Citations

Abstract Background Synthetic control arms (SCAs) derived from historical trial data can complement randomized controlled trials (RCTs), particularly in oncology where feasibility, ethical, and cost constraints may limit conventional trial designs. However, their validity for overall survival (OS) remains uncertain. We evaluated the feasibility and limitations of constructing SCAs from the ARCAD metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) database across multiple treatment lines. Methods Seven landmark RCTs representing first-, second-, and third-line settings were selected. External control arms were constructed from ARCAD individual patient-level data using propensity score matching based on key clinical and biological variables from a validated ARCAD prognostic score, with adjustment for geographic region and time era when needed. A prespecified two-step benchmarking framework assessed: (1) control-arm OS reproducibility and (2) virtual trial comparisons between matched synthetic controls and original RCT experimental arms. Agreement was evaluated using hazard ratios (HRs) and Z-tests. Results A total of 28,022 patients met the inclusion criteria. ARCAD-derived SCAs were successfully constructed for all selected RCTs and closely reproduced control-arm OS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced, with minimal differences between included and excluded patients. Virtual trials showed concordant treatment-effect estimates with the original RCTs, with a median absolute HR deviation of 0.05 and no significant differences by Z-tests (P>.05). Survival outcomes were consistently reproduced across treatment lines. Conclusion ARCAD-derived SCAs reliably reproduced control-arm OS and benchmark treatment-effect estimates from landmark RCTs in mCRC. Despite limitations related to residual confounding and missing data, this framework supports benchmarking, trial design, and exploratory analyses when conventional control arms are impractical.

LBA5 Background: Available 2L therapies offer limited clinical benefit in mPDAC with reported mPFS of 3–4 mo and mOS of 6–7 mo. Aberrant RAS pathway activation is the key driver of PDAC, with oncogenic RAS mutations (mut) identified in >90% of cases, most commonly at codon G12. Daraxonrasib is an oral, RAS(ON) multi-selective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active, GTP-bound state of mutant and wild type RAS. Methods: RASolute 302 (NCT06625320) is a global, randomized, open-label, Ph 3 study in pts with 2L mPDAC and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive daraxonrasib 300 mg PO QD or investigator’s choice of SOC cytotoxic chemo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS by BICR in the RAS G12 mutant (RAS G12) population. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS by BICR in the overall population, ORR by BICR in RAS G12 and overall populations. Results: 248 pts were randomized to daraxonrasib and 252 to chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At data cutoff (Feb 10, 2026; mFU: 8.5 mo), all primary and key secondary endpoints were met. Statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS were observed with daraxonrasib vs chemo in the RAS G12 and overall populations (Table). Gr ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 43.6% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 57.5% receiving chemo. The most common (≥10%) Gr ≥3 TRAEs were rash (13.7%) and stomatitis (12.0%) for daraxonrasib; neutrophil decrease (18.2%) and anemia (16.4%) for chemo. TRSAEs occurred in 10.8% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 18.7% receiving chemo. Discontinuation due to TRAEs occurred in 1.2% of pts for daraxonrasib vs 11.2% for chemo. Median/mean daraxonrasib dose intensity was 93.1%/84.7%. Conclusions: Daraxonrasib demonstrated unprecedented improvements in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with 2L mPDAC with or without an identified tumor RAS mut. Daraxonrasib was generally well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and with no new safety signals. Results support daraxonrasib as the new SOC for 2L mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT06625320 . RAS G12 Overall b Daraxonrasibn=228 Chemo n=231 Daraxonrasib n=248 Chemo n=252 OS Median; mos(95% CI) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.6(5.4–8.2) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.7(5.8–8.0) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.40(0.30-0.54)<0.0001 0.40(0.30-0.53)<0.0001 PFS a Median; mos(95% CI) 7.3(6.3–8.1) 3.5(2.9–3.8) 7.2(5.7–7.5) 3.6(2.9–4.2) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.45(0.34-0.59)<0.0001 0.49(0.38-0.64)<0.0001 ORR a %(95% CI) 33.2(27.0–39.9) 11.8(7.8–16.8) 31.6(25.8–38.0) 11.2(7.5–15.9) a By BICR. b RAS G12, G13 or Q61 mut or no RAS mut identified.

