Citations

397784 Background: Ripretinib, a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for patients (pts) with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) who received prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs, including imatinib. Sunitinib is approved for advanced GIST after imatinib failure. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis may provide insight into the efficacy of these agents in second-line advanced GIST. Here, we present exploratory baseline ctDNA results from INTRIGUE. Methods: INTRIGUE is an open-label, phase 3 study that enrolled adult pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib (NCT03673501). Randomization was 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Baseline peripheral whole blood was analyzed by Guardant360, a 74-gene ctDNA next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay. Only KIT mutations are reported here. Results: Of 453 pts in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population, 362 (80%) samples were analyzed. ctDNA was detected in 280/362 (77%), with KIT mutations detected in 213/280 (76%). Common resistance mutations were in the KIT activation loop (AL; exons 17/18; 89/213, 42%) and ATP-binding pocket (ATP-BP; exons 13/14; 81/213, 38%). Efficacy in pts with detectable ctDNA in the KIT exon 11 and overall ITT populations was consistent with the primary analysis based on tumor data used for randomization. Pts with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 (−9/13/14) mutations had superior progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) with ripretinib vs sunitinib, whereas pts with exon 11 + 13/14 (−9/17/18) mutations had better PFS, ORR, and OS with sunitinib vs ripretinib (Table). Subgroup safety profiles were consistent with the primary analysis. Conclusions: While KIT ATP-BP mutations predicted clinical benefit from sunitinib vs ripretinib, pts harboring resistance mutations in the KIT AL derived meaningful clinical benefit from ripretinib but not sunitinib. This study demonstrates the value of ctDNA NGS-based sequencing of the complex landscape of KIT mutations to predict the clinical benefit of ripretinib or sunitinib as second-line therapy in pts with advanced GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib is a switch-control TKI approved for advanced GIST after prior treatment with three or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared efficacy and safety of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with imatinib (INTRIGUE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03673501 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Random assignment was 1:1 to once-daily ripretinib 150 mg or once-daily sunitinib 50 mg (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) and stratified by KIT/ platelet-derived growth factor α mutation and imatinib intolerance. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included objective response rate by independent radiologic review, safety, and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Overall, 453 patients were randomly assigned to ripretinib (intention-to-treat [ITT], n = 226; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (ITT, n = 227; KIT exon 11 ITT, n = 164). Median PFS for ripretinib and sunitinib ( KIT exon 11 ITT) was 8.3 and 7.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.16; P = .36); median PFS (ITT) was 8.0 and 8.3 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.33; nominal P = .72). Neither was statistically significant. Objective response rate was higher for ripretinib versus sunitinib in the KIT exon 11 ITT population (23.9% v 14.6%, nominal P = .03). Ripretinib was associated with a more favorable safety profile, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (41.3% v 65.6%, nominal P < .0001), and better scores on patient-reported outcome measures of tolerability. CONCLUSION Ripretinib was not superior to sunitinib in terms of PFS. However, meaningful clinical activity, fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, and improved tolerability were observed with ripretinib.

11541 Background: Ripretinib (R) is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs. In the INTRIGUE study (NCT03673501) there was no significant difference in median PFS (primary endpoint) between R and sunitinib (S). We present exploratory analyses of tolerability data and selected pt reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to R 150 mg QD or S 50 mg QD 4 weeks on/2 weeks off.Dose modification was allowed for toxicity management. The event of interest was severe or life-threatening (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse event prior to progression (sTRAE). Days with at least one sTRAE were summed for all treated pts and for pts with ≥1 sTRAE event. PROs were assessed using questions from EORTC QLQ-C30 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at cycle 1 (C1) day 1 (D1), D15, and D29; D1 and D29 of all other cycles; as well as at end of treatment. Differences in PRO scores between baseline and later assessments were calculated across visits. Long-term data will be presented. Results: Pts receiving R (n = 223) versus (vs) S (n = 221) experienced fewer sTRAEs (24% vs 51%, respectively). For all treated pts, the mean time with sTRAEs was 11 days for R and 42 days for S (ratio 0.27, P<0.0001). For pts with ≥1 sTRAE, the mean number of days with a sTRAE was 48 days for R vs 81 days for S (ratio 0.59, p = 0.037). Completion of PRO assessments across the two treatment arms was similar (baseline: R [n = 199], S [n = 199]; C1 D29: R [n = 167], S [n = 177]). Significant differences in self-reported functioning and symptoms were observed by C1 D29. For PROs relating to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, pts in the R arm reported better outcomes than pts in the S arm. Pts in the R arm reported significantly (p<0.05) less decline compared to baseline in pt-reported role function as well as less increase, or improvement, in symptoms of fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and pain vs pts in the S arm. Moderate or severe effect of skin toxicity on pt life, as measured by DLQI in the R arm (n = 165) and in the S arm (n = 175), was observed in 6.6% of pts in the R arm vs 14.8% of pts in the S arm (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In the INTRIGUE study the total number of days with sTRAEs was fewer for pts receiving R vs S. Pts in the R arm also reported significantly less decline in pt-reported role function and less increase in symptoms related to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, vs pts in the S arm. Medical writing provided by Costello Medical. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

