Citations

Abstract Introduction: Next generation of Theranostics studies are looking at novel combinations with radiation sensitizers to enhance PRRT’s efficacy. Here, we present safety and efficacy data from a multi-center phase 1 study of a [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate -triapine combination in patients with GEP-NETs. Methods: The study consisted of two phases (dose escalation and expansion) administering the recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) for the two agents. All patients received 200 mCi of [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate on day 1 of four 8-week cycles, in combination with oral triapine administered at assigned dose levels (100 mg, 150 mg or 200mg) from days 1 to 14 of each cycle. Results: A total of 31 (A: 15 ; B: 16 ) patients received treatment. Nine patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities; Grade 3 anemia (n=1), Grade 5 cardiac arrest (n=1), and Grade 4 neutropenia (n=7). Based on the overall safety and pharmacokinetics data, a [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate (200 mCi) plus triapine (150 mg) dose was selected as the RP2D for the expansion phase. Grade ≥3 treatment related adverse events were observed in 77% patients: anemia (23%), nausea and vomiting (3% ), lymphopenia ( 58%), neutropenia ( 35%) and leukopenia ( 39%). The majority of cytopenias were transient and resolved within two weeks. Among the 28 evaluable patients, the objective response rate (ORR) was 21.4% and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) has not been reached (median follow-up period: 23.7 months). Conclusions: The combination of [¹⁷⁷Lu]lutetium-dotatate (200 mCi) and oral triapine (150 mg D1-14) was well tolerated and demonstrated preliminary activity in patients with well-differentiated GEP-NETs. (NCT04234568).

4178 Background: In the CABINET trial, CABO significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated extrapancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET) (Chan et al., NEJM, 2025). Here we report outcomes according to functional status based on NET hormone secretion. Methods: Pts with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) before registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy not including somatostatin analogs (SSA). Pts with functional NET due to hormone secretion and non-functional NET were included. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we analyzed PFS by blinded independent central review and adverse events for pts receiving CABO vs PB based on functional status. Cox regression models were used with stratification on primary tumor site (epNET vs pNET). Subset analyses to evaluate treatment arm differences were conducted in pts with functional and non-functional tumors. Due to small numbers, separate results for those with unknown functional status are not included. Results: Of the total 298 pts enrolled in both cohorts, 74 had a functional NET (CABO, n = 47; PB, n = 27); 179 had a non-functional NET (CABO, n = 123; PB, n = 56); 45 had unknown functional status (CABO, n = 28; PB, n = 17). For functional NET, primary tumor sites were GI tract (n = 50; 68%), pancreas (n = 15; 20%), unknown (n = 4; 5%), lung (n = 3; 4%), and thymus (n = 2; 3%). Secreted hormones that were reported included serotonin (55%), somatostatin (18%), gastrin (16%), glucagon (4%), insulin (4%), ACTH (1%), and vasoactive intestinal peptide (1%). For non-functional NET, primary tumor sites were pancreas (n = 75; 42%), GI tract (n = 42; 23%), lung (n = 30; 17%), unknown (n = 17; 9%), thymus (n = 8; 4%), and other (n = 7; 4%). Concurrent SSA was received by 91% and 53% of pts with functional and non-functional NET, respectively. In both subgroups, CABO was associated with improved PFS compared to PB (for functional NET: stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.82, P = 0.012; for non-functional NET: sHR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.17-0.41, P < 0.001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) attributed to CABO vs PB in pts with functional NET included hypertension (21% vs 11%), diarrhea (9% vs 11%), and fatigue (2% vs 15%); in pts with non-functional NET, grade 3/4 AEs included hypertension (21% vs 4%) and fatigue (18% vs 4%). Conclusions: Subset analyses of the CABINET trial suggest that CABO is an effective treatment option for pts with functional and non-functional epNET or pNET. Efficacy and safety results for pts with functional or non-functional NET treated with CABO are consistent with results for the entire trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

