Cutsem, Eric Van

627 Background: The SLI of the BEACON CRC phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (ENCO) + MEK inhibitor binimetinib (BINI) + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (CETUX) in pts with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC after 1 or 2 prior regimens. CEA and CA19-9 are tumor markers that are widely used to monitor the effectiveness of systemic therapies for mCRC; here we report on the association of CEA and CA19-9 changes while on treatment with clinical outcomes in pts from the SLI. Methods: Pts in the SLI received the triplet of ENCO 300 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + CETUX 400 mg/m2 (initial dose) then 250 mg/m2 QW in 28-day cycles. Pts were evaluated for safety, radiographic response, and change in tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Results: 30 pts were treated. The triplet was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with known BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibitor toxicities. The rate of severe skin toxicities (grade 3/4) was lower than generally observed for CETUX in mCRC. Of the 29 pts with a BRAFV600E mutation, the median time on study treatment was 5.6 mo (range, 1.0–9.3 mo), and 22 (76%) remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) was 41%, with 1 complete and 11 partial responses. In addition, 9 pts had prolonged stable disease (SD) up to 9.3 mo.CEA and CA19-9 were analyzed in 28 pts. CEA and CA19-9 decreased in 96% and 82% of these pts, respectively. Among 15 pts with treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, median/mean % decreases were 97%/79% for CEA and 92%/82% for CA19-9 in confirmed responders (n=6). Respective decreases in pts with prolonged SD (n=9) were similar: 84%/68% for CEA and 89%/68% for CA19-9. Updated safety, efficacy, and tumor marker results will be provided. Conclusions: ENCO + BINI + CETUX is generally well tolerated and has encouraging clinical activity in BRAFV 600E mCRC, with a confirmed ORR of 41%. In pts with study treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, the tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 decreased markedly and to the same degree in responders vs pts with prolonged SD, providing additional evidence of the meaningful clinical activity of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

617 Background: There is limited, often conflicting evidence about AE timing, severity or associations with outcomes with the use of cytotoxic agents in cancer treatment. We investigated the impact on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of selected common AEs (neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, neuropathy) occurring in patients receiving first line oxaliplatin (Oxa)- and/or irinotecan(Iri)-based regimens for mCRC. Methods: The CTCAE grading scores of at least one AE of interest were available on 9812 pts treated with chemotherapy alone (median age 63; 62.4% male, 50.1% ECOG PS 0) from 17 1st-line randomized trials. Patients who also received biologics were excluded in the primary analyses. AEs occurring during the first 6 weeks of treatment and entire treatment were analyzed by stratified multivariable Cox models in relationship to OS/PFS. 55.7% pts received Oxa- regimens, 35.7% Iri-regimens, and 8.6% combined Oxa- and Iri-regimens. Results: Within the first 6 weeks of treatment, G3+ neutropenia (HRadj= 1.3, 95% CI, 1.06-1.59, padj 0.01), diarrhea (HRadj= 1.48, 95% CI, 1.23-1.79, padj < .0001), nausea (HRadj= 1.53, 95% CI, 1.17-1.99, padj 0.002) and vomiting (HRadj= 1.56, 95% CI, 1.18-2.07, padj 0.002) were associated with significantly worse OS for Iri-regimens, but only G3+ nausea predicted for worse OS for Oxa- regimens (HRadj= 1.61, 95% CI, 1.18-2.21, padj 0.003). For AEs experienced at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy were significantly associated with longer PFS and OS for Oxa-regimens, while G3+ vomiting and nausea were associated with worse OS for both Oxa- and Iri-based regimens. Sensitivity analysis showed largely concordant results by including pts who also received biologics. Conclusions: The association between more severe selected AEs and outcome varies between AEs and is influenced by timing of the occurrence. More severe selected AEs occurring early in treatment are associated with worse outcomes. In contrast, for AEs occurring at any time, G3+ neutropenia and neuropathy predicted for longer PFS and/or OS in Oxa-treated pts.

