Raghav, Kanwal

PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

4047 Background: BRAFV600E mutations occur in fewer than 10% of all patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and arise from sessile serrated adenomas. Despite efficacy with targeted therapies against MAPK signaling and with immunotherapies in this population, survival outcomes for pts with BRAFV600E mCRC in general are poor. Characteristics distinguishing pts with BRAFV600E mCRC with favorable versus unfavorable outcomes have not been well annotated. Methods: Records of 188 pts with BRAFV600E mCRC evaluated at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 3/2010-1/2020 were reviewed. Pts with the shortest and longest metastatic survival (N = 25 for each group) were compared. Associations between prognostic group and clinical/pathologic features were measured by odds ratio and for median survival by log-rank testing. Results: Median metastatic survival differed between the 2 BRAFV600E mCRC populations (8.6 vs 84 months, p < .0001). Pts with poor survival more commonly had primary tumors arising from the hepatic flexure/proximal transverse colon (44% vs 16%, p = .04) and more frequent hepatic involvement (75% vs 28%, p = .001). Pts with favorable survival were more likely to develop metachronous metastases (52% vs 16%, p = .01), have fewer distant organ involvement (median 1 vs 2, p = .02), and undergo definitive locoregional therapy to metastatic disease (44% vs 0%, p = .01). Microsatellite instability (36% vs 4%, p = .008) and a history of tobacco use (44% vs 16%, p = .04) were associated with a favorable prognosis. Durable responses to MAPK-targeted therapies (5/25) and immunotherapy (3/25) were noted in the favorable group. Conclusions: Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC can achieve excellent long-term survival which belies conventional context and is driven by locoregional and systemic treatment options alike. Anatomic localization of the primary tumor and prior exposures may highlight environmental influences on tumor biology which account for the clinical heterogeneity of pts with BRAFV600E mCRC.

e15055 Background: An increasing number of pt and tumor c have predictive and prognostic implications in mCRC. However, there is no consensus on their reporting in trial results. Methods: Pt c and SF from 136 phase III trials of systemic therapies (Rx) in mCRC published between 1988 and 2018 (68,326 pts) were collected. Trials were also grouped per publication date (G1: 1988-97; G2: 98 – 2007; G3: 08-18). Patterns of reporting and trends across G were evaluated. Results: Pt c consistently reported were performance status, PS (98.5%), age (92.6%) and gender (90.4%); race (20.6%) & weight/BMI/BSA were not (13.2%). Tumor c frequently reported were metastatic (met) spread (70.6%) while time intervals related to disease course (25%) and synchronous met vs not (19.1%) were omitted. Of note, primary site was largely reported as colon vs rectum (69%) and sidedness or anatomical location was discernable only in 10.3%. Prior Rx reporting focused on chemo (58.5%) with radiation and surgery and reported in 34% & 28.7%. Reporting of prognostic factors was variable and limited: histology grade CEA, alk phos, LDH (range 10.3-15.4%). Only 11.8% of trials reported genomic factors - KRAS MT was included in all with BRAF MT in 4.4%. Of 140 trials used for SF analysis, 115 had ≥ 1 (range 1-7). Common SF were PS (60%), geography /institution (55.7%). Prior Rx (27%), met spread (24.3%) were sometimes used while primary site (7.8%), genomic factors (6.1%) rarely were. Trends across G are per Table. Conclusions: There is marked inconsistency in pt c & SF reporting in mCRC trials. Consensus guidelines will aid in standardization of trial interpretation and future meta-analyses; and will need to be updated based on emerging data. [Table: see text]

