Citations

Abstract Purpose: Rearranged during transfection (RET) alterations are oncogenic drivers across solid tumors. Selective RET inhibitors (SRI) selpercatinib and pralsetinib have transformed outcomes for patients with RET-altered malignancies. Limited knowledge exists on genomic mechanisms of resistance to SRI. Experimental Design: We established “RETgistry,” a global consortium of patients with advanced RET-altered solid tumors who received SRI and underwent postprogression tissue or plasma biopsies assessed by next-generation sequencing. Frequencies of secondary RET resistance mutations and acquired non-RET gene alterations were determined. Progression-free survival (PFS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) on first SRI were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: RETgistry included 109 patients with RET-altered advanced solid tumors (lung, n = 94; thyroid, n = 15) who underwent 143 post-SRI progression biopsies (tissue, 91; plasma, 52). The median PFS and TTD were 13.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.1–16.6] and 17.3 months (95% CI, 14–20.2), respectively. Secondary RET mutations were detected in 20 (14%) biopsies [lung cancer, 15 (12.4%) and thyroid carcinoma, 5 (22.7%)]. Common acquired off-target alterations involved MET (18.2%; amplification, 15%), TP53 (8.2%), APC (7.6%), KRAS (7.1%), KEAP1 (5.9%), and CDKN2A/B (5.3%). MET alterations were enriched in post-SRI versus pre-SRI specimens (full cohort, 17.6% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.022; lung cancer, 19.1% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.022). Conclusions: The prevalence of secondary RET mutations after SRI was low, underscoring a greater role for off-target resistance. Recurrent acquired alterations involving tumor suppressor genes or upstream regulators of MAPK and PI3K pathways were identified, most commonly MET amplification. Continued efforts to characterize SRI resistance biology are critical to guide the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

9065 Background: Rearranged during transfection ( RET) gene alterations are the oncogenic driver in diverse tumor types, including RET fusions identified in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). While RET-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) selpercatinib and pralsetinib are effective, acquired drug resistance remains a challenge. Here, we report the initial results from the RETgistry, an international consortium aimed at elucidating mechanisms of resistance to RET TKIs across RET-altered solid tumors. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis performed across 16 institutions. Patients (pts) were eligible if they had advanced solid tumor harboring an oncogenic RET alteration, received ≥1 RET TKI with disease progression, and underwent resistant tumor or liquid biopsy for next-generation sequencing (NGS). Results: A total of 103 time-distinct biopsies (62 tissue, 30 plasma, 11 paired tissue/plasma) were included in analysis, obtained from 88 pts with progression on a RET-selective TKI [selpercatinib (n = 70), pralsetinib (n = 14), selpercatinib and pralsetinib sequentially (n = 4)]. Pts had the following tumor types: 72 NSCLC (69% KIF5B-RET, 21% CCDC6-RET, 10% other RET fusion), 13 medullary thyroid cancer (TC) (54% RET M918T, 46% other RET mutation), and 2 papillary and 1 anaplastic TC (all, RET fusion). Median age was 58 (range, 21-86); 48% were male with 89% never/light smokers. Median duration of RET TKI preceding biopsies [first-line, n = 32 (31%); second-line, n = 42 (41%); third-/greater-line, n = 29 (28%)] was 16.5 months (mos) (95% CI, 14.0-19.6); median PFS was 14.1 mos (95% CI, 9.3-17.0). Resistant biopsies were obtained at median 15.0 mos from TKI initiation (range, 1.8-58.8). Acquired RET mutations were detected in 14 (14%), most common being G810 substitutions in 12 (12%). Potential off-target resistance gene alterations identified in 43 cases (42%) included MET amplification (14%), BRAF V600E or fusion (2%), KRAS gain or mutation (5%), ERBB2 amplification (2%), EGFR amplification (3%), ROS1 fusion (1%), and activating PIK3CA mutation or PTEN loss (4%). No resistant lung cancer biopsy demonstrated small cell transformation. The duration of TKI therapy (HR 0.64, p = 0.11) or PFS (HR 0.75, p = 0.33) did not differ according to the presence of on-target vs off-target resistance. NGS analyses of pre-RET-selective TKI tumors (n = 92) revealed frequent co-occurring alterations in TP53 (29%) and CDKN2A/B (12%). Conclusions: On-target resistance to RET inhibition due to acquired RET mutations was less common than off-target resistance, identified in 14%. The majority of RET TKI resistance is mediated by off-target mechanisms such as bypass receptor tyrosine kinase activation. Further studies are warranted to enable the development of therapeutic strategies to address resistance in pts with RET-altered tumors. The RETgistry accrual and data analyses continue.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

