Citations

Abstract Background: HER-2 is a transmembrane receptor that is overexpressed in multiple epithelial tumors. We have previously shown that a first generation HER-2 B-cell peptide vaccine targeting epitopes (628-647) and (316-339) was safe and relatively active. We recently developed a novel B-cell epitope specific vaccine (HER-Vaxx) consisting of epitopes derived from the extracellular domain of HER-2 that correspond to amino acid sequences 597-626 (pertuzumab binding site) and 266-296 (trastuzumab binding site). Methods: This first-in-human Phase 1b study evaluated the safety, optimal immunologic/biologic dose (OID/OBD) and immunogenicity of HER-Vaxx. Using a 3+3 dose escalation design, 3 patients (pts) were treated at each dose level (DL). If <2 pts experience dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), we required an additional 3 pts to be entered at that DL for OID/OBD assessment (defined as the dose level inducing a strong immunogenic response for 5 out of 6 patients). We also required that at least 6 patients at each DL to receive 3 inoculations of the combination vaccines at 3-week intervals and that < 2 of the 6 pts experience DLT before dose escalation. DLs were 1.0 mg (DL1), 1.5 mg (DL2), 2.0 mg (DL3) and 2.5 mg (DL4) of each peptide. Each dose contained 0.025 mg of n-MDP. Results: 49 patients with metastatic and/or recurrent solid tumors and a median of 4 prior lines of chemotherapy received at least one inoculation of HER-vaxx. Common related toxicities include injection site reactions (56% grade 1/2 and 5% grade 3/4). There were no DLTs. The OID/OBD was found to be DL 2 (1.5 mg of each peptide vaccine).A total of 28 patients received ≥ 3 vaccinations including 2 with a partial response and 14 with stable disease. Of those, 6 patients received at least one 6-month boost. The vaccine generated sustained humoral response eliciting HER-2 specific antibodies in the majority of responding patients. Conclusion: We demonstrate that HER-Vaxx is well tolerated and able to generate sustained anti-HER-2 immune response. Given the promise, continuous development of the vaccine is ongoing at the suggested OBD in HER-2 overexpressing tumors. Citation Format: Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Lai Wei, Robert Wesolowski, Daniel Ahn, Christina Wu, Maryam Lustberg, Amir Mortazavi, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy, Jay Overholser, Pravin Kaumaya. A Phase Ib of a combination of two chimeric (Trastuzumab-like and Pertuzumab-like) HER-2 B cell peptide vaccine emulsified in ISA 720 and nor-MDP adjuvant in patients with advanced solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT017.

Abstract Background: Therapeutic blockade of the signaling axis between PD-1 and its ligand programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) with monoclonal antibodies has shown remarkable clinical success in the treatment of cancer and demonstrated impressive activity across a broad set of cancer subtypes, even at advanced and metastatic stages of disease. Contrary to treatment with monoclonal antibodies, chimeric B-cell cancer vaccines have the advantage of producing a specific immune response that can potentially induce memory B & T cell responses, while reducing immune evasion and suppression. Methods: We have translated two HER-2 combination peptide vaccines (B-Vaxx) to the clinic in a Phase 1/2b trial to safely deliver curative and transformative cancer immunotherapies to advanced cancer patients. We have created and established the development of a novel B-cell peptide vaccine (Key-Vaxx) with high immunogenicity that binds to human PD-1 and produces tumor inhibition in vivo in an animal model of colon cancer. Here, we describe the transferable CT-26-HER2 neu tumor model in Balb/c was used to test for synergistic effects of anti-PD1 immunization therapy in combination with anti-HER2 immunization therapy to determine whether this combination could increase immunogenicity, enhance anti-tumor responses and provide synergistic benefit in inhibiting tumor growth. Results: We show robust HER-2 and PD-1 antibody responses in all vaccinated mice indicating that the combined vaccination is effective in reducing tumor growth in a Balb/c syngeneic model of colon carcinoma versus either the PD-1 vaccine or more importantly the positive control gold standard that is anti-mouse PD-1 monoclonal antibody. The vaccine combination was found to be safe and did not appear to exhibit toxicity or autoimmunity. Conclusion: Development of a novel PD-1 vaccine in combination with two Chimeric HER-2 peptide vaccine provides synergistic inhibition of tumor growth with no evidence of toxicity or autoimmunity. A clinical trial with the combination is under planning. Citation Format: Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Jay Overholser, Yuhong Yang, Manuel Penichet, Pravin Kaumaya. Development of a novel PD-1 vaccine and in combination with two Chimeric HER-2 peptide vaccine provides synergistic inhibition of tumor growth in a syngeneic Balb/c model challenged with CT26/HER-2 carcinoma cell line [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1453.