3579 Background: BRAFV600E ( BRAF) mutations (mts) portend poor prognosis in mCRC and patients (pts) may die before ascertainment. Since 2014, Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) has performed reflex hereditary screening of CRCs with BRAF and mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC). We evaluated this BRAF mt population-based cohort ( BRAFPOP) to establish the true prognosis of BRAF mts in mCRC. Methods: We reviewed all mCRCs from VCH between 4/2014 and 5/2018 for BRAF by IHC (VE1 antibody). Overall survival (OS) from stage IV diagnosis was compared to mCRCs with next generation sequencing (NGS) determined BRAF mts ( BRAFNGS) from BC Cancer & MD Anderson. BRAFNGS OS did not differ by center (p = 0.77). Results: See table for BRAF cohort baseline characteristic comparison. BRAFPOP pts had worse OS than BRAFNGS pts (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 – 3.9, P < 0.0001). Median OS for all BRAF mt pts was 17.9 mos. Both groups had worse OS than wild type pts (P < 0.0001). 52 (81%) of BRAFPOP pts were referred to oncology, 40 (63%) received chemotherapy, and 12 (19%) had NGS BRAF testing. BRAFPOP pts who had NGS testing with BRAF mts had OS comparable to other BRAFNGS pts (P = 0.89) and better OS than BRAFPOP pts that never had NGS testing (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.76, P = 0.030). Pts with BRAF mts and MMR deficiency (dMMR) (n = 40) had worse OS than MMR proficiency (pMMR, n = 202) (1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, P = 0.011). This was driven by BRAFPOP dMMR pts (HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9-4.0, P = 0.036) as no difference was seen by MMR in BRAFNGS pts (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.2, P = 0.30). Conclusions: Current estimates of prognosis for mCRC with BRAF mts likely underestimate its impact due to referral bias for NGS testing. BRAF mts with dMMR are associated with worse prognosis than pMMR. This appears driven by BRAFPOP pts. [Table: see text]

656 Background: Despite multiple trials of new agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), long term outcomes remain poor. This study explores the changing trends in the design, interpretation and outcomes of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mCRC over time. Methods: Phase III RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC with enrollment between 1986 and 2016 were identified through 4 electronic databases and grouped into 3 time periods (1986-1996 – T1; 1997-2006 – T2 & 2007-2016 – T3). Study selection, quality appraisal and data collection were performed by 2 independent investigators. Study characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, and authors’ interpretation of results and conclusions were analyzed. Improvement in overall survival (OS) was the difference between experimental and control arms. A study was deemed positive if it met its end point, was recommended for further study or for adoption for clinical use (p ≤ 0.05 significant for all analyses). Results: One hundred fifty trials (T1=36, T2=62, T3=52) with 77494 patients (T1=12406, T2=39158, T3=25930) were included. Although 1st line therapy trials continued to be the most common across all T, the percentage (%) of trials evaluating 3rd line and beyond (T1=0, T2=3, T3=27) have increased significantly over time as have trials with targeted agents (T1=11, T2=34, T3=79). Although OS remains the most common primary end point, more trials in T2 & T3 have used progression-free survival instead (14 vs 47 & 44). The % of trials with negative results but interpreted as positive increased over time (T1=18; T2=42; T3=35). Across all T, the median improvement in OS (months, m) of these trials was significantly lower compared to the trials that met primary end point across all T (T1 = 0 vs 1.8 m, T2 = -0.1 vs 3.25, T3 = -0.25 vs 2.55). Conclusions: A significant shift has occurred over the past three decades in the design and interpretation of phase III trials in advanced CRC. Any interpretations of potential survival benefits from trials that have not met primary end point must be made with significant caution.

