Fakih, Marwan

1604 Background: Diversity in clinical studies is essential to address health disparities, but racial and ethnic minorities are often underrepresented in clinical studies, especially in precision medicine studies using genetic data (1). BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119) is an ongoing prescreening study to identify patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic solid tumors and tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH for the EVEREST-1 and -2 Tmod chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy trials. When enrollment began in 2021, eligibility for Part 1 was restricted to patients with germline HLA-A*02:01 based on preclinical data. Additional analysis revealed the blocker in the Tmod construct had activity across HLA-A*02 subtypes (Mock, et al. Mol Ther Oncolytics.2022). Eligibility for Part 1 was then expanded to all HLA-A*02 subtypes, allowing enrollment of more diverse patient populations. HLA-A*02 allele subtypes vary by ethnicity and race; the frequency of HLA-A*02:01 is 96% in non-Hispanic Whites, but ranges from 53% to 73% in other ethnicities and races. The frequency of all other HLA-A*02 allele subtypes (HLA-A*02:XX) is <5% in non-Hispanic Whites but up to 66% in other ethnicities and races (2,3). Methods: Patients eligible for BASECAMP-1 were identified at United States study sites. All patients screened before January 16, 2024, for Part 1 were included for demographic and central lab HLA-A typing. The % increase in eligibility and % of heterozygous HLA-A*02 patients with HLA-A*02:XX were calculated by ethnicity and race. Results: A total of 1124 patients were screened for germline HLA-A*02 typing; 431 patients were HLA-A*02:01 heterozygous, of whom 37 (9%) were Hispanic, 14 (3%) African American (AA), 2 (<1%) American Indian or Alaska Native, 17 (4%) Asian or Pacific Islander (API), and 324 (75%) non-Hispanic White (Table). The eligibility expansion identified 62 patients with HLA-A*02:XX heterozygosity, of whom 6 (10%) were Hispanic, 6 (10%) AA, 19 (31%) API, and 25 (40%) non-Hispanic White. Conclusions: By expanding enrollment to include HLA-A*02:XX, 16% more Hispanic, 43% more AA, and 112% more API patients were identified, improving the diversity in this trial compared with that of initial enrollment. 1. Aldrighetti, et al. JAMA Netw Open 2021. 2. Ellis, et al. Human Immunol. 2000. 3. Gragert, et al. Human Immunol.2013. Clinical trial information: NCT04981119 . [Table: see text]

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, gastric, duodenal and distal small bowel, biliary tract, pancreatic, colon, rectal, and anal cancer, comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies that impose a significant global burden. Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for several GI cancers, offering some patients durable responses and prolonged survival. Specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), either as monotherapies or in combination regimens, have gained tissue site-specific regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic disease and in the resectable setting. Indications for ICIs in GI cancer, however, have differing biomarker and histology requirements depending on the anatomic site of origin. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles compared with other systemic treatments that have long been the mainstay for GI cancer, such as chemotherapy. With the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of GI cancer. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the expert panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using ICIs to treat GI cancers, with topics including biomarker testing, therapy selection, and patient education and quality of life considerations, among others.

Abstract Objectives Peritoneal metastasis (PM) from appendiceal cancer or colorectal cancer (CRC) has significant morbidity and limited survival. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach to treat PM. We aim to conduct a dose-escalation trial of mitomycin C (MMC)-PIPAC combined with systemic chemotherapy (FOLFIRI) in patients with PM from appendiceal cancer or CRC. Methods This is a multicenter Phase I study of MMC-PIPAC (NCT04329494). Inclusion criteria include treatment with at least 4 months of first- or second-line systemic chemotherapy with ineligibility for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). Exclusion criteria are: progression on chemotherapy; extraperitoneal metastases; systemic chemotherapy intolerance; bowel obstruction; or poor performance status (ECOG>2). Escalating MMC-PIPAC doses (7–25 mg/m 2 ) will be administered in combination with standard dose systemic FOLFIRI. Safety evaluation will be performed on 15 patients (dose escalation) and six expansion patients: 21 evaluable patients total. Results The primary endpoints are recommended MMC dose and safety of MMC-PIPAC with FOLFIRI. Secondary endpoints are assessment of response (by peritoneal regression grade score; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST 1.1], and peritoneal carcinomatosis index), progression free survival, overall survival, technical failure rate, surgical complications, conversion to curative-intent CRS-HIPEC, patient-reported outcomes, and functional status. Longitudinal blood and tissue specimens will be collected for translational correlatives including pharmacokinetics, circulating biomarkers, immune profiling, and single-cell transcriptomics. Conclusions This Phase I trial will establish the recommended dose of MMC-PIPAC in combination with FOLFIRI. Additionally, we expect to detect an early efficacy signal for further development of this therapeutic combination.