9002 Background: KRAS is a key mediator of the RAS/MAPK signaling cascade that promotes cellular growth and proliferation. KRASG12C mutation occurs in ̃14% of NSCLC. Adagrasib, an investigational agent, is a KRASG12C inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRASG12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib is optimized for favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, including long half-life (̃24 h), dose-dependent PK, and central nervous system penetration; it has demonstrated objective response and favorable tolerability in the Phase 1/1b setting. Methods: KRYSTAL-1 (NCT03785249) is a multicohort Phase 1/2 study evaluating adagrasib as monotherapy or in combination regimens in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRASG12C mutation. Here we report the first disclosure from all patients enrolled in Cohort A, a Phase 2 cohort with registrational intent, evaluating adagrasib given 600 mg orally BID in patients with NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/L1 therapy. Study objectives include evaluating efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]), safety, PK, and exploratory correlative analyses. Objective tumor response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results: As of the 15 October 2021 data cutoff, 116 patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation were enrolled and treated, with a median follow-up of 12.5 months. Baseline characteristics include median age 64 years, 65% female, and 15.5%/83.6% with ECOG PS 0/1; 98.3% of patients received adagrasib following prior treatment with immunotherapy and chemotherapy, with a median of 2 prior systemic therapies. The ORR (by BICR) was 42.9% (48/112) and the disease control rate was 79.5% (89/112); 31 patients remain on treatment. Median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2–13.8), median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7–8.4), median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2–NE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 97.4% of patients, grade ≥3 TRAEs in 45.7%, 2 grade 5 TRAEs, and 8 (6.9%) TRAEs led to discontinuation. The most commonly reported (≥25%) TRAEs (any grade) were diarrhea (62.9%), nausea (62.1%), vomiting (47.4%), fatigue (40.5%), ALT/AST increased (27.6%/25%), blood creatinine increased (25.9%); the most commonly reported (≥5%) TRAEs (grade 3/4) were lipase increased (6%) and anemia (5.2%). Additional subgroup analyses will be presented, including selected demographics, molecular markers and sites of metastases. Conclusions: Adagrasib is well tolerated and demonstrates promising efficacy in pretreated patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation. A Phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC is ongoing (NCT04685135). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249.

Background The landmark study of durvalumab as consolidation therapy in NSCLC patients (PACIFIC trial) demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with locally advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with durvalumab (immunotherapy, IO) therapy after chemoradiotherapy (CRT). In clinical practice in the USA, durvalumab continues to be used in patients across all levels of programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression. While immune therapies have shown promise in several cancers, some patients either do not respond to the therapy or have cancer recurrence after an initial response. It is not clear so far who will benefit of this therapy or what the mechanisms behind treatment failure are. Methods A total of 133 patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC who underwent durvalumab after CRT or CRT alone were included. Patients treated with durvalumab IO after CRT were randomly split into training (D1=59) and test (D2=59) sets and the remaining 15 patients treated with CRT alone were grouped in D3. Radiomic textural patterns from within and around the target nodules were extracted. A radiomic risk score (RRS) was built and was used to predict PFS and overall survival (OS). Patients were divided into high-risk and low-risk groups based on median RRS. Results RRS was found to be significantly associated with PFS in D1 (HR=2.67, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.13, p<0.05, C-index=0.78) and D2 (HR=2.56, 95% CI 1.63 to 4, p<0.05, C-index=0.73). Similarly, RRS was associated with OS in D1 (HR=1.89, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.75, p<0.05, C-index=0.67) and D2 (HR=2.14, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.6, p<0.05, C-index=0.69), respectively. RRS was found to be significantly associated with PFS in high PD-L1 (HR=3.01, 95% CI 1.41 to 6.45, p=0.0044) and low PD-L1 (HR=2.74, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.14, p=1.77e-06) groups. Moreover, RRS was not significantly associated with OS in the high PD-L1 group (HR=2.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 4.4, p=0.054) but was significantly associated with OS in the low PD-L1 group (HR=1.61, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.28, p=0.0062). In addition, RRS was significantly associated with PFS (HR=2.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 6.52, p=0.019, C-index=0.77) and OS (HR=2.62, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.51, p=0.01, C-index=0.77) in D3, respectively. Conclusions Tumor radiomics of pretreatment CT images from patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC were prognostic of PFS and OS to CRT followed by durvalumab IO and CRT alone.