Citations

Abstract In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the possible prognostic impact of concomitant medications in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy combinations. This real‐world analysis aims to evaluate the impact of concomitant medications on survival outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTCs) treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine and durvalumab (CGD) therapy. The study cohort included patients with a diagnosis of advanced BTCs who were taking concomitant medications for their comorbidities before the start of CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). The initial population consisted of 666 patients, who were retrospectively collected from 41 sites in 12 countries. Data on concomitant medications were available for 493 patients. After a median follow‐up of 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.8–9.8), patients who did not take steroids (prednisone >10 mg/day or equivalent) or nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, before the start of CGD, had longer OS and PFS in univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis confirmed longer OS for patients who did not take steroids. Patients who did not take steroids had an OS of 14.8 months (95% CI: 13.1–29.1) versus 5.0 months (95% CI: 2.14–11.32) of patients who took prednisone >10 mg/day or equivalent. No differences were reported in terms of overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) ( p = 1.0 and p = .16, respectively), and safety profile between the two groups. Our analysis suggests that patients who did not receive steroids before the start of GCD had longer survival and highlighted the relevance of balancing concomitant medications and chemoimmunotherapy.

Abstract Background Cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab combination is a standard first-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer. This study aimed to assess the impact of genetic alterations on outcomes in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine, and durvalumab in real-world clinical practice. Methods Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine plus durvalumab across 39 centers in 11 countries in Europe, the United States, and Asia were included in this analysis. Results The cohort included 513 patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The 5 most frequently altered genes were TP53 (22.1%), KRAS (13.7%), CDKN2A/B (13.6%), ARID1A (12.2%), and IDH1 (9.2%). In multivariate analysis, SMAD4 mutations were associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.49, P = .018) and overall survival (HR = 0.11, P = .023), while TP53 mutations were linked to worse PFS (HR = 1.62, P = .0047) and TERT mutations to worse overall survival (HR = 8.92, P = .0012). No other genomic alterations were statistically associated with outcomes. Subgroup analysis showed that TP53 mutations negatively affected PFS and overall survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, while KRAS mutations were associated with poorer PFS in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. No gene alterations were linked to outcomes in gallbladder cancer. Conclusions This large-scale analysis, with comprehensive molecular profiling, supports the positive prognostic impact of SMAD4 mutations for PFS and overall survival and highlights the negative prognostic roles of TP53 (PFS) and TERT (overall survival) mutations, providing valuable insights for personalized treatment strategies in biliary tract cancer.

PURPOSE Despite international medical graduates (IMGs) accounting for up to one third of all practicing oncologists in the United States, and nearly half of fellowship trainees, little is known about their contributions to presentations at international oncology meetings. Therefore, we investigated the representation of IMGs in invited faculty roles at the ASCO Annual Meeting as a representative example. METHODS Presentation data from ASCO 2022 and 2023 Annual Meetings were obtained from program guides. We collected presentation-level and speaker-level variables of invited faculty roles and original research. Speakers were categorized as American medical graduate (AMG), IMG, non–US-based, or non-MD (Doctor of Medicine). Univariable and multivariable analyses assessed factors influencing selection for invited faculty roles. RESULTS A total of 2,590 presentations by 2,109 unique speakers were reviewed, including primary research presenters and invited faculty. Among the 1,352 presentations by AMGs, 30% were primary research and 70% were invited faculty roles. For the 374 presentations by IMGs, 41% were primary research and 59% were invited faculty roles. Notably, first-author IMGs were significantly less likely to receive invited faculty roles relative to their primary research output compared with first-author AMGs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90]; P = .006), even when accounting for academic rank, presumed sex, and year. CONCLUSION Relative to IMGs' original research output, IMGs appear to receive fewer invitations for ASCO Annual Meeting invited faculty roles compared with AMGs. Our findings suggest potential underrepresentation and under-recognition of IMGs in these roles, despite their contributions to the oncology workforce in the United States.

