Münster, Pamela N.

Abstract Abstract 1710 Poster Board I-736 Introduction Treatment regimens for cancer are typically based on cytotoxic chemotherapy, which is poorly tolerated. There is an unmet medical need for new therapies that retain efficacy, but combine this with an improved safety and tolerability profile. Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor, approved in the United States for the treatment of cutaneous manifestations of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in patients who have progressive, persistent, or recurrent disease on or following 2 systemic therapies. Vorinostat is also being investigated as a treatment for various other solid and hematologic malignancies, in which HDACs are further implicated as key regulators of transcription. Herein we present an overview of the safety and tolerability profile of vorinostat, gathered from prior clinical experience. Methods Safety and tolerability data, including adverse events (AEs), QTc interval data and incidence of thromboembolic events (TEE), were collated from patients who received vorinostat, administered as monotherapy or in combination therapy for solid or hematologic malignancies. Results (adverse events) In Phase I and II clinical trials, 498 patients who received vorinostat were analyzed. A total of 341 patients received vorinostat monotherapy (107 with CTCL, 105 other hematologic malignancies, 129 solid tumors) and the most common drug-related AEs in this group were: fatigue (61.9%), nausea (55.7%), diarrhea (49.3%), anorexia (48.1%), and vomiting (32.8%); Grade 3/4 AEs included fatigue (12.0%) and thrombocytopenia (10.6%), and 3 drug-related deaths (ischemic stroke, tumor hemorrhage, unspecified) occurred. Thirty-eight patients (11.1%) discontinued due to drug-related AEs, 71 patients (20.8%) required dose modifications, and 1 patient (0.3%) discontinued due to Grade 2 chest pain. The remaining 157 patients received vorinostat combination therapy (with pemetrexed/cisplatin for advanced cancer [n=46], bortezomib for multiple myeloma [n=34], bexarotene for CTCL [n=23], and erlotinib [n=30], gemcitabine/platin [n=21] or carboplatin/paclitaxel [n=3] for non-small-cell lung cancer). The most common drug-related AEs in this group were: nausea (48.4%), diarrhea (40.8%), fatigue (34.4%), and vomiting (31.2%); the most common Grade 3/4 AE was fatigue (13.4%), and 1 drug-related death (hemoptysis) occurred. Thirty-one patients (19.7%) discontinued due to drug-related AEs and 27 patients (17.2%) required dose modifications. Results (QTcF interval) A trial of 24 patients with advanced cancer was undertaken for rigorous assessment of QTcF interval. In this trial, a single supratherapeutic 800 mg dose of vorinostat did not prolong QTcF interval (monitored over 24 hours). The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the placebo-adjusted mean change-from-baseline of vorinostat was <10 msec at every timepoint, no patient had a QTcF change-from-baseline value >30 msec, and 1 patient had a QTcF interval >450 msec (after both vorinostat and placebo administration). The most common drug-related AE in this trial was nausea. There were no serious clinical or laboratory AEs, no discontinuations due to an AE and no patients experienced a cardiac-related AE. Results (incidence of TEE) A review of vorinostat clinical trials, published literature and post-marketing surveillance reports was conducted by a committee of independent academic experts to determine the incidence of TEE in cancer patients who had received vorinostat. In >1845 patients reviewed through November 3, 2008, 107 patients (<5.8%) reported TEE as a serious AE (SAE), 47 (<2.6%) of which were recorded as being related to vorinostat, and 4/47 (<0.3%) TEE SAEs were fatal. Conclusions In this review, the majority of observed AEs were 'Grade 2, there was no observed prolongation of the QTcF interval, and the incidence of TEE with vorinostat was similar to reported rates of TEE in advanced cancer patients. Vorinostat is generally well tolerated when administered as monotherapy or in a combination regimen in cancer patients. Disclosures Siegel: