Citations

e21554 Background: Pregnancy associated melanoma (PAM) occurs in 1% of female patients with melanoma and affects 1 in 2200 pregnancies. Antepartum evaluation of melanoma must incorporate both maternal and fetal factors, and currently there is lack of standardization. Our study aimed to review the incidence of antepartum melanoma at our institution and highlight patterns in management and treatment during this high-risk scenario. Methods: After IRB approval, the Mayo Clinic electronic medical record was searched with key words “melanoma” and “pregnancy”. 25 patients with melanoma during pregnancy were identified from 1987-2023. 6 patients were excluded as skin changes noted during pregnancy were not formally diagnosed as melanoma until after delivery. Abstracted data included demographic information, disease characteristics, staging (per AJCC guidelines at time of diagnosis), and clinical outcomes. Survival data were calculated. Results: 19 patients were included. Diagnosis occurred at an average maternal age of 30 years (range 24-38 years) and a mean gestational age of 20 weeks (range 6-35 weeks). All patients had a term delivery. 4 patients underwent labor induction at 37 weeks for staging/treatment. 60% of patients had a delay in imaging or treatment attributed to pregnancy, including 1 patient who was upstaged with metastatic disease based on postpartum imaging. 82% of stage I-III patients underwent wide local excision during pregnancy; however, 35% of sentinel lymph node sampling was delayed until postpartum. 3 stage II/III patients received adjuvant therapy (interferon or sargramostim) after delivery. Adjuvant immunotherapy was discussed with 2 patients in the postpartum period but ultimately not given due to the time lapse between surgery and delivery. 1 patient with stage IV disease diagnosed at a gestational age of 20 weeks was evaluated with MRI PET scan then treated with vemurafenib monotherapy during pregnancy. Workup and outcomes were reviewed by stage (Table 1). 7 of 19 patients had subsequent pregnancies, and 1 had recurrence of melanoma during a second pregnancy (stage II followed by stage IV). Due to a low number of censoring events, median progression free survival and overall survival were not reached. Conclusions: Melanoma diagnosed during pregnancy can be safely and effectively staged with sentinel lymph node surgery, MRI imaging (PET-MRI vs standard), and CT imaging with shielding without a need for early induction of labor nor a delay in cancer care. Furthermore, we report a patient with stage IV disease treated with vemurafenib during and immunotherapy after pregnancy, indicating that treating stage IV PAM with systemic therapy is a consideration. [Table: see text]

e20588 Background: MET exon 14 skipping mutations are seen in about 3% of patients (pts) with NSCLC, with 2 FDA approved METi for pts with stage IV NSCLC harboring it. Besides the original clinical trials, there is a paucity of real-world data about their outcomes, and adverse events (AE). Our aim was to compare and analyze the utilization of capmatinib (cap) and tepotinib (tep) in this population. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of the electronic medical records of all pts with stage IV NSCLC treated with METi between the date of FDA-accelerated approval of these drugs, 5/6/20 for cap and 2/3/21 for tep, and 12/1/23. All pts were treated at the Mayo Clinic Health System. We collected data about baseline characteristics, diagnosis, AE, and outcomes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the frequency of AE, while Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median progression free survival (mPFS). Results: A total of 49 pts were treated with METi. Cap was used in 45 pts, 14 received tep, and 10 pts received both, with tep following cap. In the cap group, median age of diagnosis was 74 years (y), 42.22% were male, and the median number of previous lines of therapy (mPLT) was 0. In the tep group, median age of diagnosis was 72 y, 21.43% were male, and the mPLT was 2. Median ECOG at the time of diagnosis was 1 in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between AE in both groups. Peripheral edema occurred in 75.56% pts who received cap, and in 64.29% with tep (p = 0.41). Pneumonitis happened in 4.44% with cap, and 7.14% with tep (p = 0.69). Creatinine elevation was seen in 37.78% with cap, while 42.86% with tep (p = 0.73), grade 3 elevation was seen in 5.88% and 16.67% respectively. Abnormality in liver function tests occurred in 35.56% of pts in the cap group, and 28.57% in the tep group (p = 0.63), grade 3/4 abnormality occurred in 31.25% and 0% respectively. Finally, pancreatic enzymes elevation was seen in 33.33% of patients in each group (p = 0.67), with none being grade 3/4. Cap was discontinued in 20% of pts due to AE, while it happened in 28.57% of pts with tep. Dose reduction happened in 64.44% of pts who received cap, and 42.86% who received tep. The mPFS was 12.03 months (m) in the cap group, and 8.94 m in the tep group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Similarly, the mPFS in those treated with tep following cap was 8.94 m. Conclusions: We performed the first real-word comparison between cap and tep. The results demonstrated similar outcomes with both drugs, and no significant differences in AE, suggesting these agents can be employed equivalently. Importantly, rates of therapy discontinuation and dose reduction were high with both, indicating the importance of closely monitoring these pts. The retrospective nature and small sample size are initial limitations that can be overcome with future multi-centric prospective studies.