612 Background: mCRC is a heterogeneous disease leading to possible disparate responses among lesions in a single pt. This study assesses the heterogeneity of lesion responses and evaluates the prognostic value of LBR12 and its mortality risk discrimination beyond RECIST responses. Methods: Pts with ≥ 2 lesions and no new lesions at 12 weeks (wks) were eligible. For each pt, after 12 wks of Rx, each lesion was categorized as progressive disease (L-PD: ≥20% increase in the longest diameter [LD]), partial response (L-PR: ≥30% decrease in LD), or stable disease (L-SD: neither L-PD nor L-PR). LBR12 was defined, per patient, by the combination of lesion responses: homogeneous LBR12 (L-PD, L-SD, L-PR only) and heterogeneous LBR12 (mixture of L-PD/L-SD, L-PD/L-PR, L-SD/L-PR). LBR12 and overall survival (OS) were correlated using stratified multivariate Cox models after adjusting for age, gender, and ECOG PS. Results: Among 9,092 mCRCs (Rx: chemo alone 44%; chemo + VEGF inhibitor [VEGFi] 42%; chemo + EGFR inhibitor [EGFRi] 10%) from 16 1st-line studies. Median OS: 2.2 years. Per RECIST at 12 wks, CR 0%; PR 36.1%; SD 60.9%; PD 3.0%. Responses in 52% were heterogeneous (Table). VEGFi and EGFRi treated pts had the highest rate of L-SD/L-PR (45%) and L-PR only (22%) status, respectively. Median OS increased monotonically across pts with more L-PRs and fewer L-PDs (Table). Pts with L-SD/L-PR status, among which 51% had SD per RECIST, had longer OS than those with L-SD only status (HRadj.= .81, padj.< .0001), but shorter OS than those with L-PR only status (HRadj.= 1.46, padj.< .0001). Pts with L-PD/L-SD status, among which 71% were SD per RECIST, had shorter OS than those with L-SD only status (HRadj.= 2.22, padj.< .0001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimens. Conclusions: The lesion-based response captures the heterogeneity of within pt lesion responses and provides refinement in predicting outcome beyond RECIST response at 12 wks. [Table: see text]

TPS4148 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be fundamentally important for resistance to therapy, recurrence and metastasis. Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor 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 chemotherapeutic agents, including nab-PTX and gem. Encouraging anticancer activity in mPDAC was observed in a phase Ib (El-Rayes et al, ASCO 2016) study of 37 pts, reporting 93% (28/30) disease control rate (DCR) and 50% (15/30) overall response rate (ORR), with 1 complete and 14 partial responses and prolonged disease control ( > 24 wks) in 57% (17/30) of pts who have had a RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02993731) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+nab-PTX+gem vs nab-PTX+gem in pts with mPDAC (n = 1132). Pts must have been diagnosed with mPDAC < 6 weeks prior to randomization and not have received treatment for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO twice daily continuously plus nab-PTX+gem IV weekly for 3 out every 4 weeks, or nab-PTX+gem IV weekly for 3 out every 4 weeks. Pts will be stratified by geography, performance status and presence of liver metastases. Treatment will continue until disease progression, death, intolerability or patient/investigator decision to stop. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 8.5 to 10.63 months); secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), OS and PFS in the biomarker positive sub-population, ORR and DCR, safety and quality of life. In addition, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02993731.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

TPS3619 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be 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). Preclinically, napabucasin sensitizes cancer cells to chemotherapeutics, including 5-FU and irinotecan. Encouraging anticancer activity in advanced CRC was observed in a phase Ib/II (Bendell et al, GI ASCO 2017) study of 63 pts with disease control rate (DCR) of 93% (28/30) and overall response rate (ORR) of 33% (10/30) in FOLFIRI-naïve pts who have had an on-study RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753127) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI in pts with mCRC (n = 1250). Addition of bevacizumab (bev) is permissible per investigator choice. Pts must have failed 1 prior line of therapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine +/- bev for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO BID plus FOLFIRI bi-weekly, or FOLFIRI bi-weekly (bev may be added to FOLFIRI by investigator choice) and stratified by geography, time to progression on 1st-line therapy, RAS mutation status, bev as part of study treatment and primary tumor location. Treatment will continue until disease progression, or another discontinuation criterion. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (ITT) (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 12.54 to 15.68 months); secondary endpoints include OS in the biomarker positive (biomarker+) population, progression free survival (PFS) in the ITT population, PFS in biomarker+ population, ORR and DCR in the ITT and in biomarker+ populations, safety and quality of life. Also, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for PK and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02753127.

