Addition of Metastasis-Directed Therapy to Systemic Therapy for Oligometastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: The EXTEND trial tested the hypothesis that adding comprehensive metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) to chemotherapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy alone among patients with oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: EXTEND (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03599765) is a multicenter, phase II basket trial randomly assigning patients with ≤five metastases 1:1 to MDT plus systemic therapy versus systemic therapy. Disease progression was defined by radiologic criteria (RECIST v1.1), clinical progression, or death. The primary end point was PFS in the per-protocol population, evaluated after all patients achieved at least 6 months of follow-up. Exploratory end points included systemic immune response measures. RESULTS: Between March 19, 2019, and February 13, 2023, 41 patients were randomly assigned and 40 were eligible for the primary analysis of PFS (19 patients in the MDT arm; 21 patients in the control arm). At a median follow-up time of 17 months, the median PFS time was 10.3 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 14.0) in the MDT arm versus 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.7 to 5.1) in the control arm. PFS was significantly improved by the addition of MDT to systemic therapy (P = .030 for stratified log-rank test) with a hazard ratio of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.20 to 0.94). No grade ≥3 or greater adverse events related to MDT were observed. Systemic immune activation events were associated with MDT and correlated with improved PFS. CONCLUSION: This study supports the addition of MDT to systemic therapy for patients with oligometastatic PDAC. Induction of systemic immunity is a possible mechanism of benefit. These results warrant confirmatory trials to refine treatment strategy and provide external validation.

Mechanisms of resistance to oncogenic KRAS inhibition in pancreatic cancer.

KRAS inhibitors demonstrate clinical efficacy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC); however, resistance is common. Among patients with KRASG12C-mutant PDAC treated with adagrasib or sotorasib, mutations in PIK3CA and KRAS, and amplifications of KRASG12C, MYC, MET, EGFR, and CDK6 emerged at acquired resistance. In PDAC cell lines and organoid models treated with the KRASG12D inhibitor MRTX1133, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling associate with resistance to therapy. MRTX1133 treatment of the KrasLSL-G12D/+;Trp53LSL-R172H/+;p48-Cre (KPC) mouse model yielded deep tumor regressions, but drug resistance ultimately emerged, accompanied by amplifications of Kras, Yap1, Myc, and Cdk6/Abcb1a/b, and co-evolution of drug-resistant transcriptional programs. Moreover, in KPC and PDX models, mesenchymal and basal-like cell states displayed increased response to KRAS inhibition compared to the classical state. Combination treatment with KRASG12D inhibition and chemotherapy significantly improved tumor control in PDAC mouse models. Collectively, these data elucidate co-evolving resistance mechanisms to KRAS inhibition and support multiple combination therapy strategies.

Clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with brain metastasis secondary to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is poor. Secondary brain metastasis (Br-M) occurs in less than 1% of patients. Clinical characteristics and molecular alterations have not been characterized in this rare patients' subset. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Foundry software platform was used to retrospectively query electronic health records for patients with Br-M secondary to PDAC from 2005 to 2023; clinical, molecular, and overall survival (OS) data were analyzed. RESULTS: Br-M was diagnosed in 44 patients with PDAC. Median follow-up was 78 months; median OS from initial PDAC diagnosis was 47 months. Median duration from PDAC diagnosis to Br-M detection was 24 months; median OS from Br-M diagnosis was 3 months. At Br-M diagnosis, 82% (n = 36) of patients had elevated CA19-9. Lung was the most common preexisting metastatic location (71%) with Br-M, followed by liver (66%). Br-M were most frequently observed in the frontal lobe (34%, n = 15), cerebellar region (23%, n = 10), and leptomeninges (18%, n = 8). KRAS mutations were detected in 94.1% (n = 16) of patients who had molecular data available (n = 17) with KRASG12V being the most frequent subtype 47% (n = 8); KRASG12D in 29% (n = 5); KRASG12R in 18% (n = 3). Patients who underwent Br-M surgical resection (n = 5) had median OS of 8.6 months, while median OS following stereotactic radiosurgery only (n = 11) or whole-brain radiation only (n = 20) was 3.3 and 2.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Br-M is a late PDAC complication, resulting in an extremely poor prognosis especially in leptomeningeal disease. KRAS was mutated in 94.1% of the patients and the KRASG12V subtype was prevalent.

