Citations

11558 Background: Nirogacestat (niro) is a targeted and selective gamma secretase inhibitor approved in the US for adults with progressing desmoid tumors (DT). In the phase 3 DeFi study, niro demonstrated significant improvement vs placebo (pbo) in progression-free survival (PFS: HR, 0.29 [95% CI: 0.15-0.55]; P<.001), objective response rate (ORR: 41% vs 8%; P<.001); and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of pain, DT-specific symptom burden, physical and role functioning, and overall quality of life ( P≤.01, all). DT are driven by Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway alterations and about 10-20% of DT are associated with mutations in the APC tumor suppressor gene, which may confer more aggressive DT behavior. Because patients with APC mutations may do worse, regardless of specific therapy, a post hoc analysis was conducted to assess effects of niro in patients with progressing DT and APC mutations. Methods: DeFi was a global, double-blind study that evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of niro in adults with progressing DT. Patients were randomized to oral niro (150 mg) or pbo twice-daily in continuous 28-day cycles. Descriptive post hoc analyses were conducted to assess effects of niro in patients with somatic and/or germline APC mutations. Results: Among 29 patients in DeFi with APC mutations (niro=13; pbo=16), 19 (66%) were female, 16 (55%) were aged ≤30 years, and 22 (76%) were refractory to prior treatment (with a median of 3 prior lines of treatment). In patients with APC mutation, PFS was improved with niro vs pbo (HR, 0.21 [95% CI: 0.05-1.00], P=.016). Confirmed ORR was 38% (5/13) for niro vs 13% (2/16) for pbo. Niro-treated patients also had greater reduction in median best percent change from baseline compared with pbo-treated patients in target tumor size (-29.5 vs +2.2), volumetric MRI (-71.0 vs +5.4), and T2 hyperintensity (-74.1 vs -21.0). Across all PROs assessed — Brief Pain Inventory, GODDESS DT Symptom Scale and DT Impact Scale, and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 — patients treated with niro had numerically greater improvement from baseline at cycle 10 than pbo. Analyses were limited due to the small sample size. Adverse events in >50% of niro-treated patients with APC mutation were diarrhea, nausea, rash maculopapular, and fatigue; ovarian toxicity occurred in 9 of 10 of females of reproductive potential (6 resolved, 2 lost to follow-up, 1 ongoing and receiving niro). Conclusions: Improvement in PFS, ORR, tumor imaging characteristics and PROs was observed with niro compared to pbo in patients with DT harboring APC mutations. Efficacy and safety of niro in patients with APC mutations were generally consistent with findings for the overall DeFi population, suggesting that niro can provide clinically meaningful benefit to patients with progressing DT and APCmutations. Clinical trial information: NCT03785964 .

11533 Background: After initial response to first line therapy with imatinib, GISTs commonly progress due to secondary resistance mutations in KIT. As the KIT mutation targeting profiles of bezuclastinib (type I TKI) and sunitinib are distinct, when combined they inhibit a broad spectrum of secondary KIT mutations. Herein we report extended experience of patients treated with 2nd line combination bezuclastinib and sunitinib, including response assessment and safety. Methods: Peak (NCT05208047), a global randomized Phase 3, open-label study, aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of bezuclastinib + sunitinib vs sunitinib in GIST pts with imatinib intolerance or resistance. In Part 1a of the 3-part study, the dose of an optimized formulation of bezuclastinib was escalated in serial cohorts to achieve a target exposure comparable to that achieved at the RP2D established in the prior Phase 1b/2a study. Part 1b evaluated the interaction between bezuclastinib + sunitinib. Key inclusion: adult with locally advanced, metastatic and/or unresectable GIST, ≥1 measurable lesion according to modified RECIST v1.1, and ECOG PS 0 to 2. Part 1 completed enrollment in Apr 2023. Based upon PK and safety, a dose of bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD was selected for Part 2. All Part 1 data reported herein are as of Aug 2023; updated safety and efficacy will be presented. Results: Part 1 has completed enrollment with 19 pts in Part 1a and 23 in 1b. In Part 1a, Cohort 1 included 5 pts starting at bezuclastinib 300 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD; Cohort 2 included 14 pts at bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD. Pt characteristics in Part 1a+1b: median age - 60 yrs (range: 33-77); 81% men; 98% ECOG PS 0-1; 98% metastatic and 2% locally advanced. The majority of TEAEs were low grade and reversible with low rate (38%) of Grade 3+ events. There were limited (24%) dose reductions and infrequent (n=2) discontinuations due to TEAEs. Three pts experienced serious AEs possibly associated with study medications. In pts evaluable for response (received ≥1 cycle of study treatment and had assessments at baseline and post-baseline [n=40]), the objective response rate (ORR) was 20% (6 confirmed PRs, 2 unconfirmed PRs). Data remain immature to estimate median PFS for Part 1 pts. In a subset of pts with prior imatinib only (n=6), the closest approximation for pts enrolling in Part 2, the ORR was 33% (2 confirmed PRs). The majority of 2nd-line pts remain on treatment past 12 months. Conclusions: Data from Peak Part 1 show an encouraging safety and tolerability profile generally consistent with published sunitinib monotherapy experience. ORR in evaluable pts from Part 1 was 20%; ORR in 2nd line pts was 33%. Part 2 of the Peak study is actively enrolling pts globally at the selected dose of bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD versus sunitinib 37.5 mg QD. Clinical trial information: NCT05208047 .

