Citations

Abstract Background and Aims Although many studies revealed transcriptomic subtypes of HCC, concordance of the subtypes are not fully examined. We aim to examine a consensus of transcriptomic subtypes and correlate them with clinical outcomes. Approach and Results By integrating 16 previously established genomic signatures for HCC subtypes, we identified five clinically and molecularly distinct consensus subtypes. STM (STeM) is characterized by high stem cell features, vascular invasion, and poor prognosis. CIN (Chromosomal INstability) has moderate stem cell features, but high genomic instability and low immune activity. IMH (IMmune High) is characterized by high immune activity. BCM (Beta‐Catenin with high Male predominance) is characterized by prominent β‐catenin activation, low miRNA expression, hypomethylation, and high sensitivity to sorafenib. DLP (Differentiated and Low Proliferation) is differentiated with high hepatocyte nuclear factor 4A activity. We also developed and validated a robust predictor of consensus subtype with 100 genes and demonstrated that five subtypes were well conserved in patient‐derived xenograft models and cell lines. By analyzing serum proteomic data from the same patients, we further identified potential serum biomarkers that can stratify patients into subtypes. Conclusions Five HCC subtypes are correlated with genomic phenotypes and clinical outcomes and highly conserved in preclinical models, providing a framework for selecting the most appropriate models for preclinical studies.

Introduction Diagnostic processes in the emergency department (ED) involve multiple interactions among individuals who interface with information systems to access and record information. A better understanding of diagnostic processes is needed to mitigate errors. This paper describes a study protocol to map diagnostic processes in the ED as a foundation for developing future error mitigation strategies. Methods and analysis This study of an adult and a paediatric academic ED uses a prospective mixed methods case study design informed by an ED-specific diagnostic decision-making model (the modified ED-National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) model) and two cognitive theories (dual process theory and distributed cognition). Data sources include audio recordings of patient and care team interactions, electronic health record data, observer field notes and stakeholder interviews. Multiple qualitative analysis methods will be used to explore diagnostic processes in situ, including systems information flow, human–human and human–system interactions and contextual factors influencing cognition. The study has three parts. Part 1 involves prospective field observations of patients with undifferentiated symptoms at high risk for diagnostic error, where each patient is followed throughout the entire care delivery process. Part 2 involves observing individual care team providers over a 4-hour window to capture their diagnostic workflow, team coordination and communication across multiple patients. Part 3 uses interviews with key stakeholders to understand different perspectives on the diagnostic process, as well as perceived strengths and vulnerabilities, in order to enrich the ED-NASEM diagnostic model. Ethics and dissemination The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board approved this study, HUM00156261. This foundational work will help identify strengths and vulnerabilities in diagnostic processes. Further, it will inform the future development and testing of patient, provider and systems-level interventions for mitigating error and improving patient safety in these and other EDs. The work will be disseminated through journal publications and presentations at national and international meetings.

