Citations

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 .

LBA3500 Background: BREAKWATER (NCT04607421) is an open-label, global, randomized, phase 3 study evaluating first-line (1L) encorafenib + cetuximab (EC) ± chemotherapy (chemo) vs standard of care (SOC; chemo ± bevacizumab) in BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The study previously met one of its dual primary endpoints (EPs) demonstrating clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in the ORR subset. These results were the basis for the FDA accelerated approval of EC+mFOLFOX6 for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC, including in the 1L, under Project Frontrunner. Here, we report the primary analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) by BICR, updated interim analysis of OS, updated safety, and other analyses. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) with untreated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC; EC arm enrollment was closed after a protocol amendment. Dual primary EPs: ORR and PFS by BICR (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC); key secondary EP: OS (EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC). Results: 637 pts were randomized to EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or SOC. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced between arms. EC+mFOLFOX6 (data cutoff: Jan 6, 2025) demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS improvement vs SOC, meeting the other dual primary EP; HR=0.53 (95% CI 0.407, 0.677; P<0.0001); median PFS 12.8 vs 7.1 mo. OS was clinically meaningful and statistically significant vs SOC; HR=0.49 (95% CI 0.375, 0.632; P<0.0001); median OS 30.3 vs 15.1 mo. Median PFS and OS in the EC arm were 6.8 and 19.5 mo. These data and response data for all randomized pts are shown in the table. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 30%, 46%, and 39% of pts in the safety analysis set. Safety was consistent with that known for each agent. Conclusions: BREAKWATER demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant PFS and OS improvements with EC+mFOLFOX6 vs SOC and manageable toxicities. EC+mFOLFOX6 is potentially practice changing as the new SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04607421 . ECn=158 EC+mFOLFOX6n=236 SOCn=243 EC+mFOLFOX6vs SOCHR (95% CI)P-value a Median PFS b , mo (95% CI) 6.8(5.7, 8.3) 12.8(11.2, 15.9) 7.1(6.8, 8.5) 0.53 (0.407, 0.677) <0.0001 Median OS, mo (95% CI) 19.5(17.6, 22.5) 30.3(21.7, NE) 15.1(13.7, 17.7) 0.49 (0.375, 0.632)<0.0001 ORR, b % (95% CI) 45.6(38.0, 53.3) 65.7(59.4, 71.4) 37.4(31.6, 43.7) Median DOR b , mo (95% CI) c 7.0 (4.2, 11.6) 13.9 (10.9, 18.5) 10.8 (7.6, 13.4) DOR b ≥6 mo, n (%) c 29 (40.3) 110 (71.0) 38 (41.8) DOR b ≥12 mo, n (%) c 15 (20.8) 54 (34.8) 16 (17.6) Median time to response, b wk (range) c 6.6(4.3-86.4) 7.0(5.1-103.6) 7.3 (5.4-48.0) a 1-sided stratified log rank test. b By BICR. c Responders: n=72, n=155, and n=91. DOR, duration of response.

TPS268 Background: Among patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC, BRAF mutations occur in approximately 30%. MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF mutations are both associated with poor prognosis; in patients who have both biomarkers, poor prognosis is thought to be driven by the BRAF mutation. Pembrolizumab is indicated for the treatment of patients with MSI-H/dMMR unresectable or metastatic CRC (mCRC). The BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, an anti-EGFR antibody, is indicated for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Currently, there are no first-line treatment options indicated specifically for patients with both MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. To assess the safety and efficacy of combining pembrolizumab with encorafenib + cetuximab, the SEAMARK study will evaluate this combination vs pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Methods: SEAMARK (NCT05217446) is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study. Approximately 104 patients (randomized 1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0 vs 1) will receive either pembrolizumab + encorafenib + cetuximab or pembrolizumab. Enrolled patients must be aged ≥16 or ≥18 years (per country-specific regulations) and have previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1); ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Patients who received prior treatment with BRAF/EGFR inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, or who have brain metastases (unless radiologically stable) or RAS mutation (or unknown RAS status), will be excluded. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and quality of life. Enrollment started in July 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05217446 .

