Citations

Importance In a phase 2 randomized clinical trial, high-dose vitamin D 3 added to standard treatment improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard-dose vitamin D 3 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Objective To determine if high-dose vitamin D 3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with previously untreated mCRC. Design, Setting, and Participants Double-blind phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolling 455 patients with previously untreated mCRC, conducted in the US through the National Clinical Trials Network from October 2019 to December 2022 (database freeze: July 15, 2024). Interventions mFOLFOX6 (modified FOLFOX6 [5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin]) or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab every 2 weeks with either high-dose vitamin D 3 (8000 IU daily × 14 days as loading dose followed by 4000 IU daily) or standard-dose vitamin D 3 (400 IU daily) until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was PFS assessed by the unstratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included objective response rate, overall survival, and toxicity. Prespecified subgroup analyses of PFS were performed according to known prognostic factors. Results Among 455 randomized patients (median age, 59 years; 181 [40%] female) with median follow-up 20 months, the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D 3 (n = 228) was 11.8 months (95% CI, 10.3-13.3) vs 10.3 months (95% CI, 9.4-12.2) for standard-dose vitamin D 3 (n = 227) (1-sided log-rank P = .25). There were no significant differences in objective response rate between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D 3 (51% [95% CI, 44%-58%] vs 44% [95% CI, 37%-50%], respectively; P = .12), or in overall survival (median, 25.6 vs 27.0 months; 1-sided log-rank P = .66). There were no clinically meaningful differences in the most common grade 3 or greater adverse events between the high- and standard-dose groups, including neutropenia (n = 67 [32%] vs n = 62 [30%]) and hypertension (n = 42 [20%] vs n = 49 [23%]) or in incidence of vitamin D–associated toxicities. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with previously untreated mCRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D 3 , vs standard-dose vitamin D 3 , to standard chemotherapy plus bevacizumab did not improve PFS. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04094688

PURPOSE Adherence to operative standards and thorough documentation of surgical technique are critical, particularly in multidisciplinary clinical trials. We sought to evaluate variability in the performance and documentation of oncologically relevant aspects of technical surgery among patients enrolled in Alliance A021501, a phase 2 National Clinical Trials Network randomized clinical trial of neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS We reviewed the primary operative and pathology reports of all enrolled patients who underwent complete pancreatic resection. Operative techniques and pathologic end points with potential to influence recurrence and survival were evaluated. RESULTS Fifty-one of 126 study participants (40.5%) underwent complete pancreatectomy. The extent of lymphadenectomy was documented in 36 (70.6%) operative reports, and 5 (9.8%) reports outlined the specific lymph node stations removed. Periadventitial dissection of the superior mesenteric artery was described in 25 of 50 (50.0%) operative reports. Immediate histopathologic analysis of the hepatic duct and pancreatic parenchyma margins was documented in 29 of 50 (58.0%) and 32 of 49 (65.3%) reports, respectively, and presence or absence of residual disease following resection was documented in 9 of 51 (17.6%) reports. Specimen orientation was documented in 19 of 51 (37.3%) pathology reports, and 30 of 49 (61.2%) pathology reports stated the distance between the tumor and final SMA margin. CONCLUSION Even in this rigorously controlled, multicenter, randomized pancreatic cancer clinical trial, performance of key elements of technical surgery was inconsistent, and documentation was incomplete. Standardization of technique and documentation in clinical trials and within clinical practice should be addressed to improve quality assurance and trial interpretability.

4178 Background: In the CABINET trial, CABO significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated extrapancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET) (Chan et al., NEJM, 2025). Here we report outcomes according to functional status based on NET hormone secretion. Methods: Pts with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) before registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy not including somatostatin analogs (SSA). Pts with functional NET due to hormone secretion and non-functional NET were included. In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we analyzed PFS by blinded independent central review and adverse events for pts receiving CABO vs PB based on functional status. Cox regression models were used with stratification on primary tumor site (epNET vs pNET). Subset analyses to evaluate treatment arm differences were conducted in pts with functional and non-functional tumors. Due to small numbers, separate results for those with unknown functional status are not included. Results: Of the total 298 pts enrolled in both cohorts, 74 had a functional NET (CABO, n = 47; PB, n = 27); 179 had a non-functional NET (CABO, n = 123; PB, n = 56); 45 had unknown functional status (CABO, n = 28; PB, n = 17). For functional NET, primary tumor sites were GI tract (n = 50; 68%), pancreas (n = 15; 20%), unknown (n = 4; 5%), lung (n = 3; 4%), and thymus (n = 2; 3%). Secreted hormones that were reported included serotonin (55%), somatostatin (18%), gastrin (16%), glucagon (4%), insulin (4%), ACTH (1%), and vasoactive intestinal peptide (1%). For non-functional NET, primary tumor sites were pancreas (n = 75; 42%), GI tract (n = 42; 23%), lung (n = 30; 17%), unknown (n = 17; 9%), thymus (n = 8; 4%), and other (n = 7; 4%). Concurrent SSA was received by 91% and 53% of pts with functional and non-functional NET, respectively. In both subgroups, CABO was associated with improved PFS compared to PB (for functional NET: stratified hazard ratio [sHR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.82, P = 0.012; for non-functional NET: sHR, 0.26; 95% CI: 0.17-0.41, P < 0.001). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) attributed to CABO vs PB in pts with functional NET included hypertension (21% vs 11%), diarrhea (9% vs 11%), and fatigue (2% vs 15%); in pts with non-functional NET, grade 3/4 AEs included hypertension (21% vs 4%) and fatigue (18% vs 4%). Conclusions: Subset analyses of the CABINET trial suggest that CABO is an effective treatment option for pts with functional and non-functional epNET or pNET. Efficacy and safety results for pts with functional or non-functional NET treated with CABO are consistent with results for the entire trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

