Citations

Background: The predictive and prognostic role of BRAF alterations has been evaluated in colorectal cancer (CRC); however, BRAF alterations have not been fully characterized in non-CRC gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. In the present study, we report the frequency and spectrum of BRAF alterations among patients with non-CRC GI malignancies. Methods: Patients with CRC and non-CRC GI malignancies who underwent somatic tumor profiling via a tissue-based or liquid-based assay were included in this study. Gain-of-function BRAF alterations were defined as pathogenic/likely pathogenic somatic short variants (SVs), copy number amplifications ≥8, or fusions (RNA or DNA). Results: Among 51,560 patients with somatic profiling, 40% had CRC and 60% had non-CRC GI malignancies. BRAF GOF alterations were seen more frequently in CRC (8.9%) compared to non-CRC GI malignancies (2.2%) (p < 0.001). Non-CRC GI malignancies with the highest prevalence of BRAF GOF alterations were bile duct cancers (4.1%) and small intestine cancers (4.0%). Among BRAF GOF alterations, class II (28% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and class III (23% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) were more common in non-CRC GI malignancies. Among class II alterations, rates of BRAF amplifications (3.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001) and BRAF fusions (12% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in non-CRC GI malignancies compared to CRC. Conclusions: Non-CRC GI malignancies demonstrate a distinct BRAF alteration profile compared to CRC, with a higher frequency of class II and III mutations, and more specifically, a higher incidence of BRAF fusions. Future studies should evaluate clinical implications for the management of non-CRC GI patients with BRAF alterations, especially BRAF fusions.

Abstract Background: Based on preclinical data showing addition of CDK4/6 inhibitors to gemcitabine is synergistic, ribociclib was evaluated in combination with gemcitabine to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose limiting toxicities (DLT). Methods: In this single arm multicohort phase I trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of Ribociclib plus Gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received Gemcitabine intravenously on days 1 and 8 followed by Ribociclib days 8–14, with treatment repeated every 3 weeks. Results: The study enrolled 43 patients between October 2017 and September 2019. The escalation phase (19 patients) determined the MTD and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) to be ribociclib 800mg daily and gemcitabine 1000mg/m2 for the expansion phase (24 patients). One patient experienced Grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Eleven patients experienced Grade 3 adverse events (AE), the most common being neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. No partial or complete responses were observed. 15/22 (68%) of efficacy evaluable patients who received the MTD achieved best response of stable disease. Conclusions: The addition of Ribociclib to Gemcitabine was tolerated well and yielded stability of tumors in both cohorts. Ribociclib and gemcitabine could have synergistic activity in certain tumor types, and our data provides support for the combination. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03237390

Abstract Background: TIM3 is an inhibitory immunoreceptor linked to decreased activity of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. S095018 is a human anti-TIM3 IgG2 antibody which blocks binding of phosphatidyl serine to TIM3 promoting the stimulation of T-cells, dendritic cells (DCs) and macrophages. Sym021 is a humanized IgG1 antibody that inhibits binding of PD-1 with its ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. Preclinical data demonstrated that Sym021 combined with S095018 results in enhanced immunostimulatory antitumor activity. Methods: S095018 in combination with Sym021 was tested in patients with advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer whose disease progressed under treatment with at least one line of systemic therapy and who had not received prior treatment with PD-1/-L1 inhibitors (NCT04641871). The dose/schedule of Sym021 and S095018 was 3mg/kg IV Q2W and 10mg/kg IV Q2W, respectively. Primary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.1 and incidence/severity of adverse events. Key secondary endpoints included PK parameters, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results As of 31-Oct-2023, 35 patients with stage IV biliary tract cancer (34 cholangiocarcinoma, 1 gallbladder adenocarcinoma) received S095018 in combination with Sym021. All patients were naïve to prior immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. Twenty-two patients (62.9%) had received 1 prior antineoplastic systemic treatment for advanced/metastatic disease, 34.3% had received ≥2 prior treatments for advanced/metastatic disease. Overall, 34 patients (97.1%) discontinued treatment, 85.7% due to disease progression. Best overall response was 2 PR (5.7%), 11 SD (31.4%), 18 PD (51.4%) and 4 not evaluable. Median PFS and OS were 1.9 months (90% CI 1.8-3.7) and 13.4 months (90% CI 8.2-27.1) respectively. Disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) with SD≥16 weeks, ≥24 weeks and ≥12 months was 28.6%, 22.9% and 8.6% respectively. Treatment emergent adverse events of any grade occurring in &gt;5% of patients included fatigue, pruritus, alkaline phosphatase increase, amylase increase, IRR (each 8.6%) and hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, AST increase, lipase increase and myalgia (each 5.7%). Exploratory biomarker analyses in paired tumor biopsies (N=18) showed an intratumoral increase in CD8 T-cell density, as well as upregulation of gene signatures related to IFNg signaling, antigen presentation, T-cell activation and cytotoxicity upon treatment. Baseline tumor biopsies from the two patients who achieved confirmed PR showed high PD-L1 expression. Conclusions: S095018 in combination with Sym021 exhibited antitumor activity in patients with advanced/metastatic recurrent biliary tract cancer who had not received prior treatment with PD-1/-L1 inhibitors. The combination was well tolerated without new safety signals. Further biomarker analysis is ongoing. Citation Format: Francois Ghiringhelli, Richard Kim, Teresa Macarulla, Irene Moreno, Albiruni Razak, Jordi Rodon, Chih-Yi Liao, Thomas Marron, Judith Raimbourg, Helene Kaplon, Julia Geromini, Najah Harouki, Christelle Rodrigues, Pauline Darcel, Niels Jorgen Skartved, Rikke Hald, Daleen Lopez-Ravnborg, Peng He, Xenophon Ianopoulos, Vasileios Askoxylakis, Nehal J. Lakhani, Sarah Davis, Amit Mahipal. A phase 1b multicenter study of anti-TIM3 (S095018/Sym023) in combination with anti-PD1 (Sym021) in patients with advanced/metastatic recurrent biliary tract cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(7_Suppl):Abstract nr CT133.