Phase Ib/II Study of Lacnotuzumab in Combination with Spartalizumab in Patients with Advanced Malignancies.

Introduction: Blocking the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1) signal on tumor-associated macrophages can lead to an upregulation of checkpoint molecules, such as programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), thus causing resistance to this blockade. Combining spartalizumab (PDR001), a high-affinity, ligand-blocking, humanized anti-PD-1 immunoglobulin G4 antibody, with lacnotuzumab (MCS110), a high-affinity, humanized monoclonal antibody directed against human CSF-1 can potentially overcome this resistance. Methods: This was a multicenter, phase Ib/II trial using a combination of spartalizumab with lacnotuzumab in patients with advanced cancers, including anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-resistant melanoma, and anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment-naïve triple-negative breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and endometrial cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02807844). The primary objective of dose escalation phase Ib was to assess safety, tolerability, and recommended phase II dose. The primary objective of the phase II expansion study was to assess the combination's antitumor activity, including objective response rate and clinical benefit rate. Results: A total of eight patients (five in phase Ib and three in phase II) were evaluable for adverse events (AEs) at our study site. All eight patients experienced at least grade 1 AE. The most common treatment-related AEs were increased serum aspartate aminotransferase (38%), fatigue (38%), anemia (25%), increased alkaline phosphatase (25%), hyperbilirubinemia (25%), hypocalcemia (25%), and hypoalbuminemia (25%). Most of these AEs were grade 1 or 2. None of the patients experienced grade 4 AEs and no drug-related fatal AEs were reported among the eight patients treated in the study. One (13%) patient had stable disease (SD) (captured as unknown by the study sponsor because the evaluation criteria set per protocol was not met) and three (38%) patients had progressive disease. Four (50%) patients developed clinical disease progression based on investigator evaluation. One patient with pancreatic cancer achieved immune-related SD for 26 months while on the study treatments. Conclusion: The study completed phase Ib dose escalation and phase II. However, gating criteria for efficacy were not met for expansion beyond 80 patients in phase II and the sponsor did not continue development of the combination of spartalizumab and lacnotuzumab for oncology indications. The potential signal of activity in pancreatic cancer should be further explored.

Phase 1 dose expansion and biomarker study assessing first-in-class tumor microenvironment modulator VT1021 in patients with advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies have demonstrated that VT1021, a first-in-class therapeutic agent, inhibits tumor growth via stimulation of thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) and reprograms the tumor microenvironment. We recently reported data from the dose escalation part of a phase I study of VT1021 in solid tumors. Here, we report findings from the dose expansion phase of the same study. METHODS: We analyzed the safety and tolerability, clinical response, and biomarker profile of VT1021 in the expansion portion of the phase I study (NCT03364400). Safety/tolerability is determined by adverse events related to the treatment. Clinical response is determined by RECIST v1.1 and iRECIST. Biomarkers are measured by multiplexed ion beam imaging and enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA). RESULTS: First, we report the safety and tolerability data as the primary outcome of this study. Adverse events (AE) suspected to be related to the study treatment (RTEAEs) are mostly grade 1-2. There are no grade 4 or 5 adverse events. VT1021 is safe and well tolerated in patients with solid tumors in this study. We report clinical responses as a secondary efficacy outcome. VT1021 demonstrates promising single-agent clinical activity in recurrent GBM (rGBM) in this study. Among 22 patients with rGBM, the overall disease control rate (DCR) is 45% (95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.67). Finally, we report the exploratory outcomes of this study. We show the clinical confirmation of TSP-1 induction and TME remodeling by VT1021. Our biomarker analysis identifies several plasmatic cytokines as potential biomarkers for future clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: VT1021 is safe and well-tolerated in patients with solid tumors in a phase I expansion study. VT1021 has advanced to a phase II/III clinical study in glioblastoma (NCT03970447).

