Wee, Wen

AbstractImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as a novel class of anticancer therapy, can be more efficacious and less toxic than chemotherapy, but their clinical success is confined to certain tumor types. Elucidating their targets, mechanisms and scope of action, and potential synergism with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapies are critical to widen their clinical indications. Treatment response to an ICI targeting programmed death‐1 (anti‐PD‐1) is sought to be understood here by conducting a preplanned correlative analysis of a phase II clinical trial in patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). The cytolytic capacity of circulating immune cells in cancer patients using a novel ex vivo cytotoxicity assay is evaluated, and the utility of circulating biomarkers is investigated to predict and monitor the treatment effect of anti‐PD‐1. Baseline expression of Bim and NKG7 and upregulation of CX3CR1 in circulating T cells are associated with the clinical benefit of anti‐PD‐1 in patients with SBA. Overall, these findings suggest that the frequency and cytolytic capacity of circulating, effector immune cells may differentiate clinical response to ICIs, providing a strong rationale to support immune monitoring using patient peripheral blood.

Abstract Background GSK3β serine/threonine kinase regulates metabolism and glycogen biosynthesis. GSK3β overexpression promotes progression and resistance through NF-κB and p53 apoptotic pathways. GSK3β inhibits immunomodulation by downregulating PD-L1 and LAG-3 checkpoints and increasing NK and T-cell tumor killing. 9-ING-41, a small-molecule, selective GSK3β inhibitor, showed preclinical activity in chemo-resistant PDX glioblastoma models, including enhanced lomustine antitumor effect. Methods Refractory malignancies (n = 162) were treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy (n = 65) or combined with 8 cytotoxic regimens after prior exposure (NCT03678883). Recurrent gliomas (n = 18) were treated with 9-ING-41 IV TIW q21day cycles at 3.3, 5, 9.3, 15 mg/kg, as monotherapy or combined with lomustine 30 mg/m² PO weekly q84day cycles. Primary objective was safety. Results RP2D of 15 mg/kg IV TIW was confirmed across all 9 regimens, no accentuated chemotherapy toxicity noted. Glioma subtypes included: 13 glioblastoma, 2 anaplastic astrocytomas, 1 anaplastic oligodendroglioma, 1 astrocytoma. Median age 52 (30–69) years; 6 female, 12 male; median ECOG 1 (0–2); median recurrences 3 (1–6). All received upfront radiation/temozolomide (18/18), plus salvage nitrosoureas (15/18), bevacizumab (8/18), TTFields (6/18), or immunotherapy (4/18). IDH/mutation(3/18); 1p19q/codeletion(1/18); MGMT/methylated(1/18). Four received 9-ING-41 monotherapy, 14 concurrent with lomustine. No severe toxicities were attributed to 9-ING-41, only mild vision changes (9/18, 50%), or infusion reactions (4/18, 22%). Lomustine-related toxicities: G3/4 thrombocytopenia (3/14, 21%), G1/2 fatigue (4/14, 28%). Median days on therapy was 55 (4–305); 1 partial response (>50%) was noted. Median OS was 5.5 (95% CI: 2.8–11.4) months and PFS-6 was 16.7%. Conclusion 9-ING-41 plus/minus lomustine is safe and warrants further study in glioma patients.

563 Background: RUB is an oral PARP1,2,3 inhibitor that demonstrated efficacy in patients (pts) with ovarian and prostate cancers harboring deleterious BRCA mutations. RUB exerts synergistic anti-tumor effect with IRI preclinically though the combination has overlapping toxicities. We previously published on the population PK of nal-IRI (Adiwijaya, Ma et al, Clin Pharm Ther 2017). We conducted a phase I study to evaluate a novel sequential dosing of RUB with nal-IRI/5FU in mGI cancer pts. Methods: Eligible pts had incurable mGI cancer previously received > 1 line of therapy (rx), ECOG PS 0-1, had RECIST measurable disease, adequate organ reserves and not received IRI for metastatic disease. Previous PARPi rx was excluded. The endpoints included dose limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and toxicity profile. The dose escalation utilized the 3+3 design. RUB was given oral bid on Day 4 to 13 and 18 to 27 with nal-IRI i.v. and 5FU i.v. 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hr on Day 1 and 15, every 28 day. Planned dose levels were RUB 400 mg/nal-IRI 50 mg/m2 (DL1), 400 mg/70 mg/m2 (DL2) and 600 mg/70 mg/m2 (DL3). Adverse events (AEs) were scored per CTCAE v4.03. Molecular profile was evaluated by CLIA-certified NGS testing. Results: Eighteen pts including 11 colorectal (CRC), 6 PANC, 1 gastroesophageal (GE) were enrolled and 12 were evaluable for DLTs. DL2 was not tolerable (DLT: G3 diarrhea, nausea and vomiting) and DL2A was added (RUB 600 mg/nal-IRI 50 mg/m2). DL2A enrolled 6 pts with no DLT and was determined as the MTD. Of DLT-evaluable pts, G3 and worse treatment-related AEs from all cycles were diarrhea (33%), fatigue (25%), leukopenia (25%), neutropenia (25%), anemia (8%) and nausea (8%). Four of 12 response evaluable pts had partial response: 2 CRC (1 had ATM mut), 1 PANC ( ATM mut), 1 GE ( BRCA2 mut) whilst 3 responders previously had platinum (PLA). Five pts had stable disease beyond 16 weeks (range 18.9 to 100.7 weeks), and all had prior PLA. Conclusions: The study successfully determined the MTD of RUB in combination with nal-IRI and 5FU. Encouraging efficacy was observed in PLA-treated mGI cancers including responses in those harboring ATM and BRCA alterations. The study is proceeding to evaluate the efficacy of the combination in metastatic pancreas cancer pts with and without BRCA1/2 or PALB2 alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT03337087.