Background Standard first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and a biologic agent. Immunotherapy may enhance antitumor activity in combination with standard therapies in patients with mCRC. Here, we present phase 2 results of nivolumab plus standard-of-care therapy (SOC; 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/bevacizumab) versus SOC in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC (CheckMate 9X8). Methods CheckMate 9X8 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 2/3 trial. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with unresectable mCRC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab 240 mg plus SOC or SOC alone every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included PFS by investigator assessment; objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response, and time to response, all by BICR and investigator assessments; overall survival; and safety. Preplanned exploratory biomarker analyses were also performed. Results From February 2018 through April 2019, 310 patients were enrolled, of which 195 patients were randomized to nivolumab plus SOC (n=127) or SOC (n=68). At 21.5-month minimum follow-up, PFS with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance; median PFS by BICR was 11.9 months in both arms (HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.53 to 1.23); p=0.30). Higher PFS rates after 12 months (18 months: 28% vs 9%), higher ORR (60% vs 46%), and durable responses (median 12.9 vs 9.3 months) were observed with nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 75% versus 48% of patients; no new safety signals were identified. Conclusions The CheckMate 9X8 trial investigating first-line nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in patients with mCRC did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS by BICR. Nivolumab plus SOC showed numerically higher PFS rates after 12 months, a higher response rate, and more durable responses compared with SOC alone, with acceptable safety. Further investigation to identify subgroups of patients with mCRC that may benefit from nivolumab plus SOC versus SOC in the first-line setting is warranted. Trial registration number NCT03414983 .

Background: Identifying the projected incidence of hepatobiliary cancers and recognizing patient cohorts at increased risk can help develop targeted interventions and resource allocation. The expected incidence of subtypes of hepatobiliary cancers in different age groups, races, and genders remains unknown. Methods: Historical epidemiological data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database was used to project future incidence of hepatobiliary malignancies in the United States and identify trends by age, race, and gender. Patients ≥18 years of age diagnosed with a hepatobiliary malignancy between 2001 and 2017 were included. US Census Bureau 2017 National Population projects provided the projected population from 2017 to 2029. Age–Period–Cohort forecasting model was used to estimate future births cohort-specific incidence. All analyses were completed using R Statistical Software. Results: We included 110381 historical patients diagnosed with a hepatobiliary malignancy between 2001 and 2017 with the following subtypes: hepatocellular cancer (HCC) (68%), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) (11.5%), gallbladder cancer (GC) (8%), extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) (7.6%), and ampullary cancer (AC) (4%). Our models predict the incidence of HCC to double (2001 to 2029) from 4.5 to 9.03 per 100,000, with the most significant increase anticipated in patients 70–79 years of age. In contrast, incidence is expected to continue to decline among the Asian population. Incidence of iCCA is projected to increase, especially in the white population, with rates in 2029 double those in 2001 (2.13 vs. 0.88 per 100,000, respectively; p < 0.001). The incidence of GC among the black population is expected to increase. The incidence of eCCA is expected to significantly increase, especially among the Hispanic population, while that of AC will remain stable. Discussion: The overall incidence of hepatobiliary malignancies is expected to increase in the coming years, with certain groups at increased risk. These findings may help with resource allocation when considering screening, treatment, and research in the coming years.