TPS3634 Background: Among patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC, BRAF mutations occur in approximately 30%. MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF mutations are both associated with poor prognosis; in patients who have both biomarkers, poor prognosis is thought to be driven by the BRAF mutation. Pembrolizumab is indicated for the treatment of patients with MSI-H/dMMR unresectable or metastatic CRC (mCRC). The BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, is indicated for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Currently, there are no first-line treatment options indicated specifically for patients with both MSI-H/dMMR and BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. To assess the safety and efficacy of combining pembrolizumab with encorafenib + cetuximab, the SEAMARK study (NCT05217446) will evaluate this combination vs pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Methods: SEAMARK is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study. Approximately 104 patients (randomized 1:1; stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0 vs 1) will receive either pembrolizumab + encorafenib + cetuximab or pembrolizumab. Enrolled patients must be aged ≥16 or ≥18 years (per country-specific regulations) and have previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; measurable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1); ECOG PS 0 or 1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Patients who received prior treatment with BRAF/EGFR inhibitors or immune checkpoint inhibitors, or who have brain metastases (unless radiologically stable) or RAS mutation (or unknown RAS status), will be excluded. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety and tolerability, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and quality of life. Enrollment will begin in April 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT05217446.

This Phase Ib study combined programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, atezolizumab, with other immunomodulatory agents in locally advanced and metastatic solid tumors. Arms B-D evaluated atezolizumab plus interferon-α, with/without vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, bevacizumab, in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and other solid tumors. Arm B predominantly recruited patients with previously treated RCC or melanoma to receive atezolizumab plus interferon α-2b. Arm C investigated atezolizumab plus polyethylene glycol (PEG)-interferon α-2a in previously treated RCC. Arm D evaluated atezolizumab plus PEG-interferon α-2a and bevacizumab. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included clinical activity. Combination therapy was well tolerated, with safety profiles consistent with known risks of individual agents. The most frequent treatment-related toxicities were fatigue, chills, and pyrexia. The objective response rate (ORR) in arm B was 20.0% overall and 17.8% in patients with previously treated checkpoint inhibitor–naive RCC (n = 45). No responses were reported in arm C. The highest ORR in arm D was 46.7% in patients with treatment-naive RCC (n = 15). Data showed preliminary clinical activity and acceptable tolerability of atezolizumab plus interferon α-2b in patients with previously treated checkpoint inhibitor–naive RCC and of atezolizumab plus PEG-interferon α-2a and bevacizumab in patients with treatment-naive RCC.

Background: Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on dialysis were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data have raised concerns regarding the safety of dabigatran and rivaroxaban, but apixaban has not been evaluated despite current labeling supporting its use in this population. The goal of this study was to determine patterns of apixaban use and its associated outcomes in dialysis-dependent patients with ESKD and AF. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries included in the United States Renal Data System (October 2010 to December 2015). Eligible patients were those with ESKD and AF undergoing dialysis who initiated treatment with an oral anticoagulant. Because of the small number of dabigatran and rivaroxaban users, outcomes were only assessed in patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Apixaban and warfarin patients were matched (1:3) based on prognostic score. Differences between groups in survival free of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and death were assessed using Kaplan–Meier analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were derived from Cox regression analyses. Results: The study population consisted of 25 523 patients (45.7% women; 68.2±11.9 years of age), including 2351 patients on apixaban and 23 172 patients on warfarin. An annual increase in apixaban prescriptions was observed after its marketing approval at the end of 2012, such that 26.6% of new anticoagulant prescriptions in 2015 were for apixaban. In matched cohorts, there was no difference in the risks of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69–1.12; P =0.29), but apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59–0.87; P <0.001). In sensitivity analyses, standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day; n=1034) was associated with significantly lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death as compared with either reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n=1317; HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45–0.92; P =0.01 for death) or warfarin (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42–0.97; P =0.04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.85; P =0.003 for death). Conclusions: Among patients with ESKD and AF on dialysis, apixaban use may be associated with a lower risk of major bleeding compared with warfarin, with a standard 5 mg twice a day dose also associated with reductions in thromboembolic and mortality risk.