Borad, Mitesh J.

TPS4165 Background: Oncogenic activation of FGFR2 via genomic rearrangement, gene amplification, or point mutation in advanced solid tumors provides the opportunity for rapid clinical development of highly selective FGFR2 inhibitors using a precision oncology approach to deliver clinical benefit to genomically-defined patient (pt) populations. Unfortunately, this opportunity remains largely unrealized as current, non-selective small molecule inhibitors (pan-FGFRi) suffer from off-isoform toxicity (FGFR1-hyperphosphatemia; FGFR4-diarrhea) and on-target acquired resistance leading to only modest efficacy primarily limited to FGFR2-fusion+ intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). RLY-4008 is a novel, oral FGFR2 inhibitor designed to overcome the limitations of pan-FGFRi by potently and selectively targeting primary oncogenic FGFR2 alterations and acquired resistance mutations. We initiated a first-in-human (FIH) precision oncology study of RLY-4008 in advanced solid tumor pts with FGFR2 alterations with primary objectives to define the maximum tolerated dose/recommended phase 2 dose (MTD/RP2D) and adverse event (AE) profile of RLY-4008 and key secondary objectives to assess FGFR2 genotype in blood and tumor tissue, pharmacokinetics (PK), and anti-tumor activity. Methods: This is a global, multi-center, FIH dose escalation/expansion study of RLY-4008 (NCT04526106) in adult pts who have unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with FGFR2 alteration per local assessment, ECOG performance status 0-2, measurable or evaluable disease per RECIST 1.1, and who are refractory, intolerant, or declined standard therapy including pan-FGFRi. FGFR2 alteration will be confirmed retrospectively by central laboratory assessment. For the dose escalation (Ñ50), RLY-4008 is administered QD/BID on a continuous schedule with 4-week cycles according to a Bayesian Optimal Interval design that allows accelerated dose titration, additional accrual to dose levels declared tolerable, and exploration of alternative schedules if warranted. The MTD is determined via logistic regression of the dose limiting toxicity rate across all dose levels and an RP2D less than the MTD may be considered based on observed AEs, PK, and anti-tumor activity. Following dose escalation, the dose expansion (Ñ75) will treat pts with RLY-4008 at the MTD/RP2D and includes 5 groups with any prior therapy (except group 2): 1. FGFR2 fusion+ ICC pts; 2. FGFR2 fusion+ ICC pts with no prior FGFRi; 3. FGFR2 fusion+ pts with other solid tumors; 4. FGFR2-mutation+ solid tumor pts and 5. FGFR2-amplified solid tumor pts. The primary endpoints are MTD/RP2D and AE profile; key secondary endpoints are FGFR2 genotype in blood and tumor tissue, PK parameters; overall response rate, and duration of response per RECIST 1.1. US enrollment began SEP2020 and Europe/Asia start-up is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT04526106.

e16185 Background: Comprehensive sequencing efforts have identified fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) translocations in numerous cancers. FGFR2 fusions were recently identified as an actionable therapeutic target in ̃17% of cholangiocarcinoma patients, predominantly found in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Genomic partners for FGFR fusions are variable. In addition, obtaining high yield tissue biopsies for CCA remains challenging and tumor tissue available for molecular analyses is scarce. When combined, these two factors make detection of FGFR fusions in CCA challenging. An accurate molecular assay to detect FGFR fusions in CCA could improve utilization of FGFR-targeted therapies. Methods: The objective of our study was to develop an approach for targeted RNA analysis to improve sensitivity for FGFR fusion detection from limited tumor material. We adapted the sensitive targeted digital sequencing (TARDIS) approach recently developed in our lab for analysis of RNA. This approach utilizes a combination of open-ended targeted amplification followed by ligation, enabling detection of tyrosine kinase fusions without prior knowledge of the precise sequence of the fusion breakpoint or identity of the fusion partner. For evaluation of analytical performance, we analyzed RNA from a CCA organoid model with a known FGFR2 fusion, and Seraseq Fusion RNA Mix v3 Reference Material with two known FGFR3 fusions. Results: Without prior knowledge the partner or coordinates of the fusion breakpoint, we detected an FGFR2-KIF5C fusion in RNA from a CCA organoid model. The fusion breakpoint coordinates predicted by TARDIS-RNA were validated by comparison with RNA-Seq. To assess sensitivity and quantitative performance of the assay, we analyzed a serial dilution of the reference RNA sample from Seraseq with concentration of RNA molecules representing candidate fusions verified by digital PCR. Using TARDIS-RNA to analyze replicates with 5 ng RNA input, we were able to detect candidate fusions represented by as few as 2.7 fusion molecules on average. Concentrations of fusion molecules measured using the two methods were highly correlated (R = 0.96). Conclusions: These results demonstrate sensitivity and quantitative performance of a targeted RNA sequencing assay to detect and quantify FGFR fusions in tumor specimen from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. On-going work is focused on further evaluating assay performance and characterizing FGFR fusions using additional tissue specimen.

