MSI exploration in patients with biliary tract cancer from the Spanish RETUD Registry

602

Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a resistant tumor better addressed by targeting molecular alterations. Among described biomarkers, Microsatellite Instability (MSI) is rarely found in BTC patients (pts) (~2%) and therefore, it is scarcely described in literature. Pembrolizumab (PBL) has proved beneficial for MSI-H BTC pts who did not respond to previous treatment. Our aim is to describe outcomes of MSI pt in Spanish daily practice. Methods: This is a descriptive analysis of a cohort of pts from the Spanish RETUD registry diagnosed with BTC between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. All patients recruited at the cut-off date (7 July 2021) were considered in the analysis. Data collected included demographic and clinical characteristics, systemic oncologic treatment and effectiveness (best response and survival outcomes). Pts characteristics were recorded in all MSI-H pts. Survival outcomes and best response were calculated for pts who received systemic oncologic treatment. Descriptive statistic was used to analyze sociodemographic data, tumor characterization, molecular analysis, and best response. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The registry included 778 evaluable pts. Only 206 pts were tested for MSI and 13 (6.3%) had positive results. Median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 74.5 (68.9-80.8) years, and the male sex (84.6%) was predominant. Primary tumor was 92.3% intrahepatic and 7.7% extrahepatic. Metastatic and locally advanced disease were diagnosed in 3 (23.1%) and 7 (53.8%) pts respectively. Only 4 (30.8%) pts underwent previous surgery. Molecular profile analyses reported 2 (20.0%) BRAF mutations, 1 (10.0%) IDH1 mutations, 2 (20.0%) FGFR2 fusions and 1 (10.0%) HER2 amplification (missing data n=3 pts). One pt was positive to BRAF, IDH1, FGFR2 and HER2 mutations. Eleven pts received systemic oncologic treatment, predominantly frontline therapy with gemcitabine-based combinations (n=9, 81.8%). At the database cut-off, 6 pts died due to disease progression (83.3%) or disease-related complications (16.7%). The median PFS to frontline treatment was 2.7 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.5–9.9), and the median OS was 21.0 months (95% CI: 6.5-NA). Five (38.3%) pts received PBL as second-line therapy, with 3 pts responding (1 complete response and 2 partial responses). Median PFS after PBL was 2.6 (95% CI 2.1- NA) months and median OS was 21.0 (19.5-NA) months, in contrast to non-MSI population survival outcomes: PFS= 4.7 (95% CI 4.1-5.2) months, OS=9.0 (95% CI 8.1-9.8) months. Conclusions: This study describes clinical outcomes of the MSI-H pts in a sample of Spanish patients with BTC. Molecular characterization was poorly performed at the time of database cut-off; however, we found a higher presence of MSI-H than expected. PBL, as the second-line strategy, showed a good response.

Expert consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the determination of biomarkers in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer

Pancreatic cancer and biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis. In recent years, the development of new diagnostic techniques has enabled the identification of the main genetic alterations involved in the development of these tumours. Multiple studies have assessed the ability of certain biomarkers, such as BRCA in pancreatic cancer, IDH1 or FGFR2 in biliary tract cancer and microsatellite instability or NTRK fusions in an agnostic tumour fashion, to predict response to treatment.In this consensus, a group of experts selected by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) and the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) reviewed the role played by these mutations in the process of carcinogenesis and their clinical implications. As a result, this article proposes a series of recommendations to optimize the determination of these biomarkers to help standardize the diagnosis and treatment of these tumours.

Cholangiocarcinoma landscape in Europe: Diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic insights from the ENSCCA Registry

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare and heterogeneous biliary cancer, whose incidence and related mortality is increasing. This study investigates the clinical course of CCA and subtypes (intrahepatic [iCCA], perihilar [pCCA], and distal [dCCA]) in a pan-European cohort.

