Citations

(1) Background: Cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following progression on sorafenib. Recently, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been approved in the first line setting for advanced HCC and has become the new standard of care. Whether cabozantinib improves outcomes following progression on immunotherapy remains unknown. We describe the clinical outcomes following treatment with immunotherapy in patients with advanced HCC who received cabozantinib. (2) Methods: We conducted a multicentric, retrospective analysis of patients with advanced HCC diagnosed between 2010–2021 at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida who received cabozantinib. Median overall survival and progression free survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Adverse events were determined using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). (3). Results: We identified 26 patients with advanced HCC who received cabozantinib following progression on immunotherapy. Median progression free survival on cabozantinib therapy was 2.1 months (95% CI: 1.3–3.9) and median overall survival from time of cabozantinib initiation was 7.7 months (95% CI: 5.3–14.9). (4) Conclusion: The optimal sequencing of therapy for patients with advanced HCC following progression on immunotherapy remains unknown. Our study demonstrates that patients may benefit from treatment with cabozantinib following progression on immunotherapy.

ImportanceApproval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has generated controversy. Exploratory analyses from individual trials indicate a lack of meaningful benefit from ICI in patients with absent or low PD-L1 expression; however, analysis of a single variable while ignoring others may not consider the instability inherent in exploratory analyses.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the predictive value of tissue-based PD-L1 status compared with that of other variables for ICI benefit in aGEC to assess its stability.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register (2000-2022).Study Selection, Data Extraction, and SynthesisRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included of adults with aGEC (adenocarcinoma [AC] or squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) randomized to anti−PD-1 or PD-L1−containing treatment vs standard of care (SOC). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 5752 records screened, 26 were assessed for eligibility; 17 trials were included in the analysis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified primary end point was overall survival. The mean hazard ratio (HR) for ICI vs SOC was calculated (random-effects model). Predictive values were quantified by calculating the ratio of mean HRs between 2 levels of each variable.ResultsIn all, 17 RCTs (9 first line, 8 after first line) at low risk of bias and 14 predictive variables were included, totaling 11 166 participants (5067 with SCC, 6099 with ACC; 77.6% were male and 22.4% were female; 59.5% of patients were younger than 65 years, 40.5% were 65 years or older). Among patients with SCCs, PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was the strongest predictor of ICI benefit (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68] for high TPS; and HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95] for low TPS), yielding a predictive value of 41.0% favoring high TPS (vs ≤16.0% for other variables). Among patients with AC, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) was the strongest predictor (after microsatellite instability high status) of ICI benefit (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.81] for high CPS; and HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07] for low CPS), yielding a predictive value of 29.4% favoring CPS-high (vs ≤12.9% for other variables). Head-to-head analyses of trials containing both levels of a variable and/or having similar design generally yielded consistent results.Conclusions and RelevanceTissue-based PD-L1 expression, more than any variable other than microsatellite instability-high, identified varying degrees of benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC among patients with aGEC in 17 RCTs.

PURPOSE Patients with advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) have a dismal prognosis. This multisite, single-institution study analyzed the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced BTC. MATERIALS AND METHODS The prospectively maintained institutional database was searched for patients with advanced BTC. Electronic medical records of the patients with advanced BTC treated with an ICI that included programmed death-1 or programmed death-ligand 1 blockers were retrospectively reviewed to obtain data on patient characteristics, tumor characteristics including molecular biomarkers, detailed treatment, response characteristics, survival, and toxicities. The analysis included overall response rate, survival, and correlation between survival and molecular biomarkers. RESULTS The institutional database query identified 47 patients with advanced BTC who received at least one dose of an ICI; 11 (24%) patients in the first-line setting and the rest of the patients had refractory disease. The median age of the cohort was 62 years, and 51% were female. The overall response rate was 10.6%, with a disease control rate of 53.2%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 3.6 months and 6.9 months, respectively. Biomarker analysis revealed improved PFS in patients with tumor mutational burden > 5 mutations per megabase (median PFS: 6.4 v 2.2 months; P = .0027). No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION ICIs are well tolerated and have modest antitumor activity in patients with advanced BTC. The study result supports the exploration of tumor mutational burden as a potential predictive biomarker for response to ICIs in patients with advanced BTC.

