Citations

AbstractPurpose:To analytically and clinically validate microsatellite instability (MSI) detection using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing.Experimental Design:Pan-cancer MSI detection using Guardant360 was analytically validated according to established guidelines and clinically validated using 1,145 cfDNA samples for which tissue MSI status based on standard-of-care tissue testing was available. The landscape of cfDNA-based MSI across solid tumor types was investigated in a cohort of 28,459 clinical plasma samples. Clinical outcomes for 16 patients with cfDNA MSI-H gastric cancer treated with immunotherapy were evaluated.Results:cfDNA MSI evaluation was shown to have high specificity, precision, and sensitivity, with a limit of detection of 0.1% tumor content. In evaluable patients, cfDNA testing accurately detected 87% (71/82) of tissue MSI-H and 99.5% of tissue microsatellite stable (863/867) for an overall accuracy of 98.4% (934/949) and a positive predictive value of 95% (71/75). Concordance of cfDNA MSI with tissue PCR and next-generation sequencing was significantly higher than IHC. Prevalence of cfDNA MSI for major cancer types was consistent with those reported for tissue. Finally, robust clinical activity of immunotherapy treatment was seen in patients with advanced gastric cancer positive for MSI by cfDNA, with 63% (10/16) of patients achieving complete or partial remission with sustained clinical benefit.Conclusions:cfDNA-based MSI detection using Guardant360 is highly concordant with tissue-based testing, enabling highly accurate detection of MSI status concurrent with comprehensive genomic profiling and expanding access to immunotherapy for patients with advanced cancer for whom current testing practices are inadequate.See related commentary by Wang and Ajani, p. 6887

4083 Background: Thymidylate synthase (TS) over-expression is associated with 5-FU resistance. Pre-clinical studies demonstrate that vorinostat down-regulates intra-tumor TS in a dose-dependent fashion and augments 5-FU antitumor activity in xenograft models. We conducted a phase I clinical trial of an intermittent schedule of QD x 3 vorinostat in combination with a fixed dose of fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in patients (pts) with refractory solid tumors. Methods: Vorinostat was escalated in a standard 3 x 3 design in combination with a fixed dose of 5-FU and LV (simplified de Gramont regimen, sFULV2). Vorinostat was given QD x 3 on an every-2-week cycle. sFULV2 started on day 2 of vorinostat and consisted of leucovorin 400 mg/m2 i.v. over 2 hrs followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hrs. Results: 24 pts were enrolled: Male/Female: 11/13; ECOG 0/1: 6/18; Age: median 60 (range 42–77) yrs. 21 pts had colorectal cancer (CRC), 1 had gastric, 1 had esophageal, and 1 had anal cancer. Vorinostat dose-levels (DL) were 600 mg, 800 mg, 1000 mg, 1200 mg, 1400 mg, 1700 mg, and 2000 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), consisting of fatigue and hand-and-foot syndrome (H&F), were seen in 2 of 3 pts at the 2000 mg DL. None of the 6 pts at the 1700 mg DL had a DLT. Cycle 1 grade 3/4 toxicities consisted of thrombocytopenia, GI bleeding, fatigue, and H&F in 2 pts at the 2000 mg DL and a non-DLT G3 diarrhea (lasted <24 hrs) in 1 pt at the 1700 mg DL. Grade 2 nausea, fatigue, and anorexia were common; especially at DL ≥ 1700 mg. Antitumor activity was noted in pts with CRC despite prior refractoriness to 5-FU and failure to oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and cetuximab in all pts. 12/21 CRC pts had a confirmed SD (11) or PR (1). CRC pts had a median PFS of 4 months, a ≥ 6 months PFS rate of 43%, and a ≥ 8 months PFS rate of 33%. Conclusions: The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vorinostat in combination with sFULV2 is 1700 mg PO QD x 3 every 2 weeks. This combination is associated with considerable activity in pts with 5-FU-refractory CRC and warrants further investigation. An expanded MTD cohort is accruing to investigate 5-FU-vorinostat PK interaction and intra-tumor TS down-regulation. (This work was supported by a grant from CTEP and the ACS.) No significant financial relationships to disclose.

