Leventakos, Konstantinos

9002 Background: KRAS is a key mediator of the RAS/MAPK signaling cascade that promotes cellular growth and proliferation. KRASG12C mutation occurs in ̃14% of NSCLC. Adagrasib, an investigational agent, is a KRASG12C inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRASG12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib is optimized for favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, including long half-life (̃24 h), dose-dependent PK, and central nervous system penetration; it has demonstrated objective response and favorable tolerability in the Phase 1/1b setting. Methods: KRYSTAL-1 (NCT03785249) is a multicohort Phase 1/2 study evaluating adagrasib as monotherapy or in combination regimens in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRASG12C mutation. Here we report the first disclosure from all patients enrolled in Cohort A, a Phase 2 cohort with registrational intent, evaluating adagrasib given 600 mg orally BID in patients with NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/L1 therapy. Study objectives include evaluating efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]), safety, PK, and exploratory correlative analyses. Objective tumor response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results: As of the 15 October 2021 data cutoff, 116 patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation were enrolled and treated, with a median follow-up of 12.5 months. Baseline characteristics include median age 64 years, 65% female, and 15.5%/83.6% with ECOG PS 0/1; 98.3% of patients received adagrasib following prior treatment with immunotherapy and chemotherapy, with a median of 2 prior systemic therapies. The ORR (by BICR) was 42.9% (48/112) and the disease control rate was 79.5% (89/112); 31 patients remain on treatment. Median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2–13.8), median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7–8.4), median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2–NE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 97.4% of patients, grade ≥3 TRAEs in 45.7%, 2 grade 5 TRAEs, and 8 (6.9%) TRAEs led to discontinuation. The most commonly reported (≥25%) TRAEs (any grade) were diarrhea (62.9%), nausea (62.1%), vomiting (47.4%), fatigue (40.5%), ALT/AST increased (27.6%/25%), blood creatinine increased (25.9%); the most commonly reported (≥5%) TRAEs (grade 3/4) were lipase increased (6%) and anemia (5.2%). Additional subgroup analyses will be presented, including selected demographics, molecular markers and sites of metastases. Conclusions: Adagrasib is well tolerated and demonstrates promising efficacy in pretreated patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation. A Phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC is ongoing (NCT04685135). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249.

11016 Background: Stress Management and Resiliency Training (SMART) is a validated resilience training program designed to reduce stress, improve emotional resilience, and decrease burnout. The prevalence of burnout among practicing oncologists is as high as 40%, but unknown among oncology trainees. We implemented a virtual format of the SMART program to the Hematology/Oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic to assess the feasibility of such a delivery, measure baseline rates of burnout in this group, and to investigate if a virtual method of delivery is as effective as in-person delivery as described in the literature. Methods: The SMART project was a mixed-methods, prospective, single arm clinical trial. Hematology/Oncology Fellows at Mayo Clinic were invited to participate. Four one-hour training sessions were conducted virtually. Fellows were given access to SMART online video modules and a book which supported the content covered during virtual training, a companion resilience mobile app, and a paperback mindfulness journal. Stress, burnout, and emotional resilience were measured at baseline and three months post-intervention using the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2). Changes in mean scores on the PSS, MBI, and CD-RISC2 were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Program feedback and feasibility data were obtained during a virtual focus group. Audio transcripts from the focus group were codified for thematic analysis and verified by intercoder triangulation. A 6-month assessment will be due in March 2022. Results: 26 of 50 fellows invited participated in our study. At baseline, 24% of participants had measurable burnout and 92% had moderate to high stress. At 3-months, the number of participants with moderate to high stress decreased to 71%, while rates of burnout remained unchanged. The PSS demonstrated a decrease in mean stress (-10.9%, p = 0.005), while the MBI demonstrated decreased emotional exhaustion (MBI-EE -6.01%, p = 0.04), an improved sense of personal achievement (MBI-PA 28.1%, p < 0.001), but slightly worse feelings of depersonalization (MBI-DP 16.46%, p = 0.05). The CD-RISC2 suggested no change in global emotional resilience (-0.71%, p = 0.82). Thematic analysis of the focus group data revealed that participants overwhelmingly found the program beneficial (83% of all responses), 20% indicated improved stress, and 15% indicated improved work performance. Conclusions: Oncology fellows in this study had lower rates of burnout compared to practicing oncologists. Virtual implementation of the SMART program is feasible and resulted in improvements in stress and prevented worsened burnout. Outcomes were comparable to previously published studies conducted in-person. Focus group participants found the training beneficial, reported lower stress, and improved work performance.

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.

