). Safety was the primary endpoint. ORR by blinded, independent central review using RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DoR), circulating lymphocytes, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (09/02/2019), 332 pts were enrolled. Median follow-ups were 11.7 months (mo) for T300+D, 14.6 (T75+D), 8.9 (D), and 15.8 (T). Treatment-related adverse event (trAE) incidences are shown (Table); no deaths were attributed to trAEs for T300+D or T. The T300+D arm had the highest confirmed ORR (DoR not reached [NR]) and longest OS (Table). A unique proliferative T cell profile was identified for pts in the T300+D arm, suggesting additive biologic activity for the combination, and showed pts with an OR exhibited high cytotoxic (CD8) counts. Conclusions: The encouraging clinical activity and tolerable safety profile suggest T300+D provides the best benefit-risk profile as opposed to T75+D or monotherapies. The unique pharmacodynamic activity of the T300+D regimen further supports its use in aHCC. T300+D and D are being evaluated in the ongoing phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in first-line HCC vs sorafenib. Funding: AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348 . [Table: see text]

TPS468 Background: Trastuzumab (T), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting HER2, is standard of care palliative 1st-line therapy for advanced HER2+ GEJ/GC patients (pts). M, an Fc-engineered anti-HER2 mAb, targets the same HER2 epitope but with higher affinity for both 158V (high binding) and 158F (low binding) alleles of activating Fc receptor CD16A. M coordinately enhanced both innate and adaptive immunity, including antigen-specific T-cell responses to HER2. PD-1 and LAG-3 are T-cell checkpoint molecules that suppress T-cell function. MGA012 (INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized, IgG4 κ anti-PD-1 mAb blocking binding of PD-L1 or PD-L2 to PD-1. MGD013 is a humanized Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent protein that binds to both PD-1 and LAG-3, inhibiting their respective ligand binding. We previously reported that a CTX-free regimen of M+PD-1 blockade was well tolerated in GEJ/GC pts, and induced a 30% objective response rate (ORR). This was 2- to 3-fold greater than in historical controls with checkpoint inhibitors alone. This registration-directed trial assesses efficacy, safety, and tolerability of M+checkpoint inhibition ± CTX in metastatic/locally advanced, treatment-naïve, HER2+ GEJ/GC pts. Methods: This is a 2-cohort, adaptive open-label phase 2/3 study. The first single arm, CTX-free cohort A evaluates M+MGA012 in HER2+ (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+) and PD-L1+ (excluding microsatellite instability high) pts. After 40 pts are evaluated for response/safety, 60 more pts will be enrolled if the threshold for continuation is met. In randomized cohort B, HER2+ (IHC 3+ or 2+/fluorescent in situ hybridization+) pts are enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. Part 1 randomizes pts to 1 of 4 arms (50 pts each): control arm (T+CTX) or 1 experimental arm (M+CTX; M+CTX+MGA012; M+CTX+MGD013). CTX is investigator’s choice XELOX or mFOLFOX-6. Part 2 consists of control (T+CTX) vs 1 experimental arm (M+CTX) + either MGA012 or MGD013, depending on results from part 1; with 250 pts each. The primary efficacy endpoint for cohort A (both parts) is ORR per RECIST 1.1; for cohort B part 2 it is overall survival.