METHODS

The ENSCCA Registry is a multicenter observational study. Patients were included if they had a histologically proven diagnosis of CCA between 2010-2019. Demographic, histomorphological, biochemical, and clinical studies were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 2,234 patients were enrolled (male/female=1.29). iCCA (n = 1,243) was associated with overweight/obesity and chronic liver diseases involving cirrhosis and/or viral hepatitis; pCCA (n = 592) with primary sclerosing cholangitis; and dCCA (n = 399) with choledocholithiasis. At diagnosis, 42.2% of patients had local disease, 29.4% locally advanced disease (LAD), and 28.4% metastatic disease (MD). Serum CEA and CA19-9 showed low diagnostic sensitivity, but their concomitant elevation was associated with increased risk of presenting with LAD (odds ratio 2.16; 95% CI 1.43-3.27) or MD (odds ratio 5.88; 95% CI 3.69-9.25). Patients undergoing resection (50.3%) had the best outcomes, particularly with negative-resection margin (R0) (median overall survival [mOS] = 45.1 months); however, margin involvement (R1) (hazard ratio 1.92; 95% CI 1.53-2.41; mOS = 24.7 months) and lymph node invasion (hazard ratio 2.13; 95% CI 1.55-2.94; mOS = 23.3 months) compromised prognosis. Among patients with unresectable disease (49.6%), the mOS was 10.6 months for those receiving active palliative therapies, mostly chemotherapy (26.2%), and 4.0 months for those receiving best supportive care (20.6%). iCCAs were associated with worse outcomes than p/dCCAs. ECOG performance status, MD and CA19-9 were independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

CCA is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage, a proportion of patients fail to receive cancer-specific therapies, and prognosis remains dismal. Identification of preventable risk factors and implementation of surveillance in high-risk populations are required to decrease cancer-related mortality.

LAY SUMMARY

This is, to date, the largest international (pan-European: 26 hospitals and 11 countries) observational study, in which the course of cholangiocarcinoma has been investigated, comparing the 3 subtypes based on the latest International Classification of Diseases 11^th Edition (ICD-11) (i.e., intrahepatic [2C12], perihilar [2C18], or distal [2C15] affected bile ducts), which come into effect in 2022. General and tumor-type specific features at diagnosis, risk factors, biomarker accuracy, as well as patient management and outcomes, are presented and compared, outlining the current clinical state of cholangiocarcinoma in Europe.

Epidemiological biliary tract cancer characterization: A patient cohort from the Spanish RETUD registry

480

Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a heterogeneous group of tumours, including cholangiocarcinoma (intrahepatic and extrahepatic) and gallbladder carcinoma (GC). With this work, we aim to perform an epidemiological characterization of patients with BTC, their management and survival outcomes from a nationwide registry in Spain. Methods: We performed an epidemiologic analysis of a cohort of patients from the Spanish RETUD registry diagnosed with BTC between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. Data collected included sociodemographic and clinical outcomes, molecular analysis, oncological treatments, and survival. Patients with all the aforementioned data available on the cut-off date of 7 July 2021 were considered in the analysis. It included descriptive statistics of patient characteristics, tumour molecular markers and treatments. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 778 evaluable patients were included in 19 sites, with a median (interquartile range, IQR) age of 72.2 (64.5-78.5) years, 54.8% men. At primary diagnosis, the tumour was mostly intrahepatic (57.2%); followed by extrahepatic (27.4%) and GC (13.8%) and histologically diagnosed (83.7%). Most of the patients has advanced disease at diagnosis (72.0%). At database cut-off, the disease was metastatic in 525 (67.5%) patients, and the main metastatic sites were the liver n = 333 (63.4%), lymph distant nodes n = 187 (35.6%) and peritoneum n = 175 (33.3%). Any biomarker analysis was done in 245 (31.5%) patients whose main findings were: IDH1 mutations (n = 33, 17.7%), FGFR2 fusions (n = 15, 8.4%), BRAFV600E mutation (n = 10, 5.7%), MSI (n = 14, 6.8%) and HER2 amplification (n = 5, 3.0%). Previous surgeries were reported in 261 (33.5%) patients, and systemic oncologic therapies in 586 (75.3%): neoadjuvant n = 11 (1.9%), adjuvant n = 135 (23.0%), first line n = 549 (93.7%), second line n = 237 (40.4%), and third line and beyond n = 113 (19.3%). The main first-line treatment was cisplatin/gemcitabine (CISGEM; n = 331, 64.4%), followed by gemcitabine monotherapy (n = 100, 19.5%) and gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX; n = 48, 9.3%). The median (95% CI) PFS from first line in patients exposed to CISGEM was 5.1 (4.6-5.8) months. The median OS in metastatic population (95% CI) was 8.3 (7.2-9.1) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides insights into the characterization of BTC, its therapeutic management and clinical outcomes in Spanish sample patients. Obtained data are consistent with the published literature; nevertheless, we must consider them in the context of a currently evolving scenario. Although molecular analysis has gained relevance, it is still poorly performed in daily practice in Spain.