TPS873 Background: Initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves a 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy regimen, often in combination with anti-VEGF therapy. Upon disease progression, multiple studies have suggested a benefit for continued anti-VEGF therapy. There is increasing evidence that VEGF plays a role in cancer immune evasion. Targeting of inflammatory and immune checkpoints are attractive approaches to enhance the benefits of anti-VEGF therapy. The safety and activity of the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab with bevacizumab and with 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab have been recently reported; the combinations were well-tolerated and suggested clinical activity. Therefore, bevacizumab may increase the immunogenicity of colorectal cancers, and the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may be associated with clinically meaningful response rates and disease control. Furthermore, there may be candidate biomarkers that may identify those patients most likely to benefit from this combination. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase II study, 135 patients with mCRC will be randomized 2:1 to receive capecitabine/bevacizumab/atezolizumab or capecitabine/bevacizumab/placebo. Patients with prior PD-L1/PD-1 therapy are ineligible. Primary and secondary efficacy will be conducted using ITT analysis. Safety analyses will include all randomized patients who receive at least one dose of study treatment. The primary objective is PFS. The secondary objectives are ORR, OS, safety, and tolerability. The primary comparison will be superiority of the active treatment for the PFS endpoint, atezolizumab versus placebo testing at 1-sided α = 0.1 (log rank test). A PFS hazard ratio of 0.618 (active treatment versus placebo) is detectable with 86% power (1 sided α = 0.1). No interim analyses for futility or efficacy will be conducted. A subset analysis will be performed in the microsatellite-high patients looking at potential differences in PFS and OS. Trial is active and currently recruiting patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02873195.

627 Background: The SLI of the BEACON CRC phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (ENCO) + MEK inhibitor binimetinib (BINI) + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (CETUX) in pts with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC after 1 or 2 prior regimens. CEA and CA19-9 are tumor markers that are widely used to monitor the effectiveness of systemic therapies for mCRC; here we report on the association of CEA and CA19-9 changes while on treatment with clinical outcomes in pts from the SLI. Methods: Pts in the SLI received the triplet of ENCO 300 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + CETUX 400 mg/m2 (initial dose) then 250 mg/m2 QW in 28-day cycles. Pts were evaluated for safety, radiographic response, and change in tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Results: 30 pts were treated. The triplet was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with known BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibitor toxicities. The rate of severe skin toxicities (grade 3/4) was lower than generally observed for CETUX in mCRC. Of the 29 pts with a BRAFV600E mutation, the median time on study treatment was 5.6 mo (range, 1.0–9.3 mo), and 22 (76%) remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) was 41%, with 1 complete and 11 partial responses. In addition, 9 pts had prolonged stable disease (SD) up to 9.3 mo.CEA and CA19-9 were analyzed in 28 pts. CEA and CA19-9 decreased in 96% and 82% of these pts, respectively. Among 15 pts with treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, median/mean % decreases were 97%/79% for CEA and 92%/82% for CA19-9 in confirmed responders (n=6). Respective decreases in pts with prolonged SD (n=9) were similar: 84%/68% for CEA and 89%/68% for CA19-9. Updated safety, efficacy, and tumor marker results will be provided. Conclusions: ENCO + BINI + CETUX is generally well tolerated and has encouraging clinical activity in BRAFV 600E mCRC, with a confirmed ORR of 41%. In pts with study treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, the tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 decreased markedly and to the same degree in responders vs pts with prolonged SD, providing additional evidence of the meaningful clinical activity of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