NAPOLI-1 (NCT01494506) was a phase III study of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. This post hoc analysis of NAPOLI-1 aimed to develop a predictive nomogram for overall survival (OS) at 6 and 12 months. Analyses were derived from all patients in NAPOLI-1 randomized to receive nal-IRI+5-FU/LV, nal-IRI monotherapy, or 5-FU/LV combination therapy. OS was associated with baseline factors using univariate and multivariable Cox analyses. A predictive nomogram was derived and validated using a concordance index and calibration plots. The univariate analyses identified 21 independent factors that contributed to OS, with eight factors significantly associated with OS. The Karnofsky Performance Score contributed the largest number of points (100), followed by presence of liver metastasis (98) and randomization to nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (96). The other baseline factors showing effects were albumin (g/dL), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (U/mL), disease stage at diagnosis, and body mass index (kg/m2). The nomogram was used to predict the 6- and 12-month survival probability. The mean absolute errors between the observed and predicted probabilities for OS at 3, 6, and 9 months were 0.07, 0.08, and 0.07, respectively. This nomogram, based on NAPOLI-1, provides additional insight to aid decision-making for patients with mPDAC after previous gemcitabine-based therapy.

Abstract Background Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. Materials and Methods We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Results Six trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26–0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40–0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48–0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57–0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23–0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21–0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160. Conclusion Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. Implications for Practice Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.

e18367 Background: Regorafenib at 160mg daily 21/28 days is a standard therapeutic option in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the cost of treatment and management of its side-effects is more than the cost-effectiveness threshold for oncology drugs in US and many countries around the world. ReDOS (Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study), is a randomized phase II trial in refractory mCRC and established that weekly dose escalation of regorafenib over the conventional dosing is superior in the composite endpoint of safety and efficacy. We explored the impact of the new dosing strategy on CE of regorafenib. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib (standard), regorafenib (ReDOS), and best supportive care (BSC). Model inputs for clinical efficacy and safety were from the CORRECT trial for regorafenib (standard) and BSC, and the ReDOS study for regorafenib (ReDOS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The model used a US payer’s perspective with 5% annual discount rate, and all costs were measured in 2018 US dollars. Results: Regorafenib (ReDOS) dominated regorafenib (standard), producing higher quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost. When compared to BSC, regorafenib (ReDOS) resulted in the ICER of $112,705 while regorafenib (standard) resulted in the ICER of $384,687. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters under univariate sensitivity analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, regorafenib (ReDOS) was more cost-effective than regorafenib (standard) and BSC in 70% of repetition at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $120,000 per QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) and 98% at a WTP threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes demonstrated in the ReDOS study, the dose optimization strategy of regorafenib results in favorable cost-effectiveness under a typical US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.

