Citations

350 Background: BTCs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis. The standard therapy for aBTCs is the combination of GC. However, the median overall survival (mOS) is dismal at 11.7 months (mos) with a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 8 mos. Methods: A single arm, phase II study was conducted at MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients (pts) with aBTC were treated at initial dose level of G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 1000/25/125 (n = 30) which was reduced to lower doses due to grade 3/4 hematological (heme) toxicity (tox) - G/C/N: 800/25/100 (n = 30). Cycles were q21 days with restaging q3 cycles until progression. PFS was the primary endpoint (endpt). Using a Bayesian hypothesis test-based design, we assumed mPFS of 8 mos under the null hypothesis (H0), 10 mos under the alternative (H1). Secondary endpts included mOS, RECIST v1.1 response rate (RR), safety and CA19-9 response. Results: 60 pts were enrolled with 51 being response-evaluable having received more than 1 cycle of therapy (age: median 60 yrs [range 31-77], ECOG PS 0/1 (22/38), M/F (33/27), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/extrahepatic/gallbladder (38/9/13). Median follow-up was 14 mos and median number of treatment (trmt) cycles = 5.24. Pts at initial dose level had significant grade 3/4 heme tox: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia leading to trmt discontinuation in 6/30 pts. After dose reduction to G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 800/25/100, trmt was better tolerated with only 3 pts experiencing grade 4 heme tox. Non-heme tox were grade 3 in 19 pts: nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, thromboembolic event/CVA, hypokalemia, constipation, cystitis, LFT elevations. The mPFS = 11.4 mos (95% CI: 6.1, 16.1) and mOS = 19.2 (95%CI: 13.6, NA), 1-year survival rate 67.6%. 51 pts evaluable for response: disease control rate (PR+CR+SD)-84.3% and RR-39%. 12 unresectable cases were operated post trmt with 1 pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCN was well tolerated at adjusted doses and demonstrates encouraging efficacy having met its mPFS endpt and an impressive mOS higher than historical control. These results merit evaluating GC +/-N in a randomized controlled study. Clinical trial information: NCT02392637.

263 Background: DNA repair genomic alterations (GAs) have been identified in 12% of Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA), 26% of extrahepatic CCA (EHCCA) and 8% of gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients (pts) ( Cancer 2016;122:3838–3847). Recently, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has described more than 20 mutated DNA repair genes, many of which were not previously represented in prior reports. DNA repair GAs including MSI are associated with higher tumor mutational burden (TMB). Our study aim is to identify variations in the frequency of DNA repair GAs in IHCCA, EHCCA, and GBC. Methods: Hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing of 422 fixed formalin paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks of BTC including; 270 IHCCA, 60 EHCCA, and 92 GBC was performed. We included 20 DNA repair genes and classified them as "direct" DNA repair genes ( ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, FANCA, FANCD2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, POLD1, POLE, PRKDC, RAD50, SLX4) and "caretaker" genes that induce genomic instability ( BAP1, CDK12, MLL3, TP53, BLM). We calculated TMB on 1.1 Mb of sequenced DNA in 205 tissue specimens [138 IHCCA, 23 EHCCA, and 44 GBC] and classified into three groups; high (TMB-H; ≥ 20 mut/Mb), intermediate (TMB-I; 6-19mut/Mb) and low (TMB-L; < 6mut/Mb). Results: A distinct pattern of DNA repair GAs in each tumor type was detected. (Table 1). DNA repair GAs were more commonly noted in both EHCCA and GB (63%) as compared with IHCAA (45.2%) (p= .002). Direct DNA repair GAs were highest within EHCCA (25%), while indirect DNA GAs were predominant in GBC (59.8%) (p= 0.04 and 0.001, respectively). The frequency of TMB-H and TMB-I differed significantly between BTC subtypes. Pts with EHCCA and GBC had significantly higher TMB-H and TMB-I versus IHCCA. Conclusions: The frequency of DNA repair GA’s is higher in EHCCA and GBC as compared with IHCCA. These results may have implications for clinical trials with DNA repair inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockers. [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: This first-in-human, open-label phase I study evaluated AMG 337, an oral, highly selective small-molecule inhibitor of MET in advanced solid tumors. Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled into dose-escalation cohorts received AMG 337 up to 400 mg once daily or up to 250 mg twice daily, following a modified 3+3+3 design. Dose expansion was conducted in MET-amplified patients at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Primary endpoints included assessment of adverse events (AEs), establishment of the MTD, and pharmacokinetics; clinical response was a secondary endpoint. Results: The safety analysis set included 111 patients who received ≥1 dose of AMG 337. Thirteen patients had ≥1 AE qualifying as dose-limiting toxicity. The MTD was determined to be 300 mg once daily; the MTD for twice-daily dosing was not reached. Most frequent treatment-related AEs were headache (63%) and nausea (31%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs occurred in 23 patients (21%), most commonly headache (n = 6) and fatigue (n = 5). Maximum plasma concentration occurred at 3.0 hours following 300-mg once-daily dosing, indicating AMG 337 absorption soon after treatment. Objective response rate was 9.9% (11/111; 95% CI, 5.1%–17.0%) in all patients and 29.6% (8/27; 95% CI, 13.8%–50.2%) in MET-amplified patients; median (range) duration of response was 202 (51–1,430+) days in all patients and 197 (64–1,430+) days in MET-amplified patients. Conclusions: Oral AMG 337 was tolerated with manageable toxicities, with an MTD and recommended phase II dose of 300 mg once daily. The promising response rate observed in patients with heavily pretreated MET-amplified tumors warrants further investigation. See related commentary by Ma, p. 2375

