Citations

10520 Background: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) was a prospective, interventional return of results study that enrolled 6,662 participants (pts) from 7 US institutions to assess clinical implementation of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test. Test results for those with a cancer signal detected also included a cancer signal origin prediction designed to help guide diagnostic evaluations. We analyzed whether the diagnostic evaluations in PATHFINDER were appropriately directed by cancer signal origin predictions, assessed the residual risk of cancer after negative initial evaluation, and examined the role of whole-body imaging (WBI, defined as PET/CT or CT chest/abdomen/pelvis) in diagnostic evaluation. Methods: Analysis included pts with a cancer signal detected result from the two different versions of an MCED test evaluated in PATHFINDER. Prespecified criteria blinded to study results were used to define expected diagnostic evaluations by cancer signal origin prediction. These criteria were then used to judge concordance between cancer signal origin predictions and the diagnostic evaluation actually performed. Definitive cancer or no cancer diagnosis (cancer status at end of study [EOS]) was assessed at 12 months after enrollment (EOS). Results: 39 pts had cancer signal detected results by both test versions. Diagnostic evaluations were consistent with cancer signal origin in 30/39 (77%) cases. Diagnostic resolution was achieved in 32/39 (82%) pts after initial evaluation, while 7/39 (18%) required additional workup. 25 of the 32 (78%) pts who achieved diagnostic resolution after initial evaluation had a cancer signal origin-guided workup. Additional evaluation of the 7 pts not achieving initial diagnostic resolution was based on persistent clinical suspicion of cancer due to prior cancer history (n = 1) or abnormal/equivocal findings on initial evaluation (n = 6). Additional workup led to diagnostic resolution in all 7 cases (3 with cancer and 4 with no cancer confirmed at EOS). WBI was ordered in 27 cases, of whom 9 had a prior cancer history, 10 had non-localizing cancer signal origin (hematologic or indeterminate), and 1 had both. WBI was equivocal or had no impact on diagnostic resolution in 8/27 (30%) cases. Conclusions: Most cases resulted in diagnostic resolution after cancer signal origin-directed diagnostic workup. In pts with a cancer history and negative initial evaluations, and those with equivocal initial evaluations, there was still a risk of cancer, suggesting the need for additional evaluation. WBI was used mostly in those with a cancer history or non-localizing cancer signal origins, and had no impact on diagnosis in almost one-third of pts. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796 .

8037 Background: Both daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) are endorsed by NCCN guidelines as preferred regimens for the treatment of transplant-ineligible (TIE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). DRd and VRd have each demonstrated superior efficacy relative to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials, respectively, but have not been compared directly in a head-to-head trial. Naive comparisons of efficacy across the 2 trials may be biased because MAIA enrolled only TIE patients (median age 73 years), whereas S0777 enrolled a mixed transplant-not-intended (TNI) population, which included both TIE patients and patients choosing to defer/refuse frontline stem cell transplantation (median age 63 years). Methods: The present study leveraged individual patient-level data (IPD) from both trials to perform an anchored indirect treatment comparison of DRd vs VRd, adjusting for differences in trial eligibility criteria and baseline patient characteristics. Harmonized inclusion criteria (NDMM, age ≥65 years, ECOG performance status ≤2) were applied to both trial populations. Age ≥65 years served as a proxy for TIE status since S0777 enrolled a mixed TNI population. Propensity score (PS) reweighting was used to balance the 2 trial populations on key baseline prognostic factors including age, sex, ISS stage, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin, eGFR, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and cytogenetic risk. Missing data were addressed with multiple imputation. After alignment of inclusion criteria and PS reweighting, an anchored indirect comparison was performed wherein within-trial progression-free survival (PFS) hazard ratios (HRs) for DRd vs Rd and VRd vs Rd were estimated and used to make indirect inference about PFS for DRd vs VRd. Results: 727 MAIA participants and 198 S0777 participants were eligible for inclusion. After PS reweighting, the trial populations were balanced on the key baseline prognostic factors identified above (standardized difference < 0.1 for each). The adjusted PFS HRs were 0.53 (95% CI: 0.41–0.68; P< 0.0001) for DRd vs Rd in MAIA and 0.88 (0.63–1.23; P= 0.46) for VRd vs Rd in S0777. In the adjusted Rd-anchored indirect comparison, the PFS HR for DRd vs VRd was 0.60 (0.39–0.90; P= 0.02). Conclusions: In this adjusted indirect treatment comparison based on IPD from the MAIA and S0777 trials, PFS was significantly longer for DRd relative to VRd. In the absence of a head-to-head trial comparing DRd and VRd, the present study may help to inform treatment selection in TIE patients with NDMM.

