Citations

Abstract Introduction RCHOP is the standard frontline treatment for patients with DLBCL. However, for patients with high-intermediate or high-risk disease (IPI 3-5), outcomes are suboptimal, with an estimated 3-year PFS of about 55%. In addition to IPI, an additional factor associated with an increased risk include non-GCB cell of origin. Brentuximab vedotin, an ADC targeting CD30, has demonstrated single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory DLBCL patients. Of note, higher ORR and CR, as well as longer duration of PFS, were observed in those patients with CD30 detected on tumor cells by routine IHC. Methods This phase 2 study was designed to evaluate combination therapy using brentuximab vedotin (BV) and standard RCHOP chemotherapy as frontline treatment in patients with high-intermediate/high risk (standard IPI score 3-5 or age-adjusted IPI [aaIPI] score 2-3) DLBCL, regardless of CD30 expression (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01925612). Patients were randomized to receive either 1.2 mg/kg BV+RCHOP or 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHOP for up to 6 cycles of treatment. BV was given on Day 1 of every 21-day cycle. Response was assessed per investigator using Cheson 2007. AEs, physical examination findings, and laboratory testing were utilized to characterize safety. Tumor cell CD30 expression was measured by IHC and gene expression analysis; soluble CD30 was measured in plasma. Tumor microenvironment was also evaluated for frequency of immune-infiltrating cells. The primary endpoints for this study were the tolerability of each regimen and the CR rate at the end of treatment (EOT). Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). Additional exploratory endpoints included CD30 expression on tumor specimens (CD30- defined as <1% per IHC) and correlation of CD30 expression and response. Results Twenty-nine patients were treated with 1.2 mg/kg BV+RCHOP and 22 patients were treated with 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHOP. Over half (63%) were high-intermediate risk (IPI 3, aaIPI 2) and 37% were high risk (IPI 4-5, aaIPI 3). Most had Stage IV disease (71%) and 27% had an ECOG score of 2. AEs in ≥50% of patients included peripheral sensory neuropathy (63%), fatigue (61%), nausea (55%), and diarrhea (53%). Grade 3 or higher events occurred in 76% of patients; the most frequent were neutropenia (33%) and febrile neutropenia (31%). The PET-negative CR rate was 69% overall; CD30+ patients had a CR rate of 76% (19/25) compared with 63% (12/19) in CD30- patients by IHC. Although PFS data are still immature (median follow up of 8 months), the estimated PFS rate at 12 months was 82% (95% CI: 58, 93) in CD30+ patients and 56% (95% CI: 32, 75) in CD30- patients. 60% (3/5) of patients with CD30- ABC-DLBCL progressed versus 27% (3/11) of CD30+ ABC-DLBCL patients. Four patients with EBV+ DLBCL were treated and all achieved CR; 3 EBV+ patients remain in remission after a median follow-up of 12 months. Within the microenvironment, a higher percentage of CD3+ T-cells was observed in patients with CR (23%; range, 4-80%) than in those with PR (14%; range, 10-15%) or PD (11%; range, 5-15%). Of the 32 patients who have not yet progressed, 50% had ≥20% CD3+ cells compared to 18% of patients with PD (2/11). Other factors, including soluble CD30 levels and infiltrating CD68+ cells, were not associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions Interim results demonstrate that adding BV to RCHOP results in a high rate of CR in this population of IPI 3-5 DLBCL. Patients with CD30-expression in the tumor appear to have a higher CR rate and fewer early progression events than patients with CD30- DLBCL. Furthermore, subsets of patients who have a particularly poor prognosis (CD30+ ABC subtype and EBV+ DLBCL) appeared to have a favorable outcome with BV+RCHOP. Evaluation of the tumor microenvironment showed that higher frequencies of infiltrating CD3+ cells were observed in the CR group, suggesting possible immunologic correlates of response. However, CD30 expression appears to have greater prognostic significance in this study despite the relatively small sample size. These results are intriguing and merit further testing in a randomized trial. Disclosures Yasenchak: Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Brentuximab vedotin is indicated in the US for treatment of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma after failure of autologous stem cell transplant or after failure of at least two prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimens in patients who are not ASCT candidates and for the treatment of patients with systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma after failure of at least one prior multi-agent chemotherapy regimen. The drug is being evaluated in this study for use as frontline treatment in patients with high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL in combination with multiagent chemotherapy. . Halwani:Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Takeda/Millenium: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Advani:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Genetech: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding. Budde:Merck: Research Funding; Ikara Inc: Patents & Royalties; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Burke:Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel expenses; Gilead: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Farber:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Holkova:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Kolibaba:GSK: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Knapp:Celgene: Research Funding; Heron Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Brystol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Research Funding. Li:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Manley:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Patel-Donnelly:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Seetharam:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Colgene: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Insight: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MERC: Research Funding; Dynavax: Research Funding; Idera: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; LAM Theapeutics: Research Funding.

