Zalcberg, John

11539 Background: Ripretinib is a novel switch-control TKI that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling. In INVICTUS (NCT03353753), a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of ripretinib in ≥4th-line advanced GIST, ripretinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 85% vs PBO with a favorable overall safety profile. Common ( > 20%) adverse events (AEs) included, but were not limited to, alopecia and PPES. Exploratory analyses evaluated the impact of alopecia and PPES on quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced GIST previously treated with at least imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib were randomized (2:1) to ripretinib 150 mg QD or PBO. AEs were graded using CTCAE v4 and PROs collected using EQ-5D-5L (EQ5D) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (C30). Repeated measures (RM) models assessed the impact of alopecia and PPES on 5 PROs (EQ5D visual analogue scale; and C30 physical functioning, role functioning, and the overall health and overall QoL questions) within the ripretinib arm. Fixed effects were sex, alopecia/PPES, and ECOG scores at baseline. Results: 128/129 randomized pts received treatment (85 ripretinib 150 mg QD; 43 PBO). Alopecia, regardless of causality, occurred in 44 (51.8%) on ripretinib (34 [40.0%] grade 1; 10 [11.8%] grade 2) and 2 (4.7%) on PBO (both grade 1). PPES occurred in 18 (21.2%) on ripretinib (11 [12.9%] grade 1; 7 [8.2%] grade 2); none on PBO. The median times in days to first occurrence and worst severity grade with ripretinib were 57.0 and 62.5 for alopecia; 56.5 and 57.0 for PPES. The RM models showed a slight trend towards improvement in PRO score over time for pts with alopecia; the only association reaching a P-value of < 0.05 was between alopecia and increased overall QoL. None of the associations between PPES and PRO scores reach P < 0.05. All PRO p-values are nominal, and no statistical significance is being claimed. Conclusions: Ripretinib had a favorable overall safety and tolerability profile. When stratified by alopecia and PPES, patient-reported assessments of function, overall health, and overall QoL were maintained over time. For both alopecia and PPES, onset and maximum severity occurred almost simultaneously, indicating that these events generally did not progressively worsen. These results suggest that alopecia and PPES are manageable and do not have a negative effect on function, overall health, and QoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753 .

11535 Background: Ripretinib is a novel switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling through a dual mechanism of action. In INVICTUS (NCT03353753), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ripretinib in ≥4th-line advanced GIST, ripretinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 85% vs placebo and had a favorable overall safety profile in patients previously treated with ≥3 prior TKIs. Methods: As part of the INVICTUS trial, patient reported outcome (PRO) measures were collected using EQ-5D-5L (EQ5D) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (C30). In prespecified and additional analyses, ANCOVA models were built to compare changes from baseline to cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1) for PRO measures within the ripretinib and placebo arms and determine the difference between treatment arms. PRO measures included the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and the C30 physical functioning (PF) and role functioning (RF) scales (all scores range from 0–100; higher scores are better). The C30 overall health and overall QoL questions were also assessed (scores range from 1–7; higher scores are better). Fixed effects included treatment arm, number of previous anticancer treatments (3 vs ≥4), and ECOG score at baseline (0 vs 1/2). Results: Overall, 129 patients were randomized and 128 received treatment (85 to ripretinib 150 mg QD; 43 to placebo). All PRO p-values are nominal, and no statistical significance is being claimed. VAS scores improved an average 3.7 points from baseline to C2D1 with ripretinib vs an average decline of 8.9 with placebo (P = 0.004; improvement or no change, 67% vs 41% of patients, respectively). Similarly, the average PF score improved 1.6 points with ripretinib and decreased 8.9 with placebo (P = 0.004; improvement or no change, 68% vs 44%). RF scores also improved an average of 3.5 points with ripretinib vs a decrease of 17.1 with placebo (P = 0.001; improvement or no change, 77% vs 50%). For the overall health and overall QoL questions, scores increased with ripretinib an average of 0.20 and 0.28, respectively, and decreased 0.78 and 0.76 with placebo (both P = 0.001; improvement or no change, 74% vs 47% and 79% vs 59%, respectively). Conclusions: Based on the 5 PRO measures assessed, when compared with placebo and best supportive care, ripretinib provided patient-benefit in advanced GIST with PRO measures of role and physical function, VAS, overall health, and overall QoL remaining stable. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753 .