Abstract Introduction: Chronic pain affects a wide range of physical and psychological aspects of life for those impacted. Psychosocial treatment approaches may be of support, but outreach is still limited. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of EPIO, an evidence-informed, user-centered digital self-management intervention for people with chronic pain, in a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Methods: People living with chronic pain (N = 266) were randomized to the EPIO intervention (n = 132) or a usual-care control group (n = 134). The intervention was delivered in a simple blended care model, and outcome measures collected at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Generalized linear models for repeated measures were fitted to compare groups over time. Results: Participants were primarily female (81%), median age 49 years (range 22–78), with heterogeneous pain conditions, and had lived with pain >5 years (77.6%). A mixed linear model with all timepoints included revealed no statistically significant group differences for the primary outcome of pain interference. Significant psychological benefits in favor of the intervention group were however detected for depression (P = 0.022), self-regulatory fatigue (P = 0.024), vitality (P = 0.016), and mental health (P = 0.047). Baseline to 12-month changes showed additional favorable effects for anxiety (between-group mean differences [MDs] = 0.79, P = 0.047), depression (MD = 1.08, P = 0.004), self-regulatory fatigue (MD = 2.42, P = 0.021), pain catastrophizing (MD = 2.62, P = 0.009), and health-related quality of life. Conclusions: The EPIO program aims to improve outreach of evidence-based pain self-management interventions. Findings demonstrate how using EPIO can lead to sustainable psychological change, enhancing mental health and health-related quality of life for people suffering from pain, providing a chance to live well with the pain.

TPS5642 Background: The landscape in the management of recurrent or persistent endometrial cancer (EC) continues to evolve. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as monotherapy or when combined with the VEGF-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, lenvatinib, have demonstrated promising response rates in patients (pts) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and MS-stable (MSS)/MMR-proficient (MMRp) EC, respectively. Recent studies have also shown a benefit with adding ICI to standard of care chemotherapy in the frontline setting. Pts with MSI-H/dMMR tumors seem to derive the greatest benefit. Approximately, 30% of recurrent EC pts fall into this category. Pairing ICI with targeted therapies carries the potential to elicit prolonged anti-tumor effects. Atezolizumab (Atezo) is a humanized monoclonal PD-L1 inhibitor that has demonstrated monotherapy antitumor activity in relapsed recurrent EC, and other solid tumors (e.g. NSCLC, HCC) as monotherapy and as part of combinatorial therapy. The AFT-50/EndoMAP study is a phase IB/II non-randomized, multicenter, 2-arm, multi-cohort platform trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biomarker-driven combination regimens, both with Atezo (AFT-50A) and without Atezo (AFT-50B) with biomarker-defined targeted agents in pts with recurrent or persistent EC. Methods: Eligible pts have recurrent or persistent EC with no more than 2 prior lines of therapy. FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) NGS assay will be used for genomic tumor profiling. In AFT-50A, pts may be eligible for one of the following doublets: Atezo+talazoparib (tumors with genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH ≥16%), Atezo+Trastuzumab emtansine (ERBB2/HER2 mutated or amplified tumors), and Atezo+Tiragolumab (MSI-H and/or TMB-H). The Atezo+bevacizumab (biomarker unmatched) and Atezo+ipatasertib (PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT1-altered tumors) cohorts have completed accrual. Each cohort will enroll ~20 pts with potential adjustment to account for statistical and clinical considerations. AFT-50A pts will receive Atezo in addition to a targeted agent (per study-approved dosing schedule) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, pt withdrawal, death, or study termination. AFT-50B pts will be eligible for inavolisib (PIK3CAm/PTEN and AKT1wt-altered tumors) + letrozole or giredestrant + abemaciclib (RB1wt, estrogen receptor positive tumors). The primary endpoint for AFT-50A is confirmed overall response rate (ORR) for each arm, and for AFT-50B is 6-month progression free survival. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, duration of response, OS, safety and tolerability. As a platform study, additional arms may be added, as supported by evolving understanding of EC and molecular targets. EndoMAP is actively enrolling at 20 sites in the US with a target of 25 sites nationwide. Clinical trial information: NCT04486352 .

