Citations

Importance In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial, high-dose vitamin D 3 added to standard treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard-dose vitamin D 3 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Objective To determine if high-dose vitamin D 3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with previously untreated mCRC. Design, Setting, and Participants Double-blind phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolling 455 patients with previously untreated mCRC, conducted in the US through the National Clinical Trials Network from October 2019 to December 2022 (database freeze: July 15, 2024). Interventions mFOLFOX6 (modified FOLFOX6 [5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin]) or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab every 2 weeks with either high-dose vitamin D 3 (8000 IU daily × 14 days as loading dose followed by 4000 IU daily) or standard-dose vitamin D 3 (400 IU daily) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was PFS assessed by the unstratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included objective response rate, overall survival, and toxicity. Prespecified subgroup analyses of PFS were performed according to known prognostic factors. Results Among 455 randomized patients (median age, 59 years; 181 [40%] female) with median follow-up 20 months, the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D 3 (n = 228) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 10.3-13.3) vs 10.3 months (95% CI, 9.4-12.2) for standard-dose vitamin D 3 (n = 227) (1-sided log-rank P = .25). There were no significant differences in objective response rate between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D 3 (51% [95% CI, 44%-58%] vs 44% [95% CI, 37%-50%], respectively; P = .12), or in overall survival (median, 25.6 vs 27.0 months; 1-sided log-rank P = .66). There were no clinically meaningful differences in the most common grade 3 or greater adverse events between the high- and standard-dose groups, including neutropenia (n = 67 [32%] vs n = 62 [30%]) and hypertension (n = 42 [20%] vs n = 49 [23%]) or in incidence of vitamin D–associated toxicities. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with previously untreated mCRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D 3 , vs standard-dose vitamin D 3 , to standard chemotherapy plus bevacizumab did not improve PFS. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04094688

Abstract Purpose: The addition of MEK inhibition (MEKi) to programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Although MEK inhibitors may increase tumor cell immunogenicity, they can impair T-cell priming/effector function, limiting combination efficacy. We hypothesized that the addition of a CD27 agonist could restore T-cell function and enhance antitumor immunity in this combination. Patients and Methods: We conducted a randomized, phase II trial evaluating atezolizumab (840 mg, intravenously, days 1 and 15) in combination with the CD27 costimulatory monoclonal antibody [CDX-1127/varlilumab (3 mg/kg, intravenously, days 1 and 15)], with/without the addition of an MEK inhibitor [cobimetinib (60 mg, orally, daily, days 1–21, off days 22–28)] in unresectable biliary tract cancer following at least one metastatic therapy. Overall response rate (ORR) and PFS were coprimary endpoints. Treatment-related changes in CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were the primary correlative outcomes. Results: The trial was closed early following interim preplanned ORR analysis. At closure, 57 patients had been enrolled [n = 29 in the cobimetinib + atezolizumab + varlilumab (CAV) arm; n = 28 in the atezolizumab + varlilumab (AV) arm]. A majority (67%) had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 32% were immunotherapy experienced. Both regimens were well tolerated without new safety signals. Objective responses were rare [0% (CAV); 3.8% (AV)]. The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.40 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months [hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38–1.18]. Among immunotherapy-experienced patients, the mPFS was 3.62 (CAV) and 1.84 (AV) months (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.18–1.62). Treatment with CAV increased intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density compared with treatment with AV. Conclusions: The combinations of atezolizumab and varlilumab with/without cobimetinib were safe, but neither meaningfully improved outcomes in biliary tract cancer treated in the later lines. Correlative tissue studies validated preclinical work that MEKi increases CD8+ TILs.