3626 Background: For patients (pts) with dMMR stage III colon cancer, the addition of atezolizumab (atezo) to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) significantly improved disease-free survival in ATOMIC (NCT02912559). Here we present HRQOL data. Methods: Pts with surgically resected stage III dMMR colon cancer were randomized (1:1) to receive mFOLFOX6 + atezo (840 mg IV q2 weeks) for 12 cycles (6 months [mo]) followed by atezo monotherapy for 13 cycles (12 mo total) versus mFOLFOX6 for 12 cycles. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the FACT-C (includes FACT-G), FACT/GOG-NTX, EQ5D-5L, and PRO-CTCAE. Optional participation was by paper surveys at trial registration, prior to treatment cycles 4 and 7, and at 6, 12, and 36 mo after registration. Mean changes from baseline (BL) were compared between treatment arms using general linear mixed models (negative mean changes indicate worsening). At 6 mo, a two-sided 95% confidence interval excluding a difference of 1.9 points (FACT/GOG-NTX) and 6 points (FACT-C Trial Outcome Index [TOI]) favoring the mFOLFOX6 arm would indicate non-inferiority of the addition of atezo. Rates of side effect bother (FACT-G item GP5) and pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE (composite scores, baseline adjusted) were compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 712 randomized pts, 581 (285 atezo+mFOLFOX6; 296 mFOLFOX6) consented to participate in the survey. Pts completed 2398/3021 (79%) of expected surveys across all time points (1218/1489 [82%] atezo+mFOLFOX6; 1180/1532 [77%] mFOLFOX6). The difference in mean changes from BL between arms indicated non-inferiority of the addition of atezo at 6 mo (table); differences remained small at 12 and 36 mo. No significant differences in mean changes from BL between arms were found at 6, 12, or 36 mo for any scale. At 6 mo, 16% vs 20% of pts in each arm reported at least “quite a bit” of side effect bother (p=0.34), favoring atezo. Across cycles, atezo was associated with higher rates of pt-reported itchy skin (62% vs 48%), cough (53% vs 43%), and shortness of breath (51% vs 41%) [all p<0.05]. Conclusions: Addition of atezo to mFOLFOX6 slightly increases pt-reported AEs, but its effect on HRQOL is minimal and not clinically meaningful. Results support tolerability of atezo+mFOLFOX6 as standard of care adjuvant treatment for pts with dMMR stage III colon cancer. Support: UG1CA189823, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Genentech, a member of the Roche group; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559 . Scale Mo Mean change from BL – atezo+mFOLFOX6 Mean change from BL – mFOLFOX6 Diff (95% CI) FACT/GOG-NTX 6 -10.0 -10.6 0.6 (-0.8, 2.1) 12 -8.0 -9.4 1.4 (-0.2, 2.9) 36 -7.2 -6.9 -0.4 (-2.1, 1.4) FACT-C TOI 6 -4.1 -2.5 -1.6 (-3.7, 0.6) 12 2.1 1.8 0.3 (-1.9, 2.6) 36 0.7 1.8 -1.1 (-3.7, 1.5)

Abstract Background This phase 1 study aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of rucaparib (RUB), a poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, combined with liposomal irinotecan (nal‐IRI) and 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) in metastatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. RUB targets DNA repair pathways, showing efficacy in tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, such as BRCA mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy with irinotecan, but overlapping toxicities pose challenges. Methods Eighteen patients with metastatic GI cancers, who previously progressed on at least one systemic therapy, were enrolled. A novel sequential dosing regimen, informed by nal‐IRI pharmacokinetic analysis, was used. Twelve patients were evaluable for dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT) and 12 for response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 criteria. Results The MTD was established as RUB 600 mg twice daily, nal‐IRI 50 mg/m 2 , and 5‐FU 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 hours. The objective response rate (ORR) was 33% (4 of 12), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 75% (9 of 12). Common grade 3 adverse events included diarrhea (33%) and neutropenia (25%), with no grade 4/5 events. Responses were notable in patients with somatic ATM and BRCA mutations, especially those with prior platinum exposure. No DLTs occurred at the recommended phase 2 dose. Conclusions This optimized dosing schedule successfully established the MTD for RUB with nal‐IRI and 5‐FU, overcoming prior challenges with PARP inhibitor and irinotecan combinations. The promising ORR and DCR support further evaluation of this regimen in advanced GI malignancies.

