Citations

TPS3619 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be fundamentally important for resistance to therapy, recurrence and metastasis. Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor in development identified by its ability to inhibit STAT3-driven gene transcription and spherogenesis of cancer stem cells (Li et al, PNAS 112(6):1839, 2015). Preclinically, napabucasin sensitizes cancer cells to chemotherapeutics, including 5-FU and irinotecan. Encouraging anticancer activity in advanced CRC was observed in a phase Ib/II (Bendell et al, GI ASCO 2017) study of 63 pts with disease control rate (DCR) of 93% (28/30) and overall response rate (ORR) of 33% (10/30) in FOLFIRI-naïve pts who have had an on-study RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753127) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI in pts with mCRC (n = 1250). Addition of bevacizumab (bev) is permissible per investigator choice. Pts must have failed 1 prior line of therapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine +/- bev for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO BID plus FOLFIRI bi-weekly, or FOLFIRI bi-weekly (bev may be added to FOLFIRI by investigator choice) and stratified by geography, time to progression on 1st-line therapy, RAS mutation status, bev as part of study treatment and primary tumor location. Treatment will continue until disease progression, or another discontinuation criterion. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (ITT) (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 12.54 to 15.68 months); secondary endpoints include OS in the biomarker positive (biomarker+) population, progression free survival (PFS) in the ITT population, PFS in biomarker+ population, ORR and DCR in the ITT and in biomarker+ populations, safety and quality of life. Also, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for PK and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02753127.

LBA1 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Objective: Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in severe vasodilatory shock is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Angiotensin II treatment may help these patients by potentially restoring renal function without decreasing intrarenal oxygenation. We analyzed the impact of angiotensin II on the outcomes of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Design: Post hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 trial. Setting: ICUs. Patients: Patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy at initiation of angiotensin II or placebo ( n = 45 and n = 60, respectively). Interventions: IV angiotensin II or placebo. Measurements and Main Results: Primary end point: survival through day 28; secondary outcomes included renal recovery through day 7 and increase in mean arterial pressure from baseline of ≥ 10 mm Hg or increase to ≥ 75 mm Hg at hour 3. Survival rates through day 28 were 53% (95% CI, 38%–67%) and 30% (95% CI, 19%–41%) in patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.012), respectively. By day 7, 38% (95% CI, 25%–54%) of angiotensin II patients discontinued RRT versus 15% (95% CI, 8%–27%) placebo ( p = 0.007). Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 53% (95% CI, 38%–68%) and 22% (95% CI, 12%–34%) of patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: In patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy at study drug initiation, 28-day survival and mean arterial pressure response were higher, and rate of renal replacement therapy liberation was greater in the angiotensin II group versus the placebo group. These findings suggest that patients with vasodilatory shock and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy may preferentially benefit from angiotensin II.

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a major cause of morbidity in cirrhosis. However, its severity assessment is often subjective, which needs to be studied systematically. The aim was to determine how accurately trainee and nontrainee practitioners grade and manage HE patients throughout its severity. We performed a survey study using standardized simulated patient videos at 4 US and 3 Canadian centers. Participants were trainees (gastroenterology/hepatology fellows) and nontrainees (faculty, nurse practitioners, physician assistants). We determined the accuracy of HE severity identification and management options between grades <2 or ≥2 HE and trainees/nontrainees. In total, 108 respondents (62 trainees, 46 nontrainees) were included. For patients with grades <2 versus ≥2 HE, a higher percentage of respondents were better at correctly diagnosing grades ≥2 compared with grades <2 (91% versus 64%; P < 0.001). Specialized cognitive testing was checked significantly more often in grades <2, whereas more aggressive investigation for precipitating factors was ordered in HE grades >2. Serum ammonia levels were ordered in almost a third of grade ≥2 patients. For trainees and nontrainees, HE grades were identified similarly between groups. Trainees were less likely to order serum ammonia and low‐protein diets, more likely to order rifaximin, and more likely to perform a more thorough workup for precipitating factors compared with nontrainee respondents. There was excellent concordance in the classification of grade ≥2 HE between nontrainees versus trainees, but lower grades showed discordance. Important differences were seen regarding blood ammonia, specialized testing, and nutritional management between trainees and nontrainees. These results have important implications at the patient level, interpreting multicenter clinical trials, and in the education of practitioners. Liver Transplantation 24 587–594 2018 AASLD.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma remains a highly heterogeneous malignancy that has eluded effective patient stratification to date. The extent to which such heterogeneity can be influenced by individual driver mutations remains to be evaluated. Here, we analyzed genomic (whole‐exome sequencing, targeted exome sequencing) and epigenomic data from 496 patients and used the three most recurrently mutated genes to stratify patients ( IDH , KRAS , TP53 , “undetermined”). Using this molecular dissection approach, each subgroup was determined to possess unique mutational signature preferences, comutation profiles, and enriched pathways. High‐throughput drug repositioning in seven patient‐matched cell lines, chosen to reflect the genetic alterations specific for each patient group, confirmed in silico predictions of subgroup‐specific vulnerabilities linked to enriched pathways. Intriguingly, patients lacking all three mutations (“undetermined”) harbored the most extensive structural alterations, while isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant tumors displayed the most extensive DNA methylome dysregulation, consistent with previous findings. Conclusion : Stratification of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients based on occurrence of mutations in three classifier genes ( IDH , KRAS , TP53 ) revealed unique oncogenic programs (mutational, structural, epimutational) that influence pharmacologic response in drug repositioning protocols; this genome dissection approach highlights the potential of individual mutations to induce extensive molecular heterogeneity and could facilitate advancement of therapeutic response in this dismal disease. (H epatology 2018).