3572 Background: Early onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC: disease diagnosed < 50) has been increasing over the past 2 decades. Currently, standard treatment recommendations for eoCRC patients (pts) with metastatic disease does not differ from late-onset CRC (loCRC) pts although outcomes data in eoCRC pts is limited. Methods: Individual patient data on 5,761 treatment-naive metastatic eoCRC pts was pooled from 8 phase II and III randomized EGFRi studies (2000 - 2012) from the ARCAD mCRC database. The distribution of demographics, clinicopathological features, and biomarkers were summarized by age groups. Progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between age groups by stratified Cox models, adjusting for potential confounders. Predictive value of age group was evaluated by testing interaction effect between treatment and age variables based on a subset of trials with concurrent randomizations between regimens with and without EGFRi Results: eoCRC (n=756) were more evenly distributed between gender, had improved performance status (PS), increased likelihood of metastatic resection, and distant lymph node metastasis, but were less likely to have lung metastasis or KRAS mutation compared to loCRC (n=5,005, table 1). eoCRC and loCRC patients had similar distribution of primary tumor sidedness, primary resection, liver and/or peritoneal involvement, number of metastatic sites involved, and BRAF mutations (MT). No difference in PFS for eoCRC versus loCRC pts was noted (7.8 vs. 7.9 months [M], adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.11). Among pts with KRAS wild type (WT) and left sided primary tumors, univariable analysis of EGFRi demonstrated improved mPFS in loCRC (9.9 vs 8.5M, HR = 0.74, p<0.001), but this benefit was not seen in eoCRC (8.3 vs 8.9 months, HR 1.20, p=0.36). The same pattern was observed upon multivariable analysis (Table). Conclusions: In our pooled analysis, EGFRi + chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in treatment-naïve loCRC patients but not in left sided, KRAS WT, eoCRC patients. Further validation in an independent cohort is warranted. [Table: see text]