125 Background: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosolized chemotherapy (PIPAC) is being evaluated as a novel minimally invasive palliative treatment of peritoneal metastases (PM). Prior studies have established the feasibility and safety of repeated PIPAC treatments in gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers. The goal of the present phase 1 trial was to establish the safety and feasibility of PIPAC oxaliplatin in a highly chemotherapy refractory colorectal and appendiceal cancer patient population. Methods: Patients with biopsy-proven peritoneal metastases from colorectal or appendiceal cancer underwent up to three PIPAC treatments using oxaliplatin (92 mg/m2) with a six-week interval at two academic centers. Patients with bowel obstruction, extra-peritoneal metastases, or poor performance status (ECOG>2) were excluded. PIPAC was nebulized over 5 min with a 30 min aerosol dwell time. Apart from the first PIPAC cycle, the patients also received a sensitizing dose of 5FU/LV (400mg/m2) within 24 hours of the procedure. Primary end point was safety as assessed by dose limiting toxicities within 6 weeks of the first PIPAC. Secondary endpoints included safety with the addition of 5FU/LV, efficacy, surgical morbidity, technical failure rate, progression-free and overall survival, pharmacokinetics (PK), and quality of life assessment. Results: A total of 8 patients were included: 5 colorectal; and 3 appendiceal. Median number of prior chemotherapy cycles was 2 (Interquartile range – IQR; 1.5-3.5). All patients were refractory to systemic oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Median time from diagnosis to PIPAC was 16 months (IQR; 5.6, 17.5) and Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Index was 29 (IQR; 20.5, 31.5). Five (62.5%) patients completed 3 PIPAC cycles while in 3 (37.5%) patients PIPAC was discontinued due to disease progression within the peritoneal cavity. No surgical complication or dose limiting toxicity was observed. Only one patient developed grade 3 treatment-related toxicity after first PIPAC (anemia), and another patient after second PIPAC (abdominal pain and anemia). At the completion of PIPAC treatment 5 patients had stable disease and 3 had disease progression. Pharmacokinetic, histologic response and preliminary survival data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: PIPAC with oxaliplatin is safe and feasible in a highly chemotherapy refractory cohort of appendiceal and colorectal carcinomatosis patients with or without sensitizing 5-FU/ LV. Clinical trial information: NCT04329494.

AbstractPurpose:To analytically and clinically validate microsatellite instability (MSI) detection using cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing.Experimental Design:Pan-cancer MSI detection using Guardant360 was analytically validated according to established guidelines and clinically validated using 1,145 cfDNA samples for which tissue MSI status based on standard-of-care tissue testing was available. The landscape of cfDNA-based MSI across solid tumor types was investigated in a cohort of 28,459 clinical plasma samples. Clinical outcomes for 16 patients with cfDNA MSI-H gastric cancer treated with immunotherapy were evaluated.Results:cfDNA MSI evaluation was shown to have high specificity, precision, and sensitivity, with a limit of detection of 0.1% tumor content. In evaluable patients, cfDNA testing accurately detected 87% (71/82) of tissue MSI-H and 99.5% of tissue microsatellite stable (863/867) for an overall accuracy of 98.4% (934/949) and a positive predictive value of 95% (71/75). Concordance of cfDNA MSI with tissue PCR and next-generation sequencing was significantly higher than IHC. Prevalence of cfDNA MSI for major cancer types was consistent with those reported for tissue. Finally, robust clinical activity of immunotherapy treatment was seen in patients with advanced gastric cancer positive for MSI by cfDNA, with 63% (10/16) of patients achieving complete or partial remission with sustained clinical benefit.Conclusions:cfDNA-based MSI detection using Guardant360 is highly concordant with tissue-based testing, enabling highly accurate detection of MSI status concurrent with comprehensive genomic profiling and expanding access to immunotherapy for patients with advanced cancer for whom current testing practices are inadequate.See related commentary by Wang and Ajani, p. 6887