Citations

Abstract Background Antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), such as depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M), is a promising therapeutic strategy for glioblastoma (GBM) but recent clinical trials did not demonstrate a survival benefit. Understanding the mechanisms of failure for this promising strategy is critically important. Methods PDX models were employed to study efficacy of systemic vs intracranial delivery of Depatux-M. Immunofluorescence and MALDI-MSI were performed to detect drug levels in the brain. EGFR levels and compensatory pathways were studied using quantitative flow cytometry, Western blots, RNAseq, FISH, and phosphoproteomics. Results Systemic delivery of Depatux-M was highly effective in nine of 10 EGFR-amplified heterotopic PDXs with survival extending beyond one year in eight PDXs. Acquired resistance in two PDXs (GBM12 and GBM46) was driven by suppression of EGFR expression or emergence of a novel short-variant of EGFR lacking the epitope for the Depatux-M antibody. In contrast to the profound benefit observed in heterotopic tumors, only two of seven intrinsically sensitive PDXs were responsive to Depatux-M as intracranial tumors. Poor efficacy in orthotopic PDXs was associated with limited and heterogeneous distribution of Depatux-M into tumor tissues, and artificial disruption of the BBB or bypass of the BBB by direct intracranial injection of Depatux-M into orthotopic tumors markedly enhanced the efficacy of drug treatment. Conclusions Despite profound intrinsic sensitivity to Depatux-M, limited drug delivery into brain tumor may have been a key contributor to lack of efficacy in recently failed clinical trials.

377 Background: Neoadjuvant therapy has been associated with a median overall survival (OS) of 18 – 23 months (mo) in patients (pts) with BR pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). To establish reference regimens to which novel treatments can be compared in future studies, we evaluated neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX with or without RT in BR PDAC in a phase II National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trial. Methods: Pts with ECOG PS 0-1 and BR PDAC confirmed by central real-time radiographic review after pre-registration were randomized to either arm A: 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours), or arm B: 7 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX followed by stereotactic body RT (SBRT, 33-40 Gy in 5 fractions [fx]) or hypofractionated image guided RT (HIGRT, 25 Gy in 5 fx). Pts in either arm without disease progression underwent pancreatectomy, then 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours). The primary endpoint, 18-mo OS rate, of each arm was compared to a historical control of 50%. Planned interim analysis mandated closure of either arm in which <11 of first 30 accrued pts underwent R0 resection. Results: 155 pts pre-registered and 126 pts were enrolled to arm A (N=70; 54 randomized, 16 following closure of arm B) or arm B (N=56; closed at interim analysis, all pts randomized prior to closure). Median age (A: 63y, B: 67y), median CA 19-9 level (A: 171 U/ml, B: 248 U/ml) and ECOG PS (A: 51% PS 0, B: 57% PS 0) of registered pts were similar between arms (p > 0.05). Treatment detailed in Table. The 18-mo OS rate based on Kaplan Meier estimates was 67.9% (95%CI: 54.6 – 78.0) in arm A and 47.3% (95%CI: 33.7 – 59.7) in arm B. Among pts who underwent pancreatectomy, 18-mo OS rate was 93.1% (95%CI: 84.3 – 100) and 78.9% (95%CI: 62.6 – 99.6) in arm A and B, respectively. With median follow-up of 27 and 31 mo, median OS was 31.0 (95%CI: 22.2 – NE) mo and 17.1 (95%CI: 12.8 – 24.4) mo in arm A and B, respectively. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX was associated with favorable OS relative to historical data in pts with BL PDAC in this phase II NCTN trial. mFOLFIRINOX with hypofractionated RT did not improve OS compared to historical data. mFOLFIRINOX represents a reference regimen in this setting and a backbone on which to add novel agents. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT02839343. [Table: see text]

AbstractAlthough the development of effective combined chemoradiation regimens for esophageal cancers has resulted in statistically significant survival benefits, the majority of patients treated with curative intent develop locoregional and/or distant relapse. Further improvements in disease control and survival will require the development of individualized therapy based on the knowledge of host and tumor genomics and potentially harnessing the host immune system. Although there are a number of gene targets that are amplified and proteins that are overexpressed in esophageal cancers, attempts to target several of these have not proven successful in unselected patients. Herein, we review our current state of knowledge regarding the molecular pathways implicated in esophageal carcinoma, and the available agents for targeting these pathways that may rationally be combined with standard chemoradiation, with the hope that this commentary will guide future efforts of novel combinations of therapy.