TPS3624 Background: To improve survival for patients with mCRC, efforts are needed to identify and treat actionable genomic alterations. HER2 is amplified in approximately 5-8% of patients with KRAS and NRAS (RAS) wild-type mCRC. HER2 functions as an oncogenic driver and a mediator of EGFR antibody (Ab) resistance. Although prior studies have shown that anti-HER2 therapies are active in patients with HER2+ (HER2 IHC 3+ or HER2 amplified) mCRC, there are no HER2-directed therapies approved for these patients. Tucatinib is a potent and highly selective oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of HER2, currently being developed to treat metastatic breast cancer. In HER2+ CRC patient derived xenograft models, tucatinib has substantial anti-tumor activity. The addition of the anti-HER2 monoclonal Ab trastuzumab augments tumor growth inhibition. Methods: This single-arm phase II study will test the combination of tucatinib and trastuzumab in patients with HER2+ mCRC. Eligible patients include those with RAS wild-type mCRC who have been previously treated with 5-FU, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and an anti-VEGF monoclonal Ab. Patients must have HER2+ disease by IHC, FISH, or NGS. Prior treatment with anti-HER2 targeting therapy is excluded. The primary objective is to assess the objective response rate for the combination. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the efficacy (PFS, OS, clinical benefit rate), safety, and tolerability of the combination. Correlation between tissue and blood-based biomarkers and clinical outcomes will be explored. Blood will be collected at baseline and each restaging to determine if the combination eliminates HER2 amplified circulating tumor DNA. Subjects will receive tucatinib at a dose of 300mg by mouth daily, and trastuzumab will be administered every 3 weeks (8 mg/kg IV day 1 of cycle 1, then 6 mg/kg IV Q3 weeks). Response will be assessed every 3 cycles (9 weeks) per RECIST version 1.1. Both agents will be provided by the study. This study was initiated in February 2017. Recruitment is ongoing at 8 sites in the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) network. Clinical trial information: NCT03043313.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

Abstract Introduction. A KRAS mutation represented the first genomic biomarker to predict lack of benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded RAS testing has further refined the treatment approach, but understanding of genomic alterations underlying primary and acquired resistance is limited and further study is needed. Materials and Methods. We prospectively analyzed 4,422 clinical samples from patients with advanced CRC, using hybrid-capture based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) at the request of the individual treating physicians. Comparison with prior molecular testing results, when available, was performed to assess concordance. Results. We identified a RAS/RAF pathway mutation or amplification in 62% of cases, including samples harboring KRAS mutations outside of the codon 12/13 hotspot region in 6.4% of cases. Among cases with KRAS non-codon 12/13 alterations for which prior test results were available, 79 of 90 (88%) were not identified by focused testing. Of 1,644 RAS/RAF wild-type cases analyzed by CGP, 31% harbored a genomic alteration (GA) associated with resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in advanced CRC including mutations in PIK3CA, PTEN, EGFR, and ERBB2. We also identified other targetable GA, including novel kinase fusions, receptor tyrosine kinase amplification, activating point mutations, as well as microsatellite instability. Conclusion. Extended genomic profiling reliably detects alterations associated with lack of benefit to anti-EGFR therapy in advanced CRC, while simultaneously identifying alterations potentially important in guiding treatment. The use of CGP during the course of clinical care allows for the refined selection of appropriate targeted therapies and clinical trials, increasing the chance of clinical benefit and avoiding therapeutic futility.

BACKGROUNDIncreased susceptibility to 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5‐FU. Life‐threatening 5‐FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early‐onset severe or life‐threatening 5‐FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5‐FU metabolites.METHODSIn 2 open‐label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5‐FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5‐FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care.RESULTSA total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate–treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5‐FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%).CONCLUSIONSIn these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5‐FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345–356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

AbstractPurpose: We conducted a phase I clinical trial to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of daily or twice daily vorinostat × 3 days when combined with fixed doses of 5-fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin every 2 weeks.Experimental Design: Vorinostat doses were escalated in a standard 3 × 3 phase I design. FU/leucovorin was started on day 2 of vorinostat and consisted of leucovorin 400 mg/m2 i.v. over 2 hours followed by FU 400 mg/m2 i.v. bolus and 2,400 mg/m2 over 46 hours (sLV5FU2).Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled. Grade 3 fatigue, and hand and foot syndrome were the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) at the 2,000 mg vorinostat once-daily dose level. Grade 3 fatigue and mucositis were DLTs at the 800 mg vorinostat twice-daily dose level. None of six patients at the 1,700 mg once daily or six patients at the 600 mg twice daily dose levels had a DLT; those dose levels represent the MTD. Twenty-one of 38 patients with FU-refractory colorectal cancer had stable disease, and one had a partial response. Vorinostat maximum serum concentrations at the MTD exceeded concentrations associated with thymidylate synthase downregulation in vitro. No pharmacokinetic interactions were noted between vorinostat and FU.Conclusions: The MTD of vorinostat in combination with sLV5FU2 is 1,700 mg orally once daily × 3 or 600 mg orally twice daily × 3 days every 2 weeks. Clinical activity in refractory colorectal cancer supports further clinical development of this combination. Clin Cancer Res; 16(14); 3786–94. ©2010 AACR.