Efficacy of derazantinib in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients with FGFR2 mutations or amplifications: Interim results from the phase 2 study FIDES-01

427

Background: Derazantinib, a potent anti- FGFR1-3 oral kinase inhibitor, has shown clinically meaningful anti-tumor activity (21%), durable responses (median, 6.4 months), and progression-free survival (median, 8.0 months) in patients (pts) with FGFR2 fusion (FGFR2F)-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), and with a manageable toxicity profile. Herein, we report an interim analysis of the clinical efficacy data of derazantinib for pts with iCCA harboring FGFR2 mutations or amplifications (FGFR2M/A), a potential therapeutic option currently not addressed by FGFR inhibitors. Methods: Study FIDES-01 enrolls in a dedicated cohort pts with FGFR2M/A+ advanced iCCA who received previous chemotherapy. Pts receive 300 mg derazantinib daily until disease progression, death or intolerance. The primary endpoint is the proportion of pts alive and free of disease progression at 3 months (PFS3; RECIST 1.1, central imaging review) using a Simon’s two-stage sample-size minimizing statistical design. The interim analysis population comprises 23 pts dosed (intention to treat) who had at least one post-baseline tumor assessment (or clinical progression, or died) by June 3, 2021, using investigator assessments based on RECIST 1.1. Results: To date, 28 pts have been enrolled and dosed. FGFR2M/A observed in these pts included missense point mutations (78%), other short variants (11%) and amplifications (11%). Transition from stage 1 to stage 2 of the study was achieved earlier than planned after 8 (67%) of 12 pts were assessed as PFS3 based on central imaging review. In 23 pts included in this interim analysis for efficacy, the best overall response (investigator assessment) was confirmed partial response in two (8.7%) and stable disease in additional 15 pts (65.2%), resulting in a disease control rate of 73.9% (95% CI, 51.6–89.8). Using Kaplan-Meier analyses, the median PFS was 7.3 months (95%CI, 3.5–16.7) and the probability of being progression-free at 3 months and at 6 months were 76.3% (95%CI, 51.9–89.4) and 50.3% (95%CI, 21.7–73.4), respectively. Clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy was observed across all types of genetic aberrations. The safety profile of derazantinib in FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts was consistent with that previously reported for FGFR2F+ iCCA pts. Conclusions: This interim data in study FIDES-01 suggest that derazantinib treatment provides clinical benefit to pts with advanced iCCA harboring FGFR2M/A who progressed after at least one line of standard chemotherapy. To our knowledge, this is the first report of clinically meaningful anti-tumor efficacy in a prospectively planned cohort of iCCA pts harboring FGFR2M/A. The study is ongoing to accrue 43 patients, assessing derazantinib as a therapeutic option for FGFR2M/A+ iCCA pts after disease progression on first-line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT03230318.

Final Overall Survival Efficacy Results of Ivosidenib for Patients With Advanced Cholangiocarcinoma With IDH1 Mutation: The Phase 3 Randomized Clinical ClarIDHy Trial

Question

Does ivosidenib treatment improve overall survival outcomes vs placebo among patients with chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation?

Findings

In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial including 187 previously treated patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation, ivosidenib treatment resulted in numerically improved overall survival benefits vs placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. Ivosidenib preserved certain quality of life subscales and was well tolerated.

Meaning

The combined efficacy data and tolerable safety profile, as well as corroborating quality of life data, support the clinical benefit of ivosidenib relative to placebo in cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation, which has an unmet need for new treatments.