4597 Background: NCCRCC are a diverse group of rare diseases with limited data to guide treatment. CABO is highly effective in clear cell RCC, but it is unknown whether it is superior to SUN, the historic standard of care for metastatic NCCRCC. Methods: CABOSUN II (NCT03541902) was a randomized phase II study at 3 centers for patients (pts) with metastatic NCCRCC. Sixty pts were planned to detect CABO as better than SUN with a 1-sided test. Pts were randomized 1:1 to CABO 60mg daily or SUN 50mg daily (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off). SUN dose modification to 2 weeks on, 1 week off was allowed for toxicity. Stratification was by papillary RCC (PRCC) vs. non-PRCC (NPRCC), good/intermediate vs. poor risk disease by IMDC criteria, and prior TKI use. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1 compared between the 2 arms using the log-rank test. Secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse event (AE) rates (2-sided tests). Results: 32 pts were randomized to CABO (N=15) or SUN (N=17) between 9/2018 and 6/2021. The trial stopped early due to a change in standard therapy for PRCC not based on these pts’ outcomes. Age range was 22-88 years with medians 57 and 61 for CABO and SUN. Pts were primarily white (84%) and male (72%), with good/intermediate risk (88%), and these were balanced between arms. More pts on the CABO arm had bone metastases (62% vs. 24%). NPRCC were chromophobe (N=6; 5 randomized to SUN), unclassified (N=5), and MiT family translocation (N=3; all randomized to CABO). With median follow-up of 33.3 months and 20 PFS events, median PFS for CABO vs. SUN was 8.2 vs. 13.8 months (1-sided p=0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or OS between the arms. AEs were in line with previous studies. Conclusions: CABO was not superior to SUN for metastatic NCCRCC in this study. Both arms had high rates of stable disease or better. Despite stratification by PRCC or NPRCC, there were major differences in NPRCC subtypes between the arms that may have impacted the results. More pts with chromophobe histology, an often indolent subtype, received SUN while all pts with MiT family translocation, a relatively aggressive subtype, received CABO. Permitted SUN dose modifications may have also influenced outcomes. While the PAPMET study showed CABO to be superior to SUN for PRCC, optimal treatments for rare, NPRCC remain a pressing need. Clinical trial information: NCT03541902 . [Table: see text]

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]

TPS3629 Background: For patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), aggressive local therapy of isolated metastases, particularly in the liver, has been associated with long-term progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) primarily based on retrospective evidence. However, in patients with limited metastatic CRC that is deemed inoperable or those with additional disease outside of the liver or lungs, the role of local ablative therapies, including microwave ablation (MWA) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), to render patients disease free is less clear. Further, despite the long history of treating oligometastatic CRC with local therapy, which is provider biased and not evidence based, questions remain regarding the benefit of extending the paradigm of metastatic directed therapy to patients with more extensive disease. This trial seeks to use a pragmatic multimodality approach that mirrors the current clinical dilemma. This study is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding total ablative therapy (TAT) of all sites of disease to standard of care systemic treatment in those with limited metastatic CRC. Methods: A022101 is a National Clinical Trials Network randomized phase III study planned to enroll 364 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic CRC (BRAF wild-type, microsatellite stable) with ≤4 sites of metastatic disease on baseline imaging. Liver-only metastatic disease is not permitted, and lesions must be amenable to any combination of surgical resection, MWA, and/or SBRT with SBRT required for at least one lesion. Patients receive first-line systemic therapy for 4-6 months and are then randomized 1:1, stratified by number of metastatic organ sites (1-2 vs. 3-4), timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (de novo vs. secondary), and presence of metastatic disease outside the liver and lungs in at least one site. Patients in Arm 1 will receive TAT which consists of treatment of all metastatic sites with SBRT ± MWA ± surgical resection followed by standard of care systemic therapy. Patients in Arm 2 will continue with standard of care systemic therapy alone. The primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include event-free survival, treatment-related toxicities, and local recurrence with exploratory biomarker analyses. The study needs 346 evaluable patients combined in the 2 arms to demonstrate an improvement in OS with a hazard ratio of 0.7 to provide 80% power with a one-sided alpha of 5%. The trial utilizes a group sequential design with two interim analyses (25% and 50% of events) for futility. The trial activated in January 2023 and recruitment is ongoing. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN); U10CA180868 (NRG); U10CA180888 (SWOG); Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05673148 Clinical trial information: NCT05673148 .