Background/Objective: Alteplase may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) results, although the exact rate of elevation occurrence is not firmly established in the literature. The purpose of this study is to determine the occurrence rate of INR elevation following alteplase administration. We also aimed to determine what factors are independently associated with the development of elevated INR following alteplase administration for ischemic stroke. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of patients who received alteplase for acute ischemic stroke. Patients were screened for baseline INR measurement and a repeat value within 24 hours of alteplase administration. The primary outcome was the percent of patients who experienced ≥0.4-point increase in INR. Secondary outcomes included the rate of adverse bleeding events and identification of factors independently associated with elevated INR following alteplase administration. Results and Conclusions: Two hundred and sixty-one patients were included, with 44 (16.9%) patients having an INR increase of 0.4 or more. Patients with an INR increase ≥0.4 experienced a nonstatistically significant increase in bleeding episodes (8.8% vs 18.2%; P = .10). We identified African American race (odds ratio, 3.48, 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.6; P = .002) as an independent predictor of INR increase ≥0.04. An INR elevation is common following receipt of alteplase for ischemic stroke. Those of African American race were at increased risk of INR elevation; however, more studies are needed to determine whether these patients are at a higher bleeding risk as a result of INR elevation.

Abstract Background: Patients on systemic therapy for cancer are at varying risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its consequences. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended in hospitalized medical and surgical cancer patients, but most VTE occurs in ambulatory cancer patients where risk can be estimated with a validated score. However, the benefit of extended outpatient thromboprophylaxis is uncertain with heparins and has not been tested with direct oral anticoagulants. Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study in adult ambulatory patients with various cancers initiating a new systemic regimen and at increased risk for VTE (defined as Khorana score ≥ 2). Enrolled subjects were screened for deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and if none found randomized 1:1 to rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily or placebo up to day 180. Subjects were screened with lower extremity ultrasounds every 8 weeks on study. Primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of objectively confirmed symptomatic or asymptomatic lower-extremity proximal DVT, symptomatic upper- or lower-extremity distal DVT, symptomatic or incidental pulmonary embolism and VTE-related death. ISTH-defined major bleeding was the primary safety endpoint. All endpoints were adjudicated by blinded independent committees. Analyses for efficacy endpoints were conducted for intent-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomized patients) for the up-to-day 180 observation period (primary) and the on-treatment period (supportive). Safety analyses were conducted for on-treatment period only for patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Results: Of 1,080 patients who provided consent, 49 (4.53%) had DVT on baseline screening and another 190 screen-failed due to other reasons. Of 841 randomized patients, 274 (32.6%) had pancreatic cancer; 698 (83%) were white and 428 (50.9%) were male. The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 25 of 420 patients (5.95%) and 37 of 421 patients (8.79%) (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.09; p=0.101) in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (number needed to treat, NNT=35) in the up-to-day 180 observation period (Figure 1A). Of all patients with VTE, 38.70% experienced events after discontinuing study drug. In a pre-specified analysis of all randomized patients during the on-treatment period, the primary endpoint occurred in 11 of 420 patients (2.62%) and 27 of 421 (6.41%) in rivaroxaban and placebo groups respectively (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.80, p=0.007) (NNT=26) (Figure 1B). Major bleeding occurred in 8 of 405 (1.98%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 4 of 404 (0.99%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.59 to 6.49; p=0.265) (number needed to harm, NNH=101). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 2.72% and 1.98% of rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.54 to 3.32; p=0.53) (NNH=135). Adverse events were comparable between groups. For secondary efficacy endpoints, a pre-specified analysis of the composite of primary endpoint with addition of arterial and visceral thromboembolic events in the up-to-day 180 observation period showed significantly fewer events in rivaroxaban versus placebo group (6.90% versus 10.70% respectively; HR, 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.99; p=0.04). All-cause mortality occurred in 20.0% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 23.8% in placebo group (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.62, 1.11; p=0.213). A pre-specified composite of the primary endpoint with all-cause mortality occurred in 23.1% of patients in rivaroxaban group and 29.5% in placebo group (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97; p=0.03) (Figure 1C). Conclusions: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced VTE and VTE-related death during the on-treatment period but not during the full study period; over one-third of events occurred post discontinuation of study drug. The incidence of major bleeding was low. The Khorana risk score cut-off of ≥2 identified cancer patients at high risk of thrombotic events both at baseline (4.53%) and during study (8.79% with additional 1.66% arterial events in placebo group). These results should inform future recommendations regarding thromboprophylaxis in at-risk ambulatory cancer patients. (Funded by Janssen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02555878) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Khorana: Parexel: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Sanofi: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; TriSalus: Other: Personal fees; Halozyme: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Seattle Genetics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; AngioDynamics: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; LEO Pharma: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Medscape/WebMD: Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel; Pharmacyclics: Other: Personal fees; PharmaCyte: Other: Personal fees; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees and non-financial support for travel. Soff:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Kakkar:Bayer AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo Europe: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sanofi S.A.: Consultancy; Verseon: Consultancy. Vadhan-Raj:AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Other: received funding from Amag to support clinical trial; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riess:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Other: Travel reimbursement; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wun:Eli Lilly, Inc.: Research Funding; Emmaus, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Streiff:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Other: outcome adjudication committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding. Garcia:Shingoi: Consultancy; Portola: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Retham Technologies LLC: Consultancy; Genzyme Corporation: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Liebman:Janssen (Johnson & Johnson): Other: steering committee of the CASSINI trial during the conduct of the study. Belani:Janssen: Consultancy. O'Reilly:3DMed, Agios, AlignMed, Amgen, Antengene, Aptus, ASLAN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bioline, BMS, Boston Scientific, Bridgebio, CARsgen, Celgene, CASI, Cipla, CytomX, Daiichi, Debio, Delcath, Eisai, Exelixis, Genoscience, Gilead, Halozyme: Consultancy; Hengrui, Incyte, Inovio, Ipsen, Jazz, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LAM, Lilly, Loxo, Merck, Mina, NewLink Genetics, Novella, Onxeo, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PharmaCyte, Pharmacyclics, Pieris, QED, RedHill, Sanofi, Servier, Silenseed, Sillajen, Sobi, Targovax: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Acta Biologica, Agios, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, BMS, CASI, Celgene, Exelixis, Genentech, Halozyme, Incyte, Lilly, MabVax, Novartis, OncoQuest, Polaris Puma, QED, and Roche: Research Funding; Tekmira, twoXAR, Vicus, Yakult, and Yiviva: Consultancy. Patel:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Yimer:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Puma Biotechnology: Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Burton:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Vijapurkar:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Kaul:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment; Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership. Eikelboom:AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, sanofi-aventis, and Eli Lilly: Honoraria, Research Funding; Heart and Stroke Foundation: Other: Personnel award. Bauer:Janssen: Consultancy. Kuderer:Celldex: Consultancy; Mylan: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Myriad Genetics: Consultancy; Halozyme: Consultancy; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Lyman:Halozyme; G1 Therapeutics; Coherus Biosciences: Consultancy; Generex Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Other: Research support.

