Citations

Abstract Background Optimal treatment following first-line immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain. This study evaluated futibatinib, a pan-FGFR inhibitor, combined with pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with FGF19-expressing HCC. Methods Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with advanced HCC, prior systemic therapy, Child-Pugh A-B7 liver function, ECOG 0–2, and FGF19 overexpression. Patients received futibatinib 20 mg orally daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2021 and March 2024, 14 patients enrolled and 13 were evaluable. Median age was 72 years (range, 60–87), 53.8% were male, 92.3% had Child-Pugh A liver function, and all had received prior immunotherapy. Median progression-free survival was 15 weeks (95% CI, 9.0–NE), with a PFS6 rate of 23.1% (95% CI, 8.6–62.3%). ORR was 0% (95% CI, 0–24.7%), while stable disease was observed in 53.9% of patients. Median OS was 55.7 weeks (95% CI, 47.3–NE). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.2% of patients, and grade ≥4 adverse events in 15.4%. One grade 5 event (acute-on-chronic kidney injury) was deemed unrelated to treatment. Common adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, fatigue, diarrhea, elevated transaminases, dry eye, nail changes, rash, and oral mucositis. Conclusions Futibatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but did not meet efficacy thresholds supporting further study in FGF19-expressing HCC. Effective post-immunotherapy treatment strategies remain an unmet need.

561 Background: For patients with aHCC, second-line treatment options are not well established. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Futi, an FGFR 1-4 inhibitor, in combination with Pem as a second line therapy in patients with FGF19-expressing aHCC. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years, with histological/cytological diagnosis or radiological diagnosis of HCC, Child-Pugh (CP) class A-B7, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) A, B or C, ECOG performance status of 0-2, and FGF19+, by in-situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry, received Futi 20 mg once daily plus i.v. Pem 200mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months (PFS6). Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS). The study was designed to enroll 22 evaluable patients to detect PFS6 from 25% (historical control) to 47%, assuming a 1-sided alpha of 0.1 with 80% power. All patients provided written consent. Eligible patients with consent who started treatment are considered evaluable. Results: The study was closed to enrollment early at the request of funding agency due to poor accrual. Between 8/2021 and 3/2024, 14 patients enrolled with 1 patient withdrawing consent before beginning protocol treatment. Among 13 evaluable patients, median age was 72 (range: 60-87) years, 7 (53.8%) were male, 12 CP A (92.3%), 7 BCLC C (53.8%), with 7 (53.8%) having received prior liver directed therapy. Median PFS was 15 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.0-Not Estimable) and PFS6 was 23.1% (95% CI: 8.6%, 62.3%). Objective response rate was 0% (95% CI: 0%, 24.71%) and stable disease occurred in 7 (53.9%) of patients. Median OS was 55.7 weeks (95% CI: 47.3-NE). Nine (69.2%) patients experienced at least 1 grade 3+ adverse event (AE), and 2 (15.4%) patients experienced at least a grade 4+ AE. One patient had a grade 5 AE unrelated to study treatment (acute kidney injury). Most commonly reported AEs (occurring in more than 31% of patients) were hyperphosphatemia (76.9%), fatigue (69.3%), diarrhea (61.6%), AST (53.9%) and ALT (46.2%), dry eye (38.5%), nail changes (38.5%), rash-maculo-papular (38.5%), and mucositis oral (38.5%). Conclusions: This prospective study evaluated the use of a targeted treatment in combination with immunotherapy following first line immune-based therapy. This combination had modest activity as a second line therapy for patients with aHCC but did not meet the primary endpoint. The safety profile was acceptable and consistent with prior reports. An optimal second-line regimen remains a critical need. Clinical trial information: NCT04828486 .

