Citations

Background Cysteine–cysteine chemokine receptors 2 (CCR2) and 5 (CCR5) contribute to immune suppression in tumor microenvironments. CCR2 and CCR5 antagonists have demonstrated antitumor activity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. This phase 1b/2, open-label study evaluated BMS-813160, a CCR2/5 dual antagonist, in combination with chemotherapy±nivolumab in advanced PDAC or metastatic CRC. Methods Part 1 included patients with metastatic untreated (first-line (1L)) PDAC, 1L CRC, or previously treated (second or third line (2/3L)) microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC. Patients received 2 weeks of BMS-813160 monotherapy (300 mg two times a day, 600 mg once daily, 300 mg once daily, or 150 mg once daily) and then BMS-813160+chemotherapy (gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (gem/nabP; 1L PDAC), 5-fluorouracil+leucovorin+irinotecan (FOLFIRI; 1L CRC)), or nivolumab (2/3L MSS CRC). Part 2 included patients with metastatic 1L PDAC or 2L CRC. Patients received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab (1L PDAC), BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day or 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI (2L CRC), or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics (Part 1) and efficacy (Part 2). Results In Part 1, 22 of 75 (29%) and 54 of 72 (72%) patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event during monotherapy lead-in and overall, respectively. Two dose-limiting toxicities (rash and pericardial effusion with pericarditis, both grade 3) occurred. In Part 2, patients with 1L PDAC who received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 37% (13/35); the median duration of response (DOR) was 45 weeks (95% CI 26.1 to not evaluable). ORRs with BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP and gem/nabP alone were 26% (9/35) and 28% (9/32), respectively; median DORs were 121 and 31 weeks, respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 24 weeks were 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab), 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP), and 50% (gem/nabP). ORRs in 2L CRC were 19% (6/32; BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+FOLFIRI), 13% (4/32; BMS-813160 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI), and 27% (7/26; FOLFIRI). Conclusions In 1L PDAC, BMS-813160 300 two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab demonstrated durable antitumor response and was well tolerated. BMS-813160 combination regimens were tolerable in other cohorts, but clinical efficacy was not demonstrated. Trial registration number NCT03184870 .

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

PURPOSE The microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually regarded as a single biologic entity, given the absence of comparative analyses regarding prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon cancers were randomly assigned to FOLFOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab in 2 large adjuvant phase III trials (N = 5,577). Among patients with MSI and KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumors, the prognostic and predictive impacts of sporadic versus familial dMMR cancers and BRAF V600E mutational status were determined. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) by treatment arm, adjusting for age, sex, tumor grade, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, pT/pN stage, and primary tumor location. RESULTS Among patients with MSI status with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (n = 354), 255 (72%) had sporadic ( BRAF mutation and/or MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) had familial tumors ( BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1 or loss of MSH2/MSH6/PMS2 protein expression). A large proportion of dMMR sporadic tumors were mutated for BRAF (n = 200). In patients treated with FOLFOX, DFS did not differ statistically by dMMR mechanism, whereas in patients treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab, those with sporadic tumors had worse DFS than those with familial cancers (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.08; P = .04). Considering the predictive utility, the interaction between treatment and dMMR mechanism was significant ( P = .03). Furthermore, a nonsignificant trend toward a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in patients with BRAF-mutant but not BRAF WT tumors. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to adjuvant FOLFOX was associated with shorter DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR colon cancer. Additional studies are needed to validate these results in metastatic disease.

3583 Background: The Microsatellite instability (MSI) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) phenotype is usually taken as a single biological entity whereas no data are available concerning prognosis and response to chemotherapy between sporadic and familial dMMR cases. Methods: Resected KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) tumor stage III colon cancers (N = 4596) from patients (pts) randomly assigned to FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant large phase III trials were prospectively analyzed for MSI status and dMMR mechanism (sporadic vs familial). Stratified Cox models were used to assess prognostic and predictive values of dMMR mechanism by treatment arms, adjusting for age, gender, tumor grade, ECOG PS, pT/pN stage and primary tumor location. Results: Among dMMR patients with complete data for dMMR mechanism analysis (N = 354), there were 255 (72%) sporadic ( BRAF mutated or WT with MLH1 methylation) and 99 (28%) familial (loss of MSH2 or MSH6, or loss MLH1 with BRAF WT and unmethylated MLH1) cases. A large proportion of dMMR sporadic cases were mutated for BRAF (n = 200; 80%). In pts treated with FOLFOX, the disease-free survival (DFS) was not statistically different by dMMR mechanism, while for pts treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab, the sporadic cases did worse than familial cases (DFS; adjusted (adj) HR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.02-7.08; P= 0.04). Considering the predictive value, a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in sporadic (DFS; adjHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.79; P= 0.04) but not in familial dMMR pts (interaction P value regarding treatment effect = 0.03). Furthermore, a non-significant trend to a deleterious effect of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX was observed in BRAF mutant (DFS; adjHR, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95-2.92; P= 0.07) but not in BRAF WT pts. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX was associated with reduced DFS in patients with sporadic dMMR cases. Further studies including the methylator phenotype (CIMP) analysis are needed to validate these results. Clinical trial information: NCT00265811 and NCT00079274.

3520 Background: Duration of adjuvant FOLFOX or CAPOX for stage III CC is being guided by pt stratification into low (T1-3N1) and high (T4 or N2) risk groups based on the IDEA study. We determined the relative contributions of clinical and molecular features for prediction of time-to-recurrence (TTR) and survival after recurrence (SAR) within each risk group. Methods: Stage III CC (N=5,430) from 2 trials of adjuvant FOLFOX ± cetuximab with similar outcome by study arm [NCCTG N0147 (Alliance), PETACC-8] were used. Tumors were analyzed for mismatch repair (dMMR vs pMMR), mutations in KRAS (exon 2) and BRAFV600E. Median pt follow-up was 83.4 months. Relative contributions to predicting outcome were assessed using χ2 (Harrell’s rms) based on multivariable (MV) Cox models. Results: N (50.8%) and T (31.8%) stage were the top two contributors to prediction of TTR which supports risk grouping. High risk (n=2566) vs low risk (n=2774) pts had poorer TTR (HR 2.7, 95% CI, 2.4-3.0) and SAR [HR 1.6 (1.4-1.9)], both p<.0001. TTR: KRAS contributed the most to predicting TTR among high (58.6%) and low (51.1%) risk pts (Table). Contribution of MMR (16%) to predicting TTR was limited to low risk pts. Contribution of BRAFV600E to TTR was nearly 3-fold increased in high vs low risk pts. SAR: BRAFV600E contributed the most to predicting SAR, especially in high vs low risk pts (2-fold increase). Tumor sidedness and performance status (PS) were key contributors to SAR, but not TTR. MV associations: TTR: low risk, KRAS [HR 1.7 (1.4-2.3], MMR [HR 0.55 (.35-.87), gender (M/F) [HR 1.3 (1.0-1.5)], all p<.04]; high risk: BRAF [HR 1.3 (1.1-1.7)], sidedness (R vs L) [HR 1.14 (1.0-1.3)], KRAS [HR 1.4 (1.2-1.6)], all p<.04]. SAR: BRAF, sidedness, PS (all p<.05). Conclusions: KRAS mutation was the strongest predictor of shorter TTR in both risk groups whereas BRAFV600E was the primary driver of SAR, especially in high risk pts. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; BMS, Pfizer, Sanofi. NCT00079274.[Table: see text]