3582 Background: The prognostic importance of the incidence, severity, type and duration of AEs pts experience during chemotherapy varies between tumor types, and the available evidence across the board is often conflicting. Here we investigated the impact of the overall severity of AEs among pts with mCRC receiving first-line oxaliplatin (Oxa)- and/or irinotecan(Iri)-based regimens. Methods: The overall severity of AE data (i.e., max grade (G) of all AEs) were available on 3,971 pts (median age 61; 60% male, 47% ECOG PS 1+; 57% 2+ metastatic sites) enrolled onto 6 1st-line randomized trials. Around 46%, 45%, and 9% of pts had received Oxa-, Iri-, and Oxa+Iri-based regimens, respectively. Pts receiving biologic agents were excluded. Stratified multivariate Cox models were used to assess the associations with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); adjusted hazard ratios (HRadj) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: Pts who only received Oxa-based treatment reported the lowest rate of G3+ AEs (p < .0001) compared to pts treated with Iri- or Oxa+Iri-based regimens. Older age, female gender, and PS 1 or 2+ were associated with higher grade AEs (all p < .0001). Considering AEs experienced within 6w after randomization, 10% and 61% of pts experienced G4+ and G2-3 AEs, respectively. G3+ AEs were associated with a shorter OS for both pts receiving Oxa- (HRadj= 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.3, padj < .0001) and Iri-based regimens (HRadj= 1.4, 95% CI, 1.2-1.5, padj < .0001). For the entire treatment course, 19% and 72% of pts experienced G4+ and G2-3 AEs, respectively. For Oxa-based regimens, pts with G3+ AEs had a longer OS (HRadj= 0.86, 95% CI, 0.78-0.94, padj = .0016), whereas G3+ AEs were associated with a shorter OS (HRadj= 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.4, padj = .0004) for pts treated with Iri-based regimens. Similar patterns were seen for PFS. Conclusions: Pts who reported higher grade AEs during initial treatment (≤6w) have significantly worse outcome than those who do not. Further analyses with treatment exposure/detailed dose-AE profile and its impact on survival are warranted.

3554 Background: There is considerable variability in the outcomes between second line (SL) trials in mCRC. The aim of this analysis is to compare the outcomes of patients (pts) with mCRC treated either on SAFL, with protocol defined SL treatment, or DSLT. Methods: Individual pt data was available on pts with mCRC enrolled in 1 of 10 trials (7 DSLT, 3 SAFL) in the ARCAD database. Regimens included FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and irinotecan (IRI), since pts did not receive biologic agents in SL on SAFL. For pts on a SAFL, PFS and OS were defined as time from initiation of SL treatment to second progression (SP)/death and death, respectively. Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox models were used to assess differences in PFS and OS. Results: 5,076 pts were included; 63% were male; median age was 62. See Table for treatment details. Pts treated on SAFL had shorter OS (0.7-1.5 months (mos>) shorter) and PFS (0.6-2.6 mos shorter), compared to those treated on DSLT. These findings were statistically significant and differences in OS did not attenuate after adjustment for age, gender, and prior treatment. PFS differences in FOLFOX became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: There are modest differences in both PFS and OS between pts with mCRC treated on SAFL and those on DSLT, suggesting differences in these pt populations. Caution is needed when applying these data to pts, as we were unable to control for potential confounders (ECOG PS, number and sites of metastases) at initiation of SL in SAFL, which may impact outcomes. [Table: see text]