Millennium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celegne: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Rubin:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Iwamoto:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Hussein:Celgene: Employment. Belani:Merck: Consultancy. Hardwick:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership. Rizvi:Merck: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Abstract Purpose: The surface receptor MET is highly expressed on primary uveal melanoma; MET inhibitors demonstrated early clinical signals of efficacy in slowing uveal melanoma growth. The primary objective of our study was to compare the progression-free survival rate at 4 months (PFS4) of patients with uveal melanoma treated with cabozantinib or chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic uveal melanoma and RECIST measurable disease were randomized 2:1 to receive either cabozantinib (arm 1) versus temozolomide or dacarbazine (arm 2) with restaging imaging every two cycles. Cross-over from arm 2 to cabozantinib after progression was allowed (arm 2X). Available tumor specimens were analyzed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and results were correlated with outcome. Results: Forty-six eligible patients were accrued with 31, 15, and 9 in arms 1, 2, and 2X, respectively. Median lines of prior therapy, including hepatic embolization, were two. Rates of PFS4 in arm 1 and arm 2 were 32.3% and 26.7% (P = 0.35), respectively, with median PFS time of 60 and 59 days (P = 0.964; HR = 0.99). Median overall survival (OS) was 6.4 months and 7.3 months (P = 0.580; HR = 1.21), respectively. Grade 3–4 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were present in 61.3%, 46.7%, and 37.5% in arms 1, 2, and 2X, respectively. WES demonstrated a mean tumor mutational burden of 1.53 mutations/Mb and did not separate OS ≤ or &gt;1 year (P = 0.14). Known mutations were identified by WES and novel mutations were nominated. Conclusions: MET/VEGFR blockade with cabozantinib demonstrated no improvement in PFS but an increase in toxicity relative to temozolomide/dacarbazine in metastatic uveal melanoma.

Abstract BACKGROUND: nal-IRI is a liposomal formulation of irinotecan (topoisomerase-1 inhibitor). Preclinical data show that nal-IRI accumulates in BMs and prolongs survival in animal models of BM. Findings from a phase 1 expansion study (NCT01770353), evaluating patients with mBC and active BM, are reported. METHODS: This phase 1 expansion study enrolled patients with mBC who received multiple prior lines of cytotoxic therapy in the metastatic setting, including one cohort with mBC and active BM, defined as radiographic evidence of new or progressive central nervous system (CNS) metastases after radiation therapy with ≥1 lesion of ≥1 cm in the longest dimension on gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Patients received nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 (free-base equivalent; FBE) every two weeks (q2w) as an intravenous infusion over 90 minutes, escalating to 70 mg/m2 FBE q2w, if tolerated. RECIST v1.1 and modified RECIST criteria were used to assses non-CNS and CNS disease, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients were enrolled (10 with active BM). Median age was 53 years (range 29–70 years) and median number of prior cytotoxic anti-cancer regimens was 3 (range 0–6); 29 patients received ≥1 dose of nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 FBE. Overall, nal-IRI monotherapy appeared to be well tolerated, and achieved ≥30% objective response rates for both CNS and non-CNS disease. Among the 10 patients with active BM, 6 achieved CNS disease control (3 partial responses [PRs] and 3 stable disease [SD]), including one patient with durable CNS SD and non-CNS PR for 2 years. Among 7 patients with serial evaluation of CNS metastases posttreatment, 6 patients achieved a reduction in target CNS lesions compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nal-IRI resulted in CNS disease control among 6 of 10 heavily pretreated patients with mBC and active BM. Further exploration of nal-IRI in patients with mBC and active BM is warranted.