4090 Background: EGFR mAbs have become incorporated into clinical practice for the management of mCRC over the last decade. KRAS and NRAS mutations are used as predictive biomarkers and BRAF V600E mutations are associated with an adverse prognosis. The observed TE within biomarker subpopulations has varied between studies. Methods: IPD from randomized trials with head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or BSC) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy (first, second and later), were pooled. Biomarker subpopulations are defined in the table. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups by Cox model, stratified by studies and adjusted by age, gender, and performance status. TEs were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Within each biomarker subgroup, EGFR mAb efficacy was explored according to multiple exploratory factors, including line of therapy, type of backbone chemo, gender, sidedness and site of metastasis. Interaction tests were performed. P-values < 0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: 5729 pts from 8 studies with data available for ≥ 1 biomarker were analysed. PFS benefits (median 9.2 mos in EGFR mAbs, 8.0 mos in no EGFR mAbs) were confirmed in triple-WT pts, but not for OS (refer to table). No OS/PFS benefits were observed for pts with any of the MT tumors. Exploratory analyses showed a potential detrimental TE of EGFR mAbs in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastasis (OS: HRadj 1.22, p = .003, pinteraction .0056; PFS: HRadj 1.24, p = .0009, pinteraction .0008). These results were confirmed within the subgroup of pts with all 3 biomarkers available. Conclusions: This is the largest IPD analysis to explore the predictive value of RAS/BRAF biomarkers in mCRC. Our findings demonstrate that there is no evidence of efficacy of EGFR mAbs in KRAS, BRAF and/or NRAS MT mCRC. EGFR mAbs might have a detrimental effect in KRAS MT mCRC with liver metastases. [Table: see text]

4029 Background: The clearance of 5-FU differs significantly between men (M) and women (W). Adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for CRC has a higher toxicity in W. The impact of sex on efficacy and toxicity in first-line trials of metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unknown. Methods: We analyzed patient (pt) and tumor characteristics, toxicities (nausea (AE1), vomiting (AE2), diarrhea, neutropenia (AE3)) and efficacy (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS)) according to sex in the following treatment groups: A: CT alone, B: CT + bevacizumab, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies, with subgroup analyses in the CT alone group for single-agent, doublets and triplets, as well as irinotecan- and oxaliplatin-based regimens. Pts from trials with treatments still used today and all relevant data available were eligible. OS and PFS were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusted for primary tumor location and performance status (PS). Results: We included 28 trials with 18.399 pts (11.352 M and 7.047 W). W were younger (61 vs. 63 years), had more often a PS of 1 (49 vs 45%), BRAF mutations (10 vs. 7%), right-sided tumors (42 vs. 35%) and less often rectal tumors (26 vs. 32%). Significant differences in toxicity are reported in table. Rates of diarrhea were similar. There was no sex disparity in OS in the predefined subgroups except for pts receiving triplets where OS was better in M (HRadj=1.39 (1.05 - 1.85)). Median (interquartile range) OS in months for M and W was 16.7 (9.2-27.4) and 16.2 (8.9-27.2) in group 1, 21.9 (12.7-37.5) and 22.3 (12.9 – 39.0) in group 2, and 26.8 (14.6-45.3) and 24.8 (12.3-49.2) in group 3. HRsadj (W vs M) (95% CI), p values for OS were 1.02 (0.96-1.09), .557, 0.92 (0.83-1.03), .142, 0.99 (0.85-1.14), .866. Conclusions: M and W with mCRC differ significantly regarding patient and tumor characteristics. The significant higher toxicity in W does not translate in a higher treatment efficacy. Apart from known sex differences in pharmacokinetics of 5-FU, differences in pharmacodynamics must be postulated. [Table: see text]