2538 Background: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) is a highly selective cell lineage marker with limited expression in normal gastric tissues and significantly higher expression in primary gastric, pancreatic tumors and their metastases. Anti-CLDN18.2-targeted CAR T cells, termed CT041, were developed to evaluate tumor response and patient-reported outcomes in the gastric and pancreatic cancer. Preliminary results of the trial (NCT03874897) showed an objective response rate (ORR) of about 60% in gastric cancer from a non-Western population. Here we report the results of CT041 for metastatic gastric cancer after ≥ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy or pancreatic cancer ≥ 1 prior line from six centers in the United States. Methods: This single-arm, open-label, phase Ib study (NCT04404595) investigated autologous CT041 CAR T cells in patients with CLDN18.2 positive advanced gastric (including diffuse, signet-ring) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma. All patients completed a conditioning regimen consisting of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and nab-paclitaxel prior to CT041 CAR T cells. The primary objective was to assess the safety, efficacy and cytokinetic profile of CT041. Adverse Events (AEs) were graded according to CTCAE 5.0, and tumor response was assessed per RECIST 1.1. Results: As of February 15, 2022, 11 patients (5 gastric and 6 pancreatic) with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1- 4) were treated with CT041 at a dose between 2.5 and 4 x 108 cells. There were no dose limiting toxicities, treatment-related deaths, severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurologic syndrome (ICANS), or severe gastrointestinal (GI) related AEs. All CRS were grade 1 or 2. Only one patient received tocilizumab. No grade 4 AEs were observed except for hematologic toxicities related to conditioning. The first eight patients were evaluable for response by the date of data cut-off: 1 patient achieved a complete response after two CT041 doses (gastric), 2 had partial response (gastric), 2 had stable disease with tumor shrinkage (pancreatic) and 3 (pancreatic) had progression of disease after an initial biochemical response. ORR was 37.5% (3/8) in all patients including 100% (3/3) in the gastric subgroup (all ≥ 3 prior lines). The last three patients had not reached the time for response assessment. CAR T cell expansion correlated with ctDNA reduction. The median duration of response and the progression-free survival had not been reached. Conclusions: These preliminary results indicate that CT041 therapy was safe and had therapeutic efficacy in patients with advanced GI cancers. In heavily pre-treated gastric cancer, CT041 may have significantly improved anti-tumor activity compared to historical treatment regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT04404595.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignancy accounting for 90% of primary liver malignancies. Therapeutic options for HCC are primarily based on the baseline functional status, the extent of disease at presentation and the underlying liver function that is clinically evaluated by the Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer system and Child–Pugh score. In patients with advanced HCC, the United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) approved systemic therapies include the combination of atezolizumab–bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting while cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL), pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination are reserved for patients who progressed on sorafenib. European Medical Agency (EMA) approved the use of atezolizumab–bevacizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib in the first line setting, while cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab (in patients with alfa-fetoprotein [AFP] > 400 ng/mL) are approved for use in patients that progressed on first-line therapy. In the first line setting, sorafenib demonstrated a median overall survival (OS) benefit of 3 months as compared to that of best supportive care in randomized phase III trials, while lenvatinib was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib. Recently, phase 3 studies with immunotherapeutic agents including atezolizumab plus a bevacizumab combination and tremelimumab plus durvalumab combination demonstrated a better OS and progression free survival (PFS) compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting, making them attractive first-line options in advanced HCC. In this review, we outlined the tumorigenesis and immune landscape of HCC in brief and discussed the role and rationale of combining immunotherapy and anti-VEGF therapy. We further expanded on potential limitations and the future directions of immunotherapy in combination with targeted agents in the management of advanced HCC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) is characterized by hypermutation leading to abundant neoantigens that activate an antitumor immune response in the tumor microenvironment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the treatment of this subset of CRC and other solid tumors with dMMR, by producing frequent and durable responses that extend patient survival. Recently, the anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab was shown to produce significantly longer progression-free survival with fewer adverse events compared with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC) with dMMR. Accordingly, single-agent pembrolizumab represents a new standard of care for dMMR mCRCs including patients with Lynch syndrome and the more common sporadic cases. Furthermore, data indicate that the combination of PD-1 and cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 inhibitors was more effective than single-agent PD-1 inhibition in patients with dMMR mCRCs, suggesting nonredundant mechanisms of action. Although the benefit of ICIs is currently limited to metastatic disease, studies evaluating ICIs as neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in earlier-stage dMMR CRC are ongoing. Despite success of ICIs in the treatment of metastatic dMMR cancers, an appreciable proportion of these tumors demonstrate intrinsic or acquired resistance, and biomarkers to identify these patients are needed. Advances in the understanding of immunotherapy resistance mechanisms hold promise for both biomarker identification and development of novel strategies to circumvent treatment resistance. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the evidence for the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of dMMR CRC, discuss resistance mechanisms, and outline potential strategies to circumvent primary and secondary resistance with the goal of broadening the benefit of ICIs.

TPS213 Background: Regorafenib (R) is an oral multikinase inhibitor that blocks several protein kinases involved in angiogenesis and oncogenesis; it has a survival benefit in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The current standard (std) treatment in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype (WT) mCRC is sequential treatment with an anti-EGFR antibody (AEA) followed by R. However, R, which is orally administered once daily, may be more convenient and thus preferable for pts than AEA. REVERCE, a Japanese trial, demonstrated a significant 5.8 month (mo.) survival benefit with regorafenib administered prior to AEA compared to the std sequence. Based off these findings, the proposed phase II trial is to confirm the observed survival benefit from regorafenib sequencing prior to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy in REVERCE in a US patient population. Methods: REVERCEII is an Academic and Community Cancer Research United (ACCRU) network-led randomized phase II study of R (dose escalation from 80mg to 160mg based on tolerance) prior to AEA (R+AEA) compared to standard sequencing (AEA+R) in pts with refractory RAS WT mCRC. Patients are randomized 1:1 to receive R (Arm A) vs. AEA (with or without irinotecan per investigator choice) (Arm B). At the time of disease progression or intolerance, patients will receive sequential treatment until disease progression. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed mCRC, ECOG ≤ 2, acceptable organ function, and patients must have had prior fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and no prior AEA nor R. The primary objective is to compare the overall survival (OS), the primary endpoint, between evaluable patients (eligible, consented, started protocol treatment) who were randomized to R+AEA (arm A) and AEA+R (arm B). With 83 OS events, we have 87% power to detect an improvement in median OS from 9 months to 14.5 mo., assuming 1-sided significance level of 0.15, and exponential distribution. The total sample size is 124 patients. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, objective response, and adverse events. The total study duration is expected to be 3 years. Clinical trial information: NCT04117945. Clinical trial information: 04117945.