Abstract Background nal-IRI is a liposomal formulation of irinotecan (topoisomerase-1 inhibitor), using intraliposomal stabilisation technology to enable high drug load and in-vivo stability. The expansion of Phase I NCT01770353 evaluated nal-IRI in patients (pts) with mBC. Methods This Phase I expansion study enrolled mBC pts (Cohort 1: ER+ and/or PR+ HER2 BC (C-1); Cohort 2: Triple Negative BC (TNBC, C-2); Cohort 3: BC with active Brain Metastasis (C-3)). Key inclusion criteria: ECOG ≤1; adequate organ function; received &gt;1 to ≤5 prior lines of cytotoxic therapy in metastatic setting, except TNBC pts who could have progressed within 12 months of adjuvant therapy. Pts received nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 (Free-base equivalent, FBE) q2w iv infusion, escalating to 70 mg/m2 FBE q2w, if tolerated. Results 30 pts (10 per cohort) were enrolled: 29 received &gt;1 dose nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 FBE (median age 53 yrs, range 29-70 yrs). Median number of cytotoxic therapies prior to study entry was 3. The most frequent treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were gastrointestinal disorders (all cohorts, 100%), primarily diarrhea (C-1, 100% / C-2, 100% / C-3, 70%), nausea (C-1, 80% / C-2, 56% / C-3, 30%), and vomiting (C-1, 60% / C-2, 33% / C-3, 30%). The incidence of neutropenia was low (C-1, 10% / C-2, 0% / C-3, 10%), all grade 1 / 2. Most common grade 3 TEAEs were diarrhea (28%), nausea (17%), fatigue (14%), hypokalemia (10%) and asthenia (10%), with none reported as grade 4. No grade 5 TEAEs were reported. Partial response (per RECIST) was observed in 10 pts for an objective response rate (ORR) of 35% (C-1, 40% / C-2, 33%) / C-3, 30%). Stable disease was observed in 5 pts (17%). Duration of Response (median, months) was C-1, 7.5 (6.4-13.0) / C-2, 5.6 (3.7-7.4) / C-3, 4.1 (0.0-22.2, extracranial: RECIST) / C-3, 1.8 (0.0-1.9, intracranial: mRECIST). Table 1.Study Demographics, Adverse Events, and Best Overall ResponseDemographicsCohort 1ER+ and/or PR+ Breast Cancern=10Cohort 2Triple Negative Breast Cancern=10Cohort 3Breast Cancer with Active Brain Metastasisn=10Total PopulationN=30Gender, Female, n (%)10 (100%)10 (100%)10 (100%)30 (100%)Age, Years Median (range)56 (49-68)52.5 (37-70)45.5 (29-63)53 (29-70)Race, n (%)WhiteBlack/AfricanOther8 (80%)02 (20%)8 (80%)1 (10%)1 (10%)7 (70%)1 (10%)2 (20%)23(77%)2 (7%)5(16%)Months Since Metastatic diagnosis, Months Median (Range)63.7 (16-87)20.7 (0-34)32.4 (8-55)24.0 (0-87)Number of Prior Cytotoxic Anti-cancer Regimens Median (Range)3.0 (1-6)3.0 (0-5)32.4 (1-6)3.0 (0-6)Safety PopulationCohort 1ER+ and/or PR+ Breast Cancern=10Cohort 2Triple Negative Breast Cancern=9Cohort 3Breast Cancer with Active Brain Metastasisn=10Total PopulationN=29ExposureTreatment Duration, Weeks Median (range)6.1 (0-78)12.3 (0-49)13.9 (1-105)12.3 (0-105)Adverse EventsAny TEAE10 (100%)9 (100%)10 (100%)29 (100%)Grade 38 (80%)6 (67%)10 (100%)20 (69%)Grade 41 (10%)06 (60%)3 (10%)TEAE Related to nal-IRI10 (100%)8 (89%)10 (100%)28 (97%)Grade &gt; 36 (60%)3 (33%)3 (30%)12 (41%)TEAE Related to nal-IRILeading to Dose Adjustment*7 (70%)3 (33%)4 (40%)14 (48%)SAEs6 (60%)4 (44%)7 (70%)17 (59%)SAE Related to nal-IRI4 (40%)1 (11%)1 (10%)6 (21%)Duration of Objective ResponseRECIST 1.1RECIST 1.1RECIST 1.1mRECISTMonths Median (Range)7.5 (6.4-13.0)5.6 (3.7-7.4)4.1 (0.0-22.2)1.84 (0.0-1.9)Best Overall ResponseRECISTRECISTRECISTmRECISTComplete Response (CR)0000Partial Response (PR)4 (40%)3 (33%)3 (30%)3 (30%)Stable Disease (SD)03 (33%)2 (20%)3 (30%)Progressive Disease (PD)5 (50%)2 (22%)3 (30%)2 (20%)Not Evaluable (NE)1 (10%)1 (11%)2 (20%)2 (20%)Objective Response RateCR+PR(95% CI)4 (40%)12.2 -73.83 (33%)7.5-70.73 (30%)6.7-65.33 (30%)(6.7-65.3)*n=1 patient in Cohort 1 discontinued treatment due to TEAE related to treatment with nal-IRI CI, Confidence Interval; nal-IRI, Irinotecan Liposome Injection; SAE, Serious Adverse Event; TEAE, Treatment Emergent Adverse EventSystemic tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST version 1.1CNS tumor response was evaluated according to mRECIST (Anders C. et al., Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2014: 146(3):557-66) Conclusion nal-IRI monotherapy 50g/m2 FBE Q2W appears well tolerated, and achieved &gt;30% ORR for systemic and CNS disease among heavily pre-treated mBC pts regardless of receptor status. Citation Format: Jasgit Sachdev, Pamela Munster, Donald Northfelt, Hyo S. Han, Cynthia MA, Fiona Maxwell, Tiffany Wang, Bruce Belanger, Bin Zhang, Yan Moore, Carey Anders. Phase I expansion study of irinotecan liposome injection (nal-IRI) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT048.

9506 Background: Survival is poor in mUM and treatment options are limited. MET kinase is over-expressed on UM and the MET inhibitor cabo showed activity in an early trial. Methods: A091201 was a 2:1 randomized phase II study testing progression-free survival (PFS) of cabo (60 mg daily) vs chemo (DTIC/TMZ). We studied baseline metastatic tumor samples (n = 19; 1 lung, 18 liver) by whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNAseq. We correlated data with OS and made comparisons for mUM vs. primary tumors from TCGA (n = 80). Results: 46 patients were accrued with 96% and 63% with liver metastases and elevated LDH, respectively. Toxicities were similar to prior reports of cabo and chemo. The trial stopped at interim analysis due to no difference in PFS (p = 0.964; HR = 0.99) or OS (p = 0.580; HR = 1.21). WES showed tumor mutational burden of 46±4 (mean±SEM) and did not separate OS at 1 year (p = 0.14, two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test) in A091201. Recurrent known mutations included GNAQ/11, SF3B1, BAP1; novel mutations included GOLGA6L10, PKD1L3, and FAM228B. Gene expression signatures differed significantly between A091201 and TCGA cohorts including MET signaling (p = 7.87e-22), T cell-inflamed (p = 0.004), homologous recombination deficiency (p = 0.004), proliferation (p = 0.009) and hypoxia (p = 5.2e-10) (two-sided Student’s t-test). Tumor immune cell enrichment analysis revealed significant differences with lower M1:M2 macrophage (p = 1.2e-10) and higher Tregs (p = 6.0E-21) in mUM relative to TCGA (two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test). Epithelial-mesenchymal transition gene expression signature was significantly associated with worse OS in A091201 (p = 0.02) with angiogenesis signature trending toward significance (p = 0.21) (log-rank test). OS separated by differentially expressed genes with OS ≤ 1 year associating with increased expression of the angiogenesis/immune-associated molecule neuropilin 1. Conclusions: These results provide insights between primary and mUM indicating potential novel therapeutic approaches. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, T32GM007019, Exelixis. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Clinical trial information: NCT01835145.