The network of cells that surround a tumor, the tumor microenvironment, can help cancers to grow. Therapies targeting the tumor microenvironment may help to stop tumor growth. One such therapy is VT1021. In animal models, VT1021 treatment stops tumor cells from growing by changing the tumor microenvironment. Here, we have tested VT1021 in a clinical trial and found that VT1021 treatment is safe and well tolerated in patients with cancer. We also see signs of efficacy in some patients and observe evidence that VT1021 modifies the tumor microenvironment, which may help to block tumor growth. Finally, we identified several markers from the blood that may help to predict which patients will best benefit from VT1021 treatment. With further testing in clinical trials, VT1021 may be a useful therapy for patients with cancer.

Trends Over Time in Recurrence Patterns and Survival Outcomes after Neoadjuvant Therapy and Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if advances in neoadjuvant therapy affected recurrence patterns and survival outcomes after pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on how modern multimodality therapy affects PDAC recurrence and post-recurrence survival. METHODS: Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy followed by curative-intent pancreatectomy for PDAC during 1998-2018 were identified. Treatments, recurrence sites and timing, and survival were compared between patients who completed neoadjuvant therapy and pancreatectomy in 1998-2004, 2005-2011, and 2012-2018. RESULTS: The study included 727 patients (203, 251, and 273 in the 1998-2004, 2005-2011, and 2012-2018 cohorts, respectively). Use of neoadjuvant induction chemotherapy increased over time, and regimens changed over time, with >80% of patients treated in 2012-2018 receiving FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel. Overall, recurrence sites and incidence (67.5%, 66.1%, and 65.9%) remained stable, and 85% of recurrences occurred within 2 years of surgery. However, compared to earlier cohorts, the 2012-2018 cohort had lower conditional risk of recurrence in postoperative year 1 and higher risk in postoperative year 2. Overall survival increased over time (median, 30.6, 33.6, and 48.7 mo, P < 0.005), driven by improved post-recurrence overall survival (median, 7.8, 12.5, and 12.6 mo; 3-year rate, 7%, 10%, and 20%; P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We observed changes in neoadjuvant therapy regimens over time and an associated shift in the conditional risk of recurrence from postoperative year 1 to postoperative year 2, although recurrence remained common. Overall survival and post-recurrence survival remarkably improved over time, reflecting improved multimodality regimens for recurrent disease.

Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase Genomic Loss in Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: One of the most common sporadic homozygous deletions in cancers is 9p21 loss, which includes the genes methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP), CDKN2A, and CDKN2B, and has been correlated with worsened outcomes and immunotherapy resistance. MTAP-loss is a developing drug target through synthetic lethality with MAT2A and PMRT5 inhibitors. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence and genomic landscape of MTAP-loss in advanced gastrointestinal (GI) tumors and investigate its role as a prognostic biomarker. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed next-generation sequencing and comparative genomic and clinical analysis on an extensive cohort of 64 860 tumors comprising 5 GI cancers. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with GI cancer harboring MTAP-loss and MTAP-intact tumors in a retrospective study. RESULTS: The prevalence of MTAP-loss in GI cancers is 8.30%. MTAP-loss was most prevalent in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at 21.7% and least in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) at 1.1%. MTAP-loss tumors were more prevalent in East Asian patients with PDAC (4.4% vs 3.2%, P = .005) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC; 6.4% vs 4.3%, P = .036). Significant differences in the prevalence of potentially targetable genomic alterations (ATM, BRAF, BRCA2, ERBB2, IDH1, PIK3CA, and PTEN) were observed in MTAP-loss tumors and varied according to tumor type. MTAP-loss PDAC, IHCC, and CRC had a lower prevalence of microsatellite instability or elevated tumor mutational burden. Positive PD-L1 tumor cell expression was less frequent among MTAP-loss versus MTAP-intact IHCC tumors (23.2% vs 31.2%, P = .017). CONCLUSION: In GI cancers, MTAP-loss occurs as part of 9p21 loss and has an overall prevalence of 8%. MTAP-loss occurs in 22% of PDAC, 15% of IHCC, 8.7% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, 2.4% of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 1.1% of CRC and is not mutually exclusive with other targetable mutations.