759 Background: BRAF V600E mutations are present in 5-10% of patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) and associated with poor prognosis. Recently, there was tumor agnostic FDA approval of dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E mutated solid tumors. However, the frequency of BRAF alterations ( BRAF alt), especially non-V600E, in other gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are not well described. This study characterizes BRAF alt in CRC vs other GI cancers (non-CRC). Methods: De-identified records from 51,560 patients diagnosed with GI cancers were retrospectively analyzed from the Tempus database. The molecular landscape including presence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic BRAF alt was evaluated by panel-based tissue DNA, RNA or ctDNA NGS sequencing (Tempus Labs, Inc.). The frequency of BRAF alt, co-mutations, MSI, TMB and MMR were compared between CRC and (non-CRC) by Chi-squared/Fisher’s Exact or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. False-discovery rate correction was used for multiple testing. Results: BRAF alt were identified in 8.9% of CRC and 2.2% of non-CRC cohort. BRAF alt frequency varied by tumor type with the highest observed in colon (11%), jejunum (9.6%), intrahepatic bile duct (5.3%), rectal (4.5%), and ampulla of vater (4.5%) and lower in esophageal (0.9%) and gastric (1.6%). BRAF alt CRC had higher frequency of females (57% vs 45%, p <0.001) and older age at diagnosis (67 vs 66 yrs, p=0.029) compared to non-CRC group. Race was also significantly different, with white patients being more predominant in both groups (85% CRC,77% non-CRC). Among the BRAF alt, fusions (12% vs 2.2%, p <0.001) and amplifications (3.1% vs 0.3%, p <0.001) were higher in non-CRC vs CRC (Table). BRAF V600E was most common in all GI tumors, but higher in CRC vs non-CRC (75% vs 27%, q<0.001). Mutations higher in non-CRC vs CRC (q<0.009) included class II (G469A, K601E, BRAF-SND1, and BRAF amplification) and class III (D594N & N581S) BRAF alt. BRAF co-occurring mutations in CRC were TP53 (70%), APC (42%), RNF43 (30%), SMAD4 (22%), and PIK3CA (21%), and in non-CRC: TP53 (52%), CDKN2A (32%), CDKN2B (20%) SMAD4 (17%) and MTAP (16%). Among tissue samples, MSI-H (30% vs 4.%, p <0.001) and TMB-H ≥10 mut/MB (32% vs 6.7%, p <0.001) were more frequent in BRAF alt CRC vs non-CRC. Conclusions: Meaningful differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics, frequency, and type of BRAF alt and co-occurring mutations. In particular, certain BRAF fusions were present in a higher proportion of other GI cancers and could be an important therapeutic target for this patient population.[Table: see text]

736 Background: Patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastrointestinal (GI) cancer occasionally receive neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NIT) due to various clinical considerations. To systematically evaluate the outcome of these patients, we initiated the DREAM-GI national database, intending to harness real-world data to provide crucial insights into the outcomes, safety profile, and response patterns of dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer patients undergoing NIT. Herein, we present the initial findings. Methods: We developed a centralized database to collect de-identified clinical data from patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers receiving NIT. We collected data retrospectively and prospectively through September 15, 2023. Results: The current report includes 50 patients with a median age of 67 years (range 32 to 90); 21 (42%) were female, 9 (18%) were Black, and the remaining were White. The cohort included the following tumor types- 31 (62%) colorectal, 7 (14%) gastroesophageal, and 12 (24 %) pancreaticobiliary. Most patients had localized disease (34, 68%), while the rest had oligometastatic disease. NIT consisted of pembrolizumab monotherapy in 40 (80%) patients, ipilimumab plus nivolumab in 8 (16%), and nivolumab plus chemotherapy in 2 (4%) patients. Most patients, 33 (66%), were treatment-naive. The median duration of NIT was 6 months (range: 1.5 to 55), with a time to best response of 3 months (range: 1.5 to 12). Among 47 evaluable patients, the best responses were as follows: an overall response rate of 75% (35/47), consisting of radiologic complete response (CR) in 20 (43%), pathologic CR in 4 (9%), and partial response in 11 (24%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached after a median follow-up of 14 months (range: 2-80), calculated from the date of the first immunotherapy dose to the last follow-up or death. Among 24 patients achieving CR, all remained progression-free after a median follow-up of 25.5 months (range: 3-80). Stable and progressive diseases were observed in 7 (15%) and 5 (10%) patients, respectively. Only 5 (10%) patients underwent surgery following NIT, with 4 (80%) achieving pathologic CR. The reasons for not proceeding with surgery were comorbidities in 40 (80%) patients, disease extent in 4 (8%), and patient refusal in 1 (2%). Out of the 12 patients who expired at the data cut-off, 1 was due to immunotherapy-related pneumonitis, 6 due to disease progression, and the remainder from underlying comorbidities. Conclusions: Our study underscores the remarkable response rates and durability of responses achieved with NIT in patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers. Progression on NIT was infrequent. These real-world data support further investigation into non-operative approaches for patients with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancers.