268 Background: TRC105, an endoglin antibody, potentiates the activity of sorafenib (S) in preclinical HCC models, and TRC105 + S demonstrated a 33% partial response rate (5/15 pts) by RECIST, at RP2D doses of TRC105 in HCC pts ( Clin Can Res 2017). Adverse events characteristic of each drug were not increased in frequency or severity when the two drugs were administered concurrently. Methods: P1: Compare wkly TRC105 dosing vs four wkly doses followed by every other wkly dosing + S 800 mg daily. P2: Four objective responses are required in 21 pts to reject the null hypothesis that the true response rate probability is < 5% with an alpha level of 0.1 and 80% power. Key inclusion criteria: disease not amendable to surgical or local therapies, ECOG ≤ 1; Child-Pugh A or B (7 points) classification. Results: Thirteen pts were enrolled in phase 1b at TRC105 10 mg/kg wkly for four doses and 15 mg/kg every other week thereafter + S. Mean serum levels of TRC105 exceeded the target conc. following 4 wkly doses of TRC105 at 10 mg/kg (mean = 34 µg/ml, range BLOQ-80). Mean trough conc. decreased following every other week dosing (mean = 13 µg/ml, range BLOQ-31), resulting in infusion reactions or a continued requirement for premedication. Therefore, wkly dosing of TRC105 at 10 mg/kg is the recommended Phase 2 dose. ADA were detected in 10 of 14 pts and correlated with lower than expected PK conc. Common TRC105 related AEs included ≤ G2 epistaxis, ≤ G2 fatigue and ≤ G2 headache. Common S related AEs included ≤ G3 fatigue, ≤ G3 hand foot syndrome and ≤G2 epistaxis. A total of 3 out of 14 evaluable patients (21%) enrolled in phase 1 and 2 achieved durable PR, 2 of these ongoing at week 45 and 17. Conclusions: TRC105 dosed at 10 mg/kg wkly was required to achieve target conc. due to higher clearance in HCC pts, which may have been influenced by a higher rate of ADA compared to studies of TRC105 in other tumor types. The combination of TRC105 + S demonstrated encouraging signs of activity, including durable PR in 2/9 evaluable pts in Phase 1b and 1/5 pts thus far in Phase 2. An additional 16 pts will be enrolled at the RP2D to assess the primary endpoint of ORR by RECIST. Clinical trial information: NCT01806064.

350 Background: BTCs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis. The standard therapy for aBTCs is the combination of GC. However, the median overall survival (mOS) is dismal at 11.7 months (mos) with a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 8 mos. Methods: A single arm, phase II study was conducted at MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients (pts) with aBTC were treated at initial dose level of G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 1000/25/125 (n = 30) which was reduced to lower doses due to grade 3/4 hematological (heme) toxicity (tox) - G/C/N: 800/25/100 (n = 30). Cycles were q21 days with restaging q3 cycles until progression. PFS was the primary endpoint (endpt). Using a Bayesian hypothesis test-based design, we assumed mPFS of 8 mos under the null hypothesis (H0), 10 mos under the alternative (H1). Secondary endpts included mOS, RECIST v1.1 response rate (RR), safety and CA19-9 response. Results: 60 pts were enrolled with 51 being response-evaluable having received more than 1 cycle of therapy (age: median 60 yrs [range 31-77], ECOG PS 0/1 (22/38), M/F (33/27), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/extrahepatic/gallbladder (38/9/13). Median follow-up was 14 mos and median number of treatment (trmt) cycles = 5.24. Pts at initial dose level had significant grade 3/4 heme tox: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia leading to trmt discontinuation in 6/30 pts. After dose reduction to G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 800/25/100, trmt was better tolerated with only 3 pts experiencing grade 4 heme tox. Non-heme tox were grade 3 in 19 pts: nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, thromboembolic event/CVA, hypokalemia, constipation, cystitis, LFT elevations. The mPFS = 11.4 mos (95% CI: 6.1, 16.1) and mOS = 19.2 (95%CI: 13.6, NA), 1-year survival rate 67.6%. 51 pts evaluable for response: disease control rate (PR+CR+SD)-84.3% and RR-39%. 12 unresectable cases were operated post trmt with 1 pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCN was well tolerated at adjusted doses and demonstrates encouraging efficacy having met its mPFS endpt and an impressive mOS higher than historical control. These results merit evaluating GC +/-N in a randomized controlled study. Clinical trial information: NCT02392637.