Abstract Purpose To compare the dosimetric performances of intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans generated with two different beam angle configurations (the Right–Left oblique posterior beams and the Superior–Inferior oblique posterior beams) for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect. Methods and Materials Twenty patients’ IMPT plans were retrospectively selected, with 10 patients treated with the R‐L oblique posterior beams (Group R‐L) and the other 10 patients treated with the S‐I oblique posterior beams (Group S‐I). Patients in both groups were matched by their clinical target volumes (CTVs—high and low dose levels) and respiratory motion amplitudes. Dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) indices were used to assess plan quality. DVH bandwidth was calculated to evaluate plan robustness. Interplay effect was quantified using four‐dimensional (4D) dynamic dose calculation with random respiratory starting phase of each fraction. Normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart, liver, and lung was calculated, respectively, to estimate the clinical outcomes. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison between the two groups. Results Compared with plans in Group R‐L, plans in Group S‐I resulted in significantly lower liver D mean and lung V 30Gy[RBE] with slightly higher but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . Similar plan robustness was observed between the two groups. When interplay effect was considered, plans in Group S‐I performed statistically better for heart D mean and V 30Gy[RBE] , lung Dmean and V 5Gy[RBE] , and liver D mean , with slightly increased but clinically acceptable spinal cord D max . NTCP for liver was significantly better in Group S‐I. Conclusions IMPT plans in Group S‐I have better sparing of liver, heart, and lungs at the slight cost of spinal cord maximum dose protection, and are more interplay‐effect resilient compared to IMPT plans in Group R‐L. Our study supports the routine use of the S‐I oblique posterior beams for the treatments of distal esophageal carcinoma.

