Taı̈eb, Julien

TPS3675 Background: Multi-agent chemotherapy regimens (eg, mFOLFOX6) ± anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-epidermal growth factor regimens are currently the standard of care for patients (pts) with mCRC without targetable mutations. However, the 5-year survival rate remains low at approximately 16% (SEER, 2025). The addition of biological therapies (eg, bevacizumab [bev], an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has demonstrated a synergistic antitumor effect in solid tumors. However, ICI monotherapy has limited activity in mismatch repair proficient (pMMR)/microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC. Simultaneous bispecific targeting of programmed death 1 (PD-1) and VEGF in conjunction with cytotoxic chemotherapy has the potential to enhance antitumor activity. PF-08634404 is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) bispecific antibody targeting PD-1 and VEGF. A phase 2 study of PF-08634404 with XELOX or mFOLFOX6 demonstrated promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in first-line (1L) mCRC (Xu X, ESMO 2025; Abstract 796P). Methods: Symbiotic-GI-03 (NCT07222800) is an ongoing, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of 1L PF-08634404 + mFOLFOX6 vs bev + mFOLFOX6. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 y; mCRC with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1; no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease; ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Pts with BRAF V600E-mutant or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) CRC, active central nervous system metastases, or clinically significant risk of hemorrhage/fistula will be excluded. Approximately 800 pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive PF-08634404 + mFOLFOX6 or bev + mFOLFOX6 until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Randomization will be stratified by region (North America, Europe, or rest of world), RAS status (mutant or wildtype), and presence of liver metastasis (yes or no). The dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival; for each, a stratified log-rank test will be used to compare arms. Hazard ratios with corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs will be estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, and medians will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs calculated using the log(-log) method. Secondary endpoints include PFS by investigator, objective response rate, duration of response, PFS after next-line therapy, safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and patient-reported outcomes. Enrollment began in December 2025. Clinical trial information: NCT07222800 .

Background Tumors with mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) classically display concomitant loss of MLH1/PMS2 or MSH2/MSH6 on immunohistochemistry (IHC) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-High) status on molecular testing. Nevertheless, a different phenotype can occur in up to 15% of MMRd tumors (unusual phenotype). Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in this population remain scarce. Methods We conducted a retrospective study within the IMMUNODIG MSI cohort including patients with advanced gastrointestinal MMRd tumors treated with immune checkpoint blockade in the real-world setting. We selected patients with both IHC and MSI assays data available. Unusual MMRd tumors were classified into four distinct groups: (1) isolated loss of PMS2 or MSH6 with MSI-H (isolated/MSI-H), (2) complex loss of MMR proteins with MSI-H (complex/MSI-H), (3) loss of one or more MMR proteins without MSI-H (MMRd-IHC/microsatellite stability (MSS) or MSI-low (MSI-L)), and (4) four MMR proteins retained with MSI-H (retained IHC/MSI-H). Results Out of 759 patients in the IMMUNODIG-MSI cohort, 571 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 90 (15.8%) had an unusual phenotype (47 isolated/MSI-H, 19 complex/MSI-H, 16 MMRd-IHC/MSS or MSI-L and 8 retained IHC/MSI-H). Compared with classical phenotypes, patients with a tumor harboring an unusual phenotype had a younger age at treatment (p=0.005), increased RAS mutation (p=0.005), reduced BRAF p.V600E mutation rates (p<0.001), a higher proportion of Lynch syndrome (p<0.001) and a higher prevalence of non-colorectal cancers (p=0.021). After a median follow-up of 28.1 months (mo), there was a significant difference in progression-free survival, with median values of not reached, 66.4 mo, 37.2 mo, 18.3 mo and 5.5 mo for complex/MSI-H, isolated/MSI-H, classical, retained IHC/MSI-H and MMRd-IHC/MSS or MSI-L subgroups, respectively (p<0.001). Notably, objective response rates were 59.1%, 58.7%, and 63.2% for complex/MSI-H, isolated/MSI-H and classical contrasting with 50% and 25% for retained IHC/MSI-H and MMRd-IHC/MSS or MSI-L, with no complete response observed in the latter two. Conclusion Our findings underscore the need for dual testing and advocate for the presence of both MMRd-IHC and MSI-H for optimal immunotherapy response. Of note, complex MMR aberrations and isolated PMS2/MSH6 losses with MSI-H may represent promising candidates for enhanced immunotherapy efficacy.