e15779 Background: There is paucity of data regarding the best available second-line treatment following progression on gemcitabine-based regimens in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While a Nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan (MM398) is considered a standard of care, there is conflicting data relating to the use of oxaliplatin in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan (IRI) formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) as a second-line in PDAC patients. Methods: We searched different databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy to FP combination therapy that includes either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in PDAC patients who progressed after first-line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared to FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results: Five studies (2 with FPIRI and 3 with FPOX) with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.74, CI 0.62 to 0.89) and a trend towards an improved OS compared to FP monotherapy (HR = 0.88, CI 0.65 to 1.19). When comparing FPIRI to FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (HR = 0.64, CI 0.47 to 0.87) and OS (HR = 0.70, CI 0.55 to 0.89) in patients treated with the combination. Conversely, FPOX showed only a modest improvement in PFS (HR = 0.81, CI 0.67, 0.97) with no improvement in OS (HR = 1.03, CI 0.64 to 1.67). Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or various irinotecan formulations seem to improve PFS vs. single agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX seem to confer an OS advantage. Oxaliplatin with FP following gemcitabine failure may need further confirmatory studies to establish its role in refractory pancreas cancer.

TPS4136 Background: AGOC has a poor prognosis with no established standard treatment following failure of chemotherapy (CT). Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506)(REG) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor targeting kinases involved in angiogenesis (VEGFR1-3, TIE-2), tumor microenvironment (PDGFR-β, FGFR), and oncogenesis (RAF, RET and KIT). INTEGRATE (phase 2) demonstrated REG was highly effective in prolonging PFS across a range of AGOC pts, with a positive OS trend. Regional differences were found in magnitude of effect, but REG was effective in all regions/subgroups. The phase 3 INTEGRATE II will explore whether REG is effective in prolonging survival in patients overall, and in the Asian sub-population. Methods: International (Australia/New Zealand (NHMRC CTC); Canada (CCTG), Korea, Japan, Taiwan, USA (ACCRU)) randomised phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 2:1 (REG:placebo)(PBO) randomisation and stratification by: Location of tumour, Geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitors. Eligible patients (histologically confirmed AGOC), with evaluable metastatic or locally advanced disease refractory to, or relapsed following second line CT, will receive best supportive care plus 160mg REG or matched placebo orally on days 1-21 of each 28 day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events. Primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints: PFS, response rate, quality of life, safety, identification of prognostic/predictive biomarkers for study endpoints, and REG PK across geographical regions. 350 patients (50% from Asia) randomized in a 2:1 ratio will provide 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 0.67 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 assuming PBO median survival is 4.5 mos. The sample size accommodates 2 interim analyses undertaken at 1/3 and 2/3 of required events. As of January 2017, 12 of 28 planned ANZ sites are open, with 4 patients enrolled. Regulatory approval has been received for 12 Canadian sites, and 12 Korean sites. Korean recruitment is expected to commence in February 2017. Regulatory submissions are pending in Taiwan, Japan, and the USA. Clinical trial information: NCT02773524.