Purpose Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is sensitive to uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as interplay effect. In addition, respiratory motion may vary from cycle to cycle, and also from day to day. These uncertainties can severely degrade the original plan quality and potentially affect patient’s outcome. In this work, we developed a new tool to comprehensively consider the impact of all these uncertainties and provide plan robustness evaluation under them. Methods We developed a comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool that considered both uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as respiratory motion simultaneously. To mimic patients' respiratory motion, the time spent in each phase was randomly sampled based on patient‐specific breathing pattern parameters as acquired during the four‐dimensional (4D)‐computed tomography (CT) simulation. Spots were then assigned to one specific phase according to the temporal relationship between spot delivery sequence and patients’ respiratory motion. Dose in each phase was calculated by summing contributions from all the spots delivered in that phase. The final 4D dynamic dose was obtained by deforming all doses in each phase to the maximum exhalation phase. Three hundred (300) scenarios (10 different breathing patterns with 30 different setup and range uncertainty scenario combinations) were calculated for each plan. The dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) band method was used to assess plan robustness. Benchmarking the tool as an application’s example, we compared plan robustness under both three‐dimensional (3D) and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 nonrandomly selected patients with non‐small cell lung cancer. Results The developed comprehensive plan robustness tool had been successfully applied to compare the plan robustness between 3D and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 lung cancer patients. In the presence of interplay effect with uncertainties considered simultaneously, 4D robustly optimized plans provided significantly better CTV coverage (D 95% , P = 0.002), CTV homogeneity (D 5% ‐D 95% , P = 0.002) with less target hot spots (D 5% , P = 0.002), and target coverage robustness (CTV D 95% bandwidth, P = 0.004) compared to 3D robustly optimized plans. Superior dose sparing of normal lung (lung D mean , P = 0.020) favoring 4D plans and comparable normal tissue sparing including esophagus, heart, and spinal cord for both 3D and 4D plans were observed. The calculation time for all patients included in this study was 11.4 ± 2.6 min. Conclusion A comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool was successfully developed and benchmarked for plan robustness evaluation in the presence of interplay effect, setup and range uncertainties. The very high efficiency of this tool marks its clinical adaptation, highly practical and versatile nature, including possible real‐time intra‐fractional interplay effect evaluation as a potential application for future use.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) revealed that 25 regions in 24 genes are associated with adult diffuse glioma development. These regions were identified by performing GWAS of glioma overall and by pathology (GBM and nonGBM). The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System utilizes two somatic alterations to molecularly-classify adult diffuse glioma: IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion. We hypothesized that germline variants may increase susceptibility to, or interact with, these somatic alterations to accelerate the development of specific molecular subtypes of glioma. We further hypothesize that germline variants associated with IDH-mutated glioma might be associated with other IDH-mutated tumors, namely, cholangiocarcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and melanoma. Methods: We performed a GWAS by glioma molecular subtype - as defined by presence or absence of IDH somatic mutation and 1p/19q codeletion. A total of 1320 glioma cases and 1889 controls were used in the discovery set, and 799 glioma cases and 808 controls in the validation set. A meta-analysis was performed with a genome-wide p-value threshold of 5 × 10−8. GTEx data were used to perform an expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis. For germline variants that were significantly associated with IDH-mutated glioma, we evaluated pleiotropy with cholangiocarcinoma, AML and melanoma using TCGA and Mayo Biobank controls. Results: Variants in or near D2HGDH on chromosome 2 were genome-wide significant in IDH-mutated glioma (meta p-value = 2.82 × 10−10). TCGA reported that the D2HGDH region was commonly deleted in IDH-mutated gliomas that do not have 1p/19q codeletion. In TCGA data for IDH-mutated, non-codeleted glioma, we observed that the D2HGDH variant was inversely associated with tumor deletions of D2HGDH (odds ratio=0.57, p-value=0.015). The eQTL analyses demonstrated significant associations between D2HGDH germline variant and expression of D2HGDH (p=2.2 × 10−11). Further stratifying IDH-mutated glioma by 1p/19q codeletion status, one variant near FAM20C on chromosome 7 was genome-wide significant in gliomas that have IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion (meta p-value=9.56 × 10−9). Analyses are currently underway to evaluate pleiotropy of these IDH-mutated glioma germline variants with other IDH-mutated tumors including cholangiocarcinoma, AML and melanoma. Variants in or near GMEB2 on chromosome 20 were genome-wide significant in IDH wild-type glioma (meta p-value=2.60 × 10−10). The most significant variant in the GMEB2 region remained significant after adjustment for the known RTEL1 glioma risk variant nearby on chromosome 20 (p=0.029). Conclusions: We identified and validated novel germline variants in two genes that are associated with etiology of IDH-mutated and one gene that is associated with IDH wild-type adult diffuse glioma. Citation Format: Jeanette E. Eckel-Passow, Kristen L. Drucker, Thomas M. Kollmeyer, Matthew L. Kosel, Paul A. Decker, Annette M. Molinaro, Terri Rice, Corrine E. Praska, Lauren E. Clark, Alissa A. Caron, Alexej Abyzov, Anthony Batzler, Jun S. Song, Melike Pekmezci, Helen M. Hansen, Lucie S. McCoy, Paige M. Bracci, Joseph Wiemels, John K. Wiencke, Stephen Francis, Terence C. Burns, Caterina Giannini, Daniel H. Lachance, Margaret Wrensch, Robert B. Jenkins. Adult diffuse glioma GWAS by molecular subtype identifies variants in D2HGDH, FAM20C and GMEB2 [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 1193.

Abstract Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is effective for thoracic cancer and metastases; however, adverse effects are greater for central tumors. We evaluated factors affecting outcomes and toxicities after SABR for patients with primary lung and oligometastatic tumors. Patients and methods We retrospectively identified consecutive patients with centrally located lung tumors that were treated at our hospital from 2009-2016. The effects of patient, disease, and treatment-related parameters on local control (LC), overall survival (OS), and toxicity-free survival (TFS) were evaluated with multivariate analyses. Results Among 65 consecutive patients identified with 70 centrally located tumors, 20 tumors (28%) were reirradiated. Median (range) total dose for all tumors was 55 (30–60) Gy in 5 (3–10) fractions. Radiographic complete response was obtained in 43 lesions (61%). None of the analyzed factors were correlated with complete response. After a median follow-up of 57 (95% CI, 48–65) months, 10 tumors (14%) relapsed and 37 patients (57%) died; the actuarial 2- and 5-year OS rates were 52% and 28%, respectively. Median OS was significantly lower in patients with grade 3 or higher toxicity vs . lower toxicity (5 vs . 39 months; P < 0.001). Among 17 severe toxicities, 5 were grade 5, and 3 of them were reirradiated to the same field. Grade 3 to 5 TFS was lower with vs . without reirradiation (2-year TFS, 63% vs . 96%; P = 0.02). Conclusions Our study showed that modern SABR is effective for central lung tumors, and toxicities are acceptable. SABR for reirradiated central lung lesions and possibly for lesions abutting the tracheobronchial tree may result in higher risk of serious toxicities.

