Adjei, Alex A.

Abstract Cancer incidence is increasing worldwide and is a major cause of mortality. The relative magnitude of the increase is remarkably high in low human development index (HDI; 95%) and medium HDI (64%) countries. On the African continent, a corresponding increase in cancer burden is predicted, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa. Current epidemiologic data indicate that mortality rates of certain cancers, such as breast and cervical cancers, in sub-Saharan Africa are the highest in the world, and the cancer risks are broadly comparable to the risks in high-income countries, such as the United States and Europe. Although emerging data alludes to the unique genetic profile of cancer in African populations, most cancer therapies are introduced to Africa without confirmatory clinical trials. Therefore, there is an increasing need for clinical trials directed toward prevention, screening, diagnosis, and identification of innovative treatments in the African context. This review will discuss the increasing cancer burden in Africa, with a particular focus on Ghana, unmet clinical needs in cancer, current medical systems, clinical trial regulatory systems, and challenges to clinical trial recruitment.

LBA7564 Background: Patients with r/r B-NHL have a dismal prognosis. DIAL (Dual Immunomodulation in Aggressive Lymphoma) was a multi-center randomized phase II study testing the efficacy of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) plus varlilumab (CD27 agonist) in this population. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg IV every 2 weeks for 4 months, 480 mg IV monthly thereafter; group 1) alone or combined with varlilumab (3 mg/kg IV monthly; group 2). Cross-over (group 1 to 2) was allowed for progression. Primary endpoint was overall response (ORR) per LYRIC criteria. A sample size of 48 patients per arm would provide 80% power to detect increase in ORR from 25% to 45% using a one-sided test (p = 0.15). Pre-specified interim analysis occurred after half of the patients completed first radiologic assessment. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Exploratory endpoints included tumor genomic assessment and immune profiling of blood and tumor. Results: 53 patients were enrolled (27 in group 1; 26 in group 2). Interim analysis included 24 patients from each arm. Mean age was 65.2 years, 34 (70.8%) were male, and 36 (75%) received prior CAR-T cell therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were observed in 8 (33.3%) and 7 (30.4%) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Common AEs (> 5%) of any grade included fatigue, lymphopenia, diarrhea, rash. There were no treatment-associated deaths. Toxicity profile was similar between arms. Table summarizes efficacy outcomes. ORR was achieved in 6 patients (12.5%), not statistically different between arms; 4 responses were complete. Seven patients crossed over (1 responded after crossing). Median OS (8.6 vs 7.3 months; p = 0.39) and PFS (2.7 vs 1.4 months; p = 0.06) were similar between arms. Subgroup analysis of patients with prior CAR-T cell therapy showed similar ORR (5/36; 14%), not statistically different between arms. Correlative analysis results will be presented at conference. The trial met futility criterion on interim analysis and enrollment ceased based on pre-specified stopping rule. Conclusions: Dual immunomodulatory therapy did not enhance anti-tumor activity in patients with aggressive B-NHL compared to nivolumab alone. Response rates were low and consistent with previous data using PD-1 inhibitors in this population. Prior therapy with CAR-T cell does not seem to sensitize patients to PD-1 blockade. Toxicity profile was acceptable and dual therapy did not increase the rate of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03038672. [Table: see text]

TPS8604 Background: Chemoimmunotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance yields a median overall survival of 12.9 months in patients with extensive stage Small Cell Lung Cancer (ES SCLC), which is an improvement over chemotherapy alone. However, 90% of these patients will have progressive disease. While topotecan and lurbinectedin have established modest activity in the second line, it is unknown whether continuing immunotherapy in this setting confers additional benefit. In preclinical studies lurbinectedin, a DNA minor groove binder, used with immune checkpoint inhibitors has synergistic effects. Methods: This phase 2 trial is enrolling patients with ES SCLC who have progressed on platinum based chemoimmunotherapy, to three treatment groups. Group 1 includes patients with platinum sensitive SCLC who will receive durvalumab (1500 mg given as an intravenous [IV] infusion once every 3 weeks) and topotecan (1.25 mg/m2/day IV for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks). In Groups 2A and 2B, patients with platinum sensitive and platinum resistant disease respectively, receive durvalumab and lurbinectedin (3.2 mg/m2 IV on Day 1 of every 21-day cycle). Patients with platinum sensitive disease are assigned to Groups 1 or 2A based on the preferences of the treating physician and the patient. Patients with treated/stable CNS metastases are eligible. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients who are alive at 6 months (6OS) for Group 1 and the proportion of patients who are alive and progression-free at 6 months (6PFS) in Groups 2A and 2B. Secondary endpoints include safety, adverse event profile, response rate, PFS, and OS. The sample size is based on a 2-stage Simon Optimal Design. For Treatment Group 1, with 22 eligible patients there is 80% power to detect a true 6-month OS rate (6OS) of 75%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6OS is at most 50%. For Treatment Group 2A, with 20 eligible patients this design has 80% power to detect a true 6-month PFS rate (6PFS) of 65%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6PFS is at most 40%. For Treatment Group 2B, with 22 eligible patients this design has 80% power to detect a true 6-month PFS rate (6PFS) of 40%, with 10% alpha under the null hypothesis that the true 6PFS is at most 19%. To account for possible drop-outs, accrual targets will be 24, 22, and 24 patients to Groups 1, 2A, and 2B respectively. For the safety analyses, 6 patients will be enrolled at the starting dose level for each treatment group (1, 2) and then briefly closed to accrual to assess adverse events. If we observe 2+ DLTs in these 6 treated patients during Cycle 1 within a treatment group (1 vs. 2), we will declare the combination treatment too toxic and lower the starting dose of chemotherapy for the next 6 patients. The study was open for all 3 groups as of January 2022 and has accrued 2 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04607954.

