Citations

378 Background: RATIONALE-305 (NCT03777657) enrolled the highest number of pts with PM among similar trials and stratified pts with advanced GC/GEJC by presence of PM. We used statistical modeling to evaluate the impact of varying PM levels on outcomes with TIS+CT. Methods: We randomized adults with GC/GEJC (1:1) to TIS or placebo (PBO) + CT. Primary endpoints: OS in intent-to-treat (ITT) population and pts with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) Tumor Area Positivity (TAP) score ≥5%. We weighted pts using the method of moments to match a hypothetical population to ITT, with the same distribution of sex, primary tumor location, PD-L1 (TAP score <5% vs ≥5%), number of metastatic sites (0-2 vs 3+), and liver metastasis. PM representation was set from 20% to 45%. Weighted OS, PFS, and objective response rate (ORR) were estimated. Results: Of 997 pts enrolled, 434 (43.5%) had PM. Among pts with PD-L1 TAP scores ≥5% (54.8%), 39.7% had PM, and among pts with scores ≥1% (88.9%), 43.6% had PM (data cutoff Feb 28, 2024). Fewer pts with (+) PM had PD-L1 high tumors (TAP score ≥5%: 50.0%) and more had primary stomach tumors (86.6%) compared to those without (-) PM (58.4% and 75.5%). TIS+CT improved OS, PFS, and ORR in ITT and in pts +/- PM vs PBO+CT (Table). Across 20%–45% PM, TIS+CT showed consistent benefit, with stable HRs for OS and PFS (20% and 45% shown). TIS+CT showed survival benefits in pts with PM and PD-L1 TAP score ≥5% (OS: HR=0.71; PFS: HR=0.65) and ≥1% (OS: HR=0.79; PFS: HR=0.79) vs PBO+CT. ORR was higher with TIS+CT vs PBO+CT in pts + PM and PD-L1 TAP scores ≥5% (47.3% vs 30.8%) and ≥1% (44.2% vs 33.2%). Conclusions: Our analysis showed that lowering PM representation marginally improved OS and ORR, underscoring the poor prognosis of peritoneal disease. In RATIONALE-305, TIS+CT provides clinically meaningful response and survival benefits irrespective of PM, with higher responses in PD-L1+ GC/GEJC. Clinical trial information: NCT03777657 . Arm(95% CI) ITT + PM - PM 20%+ PM 45%+ PM OS, months TIS+CT 15.0 (13.6, 16.5) 12.3 (10.6, 14.3) 17.3 (15.0, 20.3) 15.4 (13.9, 18.0) 15.0 (13.5, 16.5) PBO+CT 12.9 (12.1, 14.1) 11.8 (10.5, 13.0) 14.0 (12.6, 16.0) 13.1 (12.3, 14.5) 12.8 (12.1, 14.1) HR 0.79 (0.69, 0.91) 0.78 (0.64, 0.96) 0.79 (0.65, 0.95) 0.81 (0.69, 0.95) 0.79 (0.69, 0.90) PFS, months TIS+CT 6.9 (5.7, 7.2) 5.8 (5.6, 7.3) 7.0 (5.7, 8.4) 6.9 (5.7, 7.3) 6.9 (5.7, 7.2) PBO+CT 6.2 (5.6, 6.9) 5.7 (5.3, 6.9) 6.9 (5.7, 7.1) 6.5 (5.6, 7.0) 6.2 (5.6, 6.9) HR 0.79 (0.68, 0.91) 0.80 (0.64, 0.98) 0.77 (0.64, 0.94) 0.79 (0.67, 0.94) 0.79 (0.69, 0.91) ORR, % TIS+CT 47.3 (42.9, 51.8) 43.6 (37.0, 50.5) 50.2 (44.2, 56.2) 48.0(42.9, 53.1) 47.3 (42.8, 51.8) PBO+CT 40.5 (36.2, 45.0) 32.2 (26.0, 39.0) 46.8 (40.9, 52.8) 43.1(38.1, 48.3) 40.3(36.0, 44.8) ORR difference, % 6.8 (0.6, 12.9) 11.4 (2.3, 20.3) 3.4 (-4.9, 11.6) 4.9 (-2.2, 11.9) 6.9 (0.8, 13.0)