Efficacy and safety of autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in recurrent or refractory ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy has shown efficacy in metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors. Our preclinical work demonstrated more robust CD8 predominant TIL production when agonistic anti-4-1BB and CD3 antibodies were used in early ex vivo TIL culture. METHODS: Patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PDAC) and ovarian (OVCA) cancers were eligible. Lymphodepleting chemotherapy was followed by infusion of ex vivo expanded TIL, manufactured at MD Anderson Cancer Center with IL-2 and agonistic stimulation of CD3 and 4-1BB (urelumab). Patients received up to six doses of high-dose IL-2 after TIL infusion. Primary endpoint was evaluation of objective response rate at 12 weeks using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 with secondary endpoints including disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: 17 patients underwent TIL harvest and 16 were treated on protocol (NCT03610490), including 8 CRC, 5 PDAC, and 3 OVCA patients. Median age was 57.5 (range 33-70) and 50% were females. Median number of lines of prior therapy was 2 (range 1-8). No responses were observed at 12 weeks. Ten subjects achieved at least one stable disease (SD) assessment for a DCR of 62.5% (95% CI 35.4% to 84.8%). Best response included prolonged SD in a patient with PDAC lasting 17 months. Median PFS and OS across cohorts were 2.53 months (95% CI 1.54 to 4.11) and 18.86 months (95% CI 4.86 to NR), respectively. Grade 3 or higher toxicities attributable to therapy were seen in 14 subjects (87.5%; 95% CI 61.7% to 98.4%). Infusion product analysis showed the presence of effector memory cells with high expression of CD39 irrespective of tumor type and low expression of checkpoint markers. CONCLUSIONS: TIL manufactured with assistance of 4-1BB and CD3 agonism is feasible and treatment is associated with no new safety signals. While no responses were observed, a significant portion of patients achieved SD suggesting early/partial immunological effect. Further research is required to identify factors associated with resistance and functionally enhance T cells for a more effective therapy.

Co-clinical Trial of Novel Bispecific Anti-HER2 Antibody Zanidatamab in Patient-Derived Xenografts.

Zanidatamab is a bispecific human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted antibody that has demonstrated antitumor activity in a broad range of HER2-amplified/expressing solid tumors. We determined the antitumor activity of zanidatamab in patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models developed from pretreatment or postprogression biopsies on the first-in-human zanidatamab phase I study (NCT02892123). Of 36 tumors implanted, 19 PDX models were established (52.7% take rate) from 17 patients. Established PDXs represented a broad range of HER2-expressing cancers, and in vivo testing demonstrated an association between antitumor activity in PDXs and matched patients in 7 of 8 co-clinical models tested. We also identified amplification of MET as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to zanidatamab and demonstrated that MET inhibitors have single-agent activity and can enhance zanidatamab activity in vitro and in vivo. These findings provide evidence that PDXs can be developed from pretreatment biopsies in clinical trials and may provide insight into mechanisms of resistance. SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that PDXs can be developed from pretreatment and postprogression biopsies in clinical trials and may represent a powerful preclinical tool. We identified amplification of MET as a potential mechanism of acquired resistance to the HER2 inhibitor zanidatamab and MET inhibitors alone and in combination as a therapeutic strategy. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 695.