392 Background: PAC+RAM is the standard second-line therapy for advanced GEA. However, PAC-related neuropathy is a major challenge, particularly since many pts have pre-existing neuropathy from prior platinum exposure. An effective “neuropathy-free” regimen remains an unmet need. We evaluated FTD-TPI+RAM as an alternative to PAC+RAM. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, phase II study enrolled GEA pts who progressed on or were intolerant to fluoropyrimidine+ platinum therapy. Pts were randomized to FTD-TPI+RAM (Arm A) or PAC+RAM (arm B) at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time interval between randomization date and the date of disease progression or death; Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). The design hypothesized non-inferiority (NI) of Arm A to Arm B with a NI margin of hazard ratio 1.19. 90 PFS events from 116 pts provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 0.15. The interim futility analysis, conducted in December 2024 with 20 events, did not cross the futility boundary (Z statistic ≥ 1.172 ) and continued enrolling pts. The trial closed enrollment in March 2025 due to slow accrual. At the time of interim analysis, 20 events had occurred and the Z statistic was 0.4532. Final analysis included the 29 pts that were eligible, consented, randomized, and received any protocol treatment. Results: Among 29 pts (15 Arm A; 14 Arm B), baseline characteristics were balanced (in Arms A vs B, median age 64 vs 63; 80% vs 85.7% male; 86.7%% vs 78.6% White; 80% vs 78.6% ECOG 1). At data freeze of 8/4/2025, 26 PFS events were reported. Median PFS was 3.2 vs. 3.9 months in Arm A vs. Arm B (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.61-3.02). NI was not demonstrated (Z =0.34, threshold for NI<-1.036). Median OS was 8.4 vs. 10.7 months, in Arms A and B, respectively. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 93% (Arm A) vs 71% (Arm B) with hematologic AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than Arm B (53% vs 29%). Peripheral sensory neuropathy (any grade) occurred more frequently in Arm B (86%) vs. Arm A (47%). Conclusions: Although NI was not achieved due to early closure and small sample size, FTD-TPI+RAM was relatively safe and associated with less neuropathy compared with PAC+RAM. This regimen warrants further evaluation for pts in whom neuropathy limits taxane use. Clinical trial information: NCT04660760 .

TPS2092 Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary brain malignancy in adults. GBM is universally recurrent and associated with dismal outcomes. Re-irradiation (reRT) is ideal for evaluating combination therapy for recurrent GBM (rGBM) due to its multifactorial mechanism of action, including downstream immunomodulatory activity. RT (especially multi-fraction) increases immunogenicity in preclinical models by promoting immune activation, immune migration, and antigen uptake. Additionally, a recent study demonstrated enhanced PD-L1 expression in the glioma tumor microenvironment (TME) following RT, and combining stereotactic RT with a PD-1 inhibitor improved survival in murine models. Retifanlimab is a humanized monoclonal anti-PD1 IgG4 antibody that received FDA approval for adults with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced Merkel cell carcinoma. Bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody, is a treatment for radiation necrosis/cerebral edema with less immune suppression than corticosteroids. In a previous Phase 2 study, hypofractionated RT (HFRT), retifanlimab, and bevacizumab was associated with a 9-month overall survival (OS) rate of 71.4%. To demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen compared to HFRT and bevacizumab, we have designed a new randomized controlled Phase 2 trial. We hypothesize that combination reRT with retifanlimab will produce a more robust anti-tumor immune response and improve OS compared to reRT without retifanlimab. Methods: This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled Phase 2 study of retifanlimab, bevacizumab, and HFRT for adult patients with rGBM. Patients are randomized 1:1 to the experimental (bevacizumab + retifanlimab + HFRT) or control cohort (bevacizumab + HFRT). Key eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years, Karnofsky performance status ≥ 60, ≥ 4 months since administration of any prior bevacizumab, and dexamethasone dose ≤ 4 mg at the time of randomization. The primary endpoint is 9-month OS. Secondary endpoints include OS, progression-free survival, objective response rate, neurologic assessment by NANO criteria, and adverse events profile. Protocol treatment will continue up to two years, or until progression or intolerable toxicity. Survival follow up will continue every two months, up to four years. Seven of the planned 94 patients have been enrolled as of submission on 1/28/25. Clinical trial #: NCT06160206. Funding provided by Incyte. Clinical trial information: NCT06160206 .

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) from oxaliplatin and taxane drugs is a bothersome toxicity. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has been reported to improve myelinated nerve fiber function in patients experiencing painful CIPN. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of PEA in patients with established CIPN. Methods: Eligible patients were adults who had pain, numbness, tingling, or other symptoms of CIPN for at least three months following completion of paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, or cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Study patients were randomized to one of the two treatment groups (PEA versus placebo, both administered either once or twice daily). The CIPN20 questionnaire was assessed weekly. Results: A total of 17 males and 71 females participated in the study; most had neuropathy from paclitaxel. Most (85%) finished 8 weeks of treatment. There was no suggestion that either of the PEA arms did any better than the combined placebo arms. There was no signal of significant toxicity differences between the three study arms. Quality of life outcome measures were similar between the study arms, as were cognitive function evaluations. Discussion: PEA failed to improve established CIPN. Future trials might explore whether PEA may be effective in preventing CIPN or cognitive changes based on data that suggest it may be helpful in this situation. Conclusions: PEA failed to improve established chemotherapy-induced neuropathy.

