Utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) versus tumor tissue genotyping for enrollment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to matched clinical trials: SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA combined analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4071-4071
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
Taito Esaki ◽  
Yoshito Komatsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Turnaround Time ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Wide Range

4071 Background: We recently reported that ctDNA genotyping had advantages compared with tumor tissue testing in terms of enrollment to matched clinical trials across a wide range of GI cancers (Nakamura Y, et al. ASCO-GI 2020). Here, we investigated the utility of ctDNA genotyping in mCRC in a SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA combined analysis. Methods: In GI-SCREEN, tumor tissue genotyping was performed using a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay since Feb 2015. In GOZILA, NGS-based ctDNA genotyping was performed using Guardant360 since Feb 2018. All tests were conducted centrally in a CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratory. Patients with actionable alterations were enrolled into matched company-sponsored or investigator-initiated interventional clinical trials. Results: As of Apr 2019, 2,791 mCRC patients (2,754 eligible for analysis) in GI-SCREEN and 470 (464 eligible for analysis) in GOZILA were enrolled. There were no significant differences in baseline patient characteristics between GI-SCREEN and GOZILA. Most of trials affiliated with GI-SCREEN (81%) or GOZILA (78%) targeted the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway. Compared with tumor testing, ctDNA genotyping significantly improved turnaround time (median, 12 vs. 34 days, P < 0.0001), sequencing success rate (96.1 vs. 92.3%, P = 0.002), and detection rate of actionable alterations (73.3 vs. 62.2%, P = 0.02). Among patients with actionable alterations, enrollment to matched clinical trials was achieved in 5.0% in GI-SCREEN and 12.1% in GOZILA ( P < 0.0001). Median time from enrollment in the respective screening study to enrollment in a matched clinical trial was 6.5 months in GI-SCREEN and 0.9 months in GOZILA, respectively ( P < 0.0001). Objective response rate and progression-free survival were similar in both groups (tissue vs. ctDNA; ORR: 18.8 vs. 17.1%, P = 1.00; median PFS: 2.2 vs. 2.2 months, HR=1.05 [95% CI, 0.71–1.55], P = 0.79). Conclusions: For patients with mCRC, ctDNA genotyping had advantages over tissue genotyping with shorter turnaround time and higher sequencing success and actionable alteration detection rate, which were associated with improved clinical trial enrollment without compromising the efficacy. Funding: SCRUM-Japan Funds. Clinical trial information: UMIN000029315 .

Utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) versus tumor tissue clinical sequencing for enrolling patients (Pts) with advanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancer to matched clinical trials: SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA Combined Analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
Ken Kato ◽  
Taito Esaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Clinical Sequencing ◽  
Gi Cancer

5 Background: Blood-based genomic profiling by ctDNA analysis has a promise to potentially identify actionable genomic alterations. However, utility of clinical sequencing with ctDNA compared with that with tumor tissue for enrolling cancer pts to matched clinical trials remains unclear. Herein we investigated the utility of ctDNA clinical sequencing by the SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA Combined Analysis. Methods: In the GI-SCREEN, tumor tissue samples of pts with advanced GI cancer were analyzed by a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay since Feb 2015. In the GOZILA, plasma samples of pts with advanced GI cancer were analyzed by an NGS-based ctDNA assay, Guardant360 since Feb 2018. Tests were performed centrally by CLIA-certified and CAP-accredited laboratories. Pts with actionable alterations were enrolled to matched company-sponsored or investigator-initiated clinical trials. Results: As of Apr 2019, test results were generated in 5,029 out of 5,743 pts (88%) in GI-SCREEN and 1,089 out of 1,103 pts (99%) in GOZILA ( P < 0.0001).Median turnaround time (TAT) was 35 days in GI-SCREEN and 12 days in GOZILA ( P < 0.0001). There were no differences in other baseline characteristics between GI-SCREEN and GOZILA. Proportion of enrolling matched clinical trials in GOZILA was significantly higher than that in GI-SCREEN (126 pts [2.2%] in GI-SCREEN vs. 60 pts [5.4%] in GOZILA, P < 0.0001). Median time from GI-SCREEN or GOZILA enrollment to clinical trial enrollment was 5.9 and 1.0 months (mo), respectively ( P < 0.0001). The objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not significantly different (ORR: 17.5 vs. 16.7%, P = 1.00; median PFS: 2.8 vs. 2.0 mo, P = 0.24). Conclusions: Clinical sequencing with ctDNA having the advantage of the shorter TAT enrolled more pts with advanced GI cancer to matched clinical trials than those with tumor tissue, without compromising the efficacy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000029315.

Utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) versus tumor tissue clinical sequencing for enrolling patients (pts) with advanced non-colorectal (non-CRC) gastrointestinal (GI) cancer to matched clinical trials: SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA combined analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3516-3516
Author(s):  
Akihiro Ohba ◽  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Combined Analysis ◽  
Clinical Sequencing ◽  
Upper Gi ◽  
Gi Cancer ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Gi Cancers

3516 Background: We recently reported that clinical assessment of genomic biomarkers using ctDNA had advantages over tumor tissue-based sequencing for enrollment into matched clinical trials across a wide range of GI cancers. Herein we investigated the utility of ctDNA in non-CRC cancers in a SCRUM-Japan GI-SCREEN and GOZILA combined analysis. Methods: In GI-SCREEN, tumor tissue samples of pts with non-CRC were analyzed by a next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay, since Feb 2015. In GOZILA, plasma samples of non-CRC pts were analyzed by an NGS-based ctDNA assay, Guardant360, since Feb 2018. Results: As of Apr 2019, 2,952 pts in GI-SCREEN and 633 pts in GOZILA were enrolled. Baseline characteristics between the groups were well matched except that GOZILA included more pancreatic (P < 0.0001) and liver cancers (P = 0.016) but fewer gastric cancers (P < 0.0001) and GIST (P = 0.020) than GI-SCREEN. The success rates of the tests were 86.6% in GI-SCREEN and 87.3% in GOZILA (P = 0.649). Median turnaround time (TAT) was 37 days in GI-SCREEN and 12 days in GOZILA (P < 0.0001). The proportion of cases with actionable alterations detected (tissue vs blood; 29.8% vs 46.8%, P < 0.0001) and enrolled into matched clinical trials (4.8% vs 6.5%, P = 0.286) for each group by cancer type are shown in the Table. Pts with upper GI cancers, especially those in GOZILA, were more often enrolled into matched trials; trial enrollment for those with hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) or other cancers was similar regardless of testing method. Median time from GI-SCREEN or GOZILA enrollment to clinical trial enrollment was 5.0 and 1.0 months (mo), respectively (P < 0.0001). Objective response rates (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not significantly different (tissue vs. blood; ORR: 14.6 vs. 26.3%, P = 0.30: median PFS: 3.3 vs. 2.6 mo, P = 0.71). Conclusions: Clinical sequencing of ctDNA, with its shorter TAT, contributed to rapid enrollment of non-CRC pts into matched clinical trials compared to those tested by tumor tissue sequencing, particularly for those with upper GI cancer, without compromising efficacy. Clinical trial information: UMIN000029315 . [Table: see text]

A randomized phase III study of mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab combination chemotherapy with or without atezolizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of patients (pts) with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Colorectal Cancer Metastatic dMMR Immuno-Therapy (COMMIT) study (NRG-GI004/SWOG-S1610).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS260-TPS260
Author(s):  
Caio Max Sao Pedro Rocha Lima ◽  
Greg Yothers ◽  
Samuel A. Jacobs ◽  
Hanna Kelly Sanoff ◽  
Deirdre Jill Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Mismatch Repair ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Dna Mismatch Repair ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Dna Mismatch

TPS260 Background: Deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC) is highly immunogenic. Preclinical data showed synergistic interactions among FOLFOX, anti-VEGF, and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway blockade. Prior phase I study of mFOLFOX6/ bevacizumab (bev) + atezolizumab (atezo) was well tolerated and enhanced intratumoral infiltration of CD8+ T cells. We hypothesize that the dMMR subset of CRC may be effectively targeted with combination of PD-1 pathway blockade and mFOLFOX6/bev. Methods: This is a prospective randomized phase III open-label trial. Pts (N=347) with mCRC dMMR will be randomized to three trial arms (1:1:1): mFOLFOX6/bev; atezo monotherapy; or mFOLFOX6/bev + atezo. Stratification factors include BRAFV600E status, metastatic site, and prior adjuvant CRC therapy. Primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by study investigator of mFOLFOX6/bev/atezo and atezo monotherapy compared to mFOLFOX6/bev. Secondary endpoints include OS, objective response rate, safety profile, disease control rate, duration of response, and PFS by retrospective central review. Health-related quality of life is an exploratory objective. Archived tumor tissue and blood samples will be collected for correlative studies. Key inclusion criteria are: mCRC without prior chemotherapy for advanced disease; dMMR tumor determined by local CLIA-certified IHC assay (MLH1/MSH2/MSH6/PMS2); availability of archived tumor tissue for central confirmation of dMMR status; and measurable disease per RECIST. Activated 11-7-17. As of 9-11-19, enrollment continues with 44/347 pts enrolled. Clinical trial: NCT02997228. Support:U10CA180868, -180822, -180888, -180819, UG1CA189867, U24CA196067; Genentech, Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT02997228.