6020 Background: A subset of salivary gland cancer (SGCs) express the androgen receptor (AR). This phase II trial evaluated the anti-androgen enzalumatide (Astellas) for patients with AR+ SGCs. Methods: Locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic AR+ SGCs were enrolled (AR status was centrally confirmed). Prior therapy with AR-targeted drugs was allowed. Enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily was given (1 cycle= 28 days). The primary endpoint was confirmed response (RR) according to RECIST v1.1 within the first 8 cycles. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. A Simon-Optimal two-stage design was used to detect a 20% RR (vs. 5%) (alpha = 5%; beta = 90%). > 1 response(s) in the first 21 would trigger accrual to 41; > 4 responses would be considered promising. Results: 46 eligible patients (pts) were enrolled (40 M, 6 F; median age 65) in 22 months. In the first 21 pts, we initially had 2 confirmed PRs allowing for full study accrual, though one was later changed to stable disease. Among the 46 pts, 7 had PR as best response, though only 2 were confirmed within the first 8 cycles (4% (95% CI: 0.5-15%). Two other PRs did not count towards the primary endpoint due to 1) development beyond 8 cycles (cycles 12-18) and 2) a confirmatory scan completed <4 weeks apart. The other 3 pts with unconfirmed PR developed progression of disease (PD) after the first PR scan. 24 pts had stable disease; 15 pts PD as best response. Among 11 pts previously treated with AR-targeted therapy, best responses were 1 confirmed PR, 7 SD, 3 PD. With a median follow-up of 11.7 months (mo), OS at 12 mo was 66% (95% CI: 52-83%), PFS at 12 mo was 24% (95% CI: 14-42%), and median PFS was 5.5 mo (95% CI: 3.7-7.3). Conclusions: This is the first prospective trial evaluating an antiandrogen alone for AR+ SGCs. The failure to meet the protocol-defined measure of success was due in part to the lack of durability of initial responses. The clinical activity observed suggests the AR-dependence of AR+ SGCs, even among those previously treated with other hormonal therapies. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Astellas; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02749903.

e12003 Background: Irinotecan liposome injection (nal-IRI) uses intraliposomal stabilisation technology to enable high drug load and in-vivo stability. This analysis characterizes the PK profile of nal-IRI in pts with mBC. Methods: The expansion of NCT01770353 enrolled 30 pts with mBC over three cohorts (Cohort 1: ER+ and/or PR+ BC [C-1]; Cohort 2: Triple Negative BC [C-2]; and Cohort 3: BC with active Brain Metastasis [C-3]). Key inclusion criteria: ECOG ≤1; adequate organ function; and >1 and ≤5 prior lines of cytotoxic therapy in metastatic setting. Most pts received nal-IRI 60 mg/m2 salt-based equivalent (50 mg/m2 free base equivalent [FBE]) or 80 mg/m2 (70 mg/m2 FBE) q2w by iv infusion, based on tolerance; 2 pts were treated at 40 mg/m2 (35 mg/m2 FBE). Plasma samples were collected over 360h across cycles 1, 2 &3, and analysed using LC-MS/MS for total irinotecan. Data were analysed by a non-compartmental approach using Phoenix Winnonlin, and were compared with values from studies in other tumor types. Results: 21 patients were evaluable for PK analysis (C-1, n=6; C-2, n=7; and C-3, n=8). No trend for accumulation was observed in cycle 2 or 3, when comparing total irinotecan Cmax & exposure (area under the curve at 168 h [AUC168]) versus cycle 1. At 40-80 mg/m2 (35-70 mg/m2 FBE), Cmax of irinotecan tended to increase proportionally with total dose, and was comparable to studies in other tumour types (see Table). Among 29 pts who received nal-IRI, partial response (per RECIST) was observed in 10 pts. The most related TEAEs (≥ 25%) were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, hypokalaemia, decreased appetite and fatigue. Stable disease was observed in 5 pts. Conclusions: PK parameters in patients with mBC were comparable to historical studies in patients with other tumour types. The safety profile of nal-IRI monotherapy appeared consistent with gastrointestinal and blood disorders. [Table: see text]