4087 Background: The management of CCA has evolved as targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPI) therapies have emerged. We used comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to characterize the genomic alterations (GA) that have potential to personalize therapy for CCA. Methods: 3634 CCA underwent hybrid capture based CGP on 0.8-1.1 Mb of the coding genome to identify GAs in exons and select introns in up to 404 genes, TMB, microsatellite status (MSI) and % monoallelic genome (gLOH). PD-L1 expression was determined by IHC (Dako 22C3). Results: 52% of CCA were female with a median age of 62 years (range 16 - > 89). The most common biopsy sites were liver (74%), lymph node (4%), bile duct (3.3%), and lung (2%). MSI-high was rare (1%), 118 and 47 cases had TMB > 10 and > 20 mut/mb respectively. Of the latter, 51% (24/47) were MSI-H. PD-L1 amplification (AMP) was present in 0.27%. Of 490 CCA tested, 43 (9%) were positive for PD-L1 expression. 11% of cases had gLOH > 16%, only 2 cases had both TMB > 20 and gLOH > 16%. GA were most common in TP53 (31%), CDKN2A (29%), KRAS (20%) and ARID1A (17%). Potentially targetable GAs included FGFR2 (11%, 85% fusions), BRAF (5%, 50% V600E), ERBB2 (5%, 72% AMP), MET (2%, 90% AMP), EGFR (0.52%) and rarer ( < 0.5%) FGFR3, RET, FGFR1, ALK, and ROS1 fusions. The FGFR2 fusions had 128 unique 3’ partner genes including BICC1 (26%), CCDC6 (3.2%), AHCYL1 (2.6%) and KIAA1217 (2.6%). FGFR2 fusions occurred in a mutually exclusive fashion from high gLOH (p < 0.002), but not high TMB. GA in IDH1 (15%) were mutually exclusive of FGFR2 fusions (p < 1e-13), but co-occurred with PBRM1 GA (23%, p < 1e-21), ARID1A (26% p < 1e-10). IDH1 GA had gLOH similar to the overall CCA population but were enriched for low TMB (p < 1e-3). Conclusions: Nearly 20% of CCA cases harbor targetable kinase GA, half of which were FGFR2 fusions. Independently, an additional 10% (gLOH) and 1% (high TMB, MSI and/or PD-L1 AMP) may benefit from PARP inhibitors and ICPI respectively. Independently, co-mutation of IDH1 and PBRM1/ARID1A defines a class of CCA that warrants further investigation for sensitivity to PARP inhibitors and may serve as a paradigm for other tumors (ie. gliomas) with a similar co-occurrence landscape.

e15029 Background: ICIs induce durable responses in dMMR CRC pts with overall response rates (ORR) of 30-50%. Even though the loss of expression of any MMR gene predicts ICIs response, it is unknown if ORRs are similar across all MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6). In this study, we analyzed the impact of each specific MMR gene loss and clinical characteristics of pts with best response to ICIs. Methods: Pts were eligible if they had confirmed dMMR CRC by IHC or microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) by PCR, and received ICIs between 01/01/2012 and 10/01/2018 at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Mayo Clinic or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Due to the pattern of frequent concurrent loss and functional dependency, the groups were categorized as MLH1 ±PMS2 vs. MSH2 ±MSH6. Cox proportional hazard model and Fisher’s exact test were used for the best response and the distribution of variable among the subgroups. Results: A total of 45 pts with dMMR CRC were identified. ORRs in MLH1 ±PMS2 and MSH2 ±MSH6 groups were 68% and 57.1% respectively without statistical difference (Table). Pts with age < 50 and 50-65 years old had better ORRs compared to pts with age >65 (58.3%, 85.7% and 42.1% respectively, P=0.036). Left-sided tumors had a trend toward higher ORRs compared to right-sided tumors (83.3% vs 51.5% P=0.086). Gender and BRAF status were not predictors of response. BRAF mutations were more common in right-sided tumors (29.6% vs 11.1% respectively) and in older patients. Conclusions: Our data suggest that MSI-H CRC pts aged 50-65 treated with ICIs, have improved ORR compared to pts > 65; pts with left-sided tumors have a trend toward improved ORR compared to those with right sided tumors. [Table: see text]

3524 Background: In mCRC, induction combination chemotherapy with targeted agents is considered the mainstay of treatment. This is typically followed by maintenance therapy vs. observation which had been examined in various trials. However, it remains unclear how best optimize maintenance strategy. We aim to evaluate comparative effectiveness to support best maintenance strategy. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating different maintenance strategies in previously untreated mCRC patients (pts): observation (obs), bevacizumab (bev), fluoropyrimidine (FP), FP+bev, or continuing induction regimen (CTX). Outcomes of interest included OS and PFS. The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White’s multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Agents were ranked using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Higher SUCRA scores correspond to greater efficacy. Results: Twelve trials at low risk of bias (5540 pts) were included. Network meta-analysis shows no benefit of CTX over obs in terms of PFS (HR 0.7; 95% CI 0.46-1.09) and OS (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.85-1.07). Compared to obs, maintenance therapy shows PFS benefit (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.43-0.77) with only a trend in OS (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-1.009). All maintenance strategies (FP, FP+bev, and bev) show significant improvement in PFS over obs. On SUCRA analysis, maintenance treatment (FP or FP+bev) has the highest likelihood of achieving better PFS (67.1% for FP and 99.8% for FP+bev) and OS (81.3% for FP and 73.2% for FP+bev). Conclusions: A maintenance strategy with at least a FP with or without the addition of bevacizumab is preferred. However, given the lack of a clear OS benefit, obs is an acceptable alternative. Optimal maintenance strategies should be dependent on factors including patient preferences, cost and toxicities. [Table: see text]