3588 Background: Although anti-EGFR antibody plus doublet chemotherapy has become the standard of first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (wt), left sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal molecular-targeted therapy for RAS wt, right-sided mCRC is not clear. Methods: To evaluate the efficacy between anti-EGFR antibody vs. bevacizumab combination therapy, from 40,889 Individual patient (pt) data from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 723 pts with RAS wt, right-sided mCRC who received a first-line molecular-targeted therapy with backbone chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI when anti-EGFR antibody combination, and FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CAPOX/FOLFOXIRI when bevacizumab combination) were selected from 10 randomized studies (FIRE-3, CALGB80495, CRYSTAL, PRIME, CAIRO2, OPUS, TRIBE, TRIBE2, ATOM, and CCOG1201). Primary objective was overall survival (OS), and secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR); Hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio (OR) were adjusted for ECOG-PS, age, and gender. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) as sensitivity analysis were also performed. Secondary analyses were limited to BRAF wt pts. Results: Anti-EGFR antibody and bevacizumab were administrated in 329 and 394 pts, respectively, of whom 162 and 151 pts were BRAF wt, respectively. Baseline characteristics were as follows (anti-EGFR antibody/bevacizumab): median age, 63.0 years both; female, 47.1/46.4%; and ECOG-PS 0, 53.2/65.2%. The OS and PFS were significantly prolonged in pts receiving bevacizumab combination therapy compared to those receiving anti-EGFR antibody combination therapy (Table). These trends were more pronounced when limited to BRAF wt pts (Table). There were no significant differences in ORR for both overall and BRAF wt pts. These results were similar in the sensitivity analysis (Table). Conclusions: For patients with RAS wt or RAS/ BRAF wt, right-sided mCRC, bevacizumab combination therapy is preferred first-line treatment. [Table: see text]

3566 Background: According to the various types of clinical trials for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS and DpR are suggested as the surrogates of OS. Whereas associations between ETS/DpR and OS/PPS in the era of chemotherapy (chemo) +anti-EGFR antibody (ab)/bevacizumab (bev) in 1st line therapy have not been elucidated. Methods: From 40,889 Individual patient data (IPD) from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 2,138 treatment-naïve pts with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC were selected from 7 randomized studies (PRIME, CAIRO2, CRYSTAL, OPUS, CALGB80495, WJOG4407G, ATOM) of chemo with/without anti-EGFR ab or bev. The ETS was defined as 20%≥ tumor shrinkage at 8 ± 2wks (ETS+: ≥20%, ETS-: <20%). Multivariate Cox regression models for OS/PPS were performed to investigate associations between ETS+ and ETS- by primary tumor location (overall/left-sided/right-sided), adjusting for potential confounders. DpR was defined as tumor shrinkage at nadir. OS/PPS were evaluated across quartile limits of DpR by multivariate Cox regression models. Results: In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of OS/PPS between ETS- and ETS+ for chemo +anti-EGFR ab, chemo +bev, and chemo alone showed great improvement, respectively (Table). In pts with overall or left-sided RAS wt mCRC, HRs of ETS for OS/PPS are higher in pts treated with chemo +anti-EGFR ab compared to those treated with chemo +bev or chemo alone. Compared to the pts with highest quartile (defined as ≥ 75th percentile (Q3)) of DpR, HRs of OS/PPS for lower quartile groups showed upward trends in pts with RAS wt & overall (Table). Conclusions: ETS/DpR in pts with RAS wt mCRC might be a potential prognostic marker of OS/PPS regardless of targeted therapy and primary tumor location. Superior prognostic values of ETS+ are expected in pts treated with anti-EGFR ab. [Table: see text]

3554 Background: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) develop liver metastases (LM). Liver is the most common organ of metastasis of CRC. The ARCAD database contains individual patient data of randomized trials that included CRC pts with initially unresectable metastases treated with systemic therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the response and survival outcomes in non-LM (NLM) vs LM across different lines of treatment. Methods: We analyzed survival outcomes of mCRC pts with either single site (SS) or multiple sites (MS) according to LM status in the following treatment groups: A: chemotherapy (CT) alone, B: CT + VEGF-antibodies, C: CT + EGFR-antibodies in KRAS wild-type tumors, within first-line (1L) and second line (2L) of therapy and D: pts enrolled on third line (≥3L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib and placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) which were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and adjusted Cox models on ECOG PS, age, and gender. Results: We included 26 trials with 17924 pts. 14066 pts had LM. Pts with LM had a higher rate of colon vs rectum as primary tumor (72 vs 62%; P < .001) and less SS (31 vs 47%; P < .001) than those with NLM. OS and PFS results in subgroups are reported in the table. In groups A and B, we found better OS and PFS outcomes in NLM pts as either SS or MS in 1L and 2L. In group C from 1L, we found better survival outcomes in pts with SS LM. In pts with MS, NLM superiority was observed in OS but not in PFS. However, these results were influenced by primary tumor sidedness. In group D, better OS and PFS was observed in pts without LM than those with LM whether in pts with SS or MS. Response rates were higher in LM than in NLM in most 1L and 2L subgroups. Conclusions: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from the 1L to ≥3L. Survival with CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF according to LM and NLM differs significantly in 1L and 2L but not with CT + anti-EGFR. This data justifies using LM as a stratification factor at least in ≥3L trials. [Table: see text]

