Macarulla, Teresa

687 Background: The NAPOLI 3 study (NCT04083235, N = 770) reported that NALIRIFOX improved overall survival (OS) vs Gem+NabP with manageable toxicity in 1L treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We explored changes in CA19-9 levels and their potential associations with efficacy as an important tumor marker in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Methods: In NAPOLI 3, CA19-9 was evaluated at baseline and every 8 weeks until patients discontinued study treatment. The detection limit of CA19-9 was 8000 kU/L in this study. The Cox proportional hazards regression and logistic regression were employed to investigate the relationship between CA19-9 decrease and OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). Results: Patients with evaluable CA19-9 (levels =< 8000) at baseline and additional measurements at weeks 8 and 16 were included in the analysis (NALIRIFOX, n = 179; Gem+NabP, n = 194). The median baseline CA19-9 level was 378.0 and 409.7 kU/L for the NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP arms, respectively. Overall, patients with (vs without) any CA 19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR (59.9% vs 35.2%; p = 0.002), a longer median PFS (9.2 vs 6.2 months; p < 0.001) and a longer median OS (14.2 vs 8.7 months; p = 0.005), respectively in a pooled analysis of the treatments. In the NALIRIFOX arm, patients with any CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher confirmed ORR of 65.1% compared with those without at 42.4% ( p < 0.001), a median PFS of 9.5 vs 7.1 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 15.4 versus 8.4 months ( p = 0.004), respectively. In the Gem+NabP arm, patients with CA19-9 decrease by week 16 had a higher ORR of 55.5% compared with those without at 23.8% ( p = 0.012), a median PFS of 7.6 versus 5.8 months ( p < 0.001) and a median OS of 13.7 versus 11.9 months ( p = 0.235), respectively. Conclusions: CA19-9 decrease by week 16 has the potential to be an early prognostic factor for OS, PFS and ORR. The results should be interpreted with caution as a considerable percentage of patients were excluded due to non-evaluable CA19-9 that exceeded the lab detection limit of 8000 kU/L. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .

TPS4199 Background: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy is a locoregional antimitotic treatment approved for newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma GBM and pleural mesothelioma. TTFields (150 kHz) therapy, with/without chemotherapy, had antiproliferative and anticlonogenic activity in pancreatic cancer cell lines, and reduced tumor volume and weight more than chemotherapy alone in in vivo models. TTFields therapy with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GnP) was well-tolerated, with promising efficacy in metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) in the phase 2 PANOVA study (NCT01971281). LAPC prognosis remains poor despite available therapies, which can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). As such, there remains a need for effective and tolerable treatments. Methods: PANOVA-3 (EF-27, NCT03377491) is a prospective, randomized, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of TTFields therapy with GnP in patients with LAPC, with a planned enrollment of 556 patients. Key inclusion criteria are: a diagnosis of unresectable LAPC (per NCCN guidelines), ECOG PS of 0–2, and no prior treatment. Patients will be stratified by performance status and geographical region and assigned 1:1 to treatment groups to receive TTFields therapy + GnP or GnP alone. GnP will be administered at a standard dose per standard of care. TTFields therapy (150 kHz, 18h/day) will be delivered by the NovoTTF-200T System until local disease progression per RECIST v1.1. Usage will be tracked by the device. Follow-up will be performed every 4 weeks and computed tomography scans of the chest and abdomen will be taken every 8 weeks until disease progression. Patients will be followed every month until death. The primary endpoint is overall survival and key secondary endpoints include QoL, pain-free survival, and puncture-free survival, which will be compared between treatment groups. Other secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, objective response rate, 1-year survival rate, rate of resectability, and safety. Guidance around usage, lifestyle integration and prevention and management of skin adverse events will be provided by Device Support Specialists and field personnel. Usage information will be provided to patients and physicians to facilitate discussions to optimize outcomes by maximizing time on therapy. Together, these novel support approaches aim to optimize patient usage and outcomes. The trial is currently recruiting at 149 sites, globally. The DMC last reviewed the trial in August 2022, and suggested that the trial continue as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03377491 .

4006 Background: Liposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Here, we present results from NAPOLI 3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated mPDAC were randomized (1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status, geographic region and presence/absence of liver metastases) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or Gem+NabP on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when at least 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall one-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. Median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIRIFOX group versus 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP group; median PFS was 7.4 months versus 5.6 months. Median (95% CI) duration of response was 7.3 (5.8–7.6) and 5.0 (3.8–5.6) months in patients who received NALIRIFOX and Gem+NabP, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in at least 10% of patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in patients with mPDAC. The NALIRIFOX safety profile was consistent with the profiles of the regimen components and generally manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 . [Table: see text]