ABSTRACT Background Over the years, prognostic indexes have been developed to help clinicians stratify patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) into risk groups. This study aims to identify a new prognostic index for patients with BTC treated with cisplatin, gemcitabine and durvalumab (CGD) in the first‐line setting. Patients and Methods The study population consisted of patients with BTC from 11 Eastern and Western Countries. Using multivariate analysis for overall survival (OS), we identified 5 baseline statistically significant variables: stage, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels, albumin levels, gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels, neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR). Metastatic disease is a prognostic factor with a superior weight considering the HR of 3.62, while all the others can be considered prognostic factors with equivalent weight as the HRs are quite similar (HRs between 1.55 and 1.92). Based on these reasons, we developed a prognostic model called the MAGIC‐D index by assigning a score of 2 for metastatic disease, and a score of 1 for CEA increased levels, albumin decreased levels, GGT increased levels, NLR ≥ 3. Patients were stratified into three risk groups as follows: low‐risk group (Score from 0 to 2), intermediate‐risk group (Score from 3 to 4) and high‐risk group (Score from 5 to 6). At the first data cutoff (April 2024), these data were available for 319 patients that composed the training cohort used for the analysis. At the second data cutoff (May 2025), 79 patients were further enrolled and composed the validation cohort. Results Median progression‐free survival was 11.7 months in low‐risk group (20.7%), 8.7 months in intermediate‐risk group (46.4%) and 5.4 months in high‐risk group (32.9%) [low‐risk hazard ratio (HR): 0.27, intermediate‐risk HR: 0.55, high‐risk HR: 1, p < 0.0001]. Median OS was 18.4 months in low‐risk group,15.9 months in intermediate‐risk group and 7.8 months in high‐risk group (low‐risk HR: 0.17, intermediate‐risk HR: 0.43, high‐risk HR: 1, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in overall response rate (low‐risk: 31.8%, intermediate‐risk: 36.5% and high‐risk: 25.7%; p = 0.0718), while disease control rate was significantly different across the three risk groups (low‐risk: 83.3%, intermediate‐risk: 70.9% and high‐risk: 60.9%; p < 0.0001) as well as the rate of patients receiving a second‐line therapy (low‐risk: 54.5%, intermediate‐risk: 48.6% and high‐risk: 25.7%; p = 0.0061). Finally, the prognostic role in terms of OS and PFS of the MAGIC‐D index was confirmed in a validation cohort of 79 patients. Conclusion The MAGIC‐D index is an easy‐to‐use tool able to stratify patients with BTC with different prognoses undergoing first‐line therapy with CGD.

Abstract Background FGFR alterations are known to be driver alterations in several tumor types. We aimed to assess the efficacy of pemigatinib, an oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor, in patients with metastatic or unresectable colorectal cancer whose tumors harbored FGF/FGFR alterations. Patients and Methods The ACCRU-GI-1701 is a single-arm phase II trial which enrolled patients with previously treated FGF/FGFR-altered metastatic colorectal cancer to receive oral pemigatinib daily in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint is objective response. Secondary endpoints include clinical benefit, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04096417). Results Of the 14 patients included in the interim analysis, the objective response rate as well as clinical benefit rate were 0%. Given these results, the trial closed to enrollment after stage one due to futility. A total of 42.9% of patients had at least one grade 3 or higher AE, the most common being anemia and fatigue. Conclusion Pemigatinib monotherapy did not lead to objective responses in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer harboring FGF/FGFR alterations, although it was overall relatively well tolerated with no new safety signals. Notably, 93% (n = 13) of patients had only FGF/FGFR mutations and amplifications; one patient had an FGFR3-WHSC1 fusion at a low cfDNA percentage (0.02%).