Impact of KRAS mutations and co-mutations on clinical outcomes in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

The relevance of KRAS mutation alleles to clinical outcome remains inconclusive in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted a retrospective study of 803 patients with PDAC (42% with metastatic disease) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated that KRAS mutation status and subtypes were prognostic (p < 0.001). Relative to patients with KRAS wildtype tumors (median OS 38 months), patients with KRASG12R had a similar OS (median 34 months), while patients with KRASQ61 and KRASG12D mutated tumors had shorter OS (median 20 months [HR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.006] and 22 months [HR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p < 0.001], respectively). There was enrichment of KRASG12D mutation in metastatic tumors (34% vs 24%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p = 0.001) and enrichment of KRASG12R in well and moderately differentiated tumors (14% vs 9%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.05-2.99, p = 0.04). Similar findings were observed in the external validation cohort (PanCAN's Know Your Tumor® dataset, n = 408).

Lymph-node-targeted, mKRAS-specific amphiphile vaccine in pancreatic and colorectal cancer: the phase 1 AMPLIFY-201 trial.

Pancreatic and colorectal cancers are often KRAS mutated and are incurable when tumor DNA or protein persists or recurs after curative intent therapy. Cancer vaccine ELI-002 2P enhances lymph node delivery and immune response using amphiphile (Amph) modification of G12D and G12R mutant KRAS (mKRAS) peptides (Amph-Peptides-2P) together with CpG oligonucleotide adjuvant (Amph-CpG-7909). We treated 25 patients (20 pancreatic and five colorectal) who were positive for minimal residual mKRAS disease (ctDNA and/or serum tumor antigen) after locoregional treatment in a phase 1 study of fixed-dose Amph-Peptides-2P and ascending-dose Amph-CpG-7909; study enrollment is complete with patient follow-up ongoing. Primary endpoints included safety and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The secondary endpoint was tumor biomarker response (longitudinal ctDNA or tumor antigen), with exploratory endpoints including immunogenicity and relapse-free survival (RFS). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and the RP2D was 10.0 mg of Amph-CpG-7909. Direct ex vivo mKRAS-specific T cell responses were observed in 21 of 25 patients (84%; 59% both CD4+ and CD8+); tumor biomarker responses were observed in 21 of 25 patients (84%); biomarker clearance was observed in six of 25 patients (24%; three pancreatic and three colorectal); and the median RFS was 16.33 months. Efficacy correlated with T cell responses above or below the median fold increase over baseline (12.75-fold): median tumor biomarker reduction was -76.0% versus -10.2% (P < 0.0014), and the median RFS was not reached versus 4.01 months (hazard ratio = 0.14; P = 0.0167). ELI-002 2P was safe and induced considerable T cell responses in patients with immunotherapy-recalcitrant KRAS-mutated tumors. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04853017 .

NCI10066: a Phase 1/2 study of olaparib in combination with ramucirumab in previously treated metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Our preclinical work revealed tumour hypoxia induces homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), increasing sensitivity to Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We aimed to induce tumour hypoxia with ramucirumab thereby sensitising tumours to olaparib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multi-institution single-arm Phase 1/2 trial enrolled patients with metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma refractory to ≥1 systemic treatment. In dose escalation, olaparib was evaluated at escalating dose levels with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg day 1 in 14-day cycles. The primary endpoint of Phase 1 was the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D), and in Phase 2 the primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Fifty-one patients received ramucirumab and olaparib. The RP2D was olaparib 300 mg twice daily with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg. In evaluable patients at the RP2D the ORR was 6/43 (14%) (95% CI 4.7-25.6). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.3-4.2) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.7-13.0). Non-statistically significant improvements in PFS and OS were observed for patients with tumours with mutations in HRD genes. CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib and ramucirumab is well-tolerated with efficacy that exceeds historical controls with ramucirumab single agent for gastric cancer in a heavily pre-treated patient population.