4020 Background: In previously treated patients (pts) with advanced extra-pancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET), cabozantinib (cabo) demonstrated improved progression-free survival compared to placebo (pbo) in the CABINET trial (NCT03375320). Here we present HRQOL data from CABINET. Methods: Pts with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized (2:1) in separate cohorts to receive cabo 60 mg daily vs pbo. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-GI.NET21, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and PRO-CTCAE questionnaires. Optional participation was by paper surveys at baseline and every 12 weeks (wks) until disease progression or new anticancer therapy. Mean changes from baseline were compared between treatment arms at wk12 using general linear mixed models. Minimally important within-arm improvements and between-arm differences were defined as 8 points on the C30 Global Health Status (GHS)/QOL Scale. PGIC was dichotomized as improved vs unchanged/worsened and compared using Chi-squared tests. Rates of pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE were baseline-adjusted and compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: 172 pts (113 cabo, 59 pbo) with epNET and 81 pts (53 cabo, 28 pbo) with pNET consented for survey participation. Pts completed 524 (82%) of 640 expected surveys across baseline, wk12, and wk24. For epNET, C30 GHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 9.5, standard error (SE) 2.2, p < 0.001) but not pbo (mean change 0.2, SE 3.1, p = 0.95) resulting in significantly different mean changes from baseline between arms (p = 0.02). For pNET, C30 QHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 8.0, SE 3.0, p = 0.008) but not pbo (mean change 6.8, SE 4.4, p = 0.12); mean changes from baseline did not statistically differ between arms (p = 0.82). No significant differences in mean changes from baseline at wk12 in C30 Physical, Role, Emotional, Cognitive and Social Function were observed between arms in the epNET or pNET cohorts. In both cohorts at wk12, pts on cabo reported improved overall status as measured by PGIC more often than those on pbo (epNET: 38% vs 19%, p = 0.04; pNET: 57% vs 18%, p = 0.006). Rates of pt-reported AEs were statistically significantly higher in cabo for diarrhea (68% vs 53%), hand-foot syndrome (57% vs 26%), mouth or throat sores (47% vs 27%), and dysgeusia (67% vs 37%) [all p < 0.05]. GI.NET21 data will be presented. Conclusions: Although cabo is associated with pt-reported AEs consistent with its known safety profile, global HRQOL was maintained. A higher proportion of patients receiving cabo reported improved overall status. Results support cabo as a treatment option for pts with previously treated advanced NET that preserves patient HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

666 Background: In the phase 3 CABINET trial (NCT03375320), cabozantinib (CABO) significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients with advanced, previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic NET (epNET) [HR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.25-0.59, P<0.0001)] and pancreatic NET (pNET) [HR 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P<0.0001)] (Chan et al., NEJM, 2024). In this analysis, we focus on outcomes of patients with epNET arising in the GI tract. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. The epNET cohort included patients with tumors arising in the GI tract (not including pancreas), lung, unknown primary, and other rare primary sites. In this subgroup analysis of the epNET cohort, patients with GI NET were included. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) prior to registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate, overall survival, safety. Results: 116 of the 203 patients in the epNET cohort had GI NET (CABO, n=70; PB, n=46). Median age was 66 yrs; females: 46%; G1/G2/G3/unknown grade: 35%/57%/6%/2%. ECOG performance status: 0/1-2: 43%/57%. White race: 86%. The most common primary tumor locations were ileum/cecum (54%), small intestine with location not specified (20%); non-cecum colon or rectum (11%), stomach (4%); duodenum (3%); jejunum and nonspecified midgut site (3% each). Prior systemic therapies included somatostatin analogs (SSA) (100%), everolimus (59%); Lu-177 dotatate (77%); temozolomide +/- capecitabine (16%). In patients with GI NET, CABO was associated with improved PFS by BICR compared to PB (stratified HR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.88, 1-sided stratified log-rank P=0.007). Median PFS with cabozantinib was 8.5 mo (95% CI, 6.0-16.7) compared to 5.6 mo (95% CI, 3.9-11.0) with PB. CABO demonstrated potential benefit in patients with midgut GI NET and across clinical factors including grade, functional status related to hormone secretion, concurrent SSA use, and prior therapy with Lu-177 dotatate or everolimus. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to therapy with CABO included hypertension (19%), diarrhea (13%), fatigue (10%). Conclusions: CABO is associated with improvement in PFS compared to PB in patients with advanced GI NET. Potential benefit was observed across clinical factors including grade, functional status, concurrent SSA, and prior treatment. The safety profile for CABO in patients with GI NET is consistent with that previously reported. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology), U10CA180888 (SWOG); Exelixis; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