11504 Background: Surgery & radiation therapy (RT) yield high local control rates for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremity and limb girdle. However, patients (pts) with high-grade stage III STS are at significant risk for developing metastasis. Median survival for pts with metastatic STS is < 2 years. SARC028 (NCT02301039) evaluated the efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) for metastatic STS, showing 20% and 8.7% response rates in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and pleomorphic/dedifferentiated liposarcoma (LPS), respectively. We hypothesized that neoadjuvant pembro with concurrent RT followed by surgery and adjuvant pembro for stage III UPS, including myxofibrosarcoma, or LPS would stimulate an anti-tumor immune response to eliminate micrometastatic disease & improve disease-free survival (DFS). SU2C-SARC032 (NCT03092323) is a multi-institutional, international, randomized phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of adding pembro to standard of care (SOC) RT & surgery for pts with stage III UPS or LPS. Methods: Pts aged > 12 yo with stage III (FNCLCC grade 2 or 3) UPS or LPS of the extremity and limb girdle were enrolled. Pts were randomized (1:1, stratified by grade) to neoadjuvant RT (50 Gy/25 fx) then surgery (SOC arm) or neoadjuvant pembro and RT then surgery & adjuvant pembro (EXP arm). Pembro was given 200 mg IV Q3 wk for 3 doses (before, during & after RT) & up to 14 adjuvant cycles. The primary endpoint was 2-yr DFS. Secondary endpoints included local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), & overall survival (OS). Target enrollment of 126 evaluable patients (max 144 total) provided 80% power (1-sided α = 0.05) to distinguish between a null hypothesis of 50% 2-yr DFS rate & alternative hypothesis of 75% 2-yr DFS rate by log-rank test, with initial analysis at 45 DFS events. Cox models were stratified by grade; primary analysis was a one-sided stratified log-rank test. Results: Between July 2017-November 2023, 143 patients were enrolled, predominantly with UPS (85%) & grade 3 (64%) histology. Median follow-up for alive patients is 24.1 mo. DFS in the EXP arm is significantly higher than the SOC arm (p = 0.023; HR 0.57, 90% CI: 0.35, 0.91). Estimated 2-yr DFS is 53% (90% CI: 43, 66%) for SOC vs 70% (90% CI: 61, 81%) for EXP arm. Currently, there is no statistically significant difference in LRFS (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.21, 1.42), DDFS (HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.32, 1.01), or OS (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.14, 1.12). Pts with grade 3 sarcomas had improved DFS with pembro (HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.89), but no difference in DFS was observed in grade 2 tumors (HR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35, 4.18). The proportion of patients with grade 3+ adverse events was significantly higher in EXP (52%) vs SOC arm (26%) (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Theaddition of neoadjuvant & adjuvant pembro to RT and surgery significantly improves DFS for pts with stage III UPS and LPS of the extremity and limb girdle. Clinical trial information: NCT03092323 .