Importance

Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) variations occur in up to approximately 20% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In the ClarIDHy trial, progression-free survival as determined by central review was significantly improved with ivosidenib vs placebo.

Objective

To report the final overall survival (OS) results from the ClarIDHy trial, which aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of ivosidenib (AG-120)—a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1—vs placebo for patients with unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from February 20, 2017, to May 31, 2020, at 49 hospitals across 6 countries among patients aged 18 years or older with cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation whose disease progressed with prior therapy.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ivosidenib, 500 mg, once daily or matched placebo. Crossover from placebo to ivosidenib was permitted if patients had disease progression as determined by radiographic findings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival as determined by blinded independent radiology center (reported previously). Overall survival was a key secondary end point. The primary analysis of OS followed the intent-to-treat principle. Other secondary end points included objective response rate, safety and tolerability, and quality of life.

Results

Overall, 187 patients (median age, 62 years [range, 33-83 years]) were randomly assigned to receive ivosidenib (n = 126; 82 women [65%]; median age, 61 years [range, 33-80 years]) or placebo (n = 61; 37 women [61%]; median age, 63 years [range, 40-83 years]); 43 patients crossed over from placebo to ivosidenib. The primary end point of progression-free survival was reported elsewhere. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4 months) with ivosidenib vs 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1 months) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.56-1.12]; 1-sided P = .09). When adjusted for crossover, median OS with placebo was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.70]; 1-sided P < .001). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event (≥5%) reported in both groups was ascites (11 patients [9%] receiving ivosidenib and 4 patients [7%] receiving placebo). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events considered ivosidenib related were reported in 3 patients (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Patients receiving ivosidenib reported no apparent decline in quality of life compared with placebo.

Conclusions and Relevance

This randomized clinical trial found that ivosidenib was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS benefit vs placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. These data, coupled with supportive quality of life data and a tolerable safety profile, demonstrate the clinical benefit of ivosidenib for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02989857

Addition of ramucirumab or merestinib to standard first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Biliary tract cancers are aggressive, rare, gastrointestinal malignancies with a poor prognosis; approximately half of patients with these cancers survive for less than 1 year after diagnosis with advanced disease. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab or merestinib in addition to first-line cisplatin-gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study at 81 hospitals across 18 countries. We enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed, non-resectable, recurrent, or metastatic biliary tract adenocarcinoma, who were treatment-naive, aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, estimated life expectancy of 3 months or more, and measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1) to receive either intravenous ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo (on days 1 and 8 in 21-day cycles) or oral merestinib 80 mg or placebo (once daily) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or patient or investigator request for discontinuation. All participants received intravenous cisplatin 25 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (on days 1 and 8 in 21-day cycles), for a maximum of eight cycles. Randomisation was done by an interactive web response system using a permuted block method (blocks of six) and was stratified by primary tumour site, geographical region, and presence of metastatic disease. Participants, investigators, and the study funder were masked to treatment assignment within the intravenous and oral groups. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (in the intention-to-treat population). The safety analysis was done in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02711553, and long-term follow-up is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between May 25, 2016, and Aug 8, 2017, 450 patients were assessed for eligibility and 309 (69%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to ramucirumab (n=106), merestinib (n=102), or pooled placebo (n=101); 306 received at least one dose of study treatment. The median follow-up time for progression-free survival at data cutoff (Feb 16, 2018) was 10·9 months (IQR 8·1-14·1). Median progression-free survival was 6·5 months (80% CI 5·7-7·1) in the ramucirumab group, 7·0 months (6·2-7·1) in the merestinib group, and 6·6 months (5·6-6·8) in the pooled placebo group (ramucirumab vs placebo hazard ratio 1·12 [80% CI 0·90-1·40], two-sided stratified p=0·48; merestinib vs placebo 0·92 [0·73-1·15], two-sided stratified p=0·64). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (51 [49%] of 104 patients in the ramucirumab group; 48 [47%] of 102 in the merestinib group; and 33 [33%] of 100 in the pooled placebo group), thrombocytopenia (36 [35%]; 19 [19%]; and 17 [17%]), and anaemia (28 [27%]; 16 [16%]; and 19 [19%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 53 (51%) patients in the ramucirumab group, 56 (55%) in the merestinib group, and 48 (48%) in the pooled placebo group. Treatment-related deaths (deemed related by the investigator) occurred in one (1%) of 104 patients in the ramucirumab group (cardiac arrest) and two (2%) of 102 patients in the merestinib group (pulmonary embolism [n=1] and sepsis [n=1]).