Abstract Background This investigator-initiated phase II trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi) in previously treated patients with radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Methods Eligible patients with radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer who progressed on 1 prior line of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapy received a 2-week run-in of cabozantinib monotherapy followed by CaboNivoIpi for 4 cycles (cycle length = 6 weeks), followed by cabozantinib plus nivolumab (cycle length = 4 weeks) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) within the first 6 months of treatment. A Simon optimal 2-stage design allowed for an interim analysis after accrual of 10 evaluable patients. At least 5 responses were needed to proceed to stage 2. Results Among 11 patients enrolled, the median age was 69 years. Prior vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted therapies included lenvatinib, pazopanib, and sorafenib plus everolimus. Median follow-up was 13.4 months. Among 10 evaluable patients, ORR within the first 6 months of treatment was 10% (1 partial response). Median progression-free survival was 9 months (95% CI, 3.0–not reached) and median overall survival was 19.2 months (95% CI, 4.6–not reached). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were noted in 55% (6/11) and grade 5 AEs in 18% (2/11) of patients. The most common treatment-related AE was hypertension. The study did not reach its prespecified efficacy threshold. Conclusion CaboNivoIpi had low ORRs and a high rate of grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs. Clinical Trial Registration NCT03914300

Abstract Purpose: Lenvatinib, a potent multikinase inhibitor, improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with radioiodine (RAI)-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer; however, most patients experience disease progression, warranting further therapy. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in these patients. Patients and Methods: We enrolled patients with progressive, RAI-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer who were either naïve to multikinase inhibitors (cohort 1) or who had progressed on lenvatinib (cohort 2). Patients received oral lenvatinib daily (cohort 1, 20 mg; cohort 2, dose at progression) and intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 21 days. Results: In cohorts 1 and 2, 30 and 27 patients were enrolled, respectively. Adverse events were consistent with those observed in other cancers. In cohort 1, the confirmed overall response rate was 65.5%. There were no complete responses (primary endpoint). The 12- and 18-month PFS were 72.0% and 58.0%, respectively, and the median PFS was 26.8 months. In cohort 2, the confirmed overall response rate was 16% (primary endpoint), and the median PFS was 10.0 months (95% confidence interval, 7.0–17.9 months). Tumor histology, driver mutations, and immune-related biomarkers, including PD-L1 expression, thyroid-specific antibody levels, and CD8+ T-cell tumor infiltrate, did not correlate with response to therapy. Increased baseline peripheral blood monocytes and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were associated with a worse PFS in cohort 1. Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab may enhance the durability of lenvatinib monotherapy in lenvatinib-naïve patients. Furthermore, the addition of pembrolizumab may be a viable salvage therapy for patients who have progressed on lenvatinib.