Abstract BACKGROUND GSK3β serine/threonine kinase regulates metabolism and glycogen biosynthesis. GSK3β overexpression promotes tumor progression and resistance through NF-κB and p53 apoptotic pathways. GSK3β inhibits immunomodulation by downregulating checkpoints, e.g. PD-L1 and LAG-3, and increasing NK and T-cell mediated tumor killing. 9-ING-41 is a small-molecule, potent, selective GSK3β inhibitor with preclinical activity. In chemoresistant PDX glioblastoma models, 9-ING-41 enhanced lomustine antitumor effect. METHODS Patients with refractory malignancies were treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy (n=65) or combined with 8 cytotoxic regimens after prior exposure (n=162) in the first-in-human study (NCT03678883). The recurrent gliomas subset was treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy IV TIW q21day cycles at 3.3, 5, 9.3, 15mg/kg, or combined with lomustine 30 mg/m² PO weekly q84day cycles. Primary objective was safety and tolerability. RESULTS An RP2D of 15mg/kg IV TIW was confirmed across all 9 regimens, no accentuation of chemotherapy toxicity noted. Of 18 glioma patients enrolled, 13 were glioblastoma, 2 anaplastic astrocytomas, 1 anaplastic oligodendroglioma, and 1 diffuse astrocytoma; 6 female, 12 male; median age 52 (30-69) years; median ECOG was 1 (0-2). All received initial radiation and temozolomide (18/18), prior salvage therapies included nitrosoureas (15/18), bevacizumab (8/18), TTFields (6/18), checkpoint inhibitor (4/18). Median recurrences 3 (1-6). NGS alterations included: IDH/wildtype (11), IDH/mutation(3); 1p19q/codeletion(10); MGMT/unmethylated(11), MGMT/methylated(1); EGFR/amplification(6), EGFR/v3mutation(3), TERT/mutation(6), PTEN/loss(3), NF1/rearrangement(2), ATRX/loss (2), TP53/mutation(4), CDKN2A/deletion(2), RB1/loss(1), PALB2/mutation(10). Four patients received 9-ING-41 monotherapy, 14 concurrently treated with lomustine. No SAEs or grade 3/4 AEs attributed to 9-ING-41 noted, only G1/2 vision changes (9/18, 50%), infusion reactions (4/18, 22%). Lomustine-related toxicities included G3/4 thrombocytopenia (3/14, 21%), and G1/2 fatigue (4/14, 28%). Median therapy duration was 55 (4-305); 1 partial response ( >50%) noted with 9-ING-41/lomustine. Median PFS and OS were 1.9 (0.3-11.1) and 6.0 (1.6-16.6) months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS 9-ING-41 plus/minus lomustine is safe and warrants further study in glioma patients.

PURPOSECholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are a group of heterogeneous tumors arising from the biliary epithelia. Significant sequencing efforts have provided further insights into the molecular mechanisms of this disease including fibroblast growth factor receptor ( FGFR) alterations, which occurs in approximately 15%-20% of intrahepatic CCAs. Herein, we describe the FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi)-associated treatment toxicity and cancer-specific outcomes from a multicenter single-institution cohort.METHODSThis is a retrospective study of patients with CCA and known FGFR alterations treated with FGFRi. We describe the toxicity and efficacy in patients treated at Mayo Clinic between January 2010 and December 2020.RESULTSOur group identified 61 patients with advanced or metastatic CCA, 19 males (31%) and 42 females (69%), harboring FGFR alterations who received FGFRi. The most common grade 1 or higher adverse events for all patients included fatigue (92%), AST elevations (78%), anemia (80%), decreased platelet count (63%), and hyperphosphatemia (74%). Median progression-free survival on FGFRi was 5.8 months for all patients (95% CI, 4.9 to 9.0). Females had significantly longer progression-free survival at 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 11.8) on FGFRi compared with males at 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to not estimable; P = .038).CONCLUSIONFGFRi are well tolerated with clinical efficacy. With the recent approval of FGFRi by the US Food and Drug Administration and ongoing clinical trials for new FGFRi, understanding outcomes and toxicity associated with these medications is important for precision oncology.