scholarly journals Combining tissue and circulating tumor DNA increases the detection rate of a CTNNB1 mutation in hepatocellular carcinoma

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stine Karlsen Oversoe ◽  
Michelle Simone Clement ◽  
Britta Weber ◽  
Henning Grønbæk ◽  
Stephen Jacques Hamilton-Dutoit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Mutation Rate ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Tumor Dna

Abstract Background and aims Studies suggest that mutations in the CTNNB1 gene are predictive of response to immunotherapy, an emerging therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers the possibility of serial non-invasive mutational profiling of tumors. Combining tumor tissue and ctDNA analysis may increase the detection rate of mutations. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of the CTNNB1 p.T41A mutation in ctDNA and tumor samples from HCC patients and to evaluate the concordance rates between plasma and tissue. We further evaluated changes in ctDNA after various HCC treatment modalities and the impact of the CTNNB1 p.T41A mutation on the clinical course of HCC. Methods We used droplet digital PCR to analyze plasma from 95 patients and the corresponding tumor samples from 37 patients during 3 years follow up. Results In tumor tissue samples, the mutation rate was 8.1% (3/37). In ctDNA from HCC patients, the CTNNB1 mutation rate was 9.5% (9/95) in the pre-treatment samples. Adding results from plasma analysis to the subgroup of patients with available tissue samples, the mutation detection rate increased to 13.5% (5/37). There was no difference in overall survival according to CTNNB1 mutational status. Serial testing of ctDNA suggested a possible clonal evolution of HCC or arising multicentric tumors with separate genetic profiles in individual patients. Conclusion Combining analysis of ctDNA and tumor tissue increased the detection rate of CTNNB1 mutation in HCC patients. A liquid biopsy approach may be useful in a tailored therapy of HCC.

Anlotinib combined with pemetrexed and carboplatin as first-line treatment in advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): ALTER L012.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21040-e21040
Author(s):  
Qiming Wang ◽  
Xiuli Yang ◽  
Tianjiang Ma ◽  
Qiumin Yang ◽  
Chenghui Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
First Line Treatment

e21040 Background: The anti-angiogenic drug bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy has achieved positive results in previous studies. In particular, the median progression-free survival (PFS) for EGFR-negative patients was increased to 8.3 months in the BEYOND study. Unlike bevacizumab, anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor and can be conveniently orally administered. In the phase III trial ALTER 0303, anlotinib significantly improved overall survival (OS) and PFS in advanced NSCLC patients. This exploratory study aims to establish the efficacy and safety of anlotinib in combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin as first-line treatment in advanced non-squamous NSCLC. Methods: This is a multi-center, single-arm clinical trial. Adults with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV non-squamous NSCLC, ECOG 0-1, and without known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations are included. Patients received anlotinib (12 mg p.o., QD, d1 to 14, 21 days per cycle) combined with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2, iv, d15-21, Q3W) + carboplatin (AUC = 5, iv, d15-21, Q3W) for 4 cycles followed by anlotinib and pemetrexed maintenance until disease progression (PD). The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were OS, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: Between Mar 2019 and Dec 2020, 40 patients were enrolled in six centers and 31 of them have received at least one tumor assessment. Median age was 62 (33, 75); 66.7% male, 11.1% brain metastasis. At data cutoff (Dec 31, 2020), patients were followed up for a median of 8.26 months. Median PFS was 10.5 months (95% CI: NE, NE); ORR was 67.7% (0 CR, 21 PR), DCR was 96.8% (0 CR, 21 PR, 9 SD) and median OS was NE. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypertension 22.2%, neutropenia 19.44%, myelosuppression 11.1%, thrombocytopenia 8.33%, leukopenia 5.56%, hand-foot syndrome 5.56% and there were no Grade 5 toxicities. Conclusions: This study finds that anlotinib plus pemetrexed and carboplatin can significantly improve PFS and ORR compared to standard chemotherapy for treatment-naive non-squamous NSCLC patients. The combination was well tolerated, and the AEs were manageable. The follow-up time is not sufficient, and the OS outcomes need further evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT03790228.

scholarly journals Indicadores (Outcomes) Primários e Secundários em Ensaios Clínicos Oncológicos: Definição e Usos