Background: Music therapy (MT) offers benefits of improved symptom relief and quality of life at the end of life, but its impact on hospice patients and caregivers needs more research. Objective: To assess the impact of MT intervention on symptom burden and well-being of hospice patients and caregivers. Methods: A total of 18 hospice patients, selected based on scores ≥4 on the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) items on pain, depression, anxiety, or well-being, participated in MT sessions provided by a board-certified music therapist. Over a period of 2-3 weeks, 3-4 MT sessions were conducted for each. Patient Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA). Depression and anxiety were measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). For the 7 caregivers enrolled, stress levels were measured using the Pearlin role overload measure and LASA. Results: Patients reported a reduction in symptom severity and emotional distress and an increase in QOL. All patients endorsed satisfaction with music therapy, describing it as particularly beneficial for stress relief, relaxation, spiritual support, emotional support, and well-being. Scores on overall QOL and stress were worse for caregivers. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that MT reduces symptom burden and enhances the quality of life for hospice patients. Hospice patients and their caregivers endorsed satisfaction with MT. Given the benefits observed, integrating MT into hospice care regimens could potentially improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Larger studies should be conducted to better assess the impact of MT in this population.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials are important for managing older patients with AML. We investigated differences in outcomes of older patients with AML on the basis of whether patients participated in intensive chemotherapy trials at community versus academic cancer centers. METHODS: We used data from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology phase III trials that enrolled patients age ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed AML between 1998 and 2002 in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9720 trial and between 2004 and 2006 in the CALGB 10201 trial. Centers funded by the NCI Community Oncology Research Program were identified as community cancer centers; others were designated as academic cancer centers. Logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare 1-month mortality and overall survival (OS) by center type. RESULTS: Seventeen percent of the 1,170 patients were enrolled in clinical trials in community cancer centers. The study results demonstrated comparable rates of grade ≥3 adverse events (97% v 93%), 1-month mortality (19.1% v 16.1%), and OS (43.9% v 35.7% at 1 year) between community versus academic cancer centers, respectively. After adjusting for covariates, 1-month mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.12; P = .11) and OS (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.22; P = .67) were not statistically different among patients treated in community versus academic cancer centers. CONCLUSION: An older patient population, who have complex health care needs, can be successfully treated on intensive chemotherapy trials in select community cancer centers with outcomes comparable with that achieved at academic cancer centers.

TPS213 Background: Regorafenib (R) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that blocks several protein kinases involved in angiogenesis and oncogenesis; it has a survival benefit in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The current standard (std) treatment in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype (WT) mCRC is sequential treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody (AEA) followed by R. However, R, which is orally administered once daily, may be more convenient and thus preferable for pts than AEA. REVERCE, a Japanese trial, demonstrated a significant 5.8 month (mo.) survival benefit with regorafenib administered prior to AEA compared to the std sequence. Based off these findings, the proposed phase II trial is to confirm the observed survival benefit from regorafenib sequencing prior to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy in REVERCE in a US patient population. Methods: REVERCEII is an Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) network-led randomized phase II study of R (dose escalation from 80mg to 160mg based on tolerance) prior to AEA (R+AEA) compared to standard sequencing (AEA+R) in pts with refractory RAS WT mCRC. Patients are randomized 1:1 to receive R (Arm A) vs. AEA (with or without irinotecan per investigator choice) (Arm B). At the time of disease progression or intolerance, patients will receive sequential treatment until disease progression. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed mCRC, ECOG ≤ 2, acceptable organ function, and patients must have had prior fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and no prior AEA nor R. The primary objective is to compare the overall survival (OS), the primary endpoint, between evaluable patients (eligible, consented, started protocol treatment) who were randomized to R+AEA (arm A) and AEA+R (arm B). With 83 OS events, we have 87% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 9 months to 14.5 mo., assuming 1-sided significance level of 0.15, and exponential distribution. The total sample size is 124 patients. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, objective response, and adverse events. The total study duration is expected to be 3 years. Clinical trial information: NCT04117945. Clinical trial information: 04117945.