Importance The definition of cure in stage II to III colon cancer (CC) remains unclear due to limitations in conventional end points, which include deaths and second primary tumors as events. These can complicate communication with patients regarding long-term outcomes. Objective To distinguish relapses from competing health-related events to classify long-term outcomes years after surgery and explore when the incidence of true relapses of the initial CC approaches 0% to define cure in this disease. Design, Setting, and Participants This pooled analysis of individual patient–level data from 15 phase 3 randomized clinical trials assessed time to CC-related relapse using Kaplan-Meier and Aalen-Johansen methods, with death and second primary tumors treated as competing risks. Cox regression models evaluated prognostic associations, stratified by sex, stage, and tumor. Patients with stage II to III CC who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy were included. All patients had undergone radical surgery for CC and received adjuvant chemotherapy with a median follow-up of at least 6 years. The Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) and the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) databases included adjuvant studies conducted between 1996 and 2015. Data were analyzed from February 2022 to June 2025. Exposures Adjuvant chemotherapy regimens varied across trials, including fluoropyrimidines alone or in combination with oxaliplatin or biologic agents. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to CC-related recurrence. The predefined threshold for cure was a recurrence risk below 0.5%. Results Of 35 213 included patients, 19 346 (54.9%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.2 (10.8) years. The incidence rate of recurrence peaked at 6.4% (1993 of 31 373) between month 6 and month 12 and decreased continuously until year 10 of follow-up never exceeding 0.5%. Recurrence rate appeared to increase again after year 10 and peaked at 2.0% during year 12.5 to year 13, a pattern observed exclusively in the MOSAIC trial. Competing-event analysis revealed that death and second primary tumors inflated the apparent recurrence rate, especially for older patients. The overall cumulative incidence of relapse with death as competing risk was lower among female patients (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76; P &amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this pooled analysis of phase 3 randomized clinical trials, a recurrence rate less than 0.5% occurred after 6 years from surgery, supporting a practical definition of cure. Recognizing this milestone may improve patient communication, guide follow-up duration, and reduce unnecessary long-term surveillance.

3520 Background: Recent analyses highlight nonhierarchical outcomes using the 8 th Edition AJCC staging system for CC. For instance, the 5-year survival rate for stages I and IIIa patients (pts) closely align. Additionally, tumor deposits (TDs) have been established as significant prognostic indicators. The AJCCCCEP commissioned this study to develop an updated pathological staging system for CC focused specifically on pts without distant metastasis (M0), while retaining the existing stage IV classification. Methods: Individual patient data (IPD) from pts diagnosed with cc (2010- 2017) in the NCDB were divided into training (70%) and internal validation (30%) datasets. External validation used IPD from clinical trials. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Risk classification development for M0 pts incorporated ungrouped data on pathologic T categories, the number of involved regional lymph nodes (LN+), and TD counts. Recursive partitioning and regression tree analyses were applied to construct hierarchical staging levels. Pre-specified criteria required survival probabilities to be consecutive and show clear separations using Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates with pairwise log-rank test P of < 0.005 for the training and < 0.05 for validation analyses. Results: Data from 281,997 pts (median age 67 years, 50% male, 81% white, 55% T3, 19% T4, 44% N+, 26% M+, and 11% with ≥1 TD) were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 7.3 years. The updated staging system (Table) met pre-specified criteria, with all observed pairwise P < 0.0001 in the development and internal validation sets. KM OS curves displayed a hierarchical separation across all sub-levels after the 1 st year of diagnosis. Consistent results were seen in pts treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in 4 trials (all pair-wise P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The proposed pathological staging system for M0 pts fulfills pre-specified criteria for hierarchical risk stratification, validated both internally and externally, and provides an evidence-based update. Pending review process, the AJCCCCEP will recommend that these changes be made to the Version 9 staging protocol for colon cancer to improve prognostication for CC pts. Stage T, # of LN+, # of TD M % of pts 1y OS (CI), % 3y OS (CI), % 5y OS (CI), % I T1, 0, 0 0 5 96 (95-97) 91 (90-92) 84 (83-86) IIa T2, 0, 0 0 10 95 (94-95) 88 (88-89) 80 (79-81) IIb T1, 0, 1+T1, 1+, 0T2, 0, 1+T2, 1-4, 0T3, 0, 0 0 27 93 (92-93) 84 (84-85) 75 (75-76) IIIa T1, 1+, 1+T2, 1-4, 1+T2, 5+, 0T3, 0, 1+T3, 1-4, 0 0 14 92 (91-92) 80 (80-81) 71 (70-72) IIIb T2, 5+, 1+T3, 1-4, 1+T3, 5+, 0T4a, 0-4, 0T4b, 0-2, 0 0 13 86 (86-87) 69 (68-70) 58 (57-59) IIIc T3, 5+, 1+T4a, 0-4, 1+T4a, 5+, anyT4b, 0-2, 1+T4b, 3+, any 0 5 78 (77-80) 53 (51-54) 40 (38-41) IVa Any 1a 19 59 (58-60) 28 (28-29) 17 (16-18) IVb Any 1b 7 43 (42-44) 14 (13-14) 6 (6-7) CI: 95% confidence internal; Peritoneum involvement data were not available before 2018 in NCDB. Thus, IVa/b were based on 7 th Edition.