434 Background: Tinengotinib is a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR, potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant mutations in pre-clinical models and in phase I trials that included cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts). Here we present the efficacy and safety of tinengotinib in a phase II clinical trial. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy therapy and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD. Four cohorts included: Cohort A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFRi), A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFRi (acquired resistance); B: non-fusion FGFR alteration(s): C: FGFR wild-type ( FGFRwt). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. CTCAE V5.0 was used for safety assessments. Results: As of 7Aug2023, 48 pts with CCA were enrolled, 13 in Cohort A1, 10 in A2, 12 in B, 13 in C. Median age 61.5 [range 25-81] years old, 41.7% male, 58.3% had ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. ECOG PS 0 in 47.9% pts. Among 35 pts with FGFR alterations, 80.0% had ≥ 1 prior FGFRi therapy, and 97.1% had prior chemotherapy. Forty (40) pts were efficacy evaluable. In A1, 1 out of 11 pts (9.1%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 31.8%. In A2, 3 out of 8 pts (37.5%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 40.7%, 47.0% and 54.6%. In B, 3 out of 9 pts (33.3%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 36.5%, 48.6%, and 60.6%. No PR was observed in C. Overall DCR was 94.7% (18/19) in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement pts (A1+A2), 88.9% (8/9) in other FGFR alterations pts (B), and 75% (9/12) in FGFRwt pts (C). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.26 months (95%CI, 2.86-9.10) in A1+A2, 5.98 months (95%CI, 1.87-NA) in B and 3.84 months (95% CI, 1.84-4.80) in C. Among 48 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 45 (93.8%) pts, 14 (29.2%) in G1-2, 29 (60.4%) in G3 and 2 (4.2%) in G4. The most common G3 TRAEs were hypertension in 12 (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 3 (6.3%), diarrhea in 3 (6.3%) and stomatitis in 3 (6.3%). One subject had G4 increased TSH and G4 increased lipase, and another subject had G4 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. No G5 TRAE was observed. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has promising clinical benefit for FGFR2 fusion CCA after prior FGFRi and for non-fusion FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib-related toxicities were manageable. An ongoing randomized, controlled phase III study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic effect of Tinengotinib vs Physicians’ choice in subjects with FGFR2-altered refractory/relapsed CCA after prior chemotherapy and FGFRi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

PURPOSE Recurrence after curative-intent treatment occurs in 20%-50% of patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer (CRC), underscoring the need for early detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Here, we examined the pattern of use of a tumor-informed ctDNA assay in CRC MRD monitoring in routine clinical practice at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis of health records of patients with CRC who had at least one tumor-informed ctDNA assay from May 2019 through July 1, 2022. Recurrence was defined as radiographic evidence of disease. Descriptive characteristics of the cohort, ctDNA results, and subsequent interventions were recorded. RESULTS Of the 120 patients included, the median age at diagnosis was 67 years, 46% were female, and 94% were White. At diagnosis, 10 patients had stage I, 23 stage II, 60 stage III, and 25 stage IV disease. Of 476 ctDNA assays performed, 70% were performed in patients who had recurrent disease most commonly to monitor the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and 16% resulted in a change in clinical decision making. There were 110 recurrences identified in 62 patients, as some patients experienced more than one recurrence over time. Compared with serum carcinoembryonic antigen levels, ctDNA results correlated better with radiologic imaging. CONCLUSION Routine ctDNA monitoring for MRD detection has been adopted in clinical practice; however, 84% of ctDNA assays performed did not result in a change in clinical management. This suggests the need for further clinical research data to guide routine clinical use of ctDNA MRD testing in CRC.