TPS11588 Background: Imatinib is the worldwide standard for first-line therapy of advanced KIT-mutant GIST. However, secondary resistance mutations in the KIT ATP-binding domain (exons 13, 14), activation loop (exons 17, 18), or both develop and result in loss of imatinib-sensitivity. Bezuclastinib has a highly selective inhibition profile, leading to minimal off-target toxicities and allowing for combination with sunitinib. While no single tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) inhibits all KIT mutations, the combination of bezuclastinib + sunitinib targets commonly occurring primary (exons 9, 11) and secondary (exons 13, 14, 17, and 18) KIT mutations and may provide more durable responses. The early signs of clinical activity, tolerability, and safety observed with the combination thus far in Peak Part 1 (Somaiah et al. [presentation] CTOS 2023. Paper 62) are consistent with the completed Phase 1/2 study (PLX121-01). Methods: Peak (NCT05208047) is a global, randomized, open-label, multi-part Phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of bezuclastinib + sunitinib versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in adult pts who were intolerant to imatinib or whose tumors had imatinib-resistance. Current Peak study sites are located in North America (3 countries), South America (3 countries), Europe (12 countries), and Asia-Pacific (4 countries). The lead-in portion to test a new formulation of bezuclastinib, (Part 1) completed enrollment in April 2023. Based upon PK and safety, a dose of bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD was determined for Part 2 of the Peak study. Part 2 will enroll ~388 pts to be randomized (1:1) to bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD or sunitinib 37.5 mg QD alone. Key inclusion: >1 measurable lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) v1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2, adequate organ function, and prior imatinib therapy (no other prior therapy). Key exclusion: known PDGFR mutations or succinate dehydrogenase deficiency, clinically significant cardiac disease, and use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) confirmed by blinded independent central review per mRECIST v1.1. Additional efficacy (including overall survival and objective response rate) and safety endpoints will be evaluated and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) will be collected and assessed. Clinical trial information: NCT05208047 .

PURPOSE This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase Ib study was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of unesbulin plus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult subjects with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic, relapsed or refractory LMS were treated with escalating doses of unesbulin orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) once every 21 days. The time-to-event continual reassessment method was used to determine the RP2D on the basis of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) assessed during the first two 21-day treatment cycles. All explored doses of unesbulin (200 mg up to 400 mg) were in combination with DTIC. An expansion cohort was enrolled to evaluate the safety and efficacy of unesbulin at the RP2D. RESULTS Unesbulin 300 mg administered orally twice per week in combination with DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 IV once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D. On the basis of data from 27 subjects who were deemed DLT-evaluable, toxicity was higher in the unesbulin 400 mg group, with three of four subjects (75%) experiencing DLTs versus one of four subjects (25%) in the 200 mg group and three of 19 subjects (15.8%) in the 300 mg group. The most commonly reported DLTs and treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. At the RP2D, seven subjects who were efficacy evaluable achieved partial response for an objective response rate of 24.1%. CONCLUSION Unesbulin 300 mg twice per week plus DTIC 1,000 mg/m2 once every 21 days was identified as the RP2D, demonstrating a favorable benefit-risk profile in a heavily pretreated population of adults with advanced LMS.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ–CAMTA1 (calmodulinbinding transcription activator 1) operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of the MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. Patients and Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management before enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ– CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS), 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ– CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. TheORRwas 3.7%[95% confidence interval (CI), 0.094–19.0], median PFS was 10.4 months (95%CI, 7.1–NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3%(95%CI, 19.1–58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common adverse events related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia, and edema; one grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. Conclusions: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months, providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal. See related commentary by Van Tine and Haarberg, p. 4552

TPS766 Background: Imatinib is the worldwide standard for first-line therapy of advanced KIT-mutant GIST. However, secondary resistance mutations in the KIT ATP-binding domain (exons 13, 14), activation loop (exons 17, 18), or both develop and result in loss of imatinib-sensitivity. While no single tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) inhibits all KIT mutations, the combination of bezuclastinib + sunitinib targets commonly occurring primary (exons 9, 11) and secondary (exons 13, 14, 17, and 18) KIT mutations. In a Phase 1/2 clinical study, pts with relapsed and/or refractory GIST and a median of 3 prior lines of therapy treated with bezuclastinib + sunitinib (n=15) experienced clinical benefit and an acceptable safety profile, warranting further evaluation in a randomized trial. Methods: Peak (NCT05208047) is a global, randomized, open-label, multi-part Phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of bezuclastinib + sunitinib versus sunitinib as second-line treatment in adult pts who were intolerant to imatinib or whose tumors had imatinib-resistance. The lead-in portion, to test a new formulation of bezuclastinib, (Part 1) has completed enrollment. Based upon PK and safety, a dose of bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD has been determined for Part 2 of the Peak study. Part 2 will enroll ~388 pts to be randomized (1:1) to bezuclastinib 600 mg QD + sunitinib 37.5 mg QD or sunitinib 37.5 mg QD alone. Key inclusion: >1 measurable lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) v1.1, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-2, adequate organ function, and prior imatinib therapy (no other prior therapy). Key exclusion: PDGFR mutations or succinate dehydrogenase deficiency, clinically significant cardiac disease, and use of strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) confirmed by blinded independent central review per mRECIST v1.1. Additional efficacy (including overall survival and objective response rate) and safety endpoints will be evaluated. Clinical trial information: NCT05208047 .