INTERPRETATION

Adding ramucirumab or merestinib to first-line cisplatin-gemcitabine was well tolerated, with no new safety signals, but neither improved progression-free survival in patients with molecularly unselected, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. The role of these targeted inhibitors remains investigational, highlighting the need for further understanding of biliary tract malignancies and the contribution of molecular selection.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Association of the Lung Immune Prognostic Index with Immunotherapy Outcomes in Mismatch Repair Deficient Tumors

Background: MSI-H/dMMR is considered the first predictive marker of efficacy for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, around 39% of cases are refractory and additional biomarkers are needed. We explored the prognostic value of pretreatment LIPI in MSI-H/dMMR patients treated with ICIs, including identification of fast-progressors. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study of patients with metastatic MSI-H/dMMR tumors treated with ICIs between April 2014 and May 2019 was performed. LIPI was calculated based on dNLR > 3 and LDH > upper limit of normal. LIPI groups were good (zero factors), intermediate (one factor) and poor (two factors). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), including the fast-progressor rate (OS < 3 months). Results: A total of 151 patients were analyzed, mainly female (59%), with median age 64 years, performance status (PS) 0 (42%), and sporadic dMMR status (68%). ICIs were administered as first or second-line for 59%. The most frequent tumor types were gastrointestinal (66%) and gynecologic (22%). LIPI groups were good (47%), intermediate (43%), and poor (10%). The median follow-up was 32 months. One-year OS rates were 81.0%, 67.1%, and 21.4% for good, intermediate, and poor-risk groups (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for tumor site, metastatic sites and PS, LIPI remained independently associated with OS (HR, poor-LIPI: 3.50, 95%CI: 1.46-8.40, p = 0.02. Overall, the fast-progressor rate was 16.0%, and 35.7% with poor-LIPI vs. 7.5% in the good-LIPI group (p = 0.02). Conclusions: LIPI identifies dMMR patients who do not benefit from ICI treatment, particularly fast-progressors. LIPI should be included as a stratification factor for future trials.

Liver Metastases of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Implications for an Updated Staging System

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with liver metastases is perceived to have a poor prognosis, but the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classifies them as early stage in the absence of lymph nodes or extrahepatic spread.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Patients with iCCA from the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENS-CCA) and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries with survival/staging (AJCC v.7) data were eligible. Modified staging was used (mAJCC v.7): group A: stages I-III (excluding T2bN0); group B: stage IVa (excluding T2bN1M0); group C: liver metastases (T2bN0/1); and group D: stage IVb (extrahepatic metastases). Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression) was performed in an ENS-CCA training cohort (TC) and findings internally (ENS-CCA iVC) and externally (SEER) validated. The aim was to assess whether liver metastases (group C) had a shorter survival compared to other early stages (group A) to propose a modified version of AJCC v.8 (mAJCC v.8). A total of 574 and 4,171 patients from the ENS-CCA and SEER registries were included. Following the new classification, 19.86% and 17.31% of patients from the ENS-CCA and SEER registries were reclassified into group C, respectively. In the ENS-CCA TC, multivariable Cox regression was adjusted for obesity (p = 0.026) and performance status (P < 0.001); patients in group C (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.18-5.42; P = 0.017) had a higher risk of death (vs. group A). Findings were validated in the ENS-CCA iVC (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 2.04-4.19; P < 0.001) and in the SEER registry (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.68-2.09; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

iCCA with liver metastases has a worse outcome than other early stages of iCCA. Given that AJCC v.8 does not take this into consideration, a modification of AJCC v.8 (mAJCC v.8), including "liver metastases: multiple liver lesions, with or without vascular invasion" as an "M1a stage," is suggested.

Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation

4069

Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

Tumor-Stromal Interactions in a Co-Culture Model of Human Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Cells and Fibroblasts and Their Connection with Tumor Spread

One key feature of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a dense desmoplastic reaction that has been recognized as playing important roles in metastasis and therapeutic resistance. We aim to study tumor-stromal interactions in an in vitro coculture model between human PDAC cells (Capan-1 or PL-45) and fibroblasts (LC5). Confocal immunofluorescence, Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), and Western blotting were used to evaluate the expressions of activation markers; cytokines arrays were performed to identify secretome profiles associated with migratory and invasive properties of tumor cells; extracellular vesicle production was examined by ELISA and transmission electron microscopy. Coculture conditions increased FGF-7 secretion and α-SMA expression, characterized by fibroblast activation and decreased epithelial marker E-cadherin in tumor cells. Interestingly, tumor cells and fibroblasts migrate together, with tumor cells in forming a center surrounded by fibroblasts, maximizing the contact between cells. We show a different mechanism for tumor spread through a cooperative migration between tumor cells and activated fibroblasts. Furthermore, IL-6 levels change significantly in coculture conditions, and this could affect the invasive and migratory capacities of cells. Targeting the interaction between tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment might represent a novel therapeutic approach to advanced PDAC.

Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase III, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation

266

Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

Ivosidenib in IDH1-mutant, chemotherapy-refractory cholangiocarcinoma (ClarIDHy): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations occur in approximately 13% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, a relatively uncommon cancer with a poor clinical outcome. The aim of this international phase 3 study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a small-molecule targeted inhibitor of mutated IDH1-in patients with previously treated IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study included patients from 49 hospitals in six countries aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma who had progressed on previous therapy, and had up to two previous treatment regimens for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and a measurable lesion as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with a block size of 6 and stratified by number of previous systemic treatment regimens for advanced disease to oral ivosidenib 500 mg or matched placebo once daily in continuous 28-day cycles, by means of an interactive web-based response system. Placebo to ivosidenib crossover was permitted on radiological progression per investigator assessment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent central review. The intention-to-treat population was used for the primary efficacy analyses. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of ivosidenib or placebo. Enrolment is complete; this study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02989857.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 20, 2017, and Jan 31, 2019, 230 patients were assessed for eligibility, and as of the Jan 31, 2019 data cutoff date, 185 patients were randomly assigned to ivosidenib (n=124) or placebo (n=61). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·9 months (IQR 2·8-10·9). Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo (median 2·7 months [95% CI 1·6-4·2] vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6]; hazard ratio 0·37; 95% CI 0·25-0·54; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was ascites (four [7%] of 59 patients receiving placebo and nine [7%] of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (30%) of 121 patients receiving ivosidenib and 13 (22%) of 59 patients receiving placebo. There were no treatment-related deaths.

INTERPRETATION

Progression-free survival was significantly improved with ivosidenib compared with placebo, and ivosidenib was well tolerated. This study shows the clinical benefit of targeting IDH1 mutations in advanced, IDH1-mutant cholangiocarcinoma.

FUNDING

Agios Pharmaceuticals.

Medical treatment for cholangiocarcinoma

Most of the patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) present with advanced (inoperable or metastatic) disease, and relapse rates are high in those undergoing potentially curative resection. Previous treatment nihilism of patients with advanced disease has been replaced by active clinical research with the advent of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a much greater effort at understanding molecular mechanisms underpinning CCA. Three RCTs have recently been reported evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy following curative resection; only one of these has the potential to change practice. The BILCAP study failed to meet its primary endpoint by intention-to-treat analysis; however, a survival benefit was seen in a preplanned sensitivity analysis (predominantly adjusting for lymph nodes status). This, along with the numerical difference in median overall survival has led to the uptake of adjuvant capecitabine by many clinicians. In patients with advanced disease, the only level 1 data available supports the use of cisplatin and gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced disease; there is no established second-line chemotherapy. Previous forays into targeted therapy have proven unfruitful (namely targeting the epithelial growth factor receptor and vascular endothelial growth factor pathways). An increasing number of genomic subtypes are being defined; for some of these on-target therapeutic options are under active investigation. The most developed are studies targeting IDH-1 (isocitrate dehydrogenase) mutations and FGFR-2 (fibroblast growth factor receptor) fusions, with promising early results. Several other pathways are under evaluation, along with early studies targeting the immune environment; these are too premature to change practice to date. These emerging treatments are discussed.

