Citations

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

TPS3675 Background: Multi-agent chemotherapy regimens (eg, mFOLFOX6) ± anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-epidermal growth factor regimens are currently the standard of care for patients (pts) with mCRC without targetable mutations. However, the 5-year survival rate remains low at approximately 16% (SEER, 2025). The addition of biological therapies (eg, bevacizumab [bev], an anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has demonstrated a synergistic antitumor effect in solid tumors. However, ICI monotherapy has limited activity in mismatch repair proficient (pMMR)/microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC. Simultaneous bispecific targeting of programmed death 1 (PD-1) and VEGF in conjunction with cytotoxic chemotherapy has the potential to enhance antitumor activity. PF-08634404 is a fully human immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) bispecific antibody targeting PD-1 and VEGF. A phase 2 study of PF-08634404 with XELOX or mFOLFOX6 demonstrated promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in first-line (1L) mCRC (Xu X, ESMO 2025; Abstract 796P). Methods: Symbiotic-GI-03 (NCT07222800) is an ongoing, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of 1L PF-08634404 + mFOLFOX6 vs bev + mFOLFOX6. Inclusion criteria are age ≥18 y; mCRC with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1; no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease; ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Pts with BRAF V600E-mutant or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) CRC, active central nervous system metastases, or clinically significant risk of hemorrhage/fistula will be excluded. Approximately 800 pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive PF-08634404 + mFOLFOX6 or bev + mFOLFOX6 until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death. Randomization will be stratified by region (North America, Europe, or rest of world), RAS status (mutant or wildtype), and presence of liver metastasis (yes or no). The dual primary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival; for each, a stratified log-rank test will be used to compare arms. Hazard ratios with corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs will be estimated using a stratified Cox proportional hazards model, and medians will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with corresponding 2-sided 95% CIs calculated using the log(-log) method. Secondary endpoints include PFS by investigator, objective response rate, duration of response, PFS after next-line therapy, safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and patient-reported outcomes. Enrollment began in December 2025. Clinical trial information: NCT07222800 .

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

608 Background: Tinengotinib, a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR , potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant/gatekeeper mutations in pre-clinical models and exhibited antitumor activity in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) in phase 1/2 trials. Here we present the overall survival (OS) data and biomarker correlative analysis from a phase 2 clinical trial of tinengotinib in CCA. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy with ECOG PS 0-1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD across four Cohorts: A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFR i); A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFR i; B: FGFR alteration(s) without FGFR2 fusion(s); C: FGFR wild-type. Efficacy was evaluated per RECIST v1.1 and safety was assessed by CTCAE v5.0. Genomic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were assessed by Foundation Medicine NGS panel at baseline, C3D1 and EOT. Planned correlative analyses of response (PR+SD>6 months) and PFS in pt subgroups based on ctDNA mutational status were performed. Results: 55 eligible pts were enrolled (18 in A1, 11 in A2, 13 in B, 13 in C) with median age 61.0 [range 24-81] years, ECOG PS 0 in 50.9% pts, 56.4% female, and 60.0% with ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. Among 42 pts with FGFR alterations, 78.4% had ≥ 1 prior FGFR i, and 97.6% had prior chemotherapy. Median follow up time was 8.6 months (0.4-30.5). The median OS (months) was 17.1 (95%CI 7.5-19.5) in A1; not reached (95%CI 9.6, -) in A2; 18.0 (95%CI 9.6, -) in A1+A2; not reached (95%CI 8.0, -) in B; 6.5 (95%CI 4.8-16.4) in C. The OS rate in A, B and C was 100%, 91.7% and 75% at month 3; 83.7%, 83.3% and 66.7% at month 6, and 65.8%, 55.6% and 23.8% at month 12. Partial response was observed in 26% (10/39) of evaluable FGFR-altered pts (A1+A2+B). The safety profile was consistent with previous reports. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were hypertension (63.6%) and diarrhea (47.3%). Baseline ctDNA results were available in 46 pts, 35 in cohorts A+B and 11 in C. A positive correlation was shown in MED12 mutation vs response (P=0.03476). BCOR and ARID1A mutation were found to be negatively associated with PFS (P=0.01366 and P=0.0437). Acquired/secondary mutations at baseline were observed in cohort A, including V564F/I (3/24 and 5/24) and N549K/H (5/24 and 5/24); favorable anti-tumor activity was noted despite these resistant mutations, consistent with preclinical data. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has shown promising anti-tumor efficacy in CCA pts with FGFR fusion after prior FGFR i and in those with primary FGFR mutations. An ongoing randomized phase III study will investigate tinengotinib vs. chemotherapy in FGFR inhibitor refractory CCA (NCT05948475). Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