Background and Aims: We compared the safety and efficacy of bintrafusp alfa (BA) in combination with gemcitabine+cisplatin (GemCis), to those of GemCis alone, in patients with biliary tract cancer. Approach and Results: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive design phase 2/3 trial (NCT04066491) included adults who are treatment-naive with locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer. Patients (N = 297) were randomized to receive an IV infusion of BA (2400 mg once/3 wk) plus GemCis (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 +cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8/3 wk; 8 cycles) (BA group, n = 148) or placebo+GemCis (placebo group, n = 149). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). For adaptation analysis (phase 2-phase 3; data cutoff: May 20, 2021), efficacy was assessed in the first 150 patients who were antibiotic-naive when 80 progression-free survival events had occurred and ≥ 19 weeks of follow-up had been completed (BA, n = 73; placebo, n = 77). Median OS (95% CI) for the BA (11.5 mo [9.3–not estimable]) and placebo (11.5 mo [10.0–not estimable]) groups was comparable (hazard ration 1.23 [95% CI 0.66–2.28]; p = 0.7394); OS data maturity was 27.2% (41 events/151 patients). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse event was anemia (BA, 26.0%; placebo, 22.8%). Bleeding adverse events were reported more frequently in the BA group (28.8%) versus the placebo group (7.4%). Deaths within 60 days of the first dose were reported in 7.5% and 1.3% of patients in the BA and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions: BA+GemCis did not provide a clinically meaningful benefit compared with GemCis alone as first-line treatment for biliary tract cancer, and the study was discontinued early (terminated: August 20, 2021).

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.

TPS366 Background: Advanced Gastro-oesophageal Carcinoma (AGOC) has a poor prognosis, and there is no established standard treatment following failure of first- and second-line chemotherapy. Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506) is an investigational oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) which targets angiogenic (VEGF, TIE-2), stromal (PDGF-β), and oncogenic (RAF, RET and KIT) receptor tyrosine kinases, and has shown activity in this setting. Single agent regorafenib prolonged progression free survival (PFS) versus placebo across all regions/subgroups in the INTEGRATE randomised phase 2 trial. Current options in refractory AOGC involves sequencing through chemotherapy with the latest active agent approved being trifluridine/tipiracil, TAS-102. Promising activity in refractory AOGC has been seen with the combination of regorafenib & nivolumab. INTEGRATE IIb–will compare the effectiveness of the combination of regorafenib & nivolumab in pre-treated patients with AGOC to current standard chemotherapy. Methods: Randomised phase III, open label study with 2:1 randomisation (RegoNivo : standard chemotherapy) and stratification by: Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World); Prior VEGF inhibitors (Yes vs No); Prior immunotherapy (Yes vs No). RegoNivo arm will receive 90mg (3x30mg) of regorafenib days 1-21 of each 28-day treatment cycle with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg day 1 of each 14 day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events as per protocol. The control arm will receive the investigator’s choice of the following chemotherapy; a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel), irinotecan or oral trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102). Primary endpoint: OS. Secondary endpoints: PFS, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, exploratory correlative biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT04879368.