Multiplatform plasma fingerprinting in cancer cachexia: a pilot observational and translational study

BACKGROUND

Cachexia is a metabolic syndrome that affects up to 50-80% of cancer patients. The pathophysiology is characterized by a variable combination of reduced food intake and abnormal metabolism, including systemic inflammation and negative protein and energy balance. Despite its high clinical significance, defined diagnostic criteria and established therapeutic strategies are lacking. The 'omics' technologies provide a global view of biological systems. We hypothesize that blood-based metabolomics might identify findings in cachectic patients that could provide clues to gain knowledge on its pathophysiology, and eventually postulate new therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional observational study in two cohorts of cancer patients, with and without cachexia. Patients were consecutively recruited from routine clinical practice of a General Oncology Department at '12 de Octubre' University Hospital. Selected clinical and biochemical features were collected. Blood metabolite fingerprinting was performed using three analytical platforms, gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS), capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry (CE-MS), and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Besides, we performed pathway-based metabolite analyses to obtain more information on biological functions.

RESULTS

A total of 15 subjects were included in this study, 8 cachectic and 7 non-cachectic patients. Metabolomic analyses were able to correctly classify their samples in 80% (GC-MS), 97% (CE-MS), 96% [LC-MS (positive mode)], and 89% [LC-MS (negative mode)] of the cases. The most prominent metabolic alteration in plasma of cachectic patients was the decrease of amino acids and derivatives [especially arginine, tryptophan, indolelactic acid, and threonine, with 0.4-fold change (FC) compared with non-cachectic patients], along with the reduction of glycerophospholipids [mainly lysophosphatidylcholines(O-16:0) and lysophosphatidylcholines(20:3) sn-1, FC = 0.1] and sphingolipids [SM(d30:0), FC = 0.5]. The metabolite with the highest increase was cortisol (FC = 1.6). Such alterations suggest a role of the following metabolic pathways in the pathophysiology of cancer cachexia: arginine and proline metabolism; alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism; phenylalanine metabolism; lysine degradation; aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis; fatty acid elongation in mitochondria; tricarboxylic acids cycle; among others.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that plasma amino acids and lipids profiling has great potential to find the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of cachexia. Metabolic profiling of plasma from cancer patients show differences between cachexia and non-cachexia in amino acids and lipids that might be related to mechanisms involved in its pathophysiology. A better understanding of these mechanisms might identify novel therapeutic approaches to palliate this unmet medical condition.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: metastatic disease

The treatment of choice of metastatic PADC is systemic chemotherapy. In the last decade, there have been significant advances in this area. New combination poli-chemotherapy schemes have shown a significant increase in overall survival and progression-free survival without impairing quality of life. In addition, the value of second-line chemotherapy treatment has consolidated and a new concept called "therapeutic sequencing" has also emerged. The aim of this article is to review the different therapeutic options in metastatic PDAC based on patient's characteristics.

Consensus guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with pancreatic cancer in Spain

The management of patients with pancreatic cancer has advanced over the last few years. We convey a multidisciplinary group of experts in an attempt to stablish practical guidelines for the diagnoses, staging and management of these patients. This paper summarizes the main conclusions of the working group. Patients with suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma should be rapidly evaluated and referred to high-volume centers. Multidisciplinary supervision is critical for proper diagnoses, staging and to frame a treatment plan. Surgical resection together with chemotherapy offers the highest chance for cure in early stage disease. Patients with advanced disease should be classified in treatment groups to guide systemic treatment. New chemotherapeutic regimens have resulted in improved survival. Symptomatic management is critical in this disease. Enrollment in a clinical trial is, in general, recommended.

Abstract 1539: Analysis of differential protein profiles in co-culture models of pancreatic cancer cells and fibroblasts

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains one of the most lethal human malignancies. The vast majority of patients with advanced disease die within a year of diagnosis.