748 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with 3 or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. In the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS) from the phase 3 INTRIGUE study, the OS event rate was 41% in the all-patient (AP) intent-to-treat (ITT) population, and OS was similar between treatment arms in both the KIT exon 11 ITT and AP ITT populations. Here, we present the final OS and updated safety from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE (NCT03673501) is an open-label, phase 3 study of adults with advanced GIST who had disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib. Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. OS was a key secondary endpoint (the primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously); final OS analysis was prespecified to occur with ≥200 and ≥145 events in the AP ITT and KIT exon 11 ITT populations, respectively. Data cutoff was March 15, 2023. Results: Of 453 pts, 444 received treatment; 40 remain on treatment (ripretinib, 28/223 [13%]; sunitinib, 12/221 [5%]). Treatment discontinuation was due to progressive disease (PD) by independent radiologic review (56%), PD by investigator (11%), clinical PD (6%), withdrawal of consent (6%), and adverse events (AEs; 5%). Fewer pts discontinued treatment due to AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (3% vs 6%). There were 211 OS events (47%) in the AP ITT population and 151 OS events (46%) in the KIT exon 11 ITT population. OS was similar with ripretinib vs sunitinib in the 2 ITT populations (Table). Fewer pts had grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AEs with ripretinib vs sunitinib (43% vs 67%). Dose interruptions and reductions were lower with ripretinib vs sunitinib. Median treatment duration for ripretinib vs sunitinib was 7.9 vs 6.5 months. Conclusions: In the finalOS analysis from the INTRIGUE study, OS was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile remained consistent and more favorable for ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

AbstractUnesbulin is being investigated in combination with dacarbazine (DTIC) as a potential therapeutic agent in patients with advanced leiomyosarcoma (LMS). This paper reports the pharmacokinetics (PK) of unesbulin, DTIC, and its unreactive surrogate metabolite 5‐aminoimidazole‐4‐carboxamide (AIC) in 29 patients with advanced LMS. Drug interactions between DTIC (and AIC) and unesbulin were evaluated. DTIC (1000 mg/m2) was administered to patients with LMS via 1‐h intravenous (i.v.) infusion on day 1 of every 21‐day (q21d) cycle. Unesbulin dispersible tablets were administered orally twice weekly (b.i.w.), starting on day 2 of every cycle, except for cycle 2 (C2), where unesbulin was dosed either on day 1 together with DTIC or on day 2, 1 day after DTIC administration. The PK of DTIC, AIC, and unesbulin in cycle 1 (C1) and C2 were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. DTIC and AIC were measurable immediately after the start of infusion and reached maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) immediately or shortly after end of infusion at 1.0 and 1.4 h (time to Cmax), respectively. Co‐administration of unesbulin orally at 200 mg or above with DTIC inhibited cytochrome P450 (CYP)1A2‐mediated DTIC metabolism, resulting in 66.7% reduction of AIC exposures. Such inhibition could be mitigated when unesbulin was dosed the day following DTIC infusion. Repeated unesbulin dosing demonstrated evidence of clinical CYP1A2 induction and increased AIC Cmax by 69.4% and area under concentration‐time curve to infinity by 57.9%. No meaningful difference in unesbulin PK was observed between C2 and C1. The combination therapy of 1000 mg/m2 i.v. DTIC q21d and 300 mg unesbulin b.i.w. in a staggered regimen is well‐tolerated in patients with LMS.

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is an effective treatment regimen for advanced soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). However, the prognosis for patients remains poor, and thus there is an urgent medical need for novel and effective therapies to improve long-term outcomes. The aim of the ANNOUNCE 2 trial was to explore the addition of olaratumab (O) to gemcitabine (G) and docetaxel (D) for advanced STS. Adults with unresectable locally advanced/metastatic STS, ≤2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0–1 were eligible. In Phase 2, patients were randomized 1:1 from two cohorts (O-naïve and O-pretreated) to 21-day cycles of olaratumab (20 mg/kg Cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, Days 1 and 8), gemcitabine (900 mg/m2, Days 1 and 8), and docetaxel (75 mg/m2, Day 8). The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population (α level = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated), other efficacy parameters, patient-reported outcomes, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. A total of 167 and 89 patients were enrolled in the O-naïve and O-pretreated cohorts, respectively. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. No statistically significant difference in OS was observed between the investigational vs. control arm for either cohort (O-naïve cohort: HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.64−1.40), p = 0.78, median OS, 16.8 vs. 18.0 months; O-pretreated cohort: HR = 0.67 (95% CI: 0.39−1.16), p = 0.15, median OS 19.8 vs. 17.3 months). Safety was manageable across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint of OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population, and therefore based on hierarchical evaluation no other outcomes in this study can be considered statistically significant. No new safety signals were observed.