e16479 Background: Recent genomic data has demonstrated SBA to be a molecularly unique entity when compared to colon or gastric cancers. The ongoing SWOG 1922 randomized clinical trial is comparing FOLFIRI to ramucirumab/paclitaxel as the second-line treatment for metastatic SBA. We sought to further define the activity of taxane-based therapy in the largest collection of SBA patients treated with this therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of SBA patients treated with taxane-based chemotherapy from 1994 to 2024 at MD Anderson Cancer Center was performed. All patients had pathologic confirmation, received > 1 cycle of therapy, and had documented tumor response evaluation. Response was assessed by the treating physician based on the imaging studies and categorized as response, stable disease or progression. Patient demographics, clinical parameters, molecular data, and taxane treatment was reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to calculate time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Results: 70 SBA patients treated with taxane-based therapy were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (range 33-80 years), majority being male (59%) with primary tumor located at duodenum (44%), Jejunum (34%), Ileum (16%). The most common presenting metastatic site was peritoneum (39%), followed by liver (31%). The genomic status revealed mutations in the following genes: 62% TP53, 47% KRAS, 24% SMAD4, and 15% APC. Taxane treatment was single agent (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or docetaxel) in 29%, gemcitabine and taxane combination in 61% and other taxane-based combinations in 10%. Therapy was given in the metastatic setting as 2nd-line in 40%, 3rd-line in 33% and 4th-line or greater in 20%. Response status was response in 24%, stable disease in 26%, and progression in 50%. Median TTP was 3.1 months (95%CI: 2.0-4.2 months), and median OS was 8.7 months (95%CI: 7.4-10.1 months). Median TTP was similar between single agent (2.6 months) and gemcitabine-based combination (2.5 months) (p =0.75). Efficacy did not differ by line of therapy nor primary tumor site. Efficacy differed by TP53 mutation status: TP53 mutated vs wildtype (response 21% vs 43%, p = 0.02; median TTP 2.4m vs 4.9m, p = 0.013; median OS 7.3m vs 10.6m, p = 0.004). Conclusions: This retrospective study of 70 SBA patients confirms the activity of taxane-based therapy demonstrating a response rate of 24% and median TTP of 3.1 months. Though limited by sample size, TP53 mutations may represent a negative predictive marker for taxane-based therapy in SBA patients. These findings support the ongoing SWOG 1922 trial investigating taxane-based therapy as a second line for metastatic SBA.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

4017 Background: Combined MEK inhibition (MEKi) and PD-L1 blockade significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus PD-L1 monotherapy in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) following first-line chemotherapy (NCT03201458). Further study has shown MEKi enhances tumor immunogenicity but impairs host T cell activation/priming. The addition of immune agonists, e.g. a CD27 agonist, can rescue T cell function in the setting of systemic MEKi in vivo and may be an effective strategy to optimize MEKi’s immunomodulatory potential when used in combination with checkpoint blockade. Methods: We conducted a randomized ph 2 trial (NCT04941287) evaluating Atezolizumab in combination with the CD27 immune agonist (CDX-1127 [Varlilumab]) with or without the addition of a MEKi (Cobimetinib) in patients with unresectable, previously treated, BTC. Adults with pathologically-confirmed BTC, s/p at least 1 prior line (no more than 2) of systemic therapy, measurable disease, and ECOG PS ≤1 were enrolled. Patients who had received previous PD-[L]1 were eligible. The study was planned for 64 evaluable subjects randomized in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by BTC site, to either AV (Atezolizumab [840mg IV days 1,15])+ Varlilumab [3mg/kg IV days 1, 15]) or CAV (Cobimetinib [60mg oral daily days 1-21, off 22-28] + Atezolizumab + Varlilumab). Overall response rate (ORR) and PFS were co-primary endpoints. The primary correlative outcome was treatment-related changes in CD8+ infiltrating T cells. Results: A preplanned interim analysis based on objective response rates did not meet the threshold for continuance in either treatment arm, so the trial was closed early for futility. In total, 57 patients were enrolled (n = 29 [CAV], n = 28 [AV], 67% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and 33% had received previous PD-[L]1. Both CAV and AV regimens were well-tolerated without new safety signals. Adding CDX-1127 did not appear to meaningful increase immunotoxicity beyond established PD-L1 toxicity profiles. ORR was 0% (CAV) and 4% (AV). With a median follow up time of 6.2 months, median PFS was 2.2 (CAV) and 1.8 (AV) months (HR 0.71 [0.40,1.25]). In PD[L]1-experienced patients, median PFS was 3.6 (CAV) and 1.7 (AV) months (HR 0.44 [0.14,1.33]). Median OS was 10.2 (CAV) and 6.1 (AV) months (HR 0.76 [0.37,1.55]). In PD[L]1-experienced patients, median OS was 6.4 (CAV) and 4.4 (AV) months for CAV and AV (HR 0.68 [0.19,2.42]). Primary correlative endpoint and updated survival will be reported at time of meeting. Conclusions: The combination of Atezolizumab and Varlilumab with or without Cobimetinib was safe but did not improve clinical outcomes in advanced stage BTC patients treated in later lines. Though not statistically significant, treatment with CAV demonstrated numerically favorable PFS/OS compared AV among immunotherapy-experienced patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03201458 .

LBA490 Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs 25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42-1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb). Clinical trial information: NCT#03768414 .