Introduction: Pharmacogenomics is about selecting the “right drug in the right amount for the right patient.” In metastatic colorectal cancer, germline pharmacogenomics testing presents a unique opportunity to improve outcomes, since the genes dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and UDP-glucuronosyltransferase metabolizing the chemotherapy drugs, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan are already well known. In a retrospective analysis of the landmark TRIBE clinical trial [(TRIBE - TRIplet plus BEvacizumab multicenter, phase III trial by the Italian Cooperative GONO (Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest) group (NCT00719797)], the proportion of patients with serious adverse events was higher in those with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase/UDP-glucuronosyltransferase aberrations and was dose dependent. We aimed to report on the feasibility and the results of incorporating pharmacogenomics testing into clinical practice. Methods: As a quality improvement initiative and a center of individualized medicine grant, we integrated the use of OneOme RightMed comprehensive test, which reports on 27 genes related to pharmacogenomics and over 300 medications of interest. We limited initial testing to patients with colorectal cancer. Pharmacists provided dosage recommendations based on test results in real-time. Results: At our cancer center, 155 patients underwent pharmacogenomics testing from November 2017 to January 2019. Results were available within 3 to 5 days of testing for most patients and were integrated into treatment decision-making. Of 155 sampled participants, a total of 89 (57.4%) participants had an UGT1A1 variant genotype, NM_000463.2: c.-53_-52[8] *1/*28, n = 74 (47.7%); *28/*28, n = 15 (9.7%). Additionally, 4 (2.6%) participants were heterozygous for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. Two (1.3%) individuals were heterozygous for both UDP-glucuronosyltransferase and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genes. All (100%) the patients had at least 1 actionable aberration related to supportive care medications ( CYP-family) of all the possible medications listed on their pharmacogenomics report. Conclusion: Preemptive comprehensive pharmacogenomics testing can be integrated into clinical practice in real-time for patients with cancer given faster turnaround and low cost. Pharmacist-driven, patient-specific medication management consults add further value given the number of genes/drugs. This sets the stage for a prospective randomized clinical trial to demonstrate the amount of benefit this can result in these patients.