Tumor microenvironment plays a critical role in tumor initiation, progression, metastasis, and response to treatment in PDAC. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells often appear to grow within a fibrotic, abundant, and poorly perfused stroma, with epithelial cells frequently accounting for &lt;20% of the tumor volume. Cellular components of tumor stroma include fibroblasts, macrophages, and stellate cells plus extracellular proteins. Moreover, the network of tumor stroma imposes a barrier for drug delivery.

The aim of this study was to search for novel protein biomarkers of tumor-stroma interaction for a better understanding and intervention of PDAC.

Methods: 1- Co-cultures between two pancreatic adenocarcinoma cell lines (PL45 and Capan-1) and embryonic fibroblasts (LC5) were established. LC5 cell line was stably transfected with Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) to allow their detection, and later separation by flow cytometry, of the co-cultures. 2- In addition, tumor cells were grown with fibroblasts secretome. 3- After 72 hours of co-culture, tumor cells were isolated and protein extraction was performed. 4- Proteins differentially expressed in tumor cells grown in co-cultures, or in tumor cells grown with fibroblasts secretome, versus in tumor cells monocultures, were identified by using two-dimensional electrophoresis-based proteomic tools (2D-DIGE) followed by mass spectrometry (MS/MS) of the spots of interest.

Results: A total of 105 differentially expressed proteins were documented between PL45 cells growing in mono-culture, co-culture and conditioned medium. Also, 161 differentially expressed proteins were recognized under similar conditions in the Capan1 cell line.

Our study identified seventeen different proteins mainly involved in cytoskeleton organization (Filamin B, Alpha-actinin-4, Annexin A2, Radixin, T-complex protein 1 subunit epsilon, Actin cytoplasmic 1); regulation of cell migration and adhesion (Prelamin-A/C, 40S ribosomal protein SA); protein biosynthesis (EF-2); DNA damage and repair response (VCP, XRCC6); nucleotide biosynthetic process (MTHFD1) and, heat-stress response (HSPD1, GRP78, STIP1, CCT5, Stress-70 protein mitochondrial).

Conclusion: This in vitro model identifies several processes that might be responsible for the tumor-stromal interactions occurring in vivo, which should be considered potential targets for therapeutic interventions in PDAC, in addition to those targets already known to exist in PDAC cells.

Citation Format: Elena Prieto-García, M. Teresa Agulló-Ortuño, C. Vanesa Díaz-García, Inés García-Consuegra, Jorge Adeva, M. Carmen Riesco, Lucía Parrilla, Carlos Gómez, Laura Lema, Luis Robles, Hernán Cortés-Funes, José A. López-Martín. Analysis of differential protein profiles in co-culture models of pancreatic cancer cells and fibroblasts. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 1539. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-1539

Safety and efficacy of first-line XELIRI with or without bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of two phase II studies

560

Background: The safety and efficacy of first-line XELIRI (capecitabine in combination with irinotecan) and XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BEV) have been evaluated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). To date, however, no randomized studies comparing these regimens have been performed. This retrospective analysis compared efficacy and safety data for the two regimens from separate phase II studies performed at a single institution.

Methods: Patients with histologically documented metastatic or recurrent CRC and no prior treatment for advanced disease received irinotecan 175 mg/m2 on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 2-8 every 2 weeks (XELIRI study). For patients age ≥65 years, the starting doses of irinotecan and capecitabine were reduced to 140 mg/m2 and 750 mg/m2, respectively. In the second study, patients received the same regimen plus BEV 5 mg/kg on day 1 (XELIRI + BEV study).

Results: A total of 53 and 46 patients were entered into the XELIRI and XELIRI + BEV studies, respectively. Patient characteristics were generally similar in both groups. Efficacy results for the ITT populations are summarized in the Table. Patients treated with XELIRI + BEV had a significantly higher ORR and longer median TTP vs. XELIRI alone and a numerically longer median OS was observed (p=NS). The overall incidence of adverse events (all grades or grade 3/4) was similar in the two groups, although alopecia, mucositis, hand–foot syndrome, and haemorrhage were more common with XELIRI + BEV vs. XELIRI alone (all p<0.05).

Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of two studies, the addition of BEV to XELIRI appeared to improve outcome relative to XELIRI alone in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.