Abstract Background: In ER+ breast cancer (BC) models, Aurora A kinase (AURKA) activation is associated with expansion of CD44+/CD24low/- tumor initiating cells, down-regulation of ERα, and endocrine therapy resistance. Alisertib, a selective AURKA inhibitor, can restore ERα expression and endocrine sensitivity. Early phase studies evaluating alisertib alone or with fulvestrant for ER+ metastatic BC (MBC) demonstrated a favorable safety profile and promising antitumor activity [Haddad, Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018]. A phase II trial was conducted to determine if the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib improved objective response rate (ORR) and to assess clinical activity of alisertib alone or with fulvestrant in patients (pts) with prior fulvestrant and CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to Arm A, alisertib (50 mg PO BID Days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 q 28 days) or Arm B, alisertib with fulvestrant (500 mg IM Day 1, 15 for Cycle 1 and q 28 days thereafter). Eligibility included postmenopausal women, history of ER+ BC, prior fulvestrant, ≤ 2 prior chemotherapy lines, and measurable disease. Stratification factors included prior CDK4/6i, ER level (<10%, ≥10%), and primary/secondary endocrine resistance. Pts on Arm A could cross over to Arm B at progression. With 45 pts per arm, a one sided alpha=0.15 sequential binomial test would have an 85% chance of detecting an increase of ≥ 20% in the ORR of ArmB when the true ORR for Arm A is ≤ 20%. ORR was defined as a partial response (PR) + complete response (CR) by RECIST v.1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), 24-week clinical benefit rate (CBR = CR + PR + absence of progression for> 6 cycles), overall survival, duration of response (DoR), and safety. Blood and tumor specimens were collected at baseline, end of Cycle 1, and progression. Results: Pts enrolled July 2017 - November 2019 with 118 pre-registered, 96 registered, and 90 evaluable for the primary endpoint (Arm A: 45, Arm B: 45). Median age was 60 (range 33, 85). Nearly all received prior fulvestrant (n=89, 98.9%), aromatase inhibitor (n=83, 92.2%), and CDK4/6i (n=88, 97.8%). Most had secondary endocrine resistance (n=71, 78.9%). Pre-registration biopsy for ER was positive in 84 pts (86.7%) and negative in 6 pts (13.3%). More pts on Arm B had prior everolimus (A: 35.6%, B: 57.8%) and prior chemotherapy (A: 44.4%, B: 55.6%) for MBC. The ORR for alisertib and fulvestrant was 20.0% (90% CI: 10.9-32.3%), not significantly greater than alisertib alone 17.8% (90% CI: 9.2-29.8%). The 24-week CBR for Arm A was 42.2% (90% CI: 29.7-55.6%; n=19, including 7 PR) and Arm B was 31.1% (90% CI: 19.9-44.3%; n=14, including 8 PR). As of July 1, 2020, the median DoR was not reached in either arm. The median PFS time was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.9 - 9.3) for Arm A and 5.1 months (95%CI: 3.8 - 7.6) for Arm B. Seventeen pts (18.9%) remain on treatment (A: 12, B: 5) having received at least 11 cycles (range up to 32+ cycles). At least one dose reduction was required for pts (A: 19, B: 18), most commonly due to neutropenia. The most common severe (grade ≥3) adverse events included neutropenia (n=19, 42.2% in each arm), anemia (A: 15.6%, B: 8.8%), and fatigue (n=5, 11.1% Arm B only). Pts discontinued therapy due to disease progression equally in each arm (n=28, 62.2%), however more pts on Arm B (n=12) than Arm A (n=5) discontinued therapy due to toxicity, refusal or other reasons. Conclusion: While the addition of fulvestrant to alisertib did not improve ORR, promising clinical activity with alisertib monotherapy was observed overall and notably for pts with endocrine and CDK 4/6i-resistant MBC. More severe toxicities and treatment discontinuation were observed in pts receiving combination therapy. Correlative blood (CTC/cfDNA) and tissue (AURKA, ERα, and stemness biomarkers) studies are underway. Citation Format: Tufia Haddad, Antonino D'Assoro, Vera Suman, Jodi Carter, Brendan McMenomy, Erica Mayer, Meghan Karuturi, Aki Morikawa, Paul Marcom, Claudine Isaacs, Sun Young Oh, Amy Clark, Ingrid Mayer, Khandan Keyomarsi, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Ciara O'Sullivan, Prema Peethambaram, Timothy Hobday, Minetta Liu, James Ingle, Matthew Goetz. Randomized phaseII trial to evaluate alisertib alone or combined with fulvestrant for advanced, endocrine-resistant breast cancer (TBCRC 041) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-05.

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

294 Background: CX-4945 is a first-in-class casein kinase-2 (CK2) threonine kinase small molecule inhibitor. CK2 is pleiotropic and regulates key cellular processes such as proliferation and DNA damage repair, and has been shown to enhance efficacy of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) in cell line and xenograft CCA model systems. A Phase IB study of G+C with CX-4945 was conducted in advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients. Methods: A multi-center “3+3” dose escalation study was conducted in advanced CCA patients. Eligible patients had ECOG PS 0-1 and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Primary endpoints were maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses, overall toxicity evaluation and preliminary assessment of efficacy. Routine clinical dosing for G (1000 mg/m2) and C (25 mg/m2), both on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, was used. Dose escalation cohort were CX-4945 given twice daily on days 0,1,2 and 7,8,9 at 200 mg (DL1), 400mg (DL2), 600 mg (DL3), 800 mg (DL4) and 1000 (DL5) mg. NCI CTCAE v4.03 was used for toxicity assessment and RECIST v1.1 for efficacy evaluation. Results: Nineteen patients were enrolled (DL1:n = 3; DL2:n = 4 DL3:n = 3; DL4:n = 4; DL5:n = 5). No dose limiting toxicities were encountered. MTD and RP2D were ascertained to be DL5. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities at prevalence > 10% were encountered and the overall toxicity profile of the combination was reflective of standard G+C toxicity profile. At data cut-off, preliminary efficacy evaluation demonstrated disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 64% (PR:32%, SD:32% and CR:0%), along with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5 months (range 0-14 months). PK analyses showed no evidence of drug-drug interactions between G, C and CX-4945. Conclusions: RP2D for G+C with CX-4945 is DL5 (CX-4945 dosed on days 0,1,2 and 7,8,9 at 1000 mg PO bid with standard G and C dosing). Preliminary clinical efficacy and tolerability of the regimen support planned controlled, randomized Phase 2 evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.