3553 Background: Vilastobart (XTX101) is tumor-activated, high affinity, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4 designed to focus activity toward the tumor and minimize systemic adverse events. Fc-enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC) and other tumors [Fakih ASCO GI 2025]. Vilastobart was generally well-tolerated and demonstrated evidence of anti-tumor activity in pts with immunologically “cold” advanced solid tumors, both as a monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab [Davar SITC 2024]. Methods: Phase 2 of the NCT04896697 study evaluated the initial recommended Phase 2 dose of vilastobart 100 mg Q6W in combination with atezolizumab 1200 mg Q3W in pts with MSS CRC who had at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen in the metastatic setting, excluding pts with prior immune checkpoint inhibitors. Pts with (LM) and without liver metastasis (NLM) were eligible. Tumor biopsies were obtained before and during treatment for translational analyses. Results: As of January 13, 2025, 40 pts were dosed in Phase 2. Median age was 55 (25-82) and 70% of pts had 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Of the 24 enrolled NLM pts, 11 were response-evaluable with an available on-treatment scan as of the data cut. In these 11 pts, two confirmed and one unconfirmed partial response (PR) were reported, all accompanied by significant decreases in ctDNA and serum tumor marker CEA and with each pt ongoing on therapy, for a preliminary ORR of 27%. One additional pt (with peritoneal metastasis) had a 24% reduction in target lesions (first scan) and was ongoing on therapy. Of the 16 enrolled LM pts, 7 were response evaluable, with one stable disease and another pt reporting a mixed response with significant serum tumor marker reductions, both ongoing on therapy. Of note, one LM pt in Phase 1C dose escalation treated with vilastobart (150 mg Q6W) combination had a confirmed PR with LM resolution. Six pts (15%) reported G3+ treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with two G4 laboratory TRAEs and no G5 TRAEs. Only three pts discontinued therapy for TRAEs. TRAEs occurring in ≥10% (all grade) or ≥5% (G3) of pts are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: The combination of vilastobart, a novel tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced a-CTLA-4, and atezolizumab demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in late line, metastatic MSS CRC where immune checkpoint blockade has historically been relatively ineffective. Vilastobart was observed to have a differentiated safety profile distinct from systemically active a-CTLA-4, consistent with tumor-selective activation. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 . AE term All Graden (%) Grade 3n (%) Fatigue 12 (30%) 0 Diarrhea 8 (20%) 0 Infusion related reactions 5 (13%) 0 Pyrexia 4 (10%) 0 ALT increased 4 (10%) 0 AST increased 4 (10%) 1 (3%) Colitis 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

e16265 Background: The pivotal TOPAZ-1 trial established durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) as a new first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). However, weekly administration of GC can lead to significant toxicity limiting its tolerability in clinical practice. Based on previous studies, we implemented biweekly regimen of GC on days 1 and 15 together with durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle to optimize the treatment delivery and improve tolerability. Here, we report the Mayo Clinic experience with biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab in patients with ABTC. Methods: At our three-site institution, we retrospectively identified patients with ABTC between January 2021 and August 2024, who received biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment details - treatment related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to the NCTCAE V5.0 were collected. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and clinically assessed overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: 57 patients were included in our analysis, median age was 68 years (range 35-90), and 57.9% were females. 91.2% of patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. 71.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 19.3% extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 8.7% gallbladder carcinoma. 70.2% had metastatic disease, 21 % locally advanced unresectable disease and 8.7% recurrent metastatic disease. Patients were followed for a median of 9.1 months (2.3-28.5). 91.2% of the patients received biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab while 8.8% switched from weekly to biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab due to treatment toxicities. Median number of treatment cycles was 5. Maintenance regimens included durvalumab (19.3%), gemcitabine/durvalumab (8.8%) and GC/durvalumab (8.8%). Median duration of follow up was 9.1 months (range 2.3 – 28.5). ORR was 36.9% and DCR was 72% (complete response 5.3%, partial response 31.6% and stable disease 35.1%). mPFS was 7.2 months, while mOS was 16 months. Grade(G) 3 or 4 trAEs included abnormal liver function tests (15.7%), infections (11.5%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (5.2%), peripheral neuropathy (1.7%), acute kidney injury (1.7%). Immune-related AEs were noted in 6 patients (10.5%) including colitis, gastritis, hepatitis, myocarditis and hypothyroidism. There was no patient with severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Only 5 patients (8.8%) stopped treatment due to trAEs. Conclusions: Biweekly GC on days 1 and 15 plus durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle is associated with a more favorable toxicity profile while maintaining efficacy similar to that observed in the TOPAZ-1 trial indicating that a de-escalation strategy is feasible with improvement in patient centered outcomes.