PURPOSE Early-onset (EO) colorectal cancer (CRC, age < 50 years) incidence is increasing. Decisions on optimal adjuvant therapy should consider treatment adherence, adverse events, and expected outcomes in a population with life expectancy longer than later-onset (LO) CRC (age ≥ 50 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual patient data from six trials in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy database were analyzed. Characteristics, treatment adherence, and adverse events in stage II or III EO-CRC and LO-CRC were compared. To reduce confounders of non–cancer-related deaths because of age or comorbidities, time to recurrence (3-year relapse-free rate) and cancer-specific survival (5-year cancer-specific mortality rate) were considered. RESULTS Out of 16,349 patients, 1,564 (9.6%) had EO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, EO-CRC had better performance status (86% v 80%, P < .01), similar T stage (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 v 77/23, P = .97), higher N2 disease rate (24% v 22%, P < .01), more likely to complete the planned treatment duration (83.2% v 78.2%, P < .01), and received a higher treatment dose intensity, especially with 6-month regimens. Gastrointestinal toxicity was more common in EO-CRC; hematologic toxicity was more frequent in LO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, significantly worse cancer-specific outcomes were demonstrated especially in high-risk stage III EO-CRC: lower 3-year relapse-free rate (54% v 65%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55; P value < .001) and higher 5-year cancer-specific mortality rate (24% v 20%; HR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.47; P value < .06). In this subgroup, no difference was observed with 3 or 6 months of therapy, with equally poor disease-free survival rates (57% v 56%; HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.29; P value = .85). CONCLUSION Young age is negatively prognostic in high-risk stage III CRC and associated with significantly higher relapse rate; this is despite better treatment adherence and higher administered treatment intensity, suggesting more aggressive disease biology.

3517 Background: Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, age < 50) is steadily increasing. Decisions on adjuvant treatment (adjTx) regimen and duration should consider tx adherence, toxicity (tox) and expected outcomes in a population with life-expectancy longer than late onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual patient data from stage II/III patients (pts) from 6 randomised trials in the IDEA database were used to compare characteristics, tx adherence, and adverse events of eoCRC to loCRC. To reduce the confounder of non-cancer-related deaths due to age/co-morbidities, time-to-recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared by stratified Gay k-sample test. 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate were estimated by adjusted cumulative incidence function. 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were compared by stratified and adjusted COX models. Results: Out of 16,349 pts included, 1564 (9.6%) were eoCRC. Compared to loCRC, eoCRC had lower percent of male pts (51% vs 57%, p < 0.01) better performance status (PS0 86% vs 80%, p < 0.01), similar T stage distribution (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 vs 77/23, p = 0.97), higher rate of N2 disease (24% vs 22%, p < 0.01), more likely to complete pre-planned duration of adjTx (83.2% vs 78.2%, p < 0.01) and received a higher tx intensity especially with 6 month tx (mean oxaliplatin dose intensity 75% vs 72%, p < 0.01; capecitabine 85% vs 78%, p < 0.01; 5FU 85% vs 82% p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tox was more common in eoCRC (any grade nausea 58% vs 45%, p < 0.01; any grade vomiting 22% vs 16%, p < 0.01); haematological tox was more frequent in loCRC (62% vs, 69%, p = < 0.01); any grade neuropathy rate was similar (75%). Significant interaction was found between age and T stage for TTR (p = 0.04). Clinical outcome estimates and comparisons are shown in Table. Notably, high risk stage III (T4/N2) eoCRC had significantly lower 3-y RFS rate (54% vs 64%, HRadj 0.74, p < 0.01). Conclusions: eoCRC have better tx adherence than loCRC, as expected. While in high risk stage II and low risk stage III, cancer-specific outcomes are not different, in high risk stage III young age is negatively prognostic and associated with significantly higher relapse rate and risk of CRC death; this is despite a higher administered adjTx-intensity, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. Clinical trial information: NCT00749450 (SCOT); NCT00646607 (TOSCA); NCT01150045 (CALGB/SWOG 80702); NCT00958737 (IDEA France) [Table: see text]