Phase I Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) in Combination with Metformin in Patients with mTOR/AKT/PI3K Pathway Alterations and Advanced Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. We report preliminary safety, tolerability, and efficacy from the dose-escalation study of sapanisertib in combination with metformin in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors resistant or refractory to standard treatment, with and without mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, received sapanisertib 3 or 4 mg daily together with metformin once to three times daily (500-1,500 mg). All patients underwent 14-day titration period for metformin in cycle 1. Tumor measurements were performed following cycle 2 and subsequently every 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled across four cohorts (3 mg/500 mg; 3 mg/1,000 mg, 4 mg/1,000 mg; 4 mg/1,500 mg). 19 were female (63%), median age was 57 (range: 30-77), all were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1. Tumor types included sarcoma (6), breast (4), ovarian (4), head and neck (3), colorectal (2), lung (2), renal cell (2), endometrial (2), gastroesophageal junction (1), prostate (1), stomach (1), urachus (1), and cervical cancer (1). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4. Most common genomic alterations included PIK3CA (27%), PTEN (17%), AKT1/2 (10%), mTOR (10%). Of 30 patients evaluable for response, 4 patients achieved partial response (PR); 15 patients achieved stable disease (SD) as best response. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 63%. Of the responders in PR, 3 of 4 patients had documented PTEN mutations (3/5 patients enrolled with PTEN mutations had PR); 2 of 4 of patients in PR had comutations (patient with leiomyosarcoma had both PTEN and TSC; patient with breast cancer had both PTEN and STK11); 1 of 4 patients in PR had AKT and mTOR mutation; tumor types included leiomyosarcoma (n = 2), breast (n = 1), and endometrial cancer (n = 1). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, and rash. Grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse events included hyperglycemia (4/30; 13%), fatigue (2/30; 7%), hypertriglyceridemia (1/30; 3%), rash (2/20; 7%), diarrhea (2/30; 7%), creatinine increase (1/30; 3%), acidosis (1/30; 3%). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were reported in the 3 mg/500 mg cohort. One of 6 patient had DLT in the 3 mg/1,000 mg cohort (G3 diarrhea) and 2 of 11 patients had DLTs in the 4 mg/1,500 mg cohort (G3 fatigue, G3 rash). 4 mg/1,000 mg was defined as the MTD. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib in combination with metformin was generally tolerable, with antitumor activity observed in patients with advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations. SIGNIFICANCE: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, next-generation dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of AMPK suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. This dose-escalation study of sapanisertib and metformin in advanced solid tumors and mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, demonstrates safety, tolerability, and early clinical activity in advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations.Clinical trial information: NCT03017833.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with or without selective dismutase mimetic in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has the potential to ablate localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Selective dismutase mimetics sensitise tumours while reducing normal tissue toxicity. This trial was designed to establish the efficacy and toxicity afforded by the selective dismutase mimetic avasopasem manganese when combined with ablative SBRT for localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer who had received at least 3 months of chemotherapy and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at six academic sites in the USA. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 6-12) with a maximum of 24 patients per group, to receive daily avasopasem (90 mg) or placebo intravenously directly before (ie, within 180 min) SBRT (50, 55, or 60 Gy in five fractions, adaptively assigned in real time by Bayesian estimates of 90-day safety and efficacy). Patients and physicians were masked to treatment group allocation, but not to SBRT dose. The primary objective was to find the optimal dose of SBRT with avasopasem or placebo as determined by the late onset EffTox method. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03340974, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2018, and April 29, 2020, 47 patients were screened, of whom 42 were enrolled (median age was 71 years [IQR 63-75], 23 [55%] were male, 19 [45%] were female, 37 [88%] were White, three [7%] were Black, and one [2%] each were unknown or other races) and randomly assigned to avasopasem (n=24) or placebo (n=18); the placebo group was terminated early after failing to meet prespecified efficacy parameters. At data cutoff (June 28, 2021), the avasopasem group satisfied boundaries for both efficacy and toxicity. Late onset EffTox efficacy response was observed in 16 (89%) of 18 patients at 50 Gy and six (100%) of six patients at 55 Gy in the avasopasem group, and was observed in three (50%) of six patients at 50 Gy and nine (75%) of 12 patients at 55 Gy in the placebo group, and the Bayesian model recommended 50 Gy or 55 Gy in five fractions with avasopasem for further study. Serious adverse events of any cause were reported in three (17%) of 18 patients in the placebo group and six (25%) of 24 in the avasopasem group. In the placebo group, grade 3 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were abdominal pain, acute cholangitis, pyrexia, increased blood lactic acid, and increased lipase (one [6%] each); no grade 4 events occurred. In the avasopasem group, grade 3-4 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were acute kidney injury, increased blood alkaline phosphatase, haematoma, colitis, gastric obstruction, lung infection, abdominal abscess, post-surgical atrial fibrillation, and pneumonia leading to respiratory failure (one [4%] each).There were no treatment-related deaths but one late death in the avasopasem group due to sepsis in the setting of duodenal obstruction after off-study treatment was reported as potentially related to SBRT. INTERPRETATION: SBRT that uses 50 or 55 Gy in five fractions can be considered for patients with localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The addition of avasopasem might further enhance disease outcomes. A larger phase 2 trial (GRECO-2, NCT04698915) is underway to validate these results. FUNDING: Galera Therapeutics.

NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). METHODS: NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4-19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0-12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3-10·6) with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC. FUNDING: Ipsen. TRANSLATION: For the plain language summary see Supplementary Materials section.

Impact of KRAS Mutations and Co-mutations on Clinical Outcomes in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

The relevance of KRAS mutation alleles to clinical outcome remains inconclusive in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We conducted a retrospective study of 803 PDAC patients (42% with metastatic disease) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated that KRAS mutation status and subtypes were prognostic (p<0.001). Relative to patients with KRAS wildtype tumors (median OS 38 months), patients with KRASG12R had a similar OS (median 34 months), while patients with KRASQ61 and KRASG12D mutated tumors had shorter OS (median 20 months [HR: 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p=0.006] and 22 months [HR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.3, p<0.001], respectively). There was enrichment of KRASG12D mutation in metastatic tumors (34% vs 24%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p=0.001) and enrichment of KRASG12R in well and moderately differentiated tumors (14% vs 9%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.05-2.99, p=0.04). Similar findings were observed in the external validation cohort (PanCAN's Know Your Tumor® dataset, n=408).

Erdafitinib in patients with advanced solid tumours with FGFR alterations (RAGNAR): an international, single-arm, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: FGFR alterations are reported across various malignancies and might act as oncogenic drivers in multiple histologies. Erdafitinib is an oral, selective pan-FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in FGFR-altered advanced urothelial carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the safety and activity of erdafitinib in previously treated patients with FGFR-altered advanced solid tumours. METHODS: The single-arm, phase 2 RAGNAR study was conducted at 156 investigative centres (hospitals or oncology practices that are qualified oncology study centres) across 15 countries. The study consisted of four cohorts based on tumour histology and patient age; the results reported in this Article are for the primary cohort of the study, defined as the Broad Panel Cohort, which was histology-agnostic. We recruited patients aged 12 years or older with advanced or metastatic tumours of any histology (except urothelial cancer) with predefined FGFR1-4 alterations (mutations or fusions according to local or central testing). Eligible patients had disease progression on at least one previous line of systemic therapy and no alternative standard therapy available to them, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or equivalent for adolescents aged 12-17 years). Patients received once-daily oral erdafitinib (8 mg/day with provision for pharmacodynamically guided up-titration to 9 mg/day) on a continuous 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review committee according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, or Response Assessment In Neuro-Oncology (RANO). The primary analysis was conducted on the treated population of the Broad Panel Cohort. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04083976. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between Dec 5, 2019, and Feb 15, 2022. Of 217 patients treated with erdafitinib, 97 (45%) patients were female and 120 (55%) were male. The data cutoff was Aug 15, 2022. At a median follow-up of 17·9 months (IQR 13·6-23·9), an objective response was observed in 64 (30% [95% CI 24-36]) of 217 patients across 16 distinct tumour types. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events related to erdafitinib were stomatitis (25 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (12 [6%]), and hyperphosphataemia (11 [5%]). The most commonly occurring serious treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were stomatitis in four (2%) patients and diarrhoea in two (1%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: RAGNAR results show clinical benefit for erdafitinib in the tumour-agnostic setting in patients with advanced solid tumours with susceptible FGFR alterations who have exhausted other treatment options. These results support the continued development of FGFR inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumours. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