Abstract Background: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being established as a novel approach to screen for multiple cancer types with one test. A blood-based MCED test using cell-free DNA targeted methylation patterns to detect a shared cancer signal and predict a cancer signal origin (CSO) has demonstrated feasibility. An initial return of results study (PATHFINDER; NCT04241796) reported performance of a refined version of the MCED test, including a 43.1% positive predictive value (PPV), 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV), 99.5% specificity, and 88.0% CSO accuracy. To build on this work, the PATHFINDER 2 study (NCT05155605) will evaluate safety and performance of the MCED test in larger, more diverse populations. Methods: PATHFINDER 2 is a prospective, multicenter, interventional study. Participants ≥50 years of age will be enrolled, with specific targets to improve diversity (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and few exclusions due to comorbid conditions. Exclusion criteria include current clinical suspicion of cancer or recent cancer/treatment (within 3 years). Participants will undergo blood draw for MCED testing, followed by return of results (cancer signal detection and CSO) to the investigator and diagnostic evaluations if a cancer signal is detected. A confirmatory PET-CT scan will be performed when CSO-directed workups do not result in a cancer diagnosis. Participants will be followed for approximately 3 years. Primary endpoints include 1) MCED test safety in terms of diagnostic testing triggered by a positive result (number/type of procedures and adverse events) and 2) test performance (PPV, NPV, specificity, sensitivity, CSO accuracy, cancer detection rate and number needed to screen). Secondary endpoints include participant reported outcomes (eg, anxiety), utilization of guideline-recommended cancer screening, and cancer detection rate of confirmatory PET-CT, amongst others. The study plans to enroll approximately 35,000 participants across North America. Sites were selected based on geographic location, catchment area demographics, and practice setting (academic vs non-academic). Enrollment targets for age, sex and race/ethnicity (White [non-Hispanic] 72%; Hispanic or Latino 11%; African American or Black 11%; Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6%; American Indian/Alaska Native 1%) were derived from US Census data. Strategies to promote diverse recruitment include translation of participant-facing documents across multiple languages, participant and healthcare provider educational material, and site-led community outreach campaigns. MCED testing is an emerging, potentially paradigm-changing strategy in cancer screening, and PATHFINDER 2 is designed to characterize the safety, performance, and clinical implementation of the MCED test as a screening tool in a broad and representative population. Citation Format: Karthik V. Giridhar, Michael J. Demeure, Raymond H. Kim, Justin A. Chen, Shirish Gadgeel, Dax Kurbegov, Margarita Lopatin, Roland Matthews, Marc Matrana, Charles McDonnell, Donald Richards, Benjamin Rybicki, Gretchen Stipec, Nima Nabavizadeh. PATHFINDER 2: A prospective study to evaluate safety and performance of a multi-cancer early detection test in a population setting [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4784.