301 Background: Endoglin plays a critical role in angiogenesis and is implicated in resistance to VEGF inhibition. TRC105, an endoglin antibody potentiates anti-tumor activity of sorafenib (S) in preclinical HCC models. The combination of TRC105 and S demonstrated encouraging evidence of activity, including a 33% partial response rate (5/15 pts) by RECIST, at RP2D doses of TRC105 in HCC ( Clin Can Res 2017). Adverse events characteristic of each drug were not increased in frequency or severity when the two drugs were administered concurrently, and most commonly included epistaxis, fatigue, headache and anemia. Methods: Following dose escalation, 21 pts will be enrolled at the RP2D. Four objective responses are required to reject the null hypothesis that the true response rate probability is < 5% with an alpha level of 0.1 and 80% power. Secondary endpoints: DR, PFS, frequency and severity of AEs, PK, immunogenicity, angiogenic biomarkers. Key inclusion criteria: disease not amendable to surgical or local therapies, ECOG ≤ 1; Child-Pugh A or B (7 points) classification. Results: Four pts have been enrolled in phase 1b at TRC105 10 mg/kg (n=4) weekly for four doses and 15 mg/kg every other week thereafter + S 800 mg daily without DLT. One of 3 evaluable pts achieved PR (41% reduction), ongoing at month 4. Serum levels of TRC105 exceeded the target concentration following 4 weekly doses of TRC105 at 10 mg/kg (mean = 59 µg/ml, range 43-80). Mean trough concentration decreased following every other week dosing (mean = 21 µg/ml, range 17-31). Common TRC105 related AEs included ≤ G2 epistaxis and G1 headache. Common S related AEs included G3 hand foot syndrome, ≤G3 periodontal disease, G2 hypertension, ≤G2 increased lipase, ≤G2 fatigue and G1 epistaxis. Conclusions: TRC105 dosed by a hybrid schedule of 10 mg/kg weekly for four doses followed by every other week dosing at 15 mg/kg was tolerable and did not potentiate the toxicity of S. The combination of TRC105 + S demonstrated additional signs of activity, including a PR in 1/3 evaluable pts. 21 pts will be enrolled at the RP2D to assess the primary endpoint of ORR by RECIST. Clinical trial information: NCT01806064.

4018 Background: BTCs are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and have a poor prognosis. The standard therapy for aBTCs is the combination of GC. However, the median overall survival (mOS) is dismal at 11.7 months (mos) with a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 8 mos. Methods: A single arm, phase II study was conducted at MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic Arizona. Patients (pts) with aBTC were treated at initial dose level of G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 1000/25/125 (n = 27) which was reduced to lower doses due to grade 3/4 hematological (heme) toxicity (tox) - G/C/N: 800/25/100 (n = 33). Cycles were q21 days with restaging q3 cycles until progression. PFS was the primary endpoint (endpt). Using a Bayesian hypothesis test-based design, we assumed mPFS of 8 mos under the null hypothesis (H0), 10 mos under the alternative (H1). Secondary endpts included mOS, RECIST v1.1 response rate (RR), safety and CA19-9 response. Results: 60 pts were enrolled with data on 51 available as of the time of this abstract (age: median 60 yrs [range 31-77], ECOG PS 0/1 (17/34), M/F (30/21), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/extrahepatic/gallbladder (32/8/11). Median follow-up was 11.5 mos and median number of treatment (trmt) cycles = 5. Pts at initial dose level had significant grade 3/4 heme tox: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia leading to trmt discontinuation in 6/27 pts. After dose reduction to G/C/N (in mg/m2) at 800/25/100, trmt was better tolerated with only 4 pts experiencing grade 4 heme tox. Non-heme tox were grade 3 in 10 pts: nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, thromboembolic event/CVA, hypokalemia, constipation, cystitis, LFT elevations. In the initial 51 pts, mPFS = 11.4 mos (95% CI: 6.1, not reached) and mOS not reached (estimated > 20 mos, 1-year survival rate 66.7%; 95%CI: 65.9-92.2%). 34 pts evaluable for response: disease control rate (PR+CR+SD)-82.3% and RR-32.3%. 3 unresectable cases were operated post trmt with 1 pathologic CR. Conclusions: The combination of GCN was well tolerated at adjusted doses and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy having met its mPFS endpt and a 1-year survival rate higher than historical control. These results merit evaluating GC +/-N in a randomized controlled study. Clinical trial information: NCT02392637.