e16157 Background: The optimal treatment for resectable gastric/GEJ AC is unclear due to limited direct comparisons among chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens. Addressing this gap is critical to improve patient outcomes. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the relative efficacy of multimodality regimens for resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception till September 20, 2024, to identify phase III trials evaluating perioperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy ± radiation in resectable gastric/GEJ AC. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A frequentist NMA was conducted to compare hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for each outcome. Relative treatment rankings were assessed using P-scores. Results: Fifteen trials (8,072 patients) were analyzed. pFLOT (perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) ranked highest for DFS in the overall population (P score 91%) (Table), significantly outperforming surgery alone (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.38-0.60) and nCROSS (neoadjuvant paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiotherapy) (0.67, 0.56-0.81). For OS, nPLF+nCRT(EP) (neoadjuvant cisplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil for induction, followed by etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy) (P score 90%) and pFLOT (P score 87%) were the top regimens, with pFLOT significantly outperforming surgery alone (0.57, 0.45-0.72), and nCROSS (0.73, 0.60-0.89). Adding neoadjuvant chemoradiation to pFLOT provided no additional OS (1.14, 0.76-1.72) or DFS (1.22, 0.83-1.82) benefit. Similarly, adding pembrolizumab to perioperative chemotherapy (CF/CX) (cisplatin and fluorouracil/capecitabine) was not superior to pFLOT in terms of DFS (1.10, 0.71-1.69) or OS (1.09, 0.69-1.72). Conclusions: pFLOT demonstrated superior efficacy in resectable gastric/GEJ AC, surpassing surgery alone, nCROSS, and other perioperative regimens. The additive role of immunotherapy to pFLOT requires further investigation to refine patient selection and optimize outcomes. Regimen Overall Population GEJ cohort OS DFS OS DFS nPLF+nCRT(EP) 1 (90) 2 (84) 1 (85) NA pFLOT 2 (87) 1 (91) 2 (79) 2 (88) pPembrolizumab+CF/CX 3 (75) 3 (81) 5 (41) - nECX 4 (61) 5 (55) - - pCF 5 (59) 8 (51) 3 (72) - pECF/ECX 6 (47) 6 (55) 7 (40) 3 (57) nECX+aCRT(CX) 7 (45) 7 (52) 9 (31) - nCF 8 (42) 10 (28) 6 (40) - nCROSS 9 (41) 9 (35) 8 (34) 4 (43) pECF/ECX/FLOT+nCRT(F/X) 10 (38) 4 (57) 4 (72) 1 (90) nCRT(CF) 11 (9) 11 (6) - 5 (14) Surgery 12 (7) 12 (5) 10 (5) 6 (9) Data reported as rank (P-score). Abbreviations: n: neoadjuvant; p: perioperative; ECX: epirubicin + cisplatin + capecitabine; CF: cisplatin + fluorouracil; ECF: epirubicin + cisplatin + fluorouracil; aCRT(CX): adjuvant radiotherapy + cisplatin + capecitabine; CRT(F/X): fluorouracil/capecitabine + radiotherapy; CRT(CF): cisplatin + fluorouracil + radiotherapy.

e23317 Background: mCRC poses significant challenges, particularly in patients (pts) who progress after multiple lines of therapy. Limited effective treatment options are available in the advanced chemotherapy-refractory setting. The FRESCO-2 trial demonstrated that Fruq, a selective VEGFR inhibitor, provides meaningful overall survival (OS) benefit in pts with refractory mCRC. However, there is limited real-world evidence regarding Fruq's efficacy in patients treated after approved third-line therapies. Methods: This retrospective, multi-site cohort study evaluated outcomes in 33 mCRC pts who received Fruq following treatment with Rego and/or TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab. Patients were stratified into two groups: Fruq as a second late-line therapy, after either Rego or TAS-102, (27 patients) and as a third late-line therapy, after both Rego and TAS-102, (6 patients). Overall survival (OS) was calculated from Fruq initiation to death, while time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) was defined as the duration from Fruq initiation to cessation for any reason, including death. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate median survival, and the comparison between groups were done using the log-rank test. Results: Among the 33 pts, the median age was 58 years (range: 35–84), with 57.6% being male. Hepatic metastases were present in 78.8%, and 60.6% had left-sided primary tumors. RAS mutations were observed in 63.6%, and 97% were BRAF wild-type. Median OS was significantly longer in pts who received Fruq as a second late-line therapy (7.2 months) compared to those receiving it as a third late-line therapy (4.0 months) (p = 0.039). Median TTD was similar between groups (2.4 vs. 2.8 months, p = 0.916). Conclusions: This real-world analysis highlights the clinical benefit of Fruquintinib in mCRC patients following treatment with Regorafenib and/or TAS-102. The data suggest flexibility in treatment choices, with Fruquintinib showing improved OS when used earlier in the treatment sequence. These findings underscore the importance of exploring optimal sequencing strategies and evaluating Fruquintinib as a potential option before other approved agents in the refractory setting. Clinical outcomes with fruquintinib as second vs. third late-line therapy. Fruq as Second Late-Line Fruq as Third Late-Line p-value Median OS 7.2 months 4 months 0.039 Median TTD 2.4 months 2.8 months 0.916 OS: Overall Survival; TTD: Time to Treatment discontinuation.

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.