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.

2051 Background: GSK-3β, a serine/threonine kinase, is a key regulator of metabolism and glycogen biosynthesis. GSK-3β aberrant overexpression promotes tumor progression and chemotherapy resistance through NF-κB and p53-mediated apoptotic pathways. GSK-3β inhibition impacts immunomodulation through downregulation of checkpoints, such as PD-L1 and LAG-3, and increasing NK and T-cell mediated killing of tumor cells. 9-ING-41 is a small-molecule potent selective GSK-3β inhibitor with preclinical antitumor activity against several tumor types. In chemoresistant PDX models of glioblastoma (GBM), 9-ING-41 enhanced the antitumor effect of CCNU and CPT-11. Methods: In the first-in-human study (NCT03678883), patients (pts) with refractory malignancies received 9-ING-41 monotherapy (n = 65) or in combination with one of 8 cytotoxic regimens after prior treatment with the same chemotherapy (n = 162). We report the subset of pts with recurrent gliomas treated with 9-ING-41 monotherapy IV twice a week in 21-day cycles at different dose levels (3.3, 5, 9.3, 15mg/kg), or in combination with lomustine 30 mg/m² orally once weekly in 84-day cycles. Primary objective was safety and tolerability. Results: An RP2D of 15mg/kg IV was confirmed across all 9 regimens, no accentuation of chemotherapy-related toxicity noted. Of 18 glioma patients enrolled, 13 were GBM, 2 anaplastic astrocytomas, 1 diffuse astrocytoma, and 1 anaplastic oligodendroglioma. Four patients received single agent 9-ING-41, 14 treated concurrently with lomustine. Demographics: 6 female, 12 male; median age 52 (30-69) years; median ECOG was 1 (0-2). All received first-line radiation and temozolomide (18/18), prior therapies for recurrences included nitrosoureas (15/18), bevacizumab (8/18), TTFields (6/18), immune checkpoint inhibitor (4/18). Median recurrences 3 (1-6). Genomic alterations from available NGS reports included: IDH WT (11), IDH mutation (3), MGMT promoter unmethylated (11), MGMT promoter methylated (1), 1p19q co-deletion (10), EGFR amplification (6), EGFR v3 mutation (3), TERT promoter mutation (6), PTEN loss (3), NF1 rearrangement (2), ATRX loss (2), TP53 mutated (4), CDKN2A deletion (2), RB1 loss (1), PALB-2 mutation (10). No SAEs or grade 3/4 AEs attributed to 9-ING-41 were noted; AEs included G1/2 transient vision changes (9/18, 50%), infusion reactions (4/18, 22%). Side effects from lomustine included: G3/4 thrombocytopenia (3/14, 21%), and G1/2 fatigue (4/14, 28%). Best overall response: 1 minimal response (-43%) after 2 cycles of 9-ING-41 and lomustine. Median days on therapy was 55 (4-305), 4/18 (22%) were stable for 20 weeks or longer. Conclusions: These results show 9-ING-41 alone or in combination is safe and warrants further study in glioma patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03678883.

402 Background: Pancreas cancer is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment, and current guidelines recommend its use in the absence of prior irinotecan. This study aimed to assess whether patients who had received regular irinotecan derive benefit from Nal-IRI. Methods: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The following information was extracted from each medical record: patient demographics, confirmation of a diagnosis of exocrine pancreas cancer, initial cancer stage, dates of administration of the drugs of interest, adverse events that occurred with Nal-IRI treatment, reasons for stopping regular irinotecan, and reasons for starting and stopping Nal-IRI. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of > 4 months defined success). Survival data were censored based on date of last follow up. Direct quotes from the medical record were documented to provide insight on prescribing Nal-IRI when guidelines advised the contrary. Results: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). Prior to Nal-IRI, 61 patients had received FOLFIRINOX, and 3 FOLFIRI. Of these, 32 patients manifested progressive disease on regular irinotecan-based therapy. Nal-IRI was prescribed with a fluoropyrimidine; only one patient received monotherapy. At time of analysis, 54 patients had died. Median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6, 4.3, months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with regular irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 9.3, 5.1 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 4.8, 2.3 months); p=0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrated several themes, including “limited treatment options,” which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. Conclusions: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.