A phase I trial of the pan-ERBB inhibitor neratinib combined with the MEK inhibitor trametinib in patients with advanced cancer with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation or KRAS mutation.

PURPOSE: Aberrant alterations of ERBB receptor tyrosine kinases lead to tumorigenesis. Single agent therapy targeting EGFR or HER2 has shown clinical successes, but drug resistance often develops due to aberrant or compensatory mechanisms. Herein, we sought to determine the feasibility and safety of neratinib and trametinib in patients with EGFR mutation/amplification, HER2 mutation/amplification, HER3/4 mutation and KRAS mutation. METHODS: Patients with actionable somatic mutations or amplifications in ERBB genes or actionable KRAS mutations were enrolled to receive neratinib and trametinib in this phase I dose escalation trial. The primary endpoint was determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetic analysis and preliminary anti-tumor efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled with a median age of 50.5 years and a median of 3 lines of prior therapy. Grade 3 treatment-related toxicities included: diarrhea (25%), vomiting (10%), nausea (5%), fatigue (5%) and malaise (5%). The MTD was dose level (DL) minus 1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg, 5 days on and 2 days off) given 2 DLTs of grade 3 diarrhea in DL1 (neratinib 160 mg daily with trametinib 1 mg daily). The treatment-related toxicities of DL1 included: diarrhea (100%), nausea (55.6%) and rash (55.6%). Pharmacokinetic data showed trametinib clearance was significantly reduced leading to high drug exposures of trametinib. Two patients achieved stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. CONCLUSION: Neratinib and trametinib combination was toxic and had limited clinical efficacy. This may be due to suboptimal drug dosing given drug-drug interactions. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: NCT03065387.

Discordance of HER2 Expression and/or Amplification on Repeat Testing.

We sought to assess discordance of HER2 status in patients with HER2-amplified/expressing solid tumors who underwent reevaluation of HER2 status. Patients with metastatic solid tumors and HER2 expression by IHC or amplification by FISH/next-generation sequencing on local testing underwent central HER2 IHC/FISH testing with either archival or fresh biopsies and were evaluated for discordance in HER2 status. 70 patients (12 cancer types) underwent central HER2 reevaluation, including 57 (81.4%) with a new biopsy. In 30 patients with HER2 3+ on local IHC, 21 (70.0%) were 3+, 5 (16.7%) were 2+, 2 (6.7%) were 1+, and 2 (6.7%) had 0 HER2 expression on central IHC. In 15 patients whose cancers were 2+ on local IHC, 2 (13.3%) were 3+, 5 (33.3%) were 2+, 7 (46.7%) were 1+, and 1 (6.7%) had 0 HER2 expression on central IHC. HER2 discordance was seen in 16 of 52 (30.8%) of patients with HER2 overexpression/amplification who underwent a new image-guided biopsy. Discordance was observed in 10 (33.3%) of 30 patients who received intervening HER2-targeted therapy and in 6 (23.8%) of 22 patients who did not. In the 8 patients who had central HER2 assessment from the same archival block used for local testing, none were discordant. Discordance of HER2 status is common in patients with tumors previously identified as HER2-expressing, especially in patients with HER2 2+ tumors. Repeat biomarker evaluation may have value when considering HER2-targeted therapies.