3101 Background: PDO is a promising translational tool that recapitulates the biology and drug response of donor cancer patient. However, an unmet need is to have PDO drug-screening data available for treatment decision making in clinic. We conducted a pilot study to determine whether PDO testing results will be available at critical treatment decision points in metastatic GI cancer patients. Methods: Metastatic GI cancer patients undergoing core-needle biopsy were eligible. Tumor cells isolated from ≤4 fresh biopsy tissues were grown in a Matrigel-based culture. PDO response to anti-cancer drugs were evaluated; and when available, correlated with donors’ clinical response to the same agent(s). PDO response was defined as IC50 < 0.1 × published Cmax of the drug clinically; stable as IC50 between 0.1 to 10 × Cmax. Radiographic response was per RECIST criteria. Results: We enrolled 27 refractory metastatic GI cancer patients (9 colorectal [CRC], 9 pancreas, and 9 biliary tract). Median lines of therapy were 4, 2, and 2; the success rate of organoid establishment was 89%, 44%, and 55%, respectively. The median time from biopsy to availability of drug-testing data was 64 days (range: 24 to 93 days). The median time from biopsy to next CT re-staging in donors was 64 days. The established PDOs shared histological and genomic features with donor clinical tissue. PDO and clinical responses to the same agent(s) were correlated in 2 CRC donors including (1) BRAFV600E-mutated PDO responded to vemurafenib + panitumumab, as did the donor who had partial response (PDO drug-testing data were available 55 days post-biopsy, 23 days prior to restaging scan); (2) KRAS/FGF-dual amplified PDO had stable disease status to regorafenib, as did the biopsied lesion from the donor (73 days post-biopsy, 5 days post-scan). Conclusions: We showed the feasibility of completing PDO drug sensitivity testing in metastatic GI cancer patients within a short time that could impact clinical decision making, particularly in CRC. PDO drug response showed correlation with clinical response. With further refinement, PDO can be a powerful tool for personalizing cancer therapy in metastatic GI cancer patients.

e14145 Background: Dysregulated translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) plays a role in the pathogenesis of solid tumors. Tomivosertib (T), a potent and highly selective small molecule inhibitor of MNK-1 and 2 blocks activation of eIF4E, a key regulator of mRNA translation, selectively regulating translation of a set of mRNAs. Preclinically, T triggers an anti-tumor immune response and enhances responses to checkpoint inhibitors. Avelumab is a fully human checkpoint inhibitor antibody directed against PD-L1. Methods: Part 1: In a 3+3 dose escalation patients (pts) with MSS CRC failing ≥2 prior therapies for metastatic disease received escalating doses of T, administered orally bid, with a fixed dose of 10 mg/kg avelumab q2w. Part 2: Pts were randomized (2:1) to combination therapy at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) from part 1 or T alone. Primary endpoint is objective response rate. All pts have a pretreatment and on treatment biopsy to evaluate target engagement, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and biomarkers of immune activation. Results: The RP2D for the combination was 200 mg bid T (single agent RP2D) with 10mg/kg avelumab q2w. At this dose level, 1 of 7 pts experienced a dose limiting toxicity being unable to complete the first 28 day cycle due to low grade (1/2) toxicities (nausea, fatigue, myalgia). In part 2, 30 pts were randomized to combination and 15 to monotherapy (25 male, 20 female: mean age 53.9 years, range 32-80 years). The most common adverse events, irrespective of causality were grade 1/2 gastrointestinal (including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, constipation and diarrhea) occurring in 77% (n = 23) of the combination and 67% (n = 10) of the monotherapy arm. Toxicities occurring more frequently in the combination arm included diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, myalgia/arthralgia, hypercalcemia and skin rash. Efficacy evaluation is pending from part 2. One pt with confirmed MSS status in part 1 treated at the RP2D achieved a confirmed Partial Response of greater than 8 months. Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest that the combination of T and avelumab has an acceptable safety profile with robust target engagement and demonstrated initial signs of activity. Updated efficacy and biological biopsy data will be presented at the conference. Clinical trial information: NCT03258398.