e17040 Background: Our aim was to evaluate two distinct clinical settings catering to US patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): academic (A) and community (C) practice. We used data from a real-world non-interventional study (REASSURE; NCT02141438) examining the use of 223Ra. Methods: Patients with mCRPC who received at least one dose of 223Ra in the US were included. Enrolment occurred between 2014 and 2017; median follow-up was nearly 12 months. Our analysis included patient disease characteristics, treatment history, short- and long-term safety of 223Ra, patient overall survival (OS), and patient-reported pain (Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form [BPI–SF] scores). A clinically meaningful pain response was a ≥2-point decrease from a baseline score of ≥2 in the BPI-SF worst pain item during treatment until last dose. Results: Analysis included 498 patients (A: 147; C: 351). Comparing A with C, the median ages were 70 and 76 years, respectively, and the majority of patients (74% and 84%) had bone-only metastases. A higher percentage of patients in A (69%) than in C (49%) had completed at least one life-prolonging therapy (LPT) prior to 223Ra; these included abiraterone (A: 38%; C: 19%), enzalutamide (A: 32%; C:17%), docetaxel (A: 38%; C: 19%), and sipuleucel-T (A: 18%; C: 25%). Most patients received 5–6 223Ra injections in both settings (A: 65%; C: 71%). 223Ra was used concomitantly with LPTs in 48% of patients in A and 57% in C, predominantly with abiraterone (A: 25%; C: 25%) or enzalutamide (A: 25%; C: 36%); fewer patients in A (35%) received concomitant bone health agents than in C (52%). For safety outcomes, refer to the table. During treatment, 47% and 62% of patients with a baseline BPI-SF ≥2 had a clinically meaningful pain response in A and C, respectively. The median OS was 17.2 months (95% CI 14.0–19.4) in A and 18.4 months (14.8–21.0) in C. More patients in A (42%) than in C (26%) received a LPT after 223Ra, most commonly docetaxel (A: 25%; C: 12%). Conclusions: Patients treated in A tended to be younger and more heavily treated, as evidenced by a higher number of patients receiving LPTs prior to and following 223Ra treatment. Bone health agents were more frequently used in C. Additionally, more patients in C had a clinically meaningful pain response and more drug-related AEs were reported in A. Despite the observed differences, overall survival was comparable for both practice settings. Clinical trial information: NCT02141438 . [Table: see text]

TPS4208 Background: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) carries a 5-year relative survival of 3%. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have thus far failed to improve outcomes due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). Signaling through the C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4)/C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 12 (CXCL12) axis results in exclusion of anti-tumor immune cells in mouse PDAC models. Longitudinal survival studies testing combinations of CXCR4i, aPD-1, and gemcitabine in the KPC mouse model of PDAC demonstrated a survival benefit with the combination of all three agents. Results from a multicenter, investigator-initiated, single arm pilot study evaluating the preliminary safety and efficacy ofMotixafortide (CXCR4i), Cemiplimab (aPD1), Gemcitabine, and Nab-paclitaxel (MCGN) in 11 patients with treatment-naïve mPDAC were recently presented. Seven patients (64%) achieved a partial response, including 6 confirmed partial responses, and 10 patients (91%) had disease control, compared to historic partial response and disease control rates of 23% and 48%, respectively, with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GN). Preliminary median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.6 months compared to historic median PFS of 5.5 months with GN. Analysis of paired pre- and on-treatment biopsy samples from demonstrated an increase in CD8+ T-cell density in tumors from all 11 patients treated with MCGN (p=0.007). Based on these promising results, the protocol was amended from a single arm expansion totaling 40 patients to a randomized phase 2 study. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, investigator-initiated phase 2 clinical trial. Patients are randomized 2:1 to receive MCGN or GNalone (N=108). The primary endpoint is progression free survival. The study has 80% power to detect an improvement in PFS from 6 to 9.2 months (HR 0.65) with a one-sided alpha of 0.20. One interim analysis for futility is planned when 50% of the PFS events are observed. Secondary objectives include response rate, disease control rate, duration of clinical benefit and overall survival. Patients will undergo optional paired biopsies which will be analyzed in conjunction with samples collected from the phase I pilot study. Exploratory studies include interrogation of the TME using quantitative multiplex immunofluorescence and single-cell RNA sequencing. The randomized phase 2 trial is open to enrollment and one patient has been randomized as of 1/29/2024. Clinical trial information: NCT04543071 .