Background: Clinicians need to deliver prognostic information to surrogates of nondecisional, critically ill patients so that surrogates can make informed medical decisions that reflect the patient’s values. Our objective was to implement a new approach for communicating with surrogates of patients with chronic critical illness. Methods: Surrogate decision makers of patients who were difficult to liberate from mechanical ventilation were prospectively enrolled. Surrogates met with different members of the intensive care unit treatment team for sequential 15-minute appointments to receive patient-specific assessments and education on chronic critical illness. The feasibility and acceptability of this approach were determined. A 24-question comprehension instrument was developed to assess a participant’s understanding that a family member was displaying features of chronic critical illness. Each question was scored from 1 to 5, with larger scores indicating greater comprehension. Results: Over a 15-week period, educational sessions for 9 mechanically ventilated patients were conducted. On average, 2 surrogates per patient (range: 1-4) and 6 members of the interdisciplinary team (range: 4-6) were at each meeting. Surrogates and clinicians had very positive impressions of the communication intervention. The average preintervention comprehension score was 85 of 120 (standard deviation [SD]: 8, range: 71-101). The postintervention comprehension score was greater by 5 points on average (SD: 9, range: −11 to +20 points, P = .04). Conclusions: Surrogates of critically ill patients approved of this novel communication approach and had a greater understanding of the patient’s medical condition after the intervention.

AbstractBackgroundAn internal risk stratification algorithm was developed to decrease the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during lead extractions (LEs).ObjectiveTo report upon the impact of a risk stratification algorithm (RISE [RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction] protocol) on outcomes of LEs in a high‐volume center.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LEs database was performed to identify features associated with MACEs. On the basis of the retrospective data, the RISE protocol differentiated LEs procedures into “High” and “Low” risk for occurrence of MACEs. High‐risk LEs included dual‐coil defibrillator lead (≥3 years), pacemaker and single‐coil lead (≥5 years), and any StarFix coronary sinus lead. During the prospective evaluation of the RISE protocol, “High‐risk” LEs were performed in an operating room (OR) or hybrid laboratory with the cardiac anesthesiologist, OR nursing team, perfusionist in the room, and a cardiac surgeon on the premises. “Low‐risk” LEs were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory with anesthesia provided by EP nursing team. The preintervention (pre‐RISE) and postintervention (post‐RISE) group spanned 19 and 40 months and consisted of 449 (632 leads) and 751 patients (1055 leads), respectively. The primary outcome of MACEs in the two groups was compared.ResultsProtocol compliance was 100%. The primary outcome of MACEs occurred in 15 patients (3.34%) before and 12 (1.6%) after implementation of the RISE protocol (P = .04).ConclusionRISE identified a low‐risk group where minimal resources are needed and allowed for rapid intervention in the high‐risk group that reduced the consequences of MACEs.

Abstract Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States, and additional treatment strategies are needed for patients with advanced disease. Prospective therapeutic studies based on tissue-detected genomic targets such as ERBB2 (HER2), BRAF V600E, gene rearrangements/fusions, and microsatellite instability (MSI) have demonstrated clinical benefit for mCRC patients. Although correlative studies and/or retrospective case series utilizing circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next generation sequencing (NGS) have shown that plasma detection of these genomic targets shows promise in mCRC, prospective studies are lacking. We hypothesize that comprehensive genomic profiling of cfDNA will identify actionable targets and improve outcomes for patients with mCRC. Methods: COLOMATE (Colorectal Cancer and Liquid Biopsy Screening Protocol for Molecularly Assigned Therapy; NCT03765736) is a phase II umbrella screening protocol sponsored by the Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) consortium. This study utilizes Guardant360™ (Guardant Health, Redwood City, CA) - a blood-based targeted NGS panel - to identify actionable genomic alterations in mCRC patients and to assess the impact of molecularly assigned therapy accordingly under its individual companion studies. Eligible mCRC patients must have progressed on, been intolerant to, or have a contraindication to treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs if RAS wild-type. Companion studies are dynamic and currently include those for patients whose tumors are either RAS/BRAF wild-type, HER2 amplified, FGFR altered, RAS mutated, or without any known actionable alteration. Additional companion studies are under active development. The primary objectives of this study are to perform blood-based genomic profiling on patients with treatment refractory mCRC to facilitate accrual to molecularly assigned therapies, and to obtain patient-matched tumor tissue and cell free DNA from peripheral blood to facilitate clinically annotated genomic analyses. Secondary correlative objectives are to explore mechanisms of acquired resistance to molecularly assigned therapy and to explore the correlation between cfDNA mutational burden (allele frequency, copy number) and clinical outcomes such as objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Citation Format: Kristen K. Ciombor, Fang-Shu Ou, Andrew Dodge, Tyler Zemla, Christina Wu, Kimmie Ng, Katrina Pedersen, Shumei Kato, Pashtoon M. Kasi, Daniel Ahn, Rebecca Nagy, Richard Lanman, Scott Kopetz, John H. Strickler, Tanios Bekaii-Saab. COLOMATE: Colorectal cancer and liquid biopsy screening protocol for molecularly assigned therapy [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 LB-235.