3569 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a standard treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers with mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) or microsatellite instability (MSI). However, around 50% of patients develop resistance to ICIs, during treatment or after discontinuation. In these patients, the efficacy of reuse an ICI in patients progressing during a previous ICI (rechallenge), or in patients who progressed after discontinuation (reintroduction), remains unknown. The INFLATE study evaluates the efficacy of ICI reuse in patients who progressed on or after discontinuing ICI. Methods: This is a multicenter international retrospective study from the IMMUNODIG cohort, including patients from 34 centers in France, the United States, Italy, Belgium and Spain. All patients received ICI for dMMR/MSI GI cancer. We analyzed patients who had progressed following initial ICI (ICI-1) and subsequently received a rechallenge or a reintroduction with ICI (ICI-2), either monotherapy (mono-ICI) or biotherapy (bi-ICI). Results: A total of 77 patients were included, receiving bi-ICI (N = 34) or mono-ICI (N = 43) during ICI-2. The majority (76%) had a metastatic colorectal cancer. The reason for discontinuing ICI-1 was disease progression in 53% of cases, end of treatment in 15%, toxicity in 5% and other reasons in 26%. Patients who discontinued ICI-1 due to progression received MONO-ICI-2 in 29% of cases and BI-ICI-2 in 71%, whereas those who stopped for other reasons received MONO-ICI-2 in 86% and BI-ICI-2 in 14% of cases. Efficacy results are shown in Table 1. The ORR and DCR were 26% and 79% with MONO-ICI-2, and 16% and 71% with BI-ICI-2. Among patients who discontinued ICI-1 due to progression, BI-ICI-2 (N = 29) achieved an ORR and DCR of 8% and 65%, with a median PFS of 5.5 months (95%CI 4.07-10.4). These outcomes were 17%, 67%, and 3.7 months (95%CI 2.37-NA), respectively, with MONO-ICI-2 (N = 12). For patients who discontinued ICI-1 for reasons other than progression, BI-ICI-2 (N = 5) achieved an ORR and DCR of 60% and 100%, with a median PFS not reached (95%CI 11.5-NR), while MONO-ICI-2 (N = 31) achieved 29%, 82%, and 14.2 months (95%CI 11.2–NR), respectively. Conclusions: This is the first multicenter real-world study evaluating ICI reuse in dMMR/MSI GI cancers. In patients who discontinued ICI for reasons other than progression, reintroduction of ICI therapy upon progression achieves tumor control in 85% of cases. In cases of progression on mono-ICI, Bi-ICI re-challenge achieve tumor control in two-thirds of cases and might be to consider in some patients. ORR % DCR % PFS median (95%CI) OS median (95%CI) Overall N=77 21 76 7.65 months(5.5–11.5) 27.6 months(22.2–55.7) Discontinued ICI-1 due to Progression N=41 11 68 5.03 months(3.7–8.05) 26.7 months(21.1–NR) Discontinued ICI-1 for Other Reasons N=36 33 85 14.22 months(11.24–NR) 27.6 months(22.2–NR)