TPS587 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is characterized by generally poor prognoses with limited treatment options. Systemic chemotherapy usually begins with gemcitabine, platinum agents, and a checkpoint inhibitor followed by 5-FU and oxaliplatin, irinotecan or a taxane. Presently, there is no consensus second-line therapy for patients with BTC. The DLL/Notch signaling pathway has been described to be a major driver of cholangiocarcinogenesis and VEGF-A overexpression has been reported in BTC tumors, correlating with stage, metastasis, and prognosis of the disease. CTX-009 is a recombinant bispecific antibody that binds both delta-like ligand-4 (DLL4) and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). The antibody simultaneously inhibits the DLL4-Notch 1 and VEGF A-VEGF receptor signaling pathways. Methods: COMPANION-002 (CTX-009 -002) is an open-label, randomized, controlled study in patients in second line advanced or metastatic BTC. To be eligible, patients must have radiologically documented progression after a prior gemcitabine and platinum containing chemotherapy regimen as first line therapy for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic disease. 150 patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either CTX-009 plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. The stratification factors to be used at randomization include stage (locally advanced vs. metastatic), anatomic subsite of primary tumor (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs. other, i.e. extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status (0 vs. 1). Patients will be treated in 28-day cycles, with CTX-009 administered at 10 mg/kg IV on Day 1 and 15, and paclitaxel administered at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15. The patients randomized to paclitaxel arm can crossover after disease progression if selection criteria continue to be met. The primary objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of CTX-009 in combination with paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel alone, as measured by Overall Response Rate (ORR) assessed by an Independent Central Radiology (ICR) review. Key secondary objectives include overall survival, progression-free survival, and duration of response. Clinical trial information: 251040.

434 Background: Tinengotinib is a spectrum-selective multi-kinase inhibitor with unique binding properties to FGFR, potently inhibited FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement and acquired resistant mutations in pre-clinical models and in phase I trials that included cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts). Here we present the efficacy and safety of tinengotinib in a phase II clinical trial. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced/metastatic CCA who had received ≥ 1 prior systemic chemotherapy therapy and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were treated with tinengotinib 10 mg QD. Four cohorts included: Cohort A1: FGFR2 fusion(s) with primary progression on previous FGFR inhibitor ( FGFRi), A2: FGFR2 fusion(s) with progression after prior response to FGFRi (acquired resistance); B: non-fusion FGFR alteration(s): C: FGFR wild-type ( FGFRwt). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. CTCAE V5.0 was used for safety assessments. Results: As of 7Aug2023, 48 pts with CCA were enrolled, 13 in Cohort A1, 10 in A2, 12 in B, 13 in C. Median age 61.5 [range 25-81] years old, 41.7% male, 58.3% had ≥ 3 lines of prior therapy. ECOG PS 0 in 47.9% pts. Among 35 pts with FGFR alterations, 80.0% had ≥ 1 prior FGFRi therapy, and 97.1% had prior chemotherapy. Forty (40) pts were efficacy evaluable. In A1, 1 out of 11 pts (9.1%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 31.8%. In A2, 3 out of 8 pts (37.5%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 40.7%, 47.0% and 54.6%. In B, 3 out of 9 pts (33.3%) achieved PR with tumor reduction of 36.5%, 48.6%, and 60.6%. No PR was observed in C. Overall DCR was 94.7% (18/19) in FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement pts (A1+A2), 88.9% (8/9) in other FGFR alterations pts (B), and 75% (9/12) in FGFRwt pts (C). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.26 months (95%CI, 2.86-9.10) in A1+A2, 5.98 months (95%CI, 1.87-NA) in B and 3.84 months (95% CI, 1.84-4.80) in C. Among 48 treated pts, treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 45 (93.8%) pts, 14 (29.2%) in G1-2, 29 (60.4%) in G3 and 2 (4.2%) in G4. The most common G3 TRAEs were hypertension in 12 (25%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome in 3 (6.3%), diarrhea in 3 (6.3%) and stomatitis in 3 (6.3%). One subject had G4 increased TSH and G4 increased lipase, and another subject had G4 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome. No G5 TRAE was observed. Conclusions: Tinengotinib has promising clinical benefit for FGFR2 fusion CCA after prior FGFRi and for non-fusion FGFR alterations. Tinengotinib-related toxicities were manageable. An ongoing randomized, controlled phase III study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamic effect of Tinengotinib vs Physicians’ choice in subjects with FGFR2-altered refractory/relapsed CCA after prior chemotherapy and FGFRi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04919642 .