TPS9082 Background: Limited stage small cell lung cancer (LS-SCLC) is treated with standard of care platinum/etoposide (EP) and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) with curative intent, however the majority of patients are not cured and median overall survival is approximately 30 months. Addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy in extensive stage SCLC has improved progression free and overall survival in a non-curative setting leading to hope that addition of an immune checkpoint inhibitor to standard chemoradiotherapy could benefit LS-SCLC patients. LU005 is a randomized phase II/III trial of standard concurrent chemoradiation with or without atezolizumab for patients with LS-SCLC. Methods: Patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to standard EP chemotherapy with concurrent TRT (45 Gy BID or 66 Gy QD) with or without atezolizumab beginning concurrently with TRT, and continued every 3 weeks for up to 12 months. Eligible patients have LS-SCLC, PS 0-2, adequate organ function, no concerning comorbidities (including no active autoimmune disease) and are eligible for TRT. Patients are randomized prior to their second cycle of EP and thoracic radiation begins with the second overall cycle of chemotherapy (first cycle of study therapy) in both treatment arms. Prophylactic cranial radiation (PCI) is recommended for patients who respond to treatment. The phase II/III primary endpoints are progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) respectively. Secondary endpoints include objective response rates, local and distant disease control, and quality of life/patient reported outcomes assessment. Translational science component includes blood and tissue based immune related assays. This study activated in May 2019. 50 of 506 planned patients have been accrued as of 2/1/2020. Supported by grants U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG Oncology SDMC), U23CA180803 (IROC) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Genentech. *Authors Ross and Higgins are co-first authors and contributed equally to this work. Clinical trial information: NCT03811002.

9045 Background: A minority of the > 40,000 patients (pts) diagnosed with stage III NSCLC annually in the US are cured by CRT, more recently followed by adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). PD-L1 blockade with CRT may attenuate tumor-related immunosuppression via depletion of regulatory T cells and clonal expansion of effector T cells. Further, CRT may expose otherwise hidden antigens that present additional targets to the reconstituting immune system. Adjuvant ICI has improved survival. Whether ICI before CRT will further improve outcomes is unknown. Methods: This Alliance Foundation Trials (AFT) study evaluated safety and efficacy of atezolizumab before and after CRT. 4 cycles of atezolizumab 1200 mg IV q 21 days with restaging after cycles 2 and 4 were followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel (C/P) weekly with 60 Gy radiation and C/P consolidation followed by atezolizumab for 1 year of therapy. Primary endpoint is disease control rate (DCR) (complete response + partial response (PR) + stable disease (SD)) at 12 weeks (wks). Secondary endpoints include overall response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety and quality of life assessed by EORTC QLQ-30. Correlatives include PD-L1 and tumor mutation burden as predictive biomarkers. Tumor tissue was obtained at study entry; plasma and immune cells were isolated at multiple timepoints. Results: 64 pts with stage III NSCLC, performance status (PS) 0-1, no active autoimmune disease or significant organ dysfunction enrolled at 13 Alliance sites from 11/2017 to 7/2019. 62 pts received ≥ 1 dose of atezolizumab and are included in the primary analysis; median age 63.9 years (38.1-86.5), 51.6% female, 77.4% white, 61.3% former smokers, 56.5% PS 0. DCR at 12 wks was 77.4% (80% confidence interval 69.2-84.3%) (30.7% PR, 46.8% SD). 54 pts reported adverse events (AEs) during induction, mostly grade (gr) 1. There were 13 serious AEs, most unrelated to study treatment; 1 gr 3 anaphylactic reaction, 1 gr 3 colitis, and 1 gr 4 Guillain-Barre syndrome were attributable to atezolizumab. Baseline PD-L1 status was available for 49 pts. DCR was 82.4% for pts with PD-L1 negative and 90.9% for pts with PD-L1 positive tumors. Conclusions: Atezolizumab prior to and following CRT for stage III unresectable NSCLC was well tolerated with an encouraging 12-wk DCR. Analysis of secondary endpoints is ongoing. Further study of induction ICI therapy is warranted in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Support: AFT, Genentech; Clinical trial information: NCT03102242.