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended to treat patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal trials have fixed a maximum ICI duration of 2 years, without a compelling rationale. A shorter treatment duration has the potential to improve patients' quality of life and reduce both toxicity and cost without compromising efficacy. Here we examine whether early treatment discontinuation (ETD) before 13 months in patients without progressive disease (PD) can lead to similar long-term disease control compared with a longer treatment duration (LTD). Methods To assess whether ETD is associated with similar outcomes compared with LTD, we assembled an international cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs who stopped treatment for a reason other than PD within 395 days (ETD group) and compared them to those who continued for >395 days (LTD group). Outcomes were adjusted for patient/tumor characteristics. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Of 976 patients, 137 and 394 were allocated to the ETD and LTD groups, respectively. In the ETD group, treatment was discontinued due to toxicity (n=56), objective response (n=43), surgery (n=28), patient decision (n=2) or other reasons (n=8). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups: 22% in both groups received both anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 (anti-PD-(L)1) + anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti-CTLA-4); all others received anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. ORR to ICIs was 81% in both groups. Median duration of treatment was ~7 months in the ETD and ~24 months in the LTD group. After a median follow-up of 44 months (IQR: 30–67), similar PFS (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.40, p=0.69) and OS (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.99, p=0.62) from the start of ICIs were observed in ETD and LTD patients. In the ETD group, 28 (20%) patients had a PFS event and 9 restarted ICIs with a disease control rate of 66%. Conclusions In our international series of dMMR/MSI-H mCRC, ETD of ICIs in the absence of PD did not seem detrimental in terms of PFS and OS compared with continuing treatment beyond 1 year. Randomized clinical trials to compare short and long treatment duration are now warranted.

PURPOSE A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

55 Background: Nearly one-half of deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) demonstrate durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Given preclinical data indicating that liver metastases sequester activated CD8+ T cells from systemic circulation, we examined clinical outcome by metastatic site. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of patients with d-MMR mCRCs treated at multiple centers in France (n=66), we sought to validate data from a U.S. cohort, and then performed pooled analysis (n=104). All patients received first-line ICI monotherapy. Metastatic site was analyzed in relationship to tumor response (RECIST version 1.1), and progression-free survival (PFS) by multivariable stratified Cox regression after adjustment for covariates. Results: Objective responses were achieved in 38/66 (58%) patients in the validation cohort. Best tumor response included 13 (20%) complete responses (CR), 25 (38%) partial responses (PR), 16 (25%) stable disease, and 11 (17%) progressive disease (PD). One-year and 5-year PFS rates were 73% and 67%, respectively; 18 (27%) patients progressed during immunotherapy. Best tumor response was attenuated in patients with liver metastasis ( P=0.03). Presence of liver metastasis, but not other sites, was associated with significantly poorer PFS after adjustment for covariates (HRadj 2.82; 95%CI, 1.08-7.39; Padj=0.03). In a pooled analysis, liver metastasis remained significantly and independently associated with poorer PFS (HRadj 3.18; 95%CI, 1.52-6.67; Padj=0.002) and with attenuated tumor best response (P=0.01). Conclusions: Metastasis to the liver, but not other sites, was validated as an independent factor associated with poorer response and survival after ICI treatment in d-MMR mCRCs. These data underscore the need for novel therapeutic strategies in these patients. [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is currently the only predictive biomarker of efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). However, 10% to 40% of patients with MSI mCRC will experience a primary resistance to ICI. Experimental Design: In two cohorts of patients with MSI mCRC treated with ICI (exploratory, N = 103; validation, N = 35), 3′ RNA sequencing was performed from primary tumors. Previously described single-cell transcriptomic signatures of tumor microenvironment (TME) were analyzed. Results: In the exploratory cohort, the unsupervised clustering allowed the identification of three clusters of tumors with distinct transcriptional profiles: cluster A (“stromalHIGH-proliferationLOW”), cluster B (“stromalHIGH-proliferationMED”), and cluster C (“stromalLOW-proliferationHIGH”), with an enrichment of patients progressing at first disease assessment under ICI in cluster A (30% vs. 12% in cluster B and 8.1% in cluster C; P = 0.074). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly shorter in patients belonging to cluster A, compared with clusters B or C (P &lt; 0.001) with 2-year PFS rates of 33.5%, 80.5%, and 78.3%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, PFS was still significantly longer in patients belonging to cluster B [HR, 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08–0.45; P &lt; 0.001] and cluster C (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10–0.59; P = 0.02), compared with patients belonging to cluster A. The association of this clustering with PFS under ICI was confirmed in the validation cohort. PFS related to non–ICI-based regimens was not significantly different according to cluster. Conclusions: This unsupervised transcriptomic classification identified three groups of MSI mCRCs with different compositions of TME cells and proliferative capacities of TME/tumor cells. The “stromalHIGH-proliferationLOW” cluster is associated with a poorer prognosis with ICI treatment.