PURPOSE A multi-cancer detection test using a targeted methylation assay and machine learning classifiers was validated and optimized for screening in prospective, case-controlled Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02889978 ) substudy 3. Here, we report test performance in a subgroup of participants with symptoms suspicious for cancer to assess the test's ability to potentially facilitate efficient diagnostic evaluation in symptomatic individuals. METHODS We evaluated test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cancer signal origin [CSO] prediction accuracy) in participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) and noncancer with underlying medical conditions and among two subgroups (65 years and older and GI cancers). Overall survival (OS) of participants who had a cancer signal detected/not detected was compared with SEER-based expected survival. RESULTS A total of 2,036 cancer and 1,472 noncancer participants were included. Specificity was high in all noncancer participants (99.5% [95% CI, 98.4 to 99.8]). In participants with CPCs, the overall sensitivity was 64.3% (95% CI, 62.2 to 66.4) and the overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 90.3%. For GI cancers, the overall sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 80.6 to 87.1). In participants 65 years and older, test performance was similar to that of all participants. Individuals with cancers not detected had a significantly better OS than that expected from SEER ( P < .01). CONCLUSION This test detected a cancer signal with high specificity and CSO prediction accuracy and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic individuals, with especially high performance in participants with GI cancers. The survival analysis implied that the cancers not detected were less clinically aggressive than cancers detected by the test, providing prognostic insights to physicians. This multi-cancer detection test could facilitate efficient workup and stratify cancer risk in symptomatic individuals.

Abstract Background: T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor expressed on subsets of T-cells and natural killer (NK) cells. TIGIT inhibits T and NK cell function by binding to CD155 and CD112. SEA-TGT is an investigational human, nonfucosylated monoclonal antibody directed against TIGIT, blocking TIGIT's interaction with CD155 and CD112. SGNTGT-001 (NCT04254107) is a phase 1, open-label, multicenter study of SEA-TGT in patients (pts) with advanced malignancies (solid tumors and lymphomas). In this abstract, we present data from the dose-escalation phase (Part A). Methods: Pts received SEA-TGT ranging from 0.01 to 6.0 mg/kg of body weight intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of SEA-TGT and identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or the recommended dose and schedule of SEA-TGT. The optimal biological dose was defined using the Clinical Utility Index. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity. Antitumor activity was based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or the Lugano classification criteria with Lymphoma Response to Immunomodulatory Therapy Criteria. Results: From June 12, 2020, to October 5, 2022, 41 pts were enrolled (2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 7 pts in the 0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, and 6 mg/kg cohorts, respectively). Among the 39 pts who were treated 23 pts had solid tumors and 16 had lymphomas. The median number of prior therapies across all cohorts was 5. Treatment emergent adverse events of any grade were reported in 100% of pts, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade were reported in 69.2%. TRAEs seen in ≥10% of the pts were infusion-related reaction (38.5%), chills (25.6%), pyrexia (17.9%), fatigue (12.8%), maculopapular rash (12.8%), and rash (10.3%). Seven pts (17.9%) reported TRAEs grade ≥3, and rash (5.1%) was the most frequently reported. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs were reported. One dose-limiting toxicity, pruritic rash, was observed in 1 pt in the 6 mg/kg cohort, and MTD was not exceeded. Based on the PK and pharmacodynamic data, 1 mg/kg Q3W was selected as the optimal biological dose for the expansion cohorts. One partial response was observed in a pt with gastric cancer, and 2 partial metabolic responses were seen in a pt with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a pt with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusions: Overall, clinical data for SEA-TGT from the SGNTGT-001 trial suggest a manageable and tolerable safety profile. Preliminary antitumor activity warrants further clinical evaluation of SEA-TGT. SGNTGT-001 is ongoing and evaluating monotherapy and combination therapies. Citation Format: Elena Garralda Cabanas, Elisa Fontana, Honey Kumar Oberoi, Nataliya V. Uboha, Ecaterina E. Dumbrava, Emiliano Calvo, Giuseppe Curigliano, Diwakar Davar, Bridget K. Keenan, Vincent K. Lam, Sudhir Manda, Amitkuma Mehta, Anna Minchom, Alison Moskowitz, Ravi Paluri, Vincent Ribrag, Donald Richards, Lillian Siu, Paul Swiecicki, Trisha Wise-Draper, Jasmine Zain, Andres Forero-Torres, Ping Xu, Stephen Ansell. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of SGN-TGT monotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 2 (Clinical Trials and Late-Breaking Research); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(8_Suppl):Abstract nr CT265.

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.