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 498
Author(s):  
António Vaz-Carneiro ◽  
Ricardo Da Luz ◽  
Margarida Borges ◽  
João Costa
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Methodological Issue ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Alternative Drug ◽  
Selection Of

<strong>Introduction:</strong> The proof of efficacy from a therapeutic intervention in oncology must be defined through well conducted clinical trials. One of the most important methodological issue is the outcome selection needed to calculate measures of association allowing definition of clinical efficacy.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> We designed a narrative revision based on some of the international regulatory instructions from drug agencies, as well as consensus papers from scientific oncology societies, listing and critically assessing each outcome used in oncology clinical trials.<br /><strong>Results:</strong> We identified as being the most important outcomes in oncology trials the overall survival, the progression free survival/ disease-free survival, the toxicity, the quality of life/patient- reported outcomes and the objective response rate.<br /><strong>Discussion:</strong> The selection of the primary outcome must be based on therapeutic efficacy as well as toxicity, expected survival, alternative drug regimens and even disease prevalence.<br /><strong>Conclusion:</strong> The selection of efficacy outcomes for clinical trials in oncology is very important and its selection must be well justified, and depends on the type of disease, the patients and the drug being studied.<br /><strong>Keywords:</strong> Clinical Trials as Topic; Neoplasms; Medical Oncology; Treatment Outcome.

Control arm heterogeneity in trials for unselected advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1082-1082
Author(s):  
Kinisha Gala ◽  
Ankit Kalucha ◽  
Samuel Martinet ◽  
Anushri Goel ◽  
Kalpana Devi Narisetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Time To Event ◽  
Sample Size Calculations ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Combination Regimens

1082 Background: Primary endpoints of clinical trials frequently include subgroup-analyses. Several solid cancers such as aTNBC are heterogeneous, which can lead to unpredictable control arm performance impairing accurate assumptions for sample size calculations. We explore the value of a comprehensive clinical trial results repository in assessing control arm heterogeneity with aTNBC as the pilot. Methods: We identified P2/3 trials reporting median overall survival (mOS) and/or median progression-free survival (mPFS) in unselected aTNBC through a systematic search of PubMed, clinical trials databases and conference proceedings. Trial arms with sample sizes ≤25 or evaluating drugs no longer in development were excluded. Due to inconsistency among PD-L1 assays, PD-L1 subgroup analyses were not assessed separately. The primary aim was a descriptive analysis of control arm mOS and mPFS across all randomized trials in first line (1L) aTNBC. Secondary aims were to investigate time-to-event outcomes in control arms in later lines and to assess time-trends in aTNBC experimental and control arm outcomes. Results: We included 33 trials published between June 2013-Feb 2021. The mOS of control arms in 1L was 18.7mo (range 12.6-22.8) across 5 trials with single agent (nab-) paclitaxel [(n)P], and 18.1mo (similar range) for 7 trials including combination regimens (Table). The mPFS of control arms in 1L was 4.9mo (range 3.8-5.6) across 5 trials with single-agent (n)P, and 5.6mo (range 3.8-6.1) across 8 trials including combination regimens. Control arm mOS was 13.1mo (range 9.4-17.4) for 3 trials in first and second line (1/2L) and 8.7mo (range 6.7-10.8) across 5 trials in 2L and beyond. R2 for the mOS best-fit lines across control and experimental arms over time was 0.09, 0.01 and 0.04 for 1L, 1/2L and 2L and beyond, respectively. Conclusions: Median time-to-event outcomes of control arms in 1L aTNBC show considerable heterogeneity, even among trials with comparable regimens and large sample sizes. Disregarding important prognostic factors at stratification can lead to imbalances between arms, which may jeopardize accurate sample size calculations, trial results and interpretation. Optimizing stratification and assumptions for power calculations is of utmost importance in aTNBC and beyond. A digitized trial results repository with precisely defined patient populations and treatment settings could improve accuracy of assumptions during clinical trial design.[Table: see text]

Safety and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and low Karnofsky performance status: Results from the CheckMate 920 trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Bradley Curtis Carthon ◽  
Jeffrey Yorio ◽  
Sunil Babu ◽  
Heidi Ann McKean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Grade 3