4130 Background: KRAS is mutationally activated in over 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Compared to pts with KRAS mutation, KRAS wild-type (wt) PDAC seem to have better response to therapy and may harbor potentially actionable molecular alterations. Here, we analyze the molecular profile and clinical outcome of a cohort of pts with KRAS wt PDAC. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on pts with PDAC who underwent CLIA-certified Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) testing at Mayo Clinic between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2021. Pts with KRAS wt PDAC with available reports were included. Their genomic drivers, RNA expression, demographics, disease characteristics, therapies offered, and clinical outcome data were collected. The study was approved by the institutional IRB. Results: Of the 241 eligible pts, 8% (19) has KRAS wt PDAC. Among those, 2 pts had no mutation identified by the gene/molecular panel used. Of the 17 pts (89%) with identified alterations, mutations found in ³ 2 pts were TP53 (53%), CDKN2A (16%) and CDKN2B/ERBB2/PTEN/MSH3/RNF43/FBXW7/KMT2D/GNAS (11% each). Chromosomal rearrangements were identified in 5 (26%): CADPS2-BRAF, GP2-ERBB2, PTPRK-RSPO3, EML4-NTRK3 and TFG-MET. RNA expression results were available in 12 pts: common overexpression were ERBB2 (27%) and MET/NRAS/MYC/CCDN1/CCNE1/AR (18% each); and the under-expression MGMT (18%). Among the 13 pts with available MSI status via NGS, 2 (11%) were MSI-high (both had high TMB [28.4 and 23.7 m/MB]) while all others were TMB < 10 m/MB. The median age at diagnosis was 61 years (68% males). 8/19 (42%) were Stage IV at diagnosis with 15/19 (79%) pts ultimately diagnosed with metastatic disease. Among metastatic pts, median lines of treatment received was 2.5 (range:0-4). 4 pts received FOLFIRINOX (FFX), 2 gemcitabine/ nab-paclitaxel (GP) and tumor response were comparable to previously reported results. 1 received 1st-line pembrolizumab and remained on therapy at the time of analysis. The median length of follow up from diagnosis was 29 months. A patient with TFG-MET re-arrangement previously progressed on FFX and GP was treated using a MET inhibitor, and achieved significant CA19-9 drop and pancreas tumor shrinkage at 1st restaging, with ongoing response. Conclusions: The molecular profile of KRAS wt PDAC is highly heterogeneous and difficult to generalize. Novel approaches (e.g., basket trials) are needed to develop therapy for this rare PDAC subgroup.

Background Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)–targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. Methods In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3–15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]–naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. Results Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC. Conclusions Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC. Trial registration number NCT02475213.

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model for Z‐endoxifen in patients with advanced solid tumors and to identify clinical variables that influence pharmacokinetic parameters. Z‐endoxifen‐HCl was administered orally once a day on a 28‐day cycle (±3 days) over 11 dose levels ranging from 20 to 360 mg. A total of 1256 Z‐endoxifen plasma concentration samples from 80 patients were analyzed using nonlinear mixed‐effects modeling to develop a population pharmacokinetic model for Z‐endoxifen. A 2‐compartment model with oral depot and linear elimination adequately described the data. The estimated apparent total clearance, apparent central volume of distribution, and apparent peripheral volume of distribution were 4.89 L/h, 323 L, and 39.7 L, respectively, with weight‐effect exponents of 0.75, 1, and 1, respectively. This model was used to explore the effects of clinical and demographic variables on Z‐endoxifen pharmacokinetics. Weight, race on clearance, and aspartate aminotransferase on the absorption rate constant were identified as significant covariates in the final model. This novel population pharmacokinetic model provides insight regarding factors that may affect the pharmacokinetics of Z‐endoxifen and may assist in the design of future clinical trials.