359881 Background: Sunitinib is approved for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after imatinib failure. Ripretinib, a broad-spectrum KIT and PDGFRA switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is indicated for the treatment of adult patients (pts) with GIST who received prior treatment with 3 or more TKIs, including imatinib. We compared the efficacy and safety of ripretinib vs sunitinib in pts with advanced GIST who progressed on or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods: This multicenter, global, randomized, open-label phase 3 study (NCT03673501) enrolled adult pts with GIST who progressed on or had intolerance to imatinib. Pts were randomized 1:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). Randomization was stratified by KIT mutational status and imatinib intolerance. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified RECIST version 1.1. Key secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by IRR and overall survival (OS). Hierarchical testing was performed for primary and key secondary endpoints in a prespecified sequence; testing pts with a KIT exon 11 primary mutation (Ex11 intention-to-treat [ITT] population) preceded the all-patient (AP) ITT population. Data cutoff was 1 Sep 2021; final analyses of PFS and ORR and the first interim analysis of OS were conducted. Results: A total of 453 pts were randomized to ripretinib (n = 226; Ex11 ITT, n = 163) or sunitinib (n = 227; Ex11 ITT, n = 164). Median age was 60 yrs (range 18–88) and most pts were white (66.2%) males (62.0%). PFS was not statistically different between ripretinib and sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.66, 1.16; P = 0.36; median 8.3 vs 7.0 mos) or in the AP populations (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82, 1.33; P = 0.72; median 8.0 vs 8.3 mos). ORR was numerically higher for ripretinib vs sunitinib in the Ex11 ITT (23.9% vs 14.6%; difference 9.3%, 95% CI 0.7, 17.8; nominal P = 0.03) and AP ITT populations (21.7% vs 17.6%; difference 4.2%, 95% CI −3.2, 11.5; nominal P = 0.27). OS data was highly immature; median OS was not reached in either arm. Fewer pts in the ripretinib arm experienced Grade 3-4 (G3-4) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) vs sunitinib (41.3% vs 65.6%). Among G3-4 TEAEs with a difference ≥5% between arms, ripretinib had fewer events vs sunitinib (hypertension [8.5% vs 26.7%], palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia [1.3% vs 10.0%], neutropenia [0% vs 6.3%], and neutrophil count decreased [0% vs 7.2%]). Conclusions: The PFS in both arms was longer than PFS achieved by sunitinib in its pivotal phase 3 trial. While the PFS for ripretinib did not meet the primary endpoint of superiority vs sunitinib, meaningful clinical activity and fewer G3-4 TEAEs were observed in pts with advanced GIST treated with ripretinib after imatinib failure. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501.

Abstract Purpose: Most patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) have activating mutations in KIT/PDGFRA and are initially responsive to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). The acquisition of secondary mutations leads to refractory/relapsed disease. This study reports the results of an analysis from the phase III INVICTUS study (NCT03353753) characterizing the genomic heterogeneity of tumors from patients with advanced GIST and evaluating ripretinib efficacy across KIT/PDGFRA mutation subgroups. Patients and Methods: Tumor tissue and liquid biopsy samples that captured circulating tumor DNA were collected prior to study enrollment and sequenced using next-generation sequencing. Subgroups were determined by KIT/PDGFRA mutations and correlation of clinical outcomes and KIT/PDGFRA mutational status was assessed. Results: Overall, 129 patients enrolled (ripretinib 150 mg once daily, n = 85; placebo, n = 44). The most common primary mutation subgroup detected by combined tissue and liquid biopsies were in KIT exon 11 (ripretinib, 61.2%; placebo, 77.3%) and KIT exon 9 (ripretinib, 18.8%; placebo, 15.9%). Patients receiving ripretinib demonstrated progression-free survival (PFS) benefit versus placebo regardless of mutation status (HR 0.16) and in all assessed subgroups in Kaplan–Meier PFS analysis (exon 11, P &lt; 0.0001; exon 9, P = 0.0023; exon 13, P &lt; 0.0001; exon 17, P &lt; 0.0001). Among patients with wild-type KIT/PDGFRA by tumor tissue, PFS ranged from 2 to 23 months for ripretinib versus 0.9 to 10.1 months for placebo. Conclusions: Ripretinib provided clinically meaningful activity across mutation subgroups in patients with advanced GIST, demonstrating that ripretinib inhibits a broad range of KIT/PDGFRA mutations in patients with advanced GIST who were previously treated with three or more TKIs.