e15168 Background: 2-8% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are in younger adults (YAs), patients (pts) less than age 50. However, current understanding of CRC in YAs is inadequate, especially that of sporadic onset. We conducted a study to describe the landscape of genomic alterations in YA CRC pts presenting to a large academic practice. Methods: Adult pts with CRC presenting to The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center oncology clinics were offered next generation sequencing (NGS) through a customized 22-gene Ion AmpliSeq Mutation Panel as part of clinical care. Commonly mutated areas of select genes (including AKT1, ALK, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2/4, FBXW7, FGFR1/2/3, KRAS/NRAS, MET, NOTCH1, PIK3CA, PTEN, TP53) were sequenced from tumor sections. Institutional review board approval was obtained to retrospectively analyze this NGS testing between 1/2013-3/2016. Results: 258 CRC pts underwent genomic profiling. 57 pts (22.1%) were YAs at diagnosis (range 22-49 years); 20 pts (7.8%) were 40 years old or younger. 31 YA pts (54.4%) had metastatic disease. Of the YAs with CRC, 18 pts (31.6%) were diagnosed with R-sided colon, 16 pts (28.1%) with L-sided colon, and 22 pts (38.6%) with rectal cancer. 110 genomic alterations were found in YA pts, with a mean of 1.9 mutations per tumor (range 0-6); 35 (31.8%) of these in 32 (56.1%) YA pts were actionable. Of these 110 alterations, 41.8% were in TP53, 28.2% in KRAS/NRAS, 10.0% in PIK3CA, 3.6% in BRAF, 3.6% in FBXW7, and 2.73% in PTEN. 6 YA pts (10.5%) had microsatellite instability (MSI-H). Only 1 pt had concomitant MSI-H and a BRAF mutation; 4 pts with BRAF mutations were microsatellite stable. Comparing our YA pts to a separate cohort of pts age > 50 who had testing done, no significant difference was seen in mutation incidence in KRAS/NRAS (p = 1.0), TP53 (p = 0.3), PIK3CA (p = 0.128), or BRAF (p = 1.0). Conclusions: Genomic profiling through a targeted NGS panel is feasible as part of routine clinical practice. There is disagreement in the literature on genetic mutations in YA compared to older age CRC pts. Knowledge of the genomic landscape in YAs with CRC will lead to improved understanding of the underlying biology of CRC in YAs as it differs from CRC in older pts, and could impact future care of this cohort.

4106 Background: Cancer stem cells are 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). Preclinical studies suggest that napabucasin sensitizes heterogeneous cancer cells to chemotherapy and targeted agents. Methods: A phase Ib/II multi-center study in mPDAC pts was performed to confirm the RP2D, PK profile and evidence of anticancer activity of napabucasin in combination with nabPTX and Gem. Pts received napabucasin 240 mg BID with weekly nabPTX 125 mg/m2 and gem 1000 mg/m2for 3 out of every 4 weeks until disease progression (PD) or other discontinuation criterion. Results: Of 71 intent to treat (ITT) pts enrolled, 49 (69%) were treatment-naïve and 22 (31%) received neoadjuvant treatment. There were no significant PK interactions, dose-limiting or unexpected toxicities. Most common adverse events (AEs) included grade 1 diarrhea/cramping, nausea and fatigue with grade 3 AEs noted in 12 pts: fatigue (8), electrolyte imbalance (2), diarrhea (1), dehydration (1), nausea (1) and weight loss (1). Among pts who received RECIST evaluation (60), disease control (DCR; CR+PR+SD) was observed in 55 (92%), with 1 CR (2%) and 26 PR (43%) (31 - 78% regression). Of 11 pts with non-evaluable disease, treatment stopped due to compliance (4), consent withdrawal (3), clinical PD (1), toxicity (1), insurance (1) and death (1). Among 71 ITT pts, DCR was observed in 55 (77%), with 1 CR (1.4%) and 26 PR (37%). Maturing median progression free survival and overall survival (OS) in ITT pts is >7.1 and >10.4 m, respectively. Conclusions: This study showed that napabucasin can be combined with nabPTX and gem, with encouraging signs of efficacy in mPDAC now being confirmed in a phase 3 study. Clinical trial information: NCT02231723. [Table: see text]