TPS264 Background: Trastuzumab (T), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting HER2, is standard of care 1st-line therapy for advanced HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. M, an investigational Fc-engineered anti-HER2 mAb, targets the same HER2 epitope but with higher affinity for both 158V (high binding) and 158F (low binding) alleles of activating Fc receptor CD16A. Data suggest margetuximab coordinately enhances both innate and adaptive immunity, including antigen-specific T-cell responses to HER2. PD-1 and LAG-3 are T-cell checkpoint molecules that suppress T-cell function. Retifanlimab (also known as MGA012 or INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized, IgG4 Κ anti-PD-1 mAb blocking binding of PD-L1 or PD-L2 to PD-1. Tebotelimab (also known as MGD013) is a humanized Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent DART® protein that binds to both PD-1 and LAG-3, inhibiting their respective ligand binding. We previously reported that a CTX-free regimen of M+PD-1 blockade was well tolerated in GEJ/GC patients, and induced a 44% objective response rate (ORR) in a double-positive biomarker population. This was 2- to 3-fold greater than in historical controls with checkpoint inhibitors alone. This registration-directed trial assesses efficacy, safety, and tolerability of M+checkpoint inhibition ± CTX in metastatic/locally advanced, treatment-naïve, HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. Methods: This is a 2-cohort, adaptive open-label phase 2/3 study (NCT04082364). The first single arm, CTX-free cohort A, evaluates M+retifanlimab in HER2+ (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+) and PD-L1+ (excluding microsatellite instability high) patients. After 40 patients are evaluated for response/safety, additional patients will be enrolled if the threshold for continuation is met. In randomized cohort B, HER2+ (IHC 3+ or 2+/fluorescent in situ hybridization+) patients are enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. Part 1 of cohort B randomizes patients to 1 of 4 arms (50 patients each): control arm (T+CTX) or 1 of 3 experimental arms (M+CTX; M+CTX+retifanlimab; M+CTX+tebotelimab). CTX is investigator’s choice XELOX or mFOLFOX-6. Part 2 of cohort B consists of control (T+CTX) vs 1 experimental arm (M+CTX) + either retifanlimab or tebotelimab, depending on results from part 1; with 250 patients each. The primary efficacy endpoint for cohort A (both parts) is ORR per RECIST 1.1; for cohort B part 2 it is overall survival. Clinical trial information: NCT04082364.

348 Background: The proportion of females in medicine is increasing (approx. 50% in medical school/workforce), but disparities in female authorship in oncology research publications exist; female corresponding authorship reportedly ranges from 7.2-39.1% in oncology clinical trials (Ludmir et al 2019). This study aimed to describe and assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship in later phase systemic clinical trials in BTC and to identify any changes over time. Methods: Embase/Medline were used to identify final primary trial publications in BTC (2000-2020) (excluding phase I (PI) (expected to move to later phase), mixed tumour site trials, reviews, editorials and trial-in-progress publications). Gender was determined by inspection of names, google search and author communication. Chi-square tests and log regression were used to assess factors associated with female first and senior authorship, including changes over time (STATA16). Results: Of 501 publications, 163 met inclusion criteria; 80% single-arm PII and 15% and 5% randomised PII and PIII respectively; 73% enrolled ≤50 patients. Tumour primary sites were all BTC: 86%, cholangiocarcinoma: 8%, gallbladder cancer: 6%; 80% involved chemotherapy, 13% targeted therapy and 5% localised/systemic combinations; 65% were in first-line (1L) advanced setting, 17% post 1L, 13% advanced non-specified and 5% neo-adjuvant/adjuvant. Forty-eight percent received industry funding and 65% met primary end-point. Sixty-four percent were published post ABC-02 (Valle et al 2010). Publication impact factor (IF) was ≤5 in 50% and >20 in 12%. Median number of authors in all publications was 11. Geographic location of all first and senior authors were Asia (42%/42%), Europe (29%/29%), USA (24%/22%) and other (4%/6%), respectively. Median individual trial female author representation was 25%; there were no female authors in 12% of trials. Overall, female first and senior author representation was 21% and 11%, respectively. Median position of first female author was second. In publications with IF ≤20 and >20, there were 22% and 16% female first and 13% and 0% female senior authors, respectively. The phase of trial, journal IF, industry funding, or whether met primary end-point did not impact female first or senior author representation (all P>.05). There were more female senior authors associated with “other” geographic locations (40% in 10 trials) (P=.016) vs Asia (7%), Europe (8%) and USA (14%). There were no significant changes in female first or senior author representation over time (‘00-05: 21%/18%, ‘06-10: 27%/5%, ‘11-15: 15%/15%, ‘16-20: 22%/9%, P=.738, and P=.508 respectively). Conclusions: Female first and senior author representation in later phase systemic clinical trial publications in BTC is low and has not changed significantly over time. The underlying reasons for this imbalance need to be better understood and addressed.