126 Background: NNT/NNH analyses can estimate the magnitude of benefit vs harm of therapeutic agents and can inform clinical decision making. We quantified the benefit/risk profile of fruquintinib (F; a highly selective, oral inhibitor of all 3 VEGFRs) vs other later-line mCRC monotherapies. Methods: Six phase 3 randomized (2:1), placebo (P)-controlled trials (F: FRESCO, FRESCO-2; regorafenib [rego]: CONCUR, CORRECT; TAS-102: TERRA, RECOURSE) were identified. NNT (average number of pts needing treatment to prevent 1 additional death/progression event) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated as the inverse of difference in survival function between treatment and P. NNH (average number of pts needing treatment for 1 additional pt to have an adverse event; AE) for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was calculated as the inverse of absolute risk increase relative to P. Low NNTs and high NNHs suggest a more favorable treatment profile. Results: F had the lowest NNT (most favorable) for 6-month OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO) vs rego and TAS-102 (Table). F had the highest NNH (most favorable) for grade ≥3 TEAEs, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO). TAS-102 (TERRA) had the highest NNH for diarrhea, followed by F (FRESCO-2). Consistent with mechanism of action of anti-VEGFRs, F and rego had lower NNHs for hypertension (HTN) vs TAS-102 (TERRA). F (FRESCO) had the lowest NNH for discontinuation due to TEAEs. Conclusions: In this cross-trial comparison, F had the lowest NNT for OS (FRESCO-2) and PFS (FRESCO/FRESCO-2), indicating survival benefit. F had the highest NNHs for grade ≥3 TEAEs, PPE (FRESCO-2), and fatigue (FRESCO), indicating a low risk profile. The analysis highlights fruquintinib as a favorable treatment for pts with mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02314819 , NCT04322539 , NCT01584830 , NCT01103323 , NCT01955837 , NCT01607957 . NNT/NNH (95% CI) for mCRC treatments.* F Rego TAS-102 FRESCO NCT02314819 N=416 FRESCO-2 NCT04322539 N=691 CONCUR NCT01584830 N=204 CORRECT NCT01103323 N=760 TERRA NCT01955837 N=406 RECOURSE NCT01607957 N=800 6-month OS 6.5(5.5–8.1) 5.3(4.8–5.9) 5.9(NA) 9.8(NA) 14.1(NA) 7.2(NA) 6-month PFS 4.2(3.7–4.8) 4.4(3.9–5.1) 5.0(NA) 9.1(NA) 7.1(NA) 7.2(NA) Grade ≥3 TEAEs 2.4 (2.0–3.1) 8.1 (5.0–22.5) 2.6 (2.0–3.7) 2.5 (2.2–3.0) 2.8 (2.3–3.6) 5.9 (4.1–10.2) TEAE leading to discontinuation 10.8 (6.7–28.5) NA † (18.0–NA) 12.5 (6.2–NA) 17.5(11.3–39.2) 250.0 (15.3–NA) 50.0 (22.9–NA) PPE 2.2 (1.9–2.5) 6.0 (4.8–8.0) 1.4 (1.3–1.7) 2.6 (2.2–3.0) NA (NA) NA (46.0–NA) HTN 2.4 (2.0–3.0) 3.6 (3.0–4.5) 5.3 (3.6–9.5) 4.5 (3.7–5.8) 14.3 (10.0–25.2) NA (NA) Diarrhea 5.1 (3.8–7.4) 7.3 (5.2–12.3) 6.2 (4.3–11.4) 3.8 (3.2–4.8) 7.9 (5.7–13.0) 5.0 (3.9–6.9) Fatigue 32.5 (10.3–NA) 25.8 (10.1–NA) 10 (5.3–80.3) 5.3 (3.8–8.4) 7.4 (5.0–13.9) 8.3 (5.4–18.1) *All trials except TERRA included best supportive care in both arms. † Lower rate of pts discontinued F vs P due to TEAEs, thus NNH was not applicable (NA).