315 Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability for patients (pts) with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Most pivotal clinical trials in pts with aRCC have excluded pts with low Karnofsky performance status (KPS; < 70%). CheckMate 920 is a multi-arm, phase IIIb/IV, open-label clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in pts enrolled in a community practice setting with aRCC and a high unmet medical need. We present safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pts with aRCC of any histology and KPS 50%–60% from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic RCC and KPS 50%–60% received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × 4 doses followed by 480 mg NIVO Q4W for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 25 treated pts with KPS 50%–60%, 76% were men; median age was 67 years (range, 34–81). IMDC risk was favorable in 0%, intermediate in 32%, and poor in 68% of pts; 84% had clear cell and 16% had non-clear cell RCC histology. With a minimum follow-up of 25 months, median duration of therapy (95% CI) was 2.3 months (2.1–7.7) for NIVO and 2.1 months (2.1–2.1) for IPI. The median number of doses (range) received was 4 (1–27) for NIVO and 4 (1–4) for IPI; 76% of pts received ≥ 4 NIVO doses and 68% received all 4 IPI doses. The only grade 3–4 imAEs by category were hepatitis (4.0%) and adrenal insufficiency (4.0%). No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Overall, 4 (16%) pts discontinued due to any-grade adverse events (n = 1 each for elevated AST, malignant neoplasm progression, back pain, and acetabulum fracture). Of 18 evaluable pts, ORR was 33.3% (95% CI, 13.3–59.0); no pts had a complete response and 6 had partial response. Median time to objective response was 4.5 months (range, 2.5–24.7). Median duration of objective response was 20.6 months (range, 0.03+–24.2+). Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5–14.8). Median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI, 5.3–25.1). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in pts with previously untreated aRCC and KPS 50%–60%. The combination was tolerated at a dose intensity similar to that observed in clinical trials conducted in pts with higher KPS (≥ 70%). These data support the value of NIVO+IPI in pts who may not be considered ideal candidates for this therapy and consequently may have limited treatment options. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954 .

Phase II study of anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy with panitumumab driven by circulating tumor DNA molecular selection in metastatic colorectal cancer: The CHRONOS trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3506-3506
Author(s):  
Andrea Sartore-Bianchi ◽  
Filippo Pietrantonio ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Benedetta Mussolin ◽  
Francesco Rua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Liquid Biopsy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Type I ◽  
Tumor Dna

3506 Background: Despite advances in molecular segmentation of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), beyond RAS status therapeutic actionability remains confined to the limited subgroups of ERBB2 amplified, BRAF mutated and MSI-H patients. Optimization of available treatments is therefore warranted. Rechallenge with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies is often empirically used with some benefit as late-line therapy. We previously found that mutant RAS and EGFR ectodomain clones, which emerge in blood during EGFR blockade, decline upon antibody withdrawal leading to regain drug sensitivity. Based on this rationale, we designed CHRONOS, a multicenter phase II trial of anti-EGFR therapy rechallenge guided by monitoring of the mutational status of RAS, BRAF and EGFR in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). To our knowledge, this is the first interventional clinical trial of liquid biopsy for driving anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy in mCRC. Methods: Eligible patients were PS ECOG 0-2 RAS/BRAF WT mCRC having first achieved an objective response and then progression in any treatment line with an anti-EGFR antibody containing regimen, displaying RAS, BRAF and EGFR ectodomain WT status in ctDNA at molecular screening after progression to the last anti-EGFR-free regimen. Clonal evolution in ctDNA was analyzed by ddPCR and next generation sequencing. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg was administered IV every two weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST version 1.1 with independent central review. 27 total patients and 6 responses were required to declare the study positive (power = 85%, type I error = 0.05). Results: Between Aug 19, 2019 and Nov 6, 2020 52 patients were screened by liquid biopsy and 36 (69%) were negative in ctDNA for RAS/BRAF/EGFR mutations. Of these, 27 patients were enrolled in 4 centers. Median age was 64 years (range: 42-80). PS ECOG was 0/50%, 1/46%, 2/4%. Previous anti-EGFR was administered in 1st line in 63%, 2nd in 15% and > 2nd in 22%. Median number of previous treatments was 3. The primary endpoint was met, with 8/27 partial responses (PR) observed (2 unconfirmed) (ORR = 30%, 95% CI: 12-47%). Stable disease (SD) was obtained in 11/27 (40%, 95% CI: 24-59%), lasting > 4 months in 8/11. Disease control rate (PR plus SD > 4 months) was therefore obtained in 16/27 (59%, 95% CI: 41-78%). Median progression-free survival was 16 weeks. Median duration of response was 17 weeks (1 ongoing). Maximal grade toxicity was G3, limited to dermatological and occurring in 19% of patients. ctDNA dynamics were studied in all patients. Conclusions: Liquid biopsy-driven rechallenge with anti-EGFR antibodies leads to further objective responses in one third of patients. Genotyping tumor DNA in the blood to direct therapy can be effectively incorporated in the management of advanced CRCs. Clinical trial information: 2016-002597-12.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document