3528 Background: Tucatinib (TUC) is a highly selective HER2-directed TKI approved by the FDA in combination w/trastuzumab (Tras) for treatment (tx) of pts w/ RAS wild-type HER2+ unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that has progressed following tx w/ fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy. There are currently no established best practices for HER2 testing/interpretation in mCRC. Here we present results of central HER2 testing across multiple platforms and response to tx for MOUNTAINEER pts treated w/ TUC + Tras based on central HER2 status. Methods: MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313) enrolled pts w/ local HER2+ mCRC using ≥1 method: IHC, ISH, and/or NGS testing; retrospective central assessment of HER2 status was performed on multiple platforms. Pts in cohorts A+B were treated w/ TUC + Tras; pts in cohort C were treated w/ TUC monotherapy. Confirmed objective response rates (cORRs) using RECIST v1.1 per BICR, DOR, and PFS were calculated for pts treated w/ TUC + Tras based on each central testing method. Results: 114 pts were enrolled in cohorts A (n = 45), B (n = 39), and C (n = 30) w/ HER2+ tumors per ≥1 local testing method. Of samples submitted for central testing for Cohorts A and B, 70 per IHC/FISH, 50 per tissue NGS, and 71 per blood NGS had evaluable results. In all cohorts, there was 81.0% (95% CI, 68.6-90.1) agreement between blood and tissue NGS, 92.6% (95% CI, 83.7-97.6) between IHC/FISH and tissue NGS, and 79.5% (95% CI, 69.2-87.6) between IHC/FISH and blood NGS. In cohorts A and B, pts w/ HER2+ tumors by central IHC/ISH had a mDOR of 16.4 months (95% CI: 10.6-25.5) and mPFS of 10.1 months (95% CI: 4.2-15.2). cORR was 41.1% to 47.7% for the 3 assays. Detailed HER2 results are presented in the Table. Conclusions: Percent agreement of HER2 status was highest w/ tissue-based platforms. Detection of HER2 amplification by ctNDA NGS is useful; however, pts w/o HER2 amplification should be confirmed w/ a tissue-based assay. HER2 status by all 3 platforms predicted tx response to TUC + Tras. cORR in IHC2+/ISH+ was numerically lower but remained clinically relevant. These data support use of the above methods to identify HER2+ mCRC patients that may benefit from TUC + Tras. Clinical trial information: NCT03043313 . [Table: see text]

2616 Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tissue is a valuable resource for diagnosis, treatment planning, and drug development. Current 2D histopathological techniques introduce under-sampling error (i.e., a single 5 µm section represents 0.5% of a 1 mm thick biopsy), interobserver variability, and failure to capture the biology contained within the entire tissue sample. We have developed a suite of technologies to stain, chemically clarify, image, visualize, and analyze entire, intact lung tissue samples. Herein, we present analysis methods for comprehensive 3D assessment of intact NSCLC tissue. Methods: Human NSCLC tissue, stored frozen in optimal cutting temperature (OCT) compound, was fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde, stained with nuclear (TOPRO-3) and general protein (Eosin) fluorescent dyes, and optically cleared using a modified iDISCO protocol with ethyl cinnamate as the refractive index matching solution. Twenty tissue samples measuring 1-5 mm3 in volume were imaged at 2 µm/pixel resolution with a hybrid open-top light-sheet microscope. Smaller regions of interest (ROIs) with interesting pathologic features were re-imaged at higher resolution, 0.17 µm/pixel. Visualization and analysis was performed using Aivia software, custom spatial analysis software and python scripts. Results: All NSCLC tissue samples were successfully imaged in 3D at both low and high resolution. Computational approaches, such as machine learning, were used to segment and classify tumor cells and lymphocytes within the high resolution ROIs. In one example we quantified a 0.0045 mm3 ROI containing 1x109 voxels. We segmented 1,474 unique objects, and classified 683 (46%) of the objects as lymphocytes and 309 (20%) of the cells as tumor cells. We found that on average the lymphocytes were within 12 µm of the nearest tumor cell. Additionally the tissue was broken into separate lymphocyte dense (58% of volume) and tumor dense regions (42% of volume). Further analysis is in progress to quantify more features, such as tertiary lymphoid structures, stromal cells, and fibrosis over the full 20 sample dataset. Conclusions: We successfully implemented 3D machine learning analysis pipelines using images from intact NSCLC tissue samples measuring up to 5 mm3. The imaging was performed using our custom hybrid open-top light-sheet microscope. This novel method enables us to identify and quantify key histological features such as tumor cells and lymphocytes within the tumor microenvironment. In addition, machine learning driven algorithms clustered cells into distinct tissue regions in 3D which enables a more precise assessment of disease state and heterogeneity. Further investigation is ongoing to link these results to patient outcomes.