AbstractIn this phase I, dose‐escalation study, we sought to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase/c‐ROS oncogene 1 receptor (ALK/ROS1) inhibitor ceritinib in combination with gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors. Secondary objectives were characterization of the safety profile, pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy of these combinations, and identification of potential biomarkers of efficacy. Ceritinib was combined with gemcitabine (Arm 1), gemcitabine/nab‐paclitaxel (Arm 2) or gemcitabine/cisplatin (Arm 3). Drug concentrations in plasma were measured by tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC‐MS/MS). We analyzed archival tumor tissue for ALK, ROS1, hepatocyte growth factor receptor (c‐MET) and c‐Jun N‐terminal kinase (JNK) expression by immunohistochemistry. Arm 2 closed early secondary to toxicity. Twenty‐one patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). There was one DLT in Arm 1 (grade 3 ALT increase) and three DLTs in Arm 3 (grade 3 acute renal failure, grade 3 thrombocytopenia, grade 3 dyspnea). The MTD of ceritinib was determined to be 600 mg (Arm 1) and 450 mg orally daily (Arm 3). Main toxicities were hematologic, constitutional and gastrointestinal as expected by the chemotherapy backbone. The apparent clearance for ceritinib decreased substantially after repeated dosing; cisplatin did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of ceritinib. The overall response rate was 20%; the median progression‐free survival was 4.8 months. Three out of five response‐evaluable cholangiocarcinoma patients had clinical benefit. Increased expression of c‐MET was associated with a lack of clinical benefit. Ceritinib in combination with gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin has a manageable toxicity profile. Further development of this strategy in tumors with ALK or ROS1 fusions is warranted.

e20554 Background: The paradigm for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer has been markedly altered to include maintenance durvalumab (D) post completion of definitive chemoradiation (CRT) following the publication of the Pacific trial in 2018. The toxicity of this treatment has not been well evaluated in the real-world setting. Methods: We identified 42 patients (pts) with Stage IIB-IIIC NSCLC treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 6/1/2018 and 10/1/2020 who received definitive CRT followed by maintenance D. Data were abstracted by retrospective chart review under an IRB approved protocol. Results: Median age was 66 yrs (range 47-90) and 62% were women. Primary lung cancer histology included 19 adenocarcinoma, 20 squamous cell, and 3 adenosquamous. The distribution of stages was: IIB (4/42), IIIA (15/42), IIIB (19/42), IIIC (4/42). Approximately half of patients had PDL1 expression > 25% (20/42). With a median follow up of 12.2 months (calculated from first cycle of D; range 4.2-30.5 months), 14 had completed one year of maintenance D, 16 were receiving ongoing D, and 10 stopped D early with 6/12 discontinuing due to disease progression (4/6 local progression, 2/6 distant progression). Other reasons for discontinuation (5/10) included grade 3 colitis, grade 2 hepatitis, aspergillus lung infection, and flare of autoimmune disorders. One quarter of patients experienced grade 2 radiation pneumonitis (RP; 10/42) with median time to development of RP 78 days from end of CRT and 45 days from start of D. RP was determined by multidisciplinary review of imaging and treatment fields. 17/42 patients developed immune related adverse events (see Table for details). There was minimal overlap between the patients who experienced pneumonitis and immune related toxicity; 2/17 had both pneumonitis and immune related toxicity (hepatitis, thyroiditis). Conclusions: In our early experience with the Pacific regimen, 29% of patients did not complete D due to either toxicity or progression during D administration. Pneumonitis was common (10/42 patients) although there were no grade 3 events. Nearly half of the patients developed an immune-related adverse event. Further analysis is needed to evaluate the real-world toxicity of this treatment as well as oncologic outcomes.[Table: see text]

e13603 Background: Over half of Americans report favoring access to experimental treatments even if they have yet to be proven either safe or effective, yet only 3-5% are enrolled in clinical trials and a fraction of a percent in expanded access. The Expanded Access (EA) program (aka “compassionate use”) and Right-to-Try (RTT) are parallel federal mechanisms that offer qualifying patients access to off-trial experimental treatments. Our study aimed to capture the views and experiences of oncologists on obtaining eligible medicine using the FDA’s EA and is the first to report findings on physician attitudes toward RTT. Methods: We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis of oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the U.S. Participants were purposely selected to have experience with EA. Results: Oncologists’ considerations for offering EA options to patients were based on a sound scientific rationale, reasonable risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation. Although oncologists’ experience positively correlated with level of ease in navigating EA, most remained largely unfamiliar with RTT. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT with patients and none had obtained an experimental therapeutic under this pathway. When informed about RTT, oncologists articulated 3 sets of concerns including limited safety and oversight, unclear structure and lack of requirements to collect and report data, and the potential for inflating patient expectations. Published work by others have shown that patients desire experimental options to be offered and report that physicians do not always offer experimental medicine taking into account factors, such as, reimbursement. Given that oncologists may factor in variables such as patient motivation, and potentially affordability or health literacy, when considering whether experimental medicine is appropriate to offer their patient, there may be a need to develop a conversation aid so that clinically relevant options are presented to patients equitably and patient choice is enhanced. Conclusions: Further research to better understand patient perspectives and potential discordant views between patients and oncologists is needed in order to design shared decision-making tools to inform oncologists about off-trial preapproval pathways and help both oncologists and patients navigate the thorny issues of experimental oncology.