4130 Background: Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) genomic profiling is an emerging tool for pancreatic cancer. The impact of detected genomic alterations in tumor response to systemic treatments and outcomes is under investigation. Methods: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and ctDNA collected at time of initial diagnosis were retrospectively evaluated. Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with patients’ demographics, systemic treatment response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 104 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 70.5 years (SD: 8.3), 50% were male, 37% with locally advanced disease and 63% with metastatic disease. Somatic alterations were detected in 84.6 % of the patients, no genetic alterations were detected in 15.4%, and were associated more with locally advanced pancreatic cancer as opposed to metastatic, p = 0.025. 60.6 % of the cohort had ≥ 2 genomic alterations detected. 28% were treated with FOLFIRINOX and 63% with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as first-line systemic treatment. Patients with any detectable genomic alterations when compared to patients with no detectable variant had worse median PFS (6.2 versus 15.3 months, p = 0.005) and patients with ≥ 2 detectable genomic alterations had worse median PFS (5.6 versus 11.0 months, p < 0.001) and worse median OS (11.5 versus 24.2 months, p = 0.001). KRAS was detected in 62.5% of the patients and was associated with PD to systemic treatments (80.4% vs 19.6%, p = 0.006), worse median PFS (5.8 versus 13.0 months, p < 0.001) and worse median OS (11.5 versus 26.3 months, p = 0.002). TP53 was detected in 60% of patients and was associated with worse median PFS (5.9 versus 10.9 months, p = 0.02) and worse median OS (13.5 versus 24.2 months, p = 0.001). CCND2 was detected in 14% of the patients and was associated with worse median PFS (3.6 versus 8.2 months, p = 0.004). Conclusions: Our study showed that initial detection of ctDNA may identify different genomic alterations that help predict disease outcomes, confirmation of these findings in larger studies are warranted.

4118 Background: Germline variations in cancer susceptibility genes have important implications on treatment and family counseling in pancreatic cancer (PC). We report the prevalence and clinical outcomes of unselected PC patients with pathogenic germline variants (PGV) detected using a universal testing approach. Methods: We undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using an >80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among 250 PC patients (not selected for age or family cancer history) between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Demographic, tumor characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between PGV carriers and non-carriers. Results: Of 250 patients, the mean age was 65 years (SD 8.7), 56% were male, 83.6% were white and 65.6% had advanced disease (Stage III and IV). PGV were found in 15.2% (N=38) of patients, two patients had more than one PGV. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 44.4% (N=111). Family history of cancer (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.14-5.19, p=0.025) was associated with a higher risk of PGV. In a median follow up of 16.5 months, median overall survival was 16.8 months in PGV carriers compared with 16.5 months in non-carriers (HR 0.51, 95 %CI, 0.25-1.01, p=0.05). Higher levels of CA 19-9 and advanced stages (III and IV) were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Overall, 68% of PGV carriers had mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes, including BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, RAD51C. In 65% of HRR gene carrier’s systemic therapy with platinum was used. Conclusions: Universal multi-gene panel testing in pancreatic cancer reveals that 1 in 6 patients are carriers of PGV and is associated with improved survival. Multi-gene germline testing should be used to aid in treatment selection, prognostication, and familial cancer counseling. Distribution of the 40 PGV by penetrance status.[Table: see text]