Abstract Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis and repair of DNA, making RNR-targeted therapy a rationale therapeutic strategy for radiosensitization. ETCTN 10388 (NCT04234568) evaluated safety and efficacy of the combination of lutetium 177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Method: This study was a multicenter phase 1 dose escalation trial [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] of triapine in combination with fixed dose lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE for well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NETs) after the failure of at least one line of prior systemic cancer treatment with an expansion cohort at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Oral triapine (100mg, 150mg, 200mg) was administered once daily on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. Response and adverse effects were assessed per RECIST and CTCAE 5.0, respectively. Exploratory correlative studies included tumor somatic and germline mutation testing, RNA sequencing, pharmacokinetics, deoxynucleosides and circulating cell free DNA analysis. Primary endpoints were safety and RP2D. Results: Overall, 31 patients were enrolled between 6 sites, 15 in the dose escalation phase and 16 in the dose expansion phase. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. One DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT in dose level 3 were observed. The RP2D of the combination is triapine 150 mg QD (dose level 2) on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Detailed safety and adverse event data will be presented at the meeting. There were 28 patients evaluable for efficacy, of which 6 (21%) achieved a partial response. At 12 months, 6 patients had progressed, while 22 (86%) remained progression free. Median PFS has not been reached. PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Conclusion: The combination of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE was safe with preliminary efficacy signals, which will be further evaluated in ETCTN 10558, a randomized phase 2 study that is comparing the effectiveness of triapine and Lu-177 DOTATATE to Lu-177 DOTATATE alone. Citation Format: Aman Chauhan, Susanne Arnold, Jill Kolesar, William Carson, Heidi Weiss, Rani Jayswal, Donglin Yan, Riham El Khouli, Aman Khurana, Jan Beumer, Heloisa Soares, Mary Mulcahy, Thorvardur Halfdanarson, Daneng Li, Heather Jacene, Percy Ivy, Elise Kohn, John Wright, Larry Rubinstein, Zeta Chow, Piotr Rychahou, Mark B. Evers, Charles Kunos, Lowell Anthony, Bhavana Konda. ETCTN 10388: a first in human phase I trial of triapine and lutetium Lu 177 DOTATATE in well-differentiated somatostatin receptor-positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT194.

648 Background: Radiation is a potent inducer of DNA double-strand breaks, and ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) is the rate-limiting enzyme for conversion of ribonucleoside diphosphate to deoxyribonucleotide diphosphate, and thus repair of DNA in this setting. ETCTN 10388 evaluated safety of combination Lu-177 DOTATATE, a beta-emitting radionuclide in combination with triapine, a ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitor. Methods: This investigator initiated, NCI sponsored, multicenter phase 1 trial, enrolled a total of 31 patients in the dose escalation [using the Bayesian optimal interval design (BOIN)] and dose expansion cohorts. Oral triapine was administered on days 1-14 and Lu-177 DOTATATE [200 mCi] intravenously on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. A total of 4 cycles were administered. All enrolled patients had blood samples collected for triapine pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis in EDTA tubes prior to and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 h after oral administration during cycle 1. Results: Five patients were enrolled in triapine Dose Level 1 (100 mg/day), twenty-five to dose level two (150 mg/day), and one patient to dose level three (200 mg/day). PK data were available for 12 patients enrolled in the dose escalation cohort. The geometric mean (SD) AUC0-inf was 1159 (1.22) µg/L•h for the 100mg dose level and 1862 (1.76) µg/L•h for the 150 mg dose level, suggesting that exposure increased with dose, and inter-patient variability was as expected for an oral agent. Triapine PK parameter values observed in this trial, were comparable to previous reports that used a previous formulation [ 1 ]. While exposure was similar, variability appeared smaller with the current oral formulation. Adverse events (AE) were assessed in all 31 patients per CTCAE 5.0. A total of one DLT in dose level 1, seven DLTs (Transient cytopenia; primarily neutropenia and rarely thrombocytopenia) in dose level 2, and one grade 5 DLT (Death probably from progressive cancer and carcinoid heart disease but possibly from trial drugs) in dose level 3 were observed. Detailed AE profile will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: The RP2D of triapine is 150 mg QD on days 1-14 in combination with Lu-177 DOTATATE on day 1 of every 56-day cycle. Clinical trial information: 04234568 .