PURPOSE Immunotherapy has demonstrated limited efficacy in the treatment of microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to date. We evaluated whether an off-the-shelf, multipeptide vaccine, PolyPEPI1018, in conjunction with standard chemotherapy can induce broad antitumor immune responses, potentially improving disease control in refractory mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS This single-arm, open-label study enrolled adults with MSS mCRC who had progressed after ≤2 previous lines of therapy for metastatic disease. PolyPEPI1018 was administered subcutaneously to four anatomical sites on days 1 and 15 and TAS-102 orally twice a day on days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were treated for seven cycles or until disease progression. The primary end point was safety. Secondary end points were overall response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immune and genetic correlates. RESULTS Fifteen patients were enrolled; 80% had liver metastases and 67% had KRAS mutations. Adverse events (AEs) related to PolyPEPI1018 were grade 1 and 2 local skin reactions (n = 14). Grade 3 AEs (n = 15) at least possibly related to treatment were fatigue, decreased lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, and diarrhea. None had objective tumor response; the disease control rate was 53.3%. The median PFS (mPFS) was 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2 to 6.1) months and the median OS (mOS) was 8.7 (95% CI, 6.4 to 15.2) months. In post hoc subgroup analyses, patients without active liver metastasis had improved mPFS of 9.7 months and mOS of 14.8 months. In addition, patients who were predicted to have broader immune responses to vaccine based on human leukocyte antigen genotype had longer mOS (10.3 v 4.6 months, hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.17]). CONCLUSION The addition of PolyPEPI1018 to TAS-102 was safe and induced immunological responses that were associated with improved clinical outcomes. Further investigation of this chemo-immunotherapeutic is warranted.

Background/Objectives: Results from a well-designed trial provide evidence to support approval of truly effective treatments or discontinuation of ineffective treatments. However, the information available at the time of trial design may be limited which may lead to underpowered trials. This work aims to evaluate the impact of design assumption misspecifications on the statistical power of randomized trials with survival outcomes. Methods: The impact of the design assumption misspecifications on statistical power of four different statistical methods was investigated in a simulation study. The methods include the log-rank test, MaxCombo test, the test of difference in survival probability, and test of difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST). The deviations considered include the survival rate in the control arm, the expected treatment effect in terms of magnitude and pattern, accrual rate, and drop-out rate. Results: Deviations in the control arm’s survival distribution have no impact on the power of the log-rank and MaxCombo tests but it affects the trial duration since trials designed with these tests require the total number of events to be met before the final analysis can be conducted. Misspecified treatment effect has similar effect on the statistical power of all four methods. When the proportional hazards assumption is misspecified, the RMST is more robust with a larger early treatment effect, while the survival probability and the MaxCombo tests are more robust with a larger late treatment effect and crossing hazards. Conclusions: Selecting the appropriate statistical tests to design a trial depends on the goal of the trial, the mechanism of action of the experimental treatment, the survival quantity of clinical interest, and the pattern of the expected treatment effect. The final design should be based on assumptions that are as accurate as possible, and the potential impacts of deviations from these assumptions on the trial’s statistical power should be carefully considered.

Abstract Background FGFR alterations are known to be driver alterations in several tumor types. We aimed to assess the efficacy of pemigatinib, an oral FGFR1-3 inhibitor, in patients with metastatic or unresectable colorectal cancer whose tumors harbored FGF/FGFR alterations. Patients and Methods The ACCRU-GI-1701 is a single-arm phase II trial which enrolled patients with previously treated FGF/FGFR-altered metastatic colorectal cancer to receive oral pemigatinib daily in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint is objective response. Secondary endpoints include clinical benefit, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04096417). Results Of the 14 patients included in the interim analysis, the objective response rate as well as clinical benefit rate were 0%. Given these results, the trial closed to enrollment after stage one due to futility. A total of 42.9% of patients had at least one grade 3 or higher AE, the most common being anemia and fatigue. Conclusion Pemigatinib monotherapy did not lead to objective responses in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer harboring FGF/FGFR alterations, although it was overall relatively well tolerated with no new safety signals. Notably, 93% (n = 13) of patients had only FGF/FGFR mutations and amplifications; one patient had an FGFR3-WHSC1 fusion at a low cfDNA percentage (0.02%).