4086 Background: Pemigatinib (PEMI), a potent, selective, oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor, has shown efficacy and safety in patients (pts) with CCA and FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions in FIGHT-202 (NCT02924376; objective response rate [ORR], 35.5%; duration of response [DOR], 7.2 months [mo]). Overall survival (OS: 21.1 mo) was not mature in the primary report (Abou-Alfa. Lancet Oncol 2020; cutoff: Mar 22, 2019); herein we report matured efficacy and safety data from FIGHT-202 (cutoff: Apr 7, 2020). Methods: Pts (≥18 y) with known FGF/FGFR alterations and progression after ≥1 prior therapy had FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions (cohort A), other FGF/FGFR alterations (B), or no FGF/FGFR alterations (C). Pts received PEMI 13.5 mg QD (21-d cycle; 2 wks on, 1 wk off) until progression or toxicity. Primary endpoint: independent, centrally confirmed ORR (cohort A); secondary endpoints: ORR (cohorts B, C; cohorts A and B combined); DOR, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS), OS, and safety. A post-hoc analysis in cohort A evaluated mOS in responders (pts with complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) vs non-responders (pts with progressive disease [PD] or stable disease (SD]). Results: At cutoff, 147 pts were enrolled (cohort A, n=108; B, n=20; C, n=17; FGF/FGFR status undetermined, n=2); median follow-up was 30.4 (range, 4.9–38.7) mo and median treatment duration was 5.9 (0.2–36.5) mo. In cohort A, 9.3% of pts remained on therapy at cutoff; in cohorts B and C, all pts had discontinued. Pts discontinued mainly for PD (67.6%, 75%, and 64.7% in cohorts A, B, and C respectively). Independent, centrally confirmed ORR was 37.0%; mOS was 17.5 mo (95% CI, 14.4-22.9) in cohort A (Table 1). mOS for responders (n=40) vs non-responders (n=68) was 30.1 (95% CI, 21.5-NE) mo vs 13.7 (9.6-16.1) mo. Overall, most common all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were hyperphosphatemia (58.5%; grade ≥3, 0%), alopecia (49.7%; 0%), diarrhea (46.9%; 3.4%), fatigue (43.5%; 5.4%), nausea (41.5%; 2%), and dysgeusia (40.8%; 0%); 10.2%, 13.6% and 42.2% of pts discontinued, had dose reduction, and treatment interruption due to TEAEs, respectively. Conclusions: These results reinforce the primary data, showing continued, durable responses and sustained tolerability in pts receiving PEMI for CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements/fusions. Notably, the matured OS is longer than historical data; OS for responders was more than twice as long vs for non-responders. Clinical trial information: NCT02924376. [Table: see text]

4079 Background: Cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) holds significant promise and is being used for clinical decision making in multiple tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of pre-treatment ctDNA in metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTC) treated with platinum based first-line chemotherapy treatment. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 67 patients who underwent ctDNA testing before platinum-based chemotherapy for first-line treatment for metastatic BTC. For analysis we considered the detected gene with highest variant allele frequency (VAF). Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with patients’ demographics, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: The median age of patients was 67 y/o (27-90). 54 (80.6%) of 67 patients evaluated had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; seven had extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and six gallbladder cancer. 46 (68.6%) of the patients were treated with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, 14 (21%) patients received gemcitabine and other platinum (carboplatin or oxaliplatin) combinations while 7 (10.4%) patients were treated on a clinical trial with gemcitabine and cisplatin plus additional targeted agents (CX4945 or PEGPH20). TP53, KRAS, APC, FGFR2 and IDH1 were the genes with highest frequency as dominant clone. The median dominant clone allele frequency (DCAF) was 3% (0-97%). DCAF >3% was associated with statistically significant worse PFS (median PFS: 4.05 vs. 7.70 months, p=0.046) and OS (median OS: 10.8 vs. 18.8 months, p=0.056). Each 1% increase in DCAF is associated with a hazard ratio of 26.21 in OS when adjusting for subtypes, age, treatment type, and CA19-9 [Table]. Conclusions: Patients with metastatic BTC with DCAF > 3% at diagnosis have worse PFS and OS compared to patients with low ctDNA when treated with upfront platinum-based chemotherapy.[Table: see text]