TPS2670 Background: Tumor necrosis factor receptor-2 (TNFR2) is expressed on effector CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, T regulatory cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells. Targeting TNFR2 is anticipated to yield effective anti-tumor immunity by stimulating T-cell and NK-cell activation and proliferation in the tumor microenvironment. HFB200301 is a first-in-class anti-TNFR2 agonistic monoclonal antibody that triggers both innate and adaptive immune stimulation by binding to a specific epitope on TNFR2. HFB200301 has demonstrated dose-dependent anti-tumor activity in human TNFR2 knock-in mice bearing MC38 and Hepa1-6 syngeneic tumors. Methods: HFB200301 is being evaluated in a first-in-human, open-label, multi-center, dose escalation and expansion study in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. A single-cell immune profiling platform, DIS, was deployed to identify unique tumor-infiltrating T cell signatures that could help optimize patient selection for HFB200301 treatment. It is hypothesized that the presence of an effector T cell subpopulation that express both TNFR2 and CD8A in solid tumors may represent a tumor microenvironment favorable to TNFR2 agonism. The following cancer indications have been identified based on the prevalence of a TNFR2 high/CD8 high signature: Epstein-Barr Virus positive (EBV+) gastric cancer, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), cutaneous melanoma, testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT), soft tissue sarcoma (STS), and PD-L1+ cancers: cervical cancer, pleural mesothelioma, lung adenocarcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The escalation portion of the study explores increasing doses in cohorts of up to six patients, utilizing mTPI-2 design to determine recommended dose(s) for expansion (RDE(s)). Based on pharmacokinetic modeling to maximize HFB200301 activity, 60-minute intravenous infusions of HFB200301 are administered every 4 weeks. Once RDE(s) is determined, expansion into three indication-specific cohorts is planned to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Key eligibility criteria include histologically documented advanced or metastatic solid tumors in the above listed indications. Patient enrollment opened in February 2022 in the USA, with plans for additional clinical sites in Spain and China. The primary objective is to identify the RDE, characterize safety and tolerability of HFB200301, and determine RP2D. Secondary objectives include pharmacokinetic parameters, preliminary evidence of anti-tumor efficacy (e.g., ORR, DCR, DOR) and pharmacodynamic evaluation (e.g., T cell subsets) in the blood and in the tumor. Furthermore, a potential predictive biomarker signature derived based on the DIS single-cell immune profiling approach will be investigated retrospectively. Clinical trial information: NCT05238883.

512 Background: The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in the treatment of extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (EP-NEC) has yet to be established. While objective responses have been observed, it is still unknown which patients are likely to derive benefit. We investigated the genomic profiles of patients who did and did not benefit from ICIs. Methods: Previously we reported the objective responses to ICI in a retrospective series of patients with EP-NEC. RECIST 1.1 criteria were used to categorize patients as achieving disease control (DC = CR, PR, or SD) vs progressive disease (PD). The EMR was reviewed to identify patients who had genomic panels performed, and results were extracted for analysis. Results: Of 31 patients eligible for RECIST assessment, 19 had genomic panels available (9 with DC: 4 SD, 5 PR vs 10 with PD). Of those with NEC histology specified, 9 were small cell, 1 combined large and small cell, 3 were large cell. All tumors were microsatellite-stable. All but one (with TMB = 25) of 16 tumors with TMB status available were < 10 m/MB. Of those with disease control, 67% had both TP53 and RB1 alterations, compared with only 10% in those with progressive disease; this was statistically significant ( p = 0.0198, Fisher exact). Of 7 tumors with TP53 + RB1 alterations, 4 were specified as small cell carcinoma. Half of those with PD showed alterations in β-catenin pathway genes CTNNB1 or APC, compared to only one of the DC group, but this did not reach significance ( p = 0.1409, Fisher exact). In an analysis of all Mayo patients (not just those treated with ICI) with NGS data available (Tempus and FoundationOne), concurrent TP53 + RB1 alteration was significantly more common in SCLC than in EP-NEC (Table). Conclusions: In this small series of patients with EP-NEC treated with ICIs, the SCLC-like genomic signature of concurrent TP53 + RB1 alterations was significantly more common in those with disease control than in those with progressive disease. An analysis of all patients with NGS data (not just on ICI) showed that the dual alteration was more common in SCLC, and SCLC also had more TMB-high tumors. This may explain why ICIs are more effective in SCLC than in EP-NEC. Further study is warranted to determine whether TP53 + RB1 mutations predict response to ICI in NEC.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the impact of an interdisciplinary remote patient monitoring (RPM) program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center. Adult patients receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020, were included. RPM was composed of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nursing and physician oversight. RESULTS: During the study timeframe, 224 patients with cancer were diagnosed with COVID-19. Of the 187 patients (83%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM. Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity score weighting, rates of hospitalization for RPM and non-RPM patients were 2.8% and 13%, respectively, implying that the use of RPM was associated with a 78% relative risk reduction in hospital admission rate (95% CI, 54 to 102; P = .002). Furthermore, when hospitalized, these patients experienced a shorter length of stay and fewer prolonged hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and deaths, although these trends did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The use of RPM and a centralized virtual care team was associated with a reduction in hospital admission rate and lower overall acute care resource utilization among cancer patients with COVID-19.

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]

1503 Background: Patients with cancer and COVID-19 are at risk for poor clinical outcomes. An established multi-site remote patient monitoring (RPM) service was rapidly adapted to support a novel, interdisciplinary COVID-19 program for outpatient management of patients at high-risk for severe illness. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of the RPM program on clinical outcomes and acute care utilization in cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis following a multi-site prospective observational study performed at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center (MCCC). All adult patients with active cancer – defined as currently receiving cancer-directed therapy or in recent remission on active surveillance – and PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18 and July 31, 2020 were included. RPM was comprised of in-home technology to assess symptoms and physiologic data with centralized nurse and physician oversight. Results: During the study timeframe 224 cancer patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 at MCCC. Initial management included urgent hospitalization (within 48 hours of diagnosis) in 34 patients (15%). Of the remaining 190 patients (85%) initially managed in the outpatient setting, those who did not receive RPM were significantly more likely to experience hospitalization than those receiving RPM (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.036 to 12.01, P = 0.044). Following balancing of patient characteristics by inverse propensity weighting, rates of hospital admission for RPM and non-RPM patients were 3.1% and 11% respectively, implying that RPM was associated with an 8% reduction in hospital admission rate (-0.077; 95% CI: -0.315 to -0.019, P = 0.009). Use of RPM was also associated with lower rates of prolonged hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality, though these trends did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In the midst of a global pandemic associated with inpatient bed, ventilator, and PPE shortages, the RPM program provided an effective strategy for outpatient clinical management and was associated with decreased rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19. This care model enabled simultaneous opportunity to mitigate the increased risks of exposure, transmission, and resource utilization associated with conventional care.