<p>Supplementary Figure S2: CONSORT diagram depicting the number of included and excluded samples, and the reasons for exclusion, at each step of analysis for the CRC cohort.</p>
<p>Supplementary Table S6: Associations between clusters and covariates of interest for NSCLC, CRC, and PDAC, reported as odds ratios except for age, which is reported as the untransformed coefficient. The 95% Bonferroni confidence intervals are included in parentheses, corrected over the number of clusters for each tested covariate.</p>
TPS211 Background: Approximately 10% of patients (pts) with mCRC have BRAF mutations (mostly V600E). First-line tx options for BRAF V600E mCRC are limited to cytotoxic chemotherapy ± anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR; or immune checkpoint inhibitors in pts with MSI-H tumors. In Europe, Japan, and USA, the combination of BRAF inhibitor enco + EGFR inhibitor cet is approved for tx of BRAF V600E mCRC after prior therapy. In BEACON CRC, enco + cet resulted in a median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.0–11.3) and an objective response rate (ORR) of 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%–25.4%) in previously treated pts with BRAF V600E mCRC (median follow-up: 12.8 months); 57.4% of pts had grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), and 9% discontinued due to AEs. Given the poor prognosis of pts with BRAF V600E mCRC and based on the efficacy and tolerability of enco + cet from BEACON CRC, the BREAKWATER study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of enco + cet ± chemotherapy in tx-naive pts with BRAF V600E mCRC. Methods: BREAKWATER is an open-label, global, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study with a safety lead-in (SLI). Approximately 60 and 870 pts will be enrolled in the SLI and phase 3 parts of the study, respectively. Pts must have mCRC with BRAF V600E-mutation (determined using tumor tissue or blood); ECOG performance status 0/1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Pts in the SLI must have evaluable disease (RECIST v1.1) and have received ≤ 1 prior tx regimen; those previously treated with a BRAF or EGFR inhibitor, or both oxaliplatin and irinotecan, will be excluded. Pts in the phase 3 study must have measurable disease and be tx naive for metastatic disease. Study tx and endpoints are shown in the table. Enrollment began on 06-Jan-2021. Clinical trial information: NCT04607421. [Table: see text]
604 Background: Amps, as oncogenic and resistance drivers, have therapeutic implications, but unlike mutations, have been sparsely described in mCRC. Functional account is piecemeal due to vague definitions, limited data on co-occurring alterations and use of primary tissue samples nonrepresentative of tumor heterogeneity. Our aim was to define the amp landscape in mCRC using tissue and ctDNA sequencing. Methods: We performed systematic analyses of copy-number variation in 2 cohorts of mCRC patients (pts) [tissue (TC) (N = 1,134) and ctDNA (BC) (N = 3,218)] who had high sensitivity targeted sequencing with MSK-IMPACT (341-468 genes) or Guardant Health (70-73 genes) panel, respectively. For BC, plasma copy number was adjusted (ApCN) to account for variable tumor DNA shedding using max allele frequency and high amp (HAmp) was defined as > 4 copies (similar to predefined tissue cutoff). Results: 166 (15%) and 405 (13%) pts in TC and BC harbored amp in at least one of 18 genes assessed by both panels (Table). Amp prevalence for individual gene was similar in both cohorts ( r = 0.9; P < .01) with RTK amps ( EGFR, ERBB2, MET, FGFR1/2, PDGFRA) seen in 8% pts. Key RTK amps were enriched in RAS/BRAF wild type (RB WT) compared to mutant (RB MUT) (OR 3.5; P < .01) pts in both cohorts, in contrast to low prevalence RTK and non-RTK amps. Median ApCN was higher for RTKs in RB WT vs MUT cases ( ERBB2: 12 vs 5; P = .02). Using validated EGFRab exposure (EGFRi) ctDNA signature, we found that EGFRi pts had higher prevalence of EGFR, MET, BRAF, KRAS, PIK3CA and FGFR1 amps compared to EGFRab naïve pts. Conclusions: While individually uncommon, amps occur across key oncogenic pathways in mCRC and after adjusting for ctDNA shedding, are seen at similar prevalence in tissue and plasma. Amps in RTKs are seen in 10-12% of RB WT tumors, suggesting clinically relevant roles as oncogenic effectors and targets. After EGFRi, a number of amps emerge, including PIK3CA and FGFR1 amps, not previously implicated in acquired resistance. [Table: see text]
3520 Background: In RAS/RAF WT colorectal cancer (CRC), rechallenge with anti-EGFR therapy (EGFRi) in patients (pts) with prior response leads to clinical benefit, with response rates up to 30% in prior trials. However, secondary MTs in the MAPK signaling pathway have been implicated in resistance to EGFRi. We designed a phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy of EGFRi rechallenge +/- a MEK inhibitor (trametinib) based on pre-treatment ctDNA MTs. Methods: This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of EGFRi rechallenge +/- trametinib in pts with RAS/BRAF WT, MSS, treatment refractory mCRC who achieved clinical benefit with prior EGFRi based therapy for ≥16 weeks with subsequent progression. Pre study ctDNA was used to enroll in one of 3 arms: Arm A: Pts with an acquired EGFR ECD MT but absence of RAS/BRAF/MAP2K1 or with absence of any acquired resistance MT (Arm C) at time of study initiation received panitumumab 6 mg/kg IV Q2 wks. Arm B: Pts with an acquired RAS/BRAF/MAP2K1 MT received panitumumab 4.8 mg/kg plus trametinib 1.5 mg PO daily. Pts in Arms A and C were allowed to cross over on progression. The primary endpoint was ORR by RECIST v1.1. Results: 54 pts were enrolled, with 52 evaluable for efficacy. Median age is 59 yrs (range, 37-78), and 23 (46%) are female. Median number of prior therapies was 3. Three, 20, and 31 pts were enrolled in Arms A, B, C, respectively. Grade 3 TREAs occurred in 29 (54%) pts (all receiving the doublet regimen) and included acneiform rash in 17 (31%) and others occurring in < 5% of pts. There were no grade 4 TRAEs. In pts with no acquired MTs (Arm C), ORR was 20% (6/30) (95% CI, 0.07-0.37), DCR 67% (20/30) (95% CI, 0.45- 0.81), and median PFS and OS 4.1 mo and 11.2 mo, respectively. The median DOR was 5.5 mo. 22 patients crossed over to add trametinib at time of progression, without any responses. In contrast, in pts with acquired RAS/RAF/MAP2K1 MTs (Arm B), there were no responses, with DCR of 63% (12/19) (95% CI, 0.36-0.81), and median PFS and OS 2.1 mo and 5.9 mo, respectively. Only 3 pts were identified with EGFR ECD MTs (Arm A), and ORR is 0% (0/3) in this cohort, with DCR 67% (2/3) (95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pts with PR had a longer median interval from prior EGFRi and longer time on prior EGFRi than those with SD+PD (5.5 vs 3.6 mo; p = 0.03, and 9.5 vs. 8.8 mo; p = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: CtDNA guided rechallenge leads to responses in 20% of pts without acquired resistance MTs, with DCR of 67%. This exceeds current third line standard options. While panitumumab has the potential to block EGFR ECD mutations arising from cetuximab, these mutations in isolation were uncommon and there were no signals of efficacy. Although the acneiform rash induced by the combination of MEK and EGFR inhibition was manageable with close dermatologic management, the combination failed to improve outcomes for pts with acquired resistance. Alternative approaches to downstream MAPK blockade should be explored to improve outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03087071.