LBA661 Background: Liposomal irinotecan administered with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) is approved in the USA and Europe for mPDAC following progression with gemcitabine-based therapy. A phase 1/2 study (Wainberg et al. Eur J Cancer 2021;151:14–24; NCT02551991) demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in patients with mPDAC who received first-line liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2 + 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 + LV 400 mg/m2 + oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2 (NALIRIFOX). Herein, we present results from NAPOLI-3 (NCT04083235), a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study investigating the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX compared with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with mPDAC. Methods: Eligible patients with histopathologically/cytologically confirmed untreated metastatic PDAC were randomized (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (Gem+NabP) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Randomization was stratified by ECOG performance status, geographic region and presence or absence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. OS was evaluated when ≥ 543 events were observed using a stratified log-rank test with an overall 1-sided significance level of 0.025. Results: Overall, 770 patients (NALIRIFOX, n = 383; Gem+NabP, n = 387) were included. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms. At a median follow-up of 16.1 months, 544 events had occurred. The median OS was 11.1 months in the NALIFIROX arm as compared with 9.2 months in the Gem+NabP arm (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.71–0.99]; p = 0.04); PFS was also significantly improved (7.4 months vs 5.6 months; HR 0.70 [0.59–0.84]; p = 0.0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with ≥ 10% frequency in patients receiving NALIRIFOX versus Gem+NabP included diarrhea (20.3% vs 4.5%), nausea (11.9% vs 2.6%), hypokalemia (15.1% vs 4.0%), anemia (10.5% vs 17.4%) and neutropenia (14.1% vs 24.5%). Conclusions: First-line NALIRIFOX demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in OS and PFS compared with Gem+NabP in treatment-naïve patients with mPDAC. The safety profile of NALIRIFOX was manageable and consistent with the profiles of the treatment components. Funding: Funded by Ipsen. Clinical trial information: NCT04083235 .[Table: see text]

427 Background: Derazantinib, a potent anti- FGFR1-3 oral kinase inhibitor, has shown clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity (21%), durable responses (median, 6.4 months), and progression-free survival (median, 8.0 months) in patients (pts) with FGFR2 fusion (FGFR2F)-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and with a manageable toxicity profile. Herein, we report an interim analysis of the clinical efficacy data of derazantinib for pts with iCCA harboring FGFR2 mutations or amplifications (FGFR2M/A), a potential therapeutic option currently not addressed by FGFR inhibitors. Methods: Study FIDES-01 enrolls in a dedicated cohort pts with FGFR2M/A+ advanced iCCA who received previous chemotherapy. Pts receive 300 mg derazantinib daily until disease progression, death or intolerance. The primary endpoint is the proportion of pts alive and free of disease progression at 3 months (PFS3; RECIST 1.1, central imaging review) using a Simon’s two-stage sample-size minimizing statistical design. The interim analysis population comprises 23 pts dosed (intention to treat) who had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment (or clinical progression, or died) by June 3, 2021, using investigator assessments based on RECIST 1.1. Results: To date, 28 pts have been enrolled and dosed. FGFR2M/A observed in these pts included missense point mutations (78%), other short variants (11%) and amplifications (11%). Transition from stage 1 to stage 2 of the study was achieved earlier than planned after 8 (67%) of 12 pts were assessed as PFS3 based on central imaging review. In 23 pts included in this interim analysis for efficacy, the best overall response (investigator assessment) was confirmed partial response in two (8.7%) and stable disease in additional 15 pts (65.2%), resulting in a disease control rate of 73.9% (95% CI, 51.6–89.8). Using Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median PFS was 7.3 months (95%CI, 3.5–16.7) and the probability of being progression-free at 3 months and at 6 months were 76.3% (95%CI, 51.9–89.4) and 50.3% (95%CI, 21.7–73.4), respectively. Clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy was observed across all types of genetic aberrations. The safety profile of derazantinib in FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts was consistent with that previously reported for FGFR2F+ iCCA pts. Conclusions: This interim data in study FIDES-01 suggest that derazantinib treatment provides clinical benefit to pts with advanced iCCA harboring FGFR2M/A who progressed after at least one line of standard chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the first report of clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy in a prospectively planned cohort of iCCA pts harboring FGFR2M/A. The study is ongoing to accrue 43 patients, assessing derazantinib as a therapeutic option for FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts after disease progression on first-line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03230318.

AbstractLiposomal irinotecan is a liposomal formulation of irinotecan, which prolongs circulation of irinotecan and its active metabolite SN‐38. A population pharmacokinetic (PK) model was developed based on data from seven studies (N = 440). Adequacy of the model was assessed using multiple methods, including visual predictive check. Associations between PK exposure and the incidence of diarrhea (grade ≥3) and neutropenia adverse events (AEs) (grade ≥3) at first event in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) were investigated using logistic regression based on data from two studies (the phase III NAPOLI‐1 [N = 260] and phase I/II NCT02551991 [N = 56] trials). The PKs of total irinotecan was described by a two‐compartment model with first‐order elimination, with SN‐38 formed directly by a first‐order constant from the central compartment of irinotecan or after using a transit compartment. Clearance was 17.9 L/week (0.107 L/h) and 19,800 L/week (118 L/h) for total irinotecan and SN‐38, respectively. The UGT1A1*28 7/7 homozygous genotype had no significant impact on SN‐38 clearance. Model evaluation was satisfactory for both irinotecan and SN‐38. The incidence of diarrhea (grade ≥3) at first event was significantly higher with increasing average concentrations of total irinotecan and SN‐38; there was no significant association between an increased risk of neutropenia AEs (grade ≥3) at first event and average SN‐38 concentrations. In summary, the PKs of total irinotecan and SN‐38 after administration of liposomal irinotecan were well‐described by the model. The UGT1A1*28 status had no significant impact on the PKs of liposomal irinotecan.

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

266 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician–patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.