TPS4205 Background: Multiple lines of evidence support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for patients with homologous recombination deficiency-associated pancreatic adenocarcinoma (HRD PDAC; 15-20%). However, the impact of the specific platinum agent used remains uncertain. Mechanistically, oxaliplatin and cisplatin act distinctly on cancer cells, reflected in disparate toxicity profiles and target disease indications; furthermore, preclinical studies have shown that BRCA2-deficient cell lines and mice demonstrate significantly greater sensitivity to cisplatin compared to oxaliplatin. While oxaliplatin, part of the FOLFIRINOX regimen, represents the most commonly used platinum analogue for PDAC, clinical data shows that cisplatin (in combination with gemcitabine) can produce robust response rates (~70%) specifically in patients with germline BRCA/PALB2-mutated metastatic PDAC. We therefore designed a randomized clinical trial (PLATINUM) through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group to assess the optimal chemotherapy regimen in patients with HRD-associated metastatic PDAC following front-line FOLFIRINOX and to test the hypothesis that a platinum switch strategy will be beneficial. Methods: The study consists of a seamless phase II/III design, with the primary endpoint of the phase III component being overall survival. Eligible patients will have metastatic PDAC, a confirmed pathogenic BRCA1/2 or PALB2 mutation (somatic or germline), and demonstrated disease progression on front-line FOLFIRINOX, with or without subsequent PARP inhibitor maintenance. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive (1) the de facto standard of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel; or (2) the experimental 3-drug combination of gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (NABPLAGEM), which has been previously studied in non-biomarker-selected patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (SWOG1815) and metastatic PDAC. Both treatment arms will use a once every other week dosing schedule. A total of 100 patients will be enrolled, which provides 90% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.5 (median OS of 18 vs 9 months) at a one-sided alpha of 0.05. Reports containing efficacy, adverse events, and administrative information will be provided to the Alliance DSMB every 6 months. Planned correlatives include ctDNA analysis for BRCA reversion mutations in all patients, as well as whole genome and transcriptome sequencing in an optional biopsy cohort. This study was activated in December 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT06115499 .

TPS4201 Background: Poorly differentiated, extrapulmonary NEC are rare cancers with median overall survival (OS) <1 year. Treatment is extrapolated from small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with use of P (cisplatin or carboplatin) + E. More effective treatment regimens and predictive biomarkers are needed to improve outcomes. In SCLC, induction therapy with combination of P/E + PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab and maintenance atezolizumab improved OS (12.3 months vs 10.3 months; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 – 0.91, P=0.007) vs P/E alone (1). No study to date has compared PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition during induction only vs during induction and maintenance therapy. In SCLC, distinct molecular subtypes can be identified by the presence of specific transcription factors (e.g., ASCL1, NEUROD1, POU2F3) or an inflamed gene signature (SCLC-I), with SCLC-I pts more likely to benefit clinically from the addition of immunotherapy (2). In this study we plan to test the benefit of adding atezolizumab to induction P/E as well as the role of adding maintenance atezolizumab after induction P/E plus atezolizumab. We also plan to correlate tumor- and blood-based subtype biomarkers with response to therapy. Methods: Eligible pts ≥18 years old have evaluable, histologically confirmed extrapulmonary NEC, Zubrod PS ≤2, and are allowed to have up to 1 cycle of P/E prior to enrollment. P (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin AUC 5, iv) on day 1, E 100 mg/m2 iv on days 1-3, and atezolizumab 1200 mg iv on day 1 of q21 day cycles. Pts are randomized to 1 of 3 arms: A) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> maintenance atezolizumab B) Induction P/E + atezolizumab -> observation C) Induction P/E -> observation. The primary objective is to compare the overall survival (OS, from randomization) between arms in a fixed sequence: A vs C -> B vs C -> A vs B. Secondary objectives include comparing OS (from start of maintenance/observation), progression free survival, response rate, duration of response, and safety/tolerability across arms. Tumor and blood samples will be banked for future biomarker analyses, including immunohistochemistry of transcription factors on tissue and whole exome sequencing on tumor and circulating tumor DNA. With 189 pts (168 eligible), the study has 84% power to detect an improvement in 12-months OS from 35% to 57.5% (HR 0.53). This study was activated December 2021 with 3 pts enrolled over 1 year due to restricting enrollment of NEC of small cell histology only. The protocol was amended in January 2023 to broaden eligibility to all NEC subtypes (small cell, large cell, and undefined histology with Ki-67 ≥55%). As of January 2024, 35 patients have been enrolled. A protocol amendment is planned to remove the need for Ki-67 index for NEC of genitourinary origin to improve accrual. 1. Horn L, et al. N Engl J Med 2018. 2. Gay CM, et al. Cancer Cell 2021. Clinical trial information: NCT05058651 .