Abstract Background Ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) is indicated for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) as at least fourth-line therapy. In INVICTUS, ripretinib intrapatient dose escalation (IPDE) to 150 mg b.i.d. was allowed after progressive disease (PD) on 150 mg QD by blinded independent central review using modified RECIST 1.1. We report the efficacy and safety of ripretinib IPDE to 150 mg b.i.d. after PD among patients randomized to ripretinib 150 mg QD in the INVICTUS study. Materials and Methods Tumor imaging was performed every 28-day cycle for the first four cycles in the ripretinib 150 mg QD period and then every other cycle, including the 150 mg b.i.d. period. Among the ripretinib IPDE patients, progression-free survival (PFS)1 was the time from randomization until PD; PFS2 was the time from the first dose of ripretinib 150 mg b.i.d. to PD or death. Results Among 43 ripretinib IPDE patients, median PFS1 was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7–6.4) and median PFS2 was 3.7 months (95% CI, 3.1–5.3). Median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% CI, 14.5–not estimable). Ripretinib 150 mg b.i.d. (median duration of treatment 3.7 months) was well tolerated with new or worsening grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of anemia in six (14%) and abdominal pain in three (7%) patients. Ripretinib 150 mg b.i.d. was discontinued because of TEAEs in seven (16%) patients. Conclusion Ripretinib 150 mg b.i.d. after PD on 150 mg QD may provide additional clinically meaningful benefit with an acceptable safety profile in patients with at least fourth-line GISTs. Implications for Practice Of the 85 patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor having received at least three prior anticancer therapies randomized to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD) in the phase III INVICTUS study, 43 underwent ripretinib intrapatient dose escalation (IPDE) to 150 mg b.i.d. after progressive disease (PD). Median progression-free survival was 4.6 months before and 3.7 months after ripretinib IPDE. The safety profile of ripretinib 150 mg b.i.d. was acceptable. These findings indicate ripretinib IPDE to 150 mg b.i.d. may provide additional clinical benefit in patients with PD on ripretinib 150 mg QD, for whom limited treatment options exist.

11536 Background: Ripretinib is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling. In the INVICTUS study (NCT03353753), patients with advanced GIST (≥4th-line) receiving ripretinib had a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 6.3 months vs 1.0 month for patients receiving placebo (HR = 0.15, p <0.0001). In an earlier phase 1 dose escalation study, the maximum tolerated dose was not reached with doses up to 200 mg twice daily (BID). Here, we report efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic data for IPDE patients initially randomized to ripretinib from the phase 3 INVICTUS study based on data as of 10 Aug 2020. Methods: A total of 129 patients were randomized 2:1 to ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD; n = 85) or placebo (n = 44). Patients receiving ripretinib 150 mg QD who had progressive disease (PD) as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) using mRECIST were given the option for IPDE to 150 mg BID. Tumor response assessments were performed every 28 days for 4 cycles and every 56 days thereafter (including after IPDE). The primary endpoint was PFS. For this exploratory analysis, PFS1 for IPDE patients was defined as the time from randomization to PD; PFS2 for IPDE patients was the time from the first dose of ripretinib 150 mg BID to PD or death. PFS1 and PFS2 were based on BICR. Results: Of 85 patients treated with ripretinib 150 mg QD, 43 patients with BICR PD dose escalated to 150 mg BID. Baseline characteristics of IPDE patients at time of study entry were similar to those observed in the original ripretinib QD arm and similar to the 22 patients with BICR PD who either remained on 150 mg QD or discontinued treatment. IPDE patients had a mPFS1 of 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.7–6.4) and a mPFS2 of 3.7 months (95% CI, 3.1–5.3); mPFS2/mPFS1=80%. The IPDE dosing period was well tolerated without the emergence of new safety concerns. The most common new or worsening (unchanged or improving grades not included) treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) for IPDE patients during the BID period was abdominal pain (30.2% all grades and 7% Grade 3–4 vs 41.9% and 4.7% in QD period, respectively). The most common Grade 3–4 TEAE in the BID period was anemia (14% vs 2.3% in QD period). IPDE from QD to BID resulted in an approximately 2-fold increase in the steady state trough concentration. Conclusions: Similar to the phase 1 study wherein IPDE to 150 mg BID following PD provided clinical benefit with a mPFS1 of 5.5 months and mPFS2 of 4.6 months (mPFS2/mPFS1=84%) for patients with ≥4th-line GIST, these analyses from INVICTUS indicate that IPDE to ripretinib 150 mg BID can also provide additional meaningful clinical benefit and a similar tolerability profile to the 150 mg QD regimen for patients with ≥4th-line GIST that progressed following treatment with ripretinib 150 mg QD. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753.

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]