3520 Background: EOTR has been suggested as a potential surrogate for overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with mCRC and allows early assessment of treatment efficacy, facilitating adaptive trial design. We assessed at the individual patient level, the correlation between EOTR (complete or partial response) at 6, 8 and 12 weeks (wk), OS and progression free survival (PFS) in pts with mCRC treated with 1stline chemotherapy with or without a targeted agent as a first step in a surrogacy demonstration. Methods: IPD from 13,949 pts enrolled on 15 randomized Phase III trials in 1st line mCRC were used; 8 trials included targeted (anti-angiogenic and anti-EGFR) agents. EOTR prognostic value was assessed by landmark analyses using Cox models stratified by treatment assignment. P-values <0.01 were considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons. Results: Of 13,949 pts, 11,987 had sufficient response data to be included in the analysis. Median OS was 21.7 months (mo) in pts with an EOTR vs. 16.5 mo without EOTR at 6 wk (p<.0001, Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.70, c statistic [c] 0.55). HRs were similar whether pts were treated with targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.80, x 0.54) or non-targeted therapies (p<.0001, HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55-0.69, x 0.55). Median PFS was 8.4 mo in pts with EOTR at 6 wk vs. 7.0 mo in pts without EOTR (p<.0001, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). EOTR at 8 and 12 wks were also significantly associated with longer OS and PFS. The prognostic value of EOTR at 6, 8 and 12 wks remained significant (p<0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, performance statusand location of metastatic disease (lung or liver). Overall tumor response (to 26 wk) however provided superior OS prediction (p<.0001, HR 0.51, 95% CI, 0.47-0.56, CS 0.61) vs. EOTR. Conclusions: Early response measured at 6, 8 or 12 wk after starting 1st line treatment was a strong and independent predictor of both OS and PFS in patient with mCRC and warrants further consideration as a potential endpoint for future trials, particularly randomized phase II trials.

89 Background: Monitoring of adverse events (AE) is crucial in clinical trials. Maximum grade per patient (pt) is commonly used but better metrics are needed to aid describing and comparing AE profiles. Methods: We developed and evaluated 2 longitudinal AE summary metrics. 1) Onset time of max grade refers to whether a pt has max grade within pre-specified timeframes for an AE, e.g. onset can be defined as “early” (max grade before the 6th cy) or “late” (≥ 6th cy). 2) Adverse effect load (AEL) is a longitudinal score of worst grade possible excluding death over the entire treatment for an AE. Higher AEL means worst overall experience of AE. We applied these metrics to real trial data. Pts were from 6 mCRC trials included in ARCAD database and received Irinotecan-based (n = 1,119) or Oxaliplatin-based (n = 1,230) treatments that did not include biologicals. AEs were diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, neutropenia/leukopenia, and neuropathy. We used linear model to AEL and logistic model to the other metrics, adjusting for age, sex, and number of metastases. Results: For nausea/vomiting, pts in Oxali-based chemo showed a higher AEL compared to patients in Iri-based (mean (M) [standard deviation (SD)] = 0.04 [0.06] vs. 0.02 [0.04]; p < 0.001) even though less pts had gr ≥ 3 (10.4% vs. 16.2%, resp.; p < 0.001), suggesting a lower-grade but persistent nausea/vomiting for Oxali-based. Among pts with diarrhea max gr 2, pts in Iri-based had higher AEL than with Oxali-based (M [SD] = 0.11 [0.11] vs. 0.08 [0.09]; p = 0.008), indicating more persistent diarrhea for Iri-based trts even among pts with same max grade. For neutropenia/leukopenia, pts in Oxali-based trts experienced higher AEL (M [SD] = 0.09 [0.13] vs. 0.05 [0.11], p < 0.001), and more pts in Oxali-based trts had gr ≥ 3 (70.1% vs. 64.4%; p = 0.002), suggesting that pts in Oxali-based trts experienced worst overall and max grade neutropenia/leukopenia compared to pts in Iri-based. Conclusions: To improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials, AEL and onset time of max grade are new measures that describe the evolution of adverse events over time. Further validation is warranted.