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

4009 Background: IDH1/2 genetic aberrations (GA) occur in 20% of IHCC cases and may be specifically targeted by IDH inhibitors. The genomic and immunologic profile of IHCC with IDH1/2 GA remains undefined. IDH1 mutations impair DNA damage repair (DDR), loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and may represent a biomarker for DDR in these patients. Methods: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed in 3,067 cases of advanced stage IHCC using a hybrid capture-based FDA-approved assay. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined on 0.8 Mbp of sequenced DNA and microsatellite instability (MSI) was determined on 95 loci. PD-L1 expression in tumor cells (Dako 22C3) was measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Genomic LOH (gLOH) was assessed for samples meeting quality criteria. Densities of tumor associated immune cells and immune-checkpoint markers expressed in epithelial malignant cells and in the tumor microenvironment of 100 surgical samples from 96 patients were evaluated by IHC using digital image analysis of 14 markers (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD68, PD1,PD-L1, B7-H4, B7-H3, IDO1, ICOS, VISTA, OX40, TIM3, LAG3). Tissue microarrays were generated for multiplex immune panel analysis. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: 426 (14%) of IHCC were IDH1+ and 125 (4%) were IDH2+ (Table) and were mutually exclusive. All IDH1 GA occurred at the R132 locus and included R132C (69%) and R132L/G/S/H/F (16%/7%/4%/3%/ < 1%) and 119Q ( < 1%) and IDH2 GA at R172 (94.4%) and R140 (6.6%). IDH1+ and IDH2+ IHCC had fewer co-occurring targetable GA than IDH1/2 wildtype (WT, IDHwt) cases including FGFR2 rearrangements (RE) (P <.0001), ERBB2 (P =.0009) and BRAF (P =.04). Median gLOH were not significantly different between IDH1+ IDH2+ IHCC vs. IDHwt IHCC (p = 0.37). Potential biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) response including MSI High, TMB > 10 mut/Mb, and PD-L1 positivity were more frequent in IDHwt IHCC than IDH1+ IHCC. 29/96 (30%) surgical patients were positive for IDH1/2 mutation though mutational status did not confer a statistically significant difference in the 14 immune biomarker panel expression. Conclusions: CGP reveals significant differences in GA between IDH1+, IDH2+ and IDHwt IHCC consistent with IDH1 and IDH2 being driver oncogenes for IHCC. Immune biomarker expression and gLOH did not differ significantly between IDH mutated and WT cases.[Table: see text]

Abstract The past decade has seen a rise in the availability of breakthrough therapeutic strategies for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A tumor microenvironment in HCC is regulated by various immunotolerance mechanisms; therefore, therapeutic strategies aiming at disrupting tumor immune tolerance are becoming attractive curative options in HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated impressive effectiveness in HCC, including in sorafenib-unresponsive patients. Synergistic approaches with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4) and antiangiogenic drugs are burgeoning as first-line treatment therapeutic modalities in HCC.

Despite advancements in cancer therapy that have occurred over the past several decades, successful treatment of advanced malignancies remains elusive. Substantial resources and significant efforts have been directed toward the development of novel therapeutic modalities to improve patient outcomes. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are emerging tools with unique characteristics that have attracted great interest in developing effective anticancer treatment. The original attraction was directed toward selective replication and cell-specific toxicity, two unique features that are either inherent to the virus or could be conferred by genetic engineering. However, recent advancements in the knowledge and understanding of OVs are shifting the therapeutic paradigm toward a greater focus on their immunomodulatory role. Nonetheless, there are still significant obstacles that remain to be overcome to enhance the efficiency of OVs as effective therapeutic modalities and potentially establish them as part of standard treatment regimens. In this review, we discuss advances in the design of OVs, strategies to enhance their therapeutic efficacy, functional translation into the clinical settings, and various obstacles that are still encountered in the efforts to establish them as effective anticancer treatments.