142 Background: Fruquintinib (F) is a highly selective, oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of all 3 vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs -1, -2, -3) that is approved by the US FDA and in the EU, UK, and Japan for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), regardless of biomarker status. FRESCO-2 (NCT04322539) met its primary endpoint demonstrating significantly improved overall survival (OS) with F + best supportive care (BSC) vs placebo (P) + BSC. This subgroup analysis assessed landmark survival of all FRESCO-2 patients (pts), and baseline (BL) characteristics and safety data of pts treated with F who had OS ≥10 months (mos) compared with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (pop). Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive F 5 mg or matching P, by mouth, once daily, 3 weeks on, 1 week off, + BSC. Pts had received prior chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy and, if RAS wild type, anti-EGFR therapy; and had prior exposure to trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) and/or regorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) between the two treatment arms was calculated from a stratified Cox proportional hazard model with treatment group as the only covariate in the model. Results: In the ITT pop, OS was improved with F vs P (HR 0.66); OS rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) at 6 and 9 mos were 60.4% (55.9–64.9) vs 41.5% (35.0–48.0) and 41.1% (36.4–45.8) vs 28.2% (22.1–34.3), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates (95% CIs) at 6 and 9 mos were 23.8% (19.7–28.0) vs 1.1% (0–2.6) and 11.3% (8.1–14.6) vs 0.5% (0–1.6), respectively. Of 461 pts who received F, 113 (24.5%) had OS ≥10 mos (range 10.0–18.9) with a median duration of F treatment of 6.3 mos (range 0.7–19.1). Among pts receiving F, a higher proportion (≥10% difference) of pts with OS ≥10 mos had no liver metastases (mets) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 at BL compared with the ITT pop (Table). In pts with OS ≥10 mos, 61.9% experienced a grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event compared with 62.7% in the ITT pop. Conclusions: Longer-term OS and PFS rates at 6 and 9 mos were higher with F vs P in the FRESCO-2 ITT pop. The data show a higher proportion of pts with OS ≥10 mos had an absence of liver mets and ECOG PS 0 at BL than the ITT pop. The safety profile of F in pts with OS ≥10 mos was consistent with the ITT pop. Clinical trial information: NCT04322539 . BL characteristics of pts treated with F with OS ≥10 mos vs ITT pop. BL characteristic Pts with OS ≥10 mos (n=113) ITT pop(n=461) ECOG PS (0 / 1), % 54.0 / 46.0 42.5 / 57.5 Median time since 1 st CRC diagnosis, mos 52.0 47.2 Primary tumor location at 1 st diagnosis (colon / rectum / both), % 51.3 / 35.4 / 13.3 60.5 / 31.0 / 8.5 Primary site at 1 st diagnosis (colon left / colon right), % 42.5 / 15.9 41.6 / 21.0 Liver mets, % 58.4 73.5 Median duration of mCRC, mos 42.7 37.9 Prior lines of therapy for mCRC (≤3 / >3), % 26.5 / 73.5 27.1 / 72.9 Prior TAS-102, % 46.9 52.1 Prior regorafenib, % 12.4 8.7

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are recommended to treat patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pivotal trials have fixed a maximum ICI duration of 2 years, without a compelling rationale. A shorter treatment duration has the potential to improve patients' quality of life and reduce both toxicity and cost without compromising efficacy. Here we examine whether early treatment discontinuation (ETD) before 13 months in patients without progressive disease (PD) can lead to similar long-term disease control compared with a longer treatment duration (LTD). Methods To assess whether ETD is associated with similar outcomes compared with LTD, we assembled an international cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC treated with ICIs who stopped treatment for a reason other than PD within 395 days (ETD group) and compared them to those who continued for >395 days (LTD group). Outcomes were adjusted for patient/tumor characteristics. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results Of 976 patients, 137 and 394 were allocated to the ETD and LTD groups, respectively. In the ETD group, treatment was discontinued due to toxicity (n=56), objective response (n=43), surgery (n=28), patient decision (n=2) or other reasons (n=8). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups: 22% in both groups received both anti-programmed death-(ligand) 1 (anti-PD-(L)1) + anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (anti-CTLA-4); all others received anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. ORR to ICIs was 81% in both groups. Median duration of treatment was ~7 months in the ETD and ~24 months in the LTD group. After a median follow-up of 44 months (IQR: 30–67), similar PFS (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.40, p=0.69) and OS (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.99, p=0.62) from the start of ICIs were observed in ETD and LTD patients. In the ETD group, 28 (20%) patients had a PFS event and 9 restarted ICIs with a disease control rate of 66%. Conclusions In our international series of dMMR/MSI-H mCRC, ETD of ICIs in the absence of PD did not seem detrimental in terms of PFS and OS compared with continuing treatment beyond 1 year. Randomized clinical trials to compare short and long treatment duration are now warranted.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. Results: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Abstract Purpose: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is currently the only predictive biomarker of efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). However, 10% to 40% of patients with MSI mCRC will experience a primary resistance to ICI. Experimental Design: In two cohorts of patients with MSI mCRC treated with ICI (exploratory, N = 103; validation, N = 35), 3′ RNA sequencing was performed from primary tumors. Previously described single-cell transcriptomic signatures of tumor microenvironment (TME) were analyzed. Results: In the exploratory cohort, the unsupervised clustering allowed the identification of three clusters of tumors with distinct transcriptional profiles: cluster A (“stromalHIGH-proliferationLOW”), cluster B (“stromalHIGH-proliferationMED”), and cluster C (“stromalLOW-proliferationHIGH”), with an enrichment of patients progressing at first disease assessment under ICI in cluster A (30% vs. 12% in cluster B and 8.1% in cluster C; P = 0.074). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also significantly shorter in patients belonging to cluster A, compared with clusters B or C (P &lt; 0.001) with 2-year PFS rates of 33.5%, 80.5%, and 78.3%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, PFS was still significantly longer in patients belonging to cluster B [HR, 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08–0.45; P &lt; 0.001] and cluster C (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10–0.59; P = 0.02), compared with patients belonging to cluster A. The association of this clustering with PFS under ICI was confirmed in the validation cohort. PFS related to non–ICI-based regimens was not significantly different according to cluster. Conclusions: This unsupervised transcriptomic classification identified three groups of MSI mCRCs with different compositions of TME cells and proliferative capacities of TME/tumor cells. The “stromalHIGH-proliferationLOW” cluster is associated with a poorer prognosis with ICI treatment.

3588 Background: Although anti-EGFR antibody plus doublet chemotherapy has become the standard of first-line treatment for RAS wild-type (wt), left sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal molecular-targeted therapy for RAS wt, right-sided mCRC is not clear. Methods: To evaluate the efficacy between anti-EGFR antibody vs. bevacizumab combination therapy, from 40,889 Individual patient (pt) data from 59 studies in ARCAD mCRC database, 723 pts with RAS wt, right-sided mCRC who received a first-line molecular-targeted therapy with backbone chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI when anti-EGFR antibody combination, and FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CAPOX/FOLFOXIRI when bevacizumab combination) were selected from 10 randomized studies (FIRE-3, CALGB80495, CRYSTAL, PRIME, CAIRO2, OPUS, TRIBE, TRIBE2, ATOM, and CCOG1201). Primary objective was overall survival (OS), and secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR); Hazard ratio (HR) and Odds ratio (OR) were adjusted for ECOG-PS, age, and gender. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) as sensitivity analysis were also performed. Secondary analyses were limited to BRAF wt pts. Results: Anti-EGFR antibody and bevacizumab were administrated in 329 and 394 pts, respectively, of whom 162 and 151 pts were BRAF wt, respectively. Baseline characteristics were as follows (anti-EGFR antibody/bevacizumab): median age, 63.0 years both; female, 47.1/46.4%; and ECOG-PS 0, 53.2/65.2%. The OS and PFS were significantly prolonged in pts receiving bevacizumab combination therapy compared to those receiving anti-EGFR antibody combination therapy (Table). These trends were more pronounced when limited to BRAF wt pts (Table). There were no significant differences in ORR for both overall and BRAF wt pts. These results were similar in the sensitivity analysis (Table). Conclusions: For patients with RAS wt or RAS/ BRAF wt, right-sided mCRC, bevacizumab combination therapy is preferred first-line treatment. [Table: see text]